Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 18

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.DS 18:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Party tray

All this has is (probably copyrighted) definitions for the words party and tray. They want to transwiki this to Wiktionary:party, which has those meanings already. Useless page to exist. --Dangherous 02:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, dicdef; fails
  WP:WINAD.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• obvious delete This probably should have been proded.Pascal.Tesson 06:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was...User:Spacepotato de-proded it and added the transwiki request... -- Scientizzle 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, this article is completely useless. JIP | Talk 07:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There may well be such a thing as a 'party tray', and maybe someone who knows about them can create an article. As this stands, however, it is a pointless dictionary definition of two words, if left we could set a precident for more such entries. Markb 12:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Head-smackingly obvious delete I proded it for exactly these reasons. Get it gone! -- Scientizzle 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. There is probably something encyclopedic that could be said about party trays, but this isn't it. Yamaguchi先生 23:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki, then delete
  Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --physicq210 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was kept. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underhanded C Contest

Non-notable; contest appears to be defunct anyway. —Psychonaut 02:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep; verifiable, and coverage on slashdot (and other prominent web sources) makes it notable enough for me. — brighterorange (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or verify within article --Roninbk 08:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Check back at its homepage; it seems to have reactivated itself by posting a set of results. (The International Obfuscated C Code Contest seems to be even more slow-moving, and I wouldn't suggest deleting that.) --ais523 12:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no results. The page looks the same as when I made this VfD. —Psychonaut 21:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that there were previously two sites about it with the same content; one was updated with the results, and the other was linked from Wikipedia. I've changed the reference to the page with more info; you should be able to see the results now. --ais523 13:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I still see no verification in this article. Nice that you found something on another webpage, but unless its in the article, what good is it? --Roninbk _{t c #} 22:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to confess that I don't quite understand what "verify within article" means. Can you explain what you mean by this? --Richard 04:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, providing verifiability. - CNichols 15:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep contingent on verifiability per CNichols --Richard 08:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitot

Supposedly a slang term meaning sluttily-dressed underage girl. But Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Well, maybe up to a certain extent it is...but this to me is not a notable slang term. I'm sure there's a redirect somewhere. This article is just over one year old. --Dangherous 02:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable neoligism. TJ Spyke 02:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and Do NOT Redirect or Transwiki This belongs in
  Urbandictionary.com. Bwithh 02:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Burninate
  Danny Lilithborne 03:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete with prejudice. Its for a dictionary.--Blue Tie 03:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.UberCryxic 04:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. JIP | Talk 07:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Do not transwiki. MER-C 08:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has anyone actually googled this term - it appears to be increasingly used to describe this phenomenon. Drett 15:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That doesn't mean anything.
    Danny Lilithborne 18:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete/Comment. Drett, what are you talking about? Google it and you get like ~900 hits, of which most are just like irrelevant nonsense. Besides, see
  WP:NEO. This is clearly a neologism. --Nishkid64 21:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Transwiki JASpencer 10:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alike Boggan

Nominating this and 6 other articles as not notable:

• Lindsay Clubine
• Stacey Gardner
• Tameka Jacobs
• Aubrie Lemon
• Jill Manas
• Ursula Mayes

All are models on

• Katie Cleary - contestant on ANTM (together I think this should pass her)
• Lanisha Cole
  - Barker's Beauty on the game show The Price Is Right
• Donna Feldman - appeared in several fashion shows, commercials, print campaigns
• Lisa Gleave - has had roles on other TV shows
• Kasie Head - contestant in Miss USA 2002 (Miss Oklahoma USA)
• Claudia Johnson - Miss Rhode Island Teen USA 1990, Miss Rhode Island USA 1997 (semi-finalist at both Miss Teen USA & Miss USA), Barker's Beauty
• Leyla Milani - involved with WWE
• Anya Monzikova - has hosting roles
• April Scott - other acting roles
• Tamara Witmer - playmate, hosting role.

I am fairly inexperienced at nominating things here and may not be interpreting the notability guidelines completely correctly but I thought it was worth a shot! --

• Strong Delete All as per nom. Ridiculous gameshowbabecruft. Don't forget to delete the Deal or No Deal models template as well Bwithh 02:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When you say "all" - are you talking about the 6 I nominated or the whole list? Because surely some in the second group are notable? (Claudia Jordan & Kasie Head, for example, are undeniably notable per their participation in significant national pageants and being state titleholders). --

talk | contribs | esperanza 03:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong delete on all counts as babecruft. --
  Aaron 02:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Defreakinglete per above.UberCryxic 04:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and consider adding babecruft to wiktionary. Pascal.Tesson 06:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha. --Nishkid64 21:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them all per all of the above. --Nishkid64 21:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Save the Models - ALL of them - By the fact they made it through auditions and they form one of the three legs of the stool - Howie, the models and the contestants. They deserve their place. Let go of political correctness and prejudices. This is information, and it deserves its place, and that goes for each of the models. TX IS Dude 01:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete all They do not form a leg of a "stool". They are there to smile and show cleavage. And while that is the only thing that show has going for it, simply looking pretty on a television show does not make one notable. Resolute 03:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Save the Models - ALL of them - These models are well-known. I was Googling 'Ursula' and found her entry here. Useful. I don't think I would be Googling someone who wasn't already a celebrity. metcowboy 11:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit --

talk | contribs | esperanza 23:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Save the Models - but group them into a separate page. Andrewb1 21:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was purged, and then redirected as per Smerdis. DS 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Null (Character)

Original research, no citations, a single link which is to the 'creators' geocities page, "Created by two computer science university students"... need I say more? StealthFox 02:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not noteable. Confusing with computer terms as well.--Blue Tie 03:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per
  WP:NFT. - Runch 04:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, fails
  WP:NOR, and we have enough symbols for "nothing" already. JIP | Talk 07:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Null Vote. I'm sorry, but it had to be said... --Roninbk 08:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to /dev/null per above. MER-C 08:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I checked the history;
  null (character) is potentially a worthwhile subject (I know it has a specific meaning in cryptography) but there has never been anything helpful here. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• And redirect to null character per Ace of Risk - Smerdis of Tlön 11:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Null character. Ace of Risk 15:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.
• Delete, and possibly redirect to null character. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep StealthFox's signature is really freaking me out. Anomo 09:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Delete but the article is bad, so delete. Anomo 09:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gods' Pack

A webcomic, found here, written by what appears to be the webcomic artist

• Delete non-notable. --InShaneee 15:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Best wishes with the comic but entirely non-notable. --
  Charlesknight 16:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Can't help thinking this is self promotion. Sarah started the comic because she had always wanted to run a webcomic. A purple wikiuser 21:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Eden - Comic

Another webcomic found on the free web host comicgenesis, this one can be seen here. It's ranked at around 30 on Comic Genesis, so some of you might be fooled into thinking it's somehow notable. It's not. This puts it behind

• Delete Non-notable. --InShaneee 15:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable webcomic. --Nishkid64 21:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected. MER-C 08:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temptation: Quizmaster

Delete I have merged the content with Temptation (game show) as the article was short and did not warrant it's own page. AFD Template 1 has been added for the page. The page can now be deleted because it's no longer in use. Lakeyboy 02:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete CSD G6 --Roninbk 08:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under CSD A7 by MacGyverMagic. MER-C 10:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Heermann

Fails

• Strong Delete This is a
  WP:BIO as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• No claim of notability? Speedy delete. - CheNuevara 05:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 09:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. Yanksox 01:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charby the Vampirate

Charby the Vampirate was previously deleted at

• Speedy delete per speedy deletion criterion G4. (Unless they're not really identical. In that case, a normal delete per nom.) Crystallina 03:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as above. --InShaneee 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megaman The Megamissions

This megaman fan fiction sprite comic, found on the free web host

• Delete non-notable webcomic(that also spelled it's subject wrong, it's Mega Man not Megaman). TJ Spyke 03:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:CRUFT. Non-notable. - Runch 05:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Xiange 11:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:WEB, WP:RS and above. Wickethewok 23:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and discussion. Wryspy 18:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DE! *clap clap* LETE! *clap clap* DS 18:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featuring hand claps

List of songs featuring hand claps is overly long, unverified, and possibly endless. Many songs have the musicians clap their hands and I'm not sure a song become known for that. That said if it could be limited to songs where hand clapping is central to the song I might be persuaded to change my mind.--T. Anthony 03:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting, maybe I'm wrong about it. It just seems long, unverified, and possibly endless. I'm amenable to withdrawing this on suitable justification though.--T. Anthony 03:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Defuckinglete And not just this list, but all other similar lists.UberCryxic 04:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wasn't this list already deleted once? If not, please delete it now. If it was, then it's speedy delete material. - CheNuevara 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Clap hands and Delete Useless unmaintainable, possibly soon 1MB long list. Pascal.Tesson 06:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I see no use for this list. JIP | Talk 07:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Clap your hands say delete, too broad to ever be useful or maintainable. We might as well have a list of songs with choirs. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An impressive list, but sorry.
  WP:LC. Also see this. It's quite a similar AfD. --Nishkid64 21:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Per all of the astonishment above . . .
  ScottW 23:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as one of the worst list ideas I've seen... Wickethewok 23:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If you want this deleted and you know it, clap your hands *clap clap* Lists like these should not exist in the first place. --physicq210 01:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The topic is unencyclopaedic. GassyGuy 08:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. And people wonder why Wikipedians have a short fuse when it comes to list articles of any type ... 23skidoo 13:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secret menu

Set of ads for a Phoenix restaurant. Author (based on name, the owner) has also added links into numerous articles like

If any further supportive information is needed, please ask.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbasso (talk • contribs)

Note: Above editor has also felt the need to repeatedly vandalize the nomination. Fan-1967 05:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 07:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as spam. MER-C 08:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all with relish and a pickle (a guy who can eat a hamburger really fast? get the f**k out of here!). --
  Charlesknight 12:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I agree, seems like they're desperate for publicity. After reading the article
    Secret menu I immediately thought that it wasn't so "secret", the "rumour" they had a "Quadruple bypass" was probably started by the restaurant's owner, immediately after inventing the dish in question. But all this makes me hungry for hamburgers. If you're ever in Kamppi, make sure to visit Pitaco at the back end of the Tennispalatsi. The "El Presidente burger" is delicious. But I still wouldn't be writing an article about it. JIP | Talk 20:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete all per above; of purely local interest. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all no demonstrated notability outside of minor local coverage.--Isotope23 20:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - fail
  WP:RS. Crum375 21:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Top delete this top commercial material. Good quality adv though. But certainly not encyclopaedic. Now for the irrelevant part of my vote : vandalizing the nomination is a no-no. Can't help dreming of a delete on sight whatever the content. This really IMO is an absolut no-no. I can't stand it.A purple wikiuser 21:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up the
  WP:CORP with multiple non-trivial references), and delete the other two per the comments above. Yamaguchi先生 00:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

At this point in time, I don't see a single

notability and justify WP inclusion. I just don't see that here yet. Crum375 00:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete because it fails
  WP:CORP, since it has multiple TRIVIAL references - purely local coverage doesn't count. So, what about other measures? Is this place widely known? Oft-referenced in popular culture? Award-winning? A verified pioneer in some area of business? Historically important? Nope, nope, nope, nope, and nope. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for
  WP:NOT. Wryspy 19:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -

NN house that hasn't existed for 150 years. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep If this was indeed a landmark of Philly, this should be kept whether or not it still stands. Pascal.Tesson 07:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly if this house still existed, it would receive an article, as it would almost certainly be a National Historic Landmark and that there is a park there today is strong reason to keep it. A Redirect to the park's name might be more appropriate though, as that would be its greatest importance today. Still, I think there may be issues with copyright violation, since the article seems to borrow heavily from the external links. FrozenPurpleCube 07:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to
  Welcome Park would be a more immediately useful article, but I don't particularly see a problem with it. In a sense it's a disappeared landmark, and the story about the 1867 historic preservation fight would be an interesting expansion. --Dhartung | Talk 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - I looked at the points made for retention and looked at the article. Nothing asserts any significance to the power station - it simply has - the output statistics the plant, and also some peripheral info about the meterological circumstances of the area, and some eniginerring stats about the actual structure. I actually know of a few high schools in my city which have a token 2-3 wind turbines and I can't see how 56 is a "signficant investment" unless Iowa is in the stone age, which I believe it is not. Also Truthbringer's point about the news info has been countered (to be honest, if one line is enough, then high school kids who win math/science competitions would also be notable (they aren't)). As for the hydrodams, they usually require a lot of deforestration and also are usually 1km wide (or something massive), whereas these are a few sticks in the ground. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cerro Gordo Wind Farm

• Comment. I posted this article, because there was not any information on Iowa wind farms. I could be wrong, but I thought Wikipedia was supposed to have vast amounts of information on all topics, not just the ones some people feel are interesting? I propose that instead of deleting this article, it is combined with another article. Obeano 13:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NN.... uh.... wind farm. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Just another small power facility Bwithh 04:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and User:Bwithh. JIP | Talk 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Blow away (i.e. delete) per above. MER-C 08:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. Power generating facilities can be notable, and this one has attracted some independent coverage. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I hardly think that a simple one line mention of the wind farm in a USAToday article or even the IBEW Journal could be considered as a real news coverage. --Nishkid64 21:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a tourist attraction and a major business investment in the region/state. To my mind the visibility of wind farms makes it hard for them not to be notable, and certainly in a local context it seems strange to leave it out. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist attraction?? Aren't they usually considered eyesores which damage the local scenic countryside & wildlife? It's not really on the scale of a major investment either, unless Iowa is in really bad economic shape. Bwithh 01:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on this particular article, but, to be fair, wind farms sometimes do attract tourism in their areas. I doubt this one does, but it would be unfair to lump all wind farms into the eyesore category. GassyGuy 08:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.clearlakeiowa.com/vi/attractions.htm

Kappa 08:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete A power facility is a power facility, no matter how pretty or expensive it is. --InShaneee 15:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This fecility must have something very specific to it or unique. Otherwise it is non notable. A purple wikiuser 21:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are many articles about hydro-electric dams and their electricity generating facilities because they are notable works of engineering, because they are notable as business entities and because their construction raises environmental, farming and hunting issues. Generating stations which depend on fossil fuel are also notable because of pollution concerns. Similarly, wind farms are generally significant business entities, a source of noise, and a hazard to birds which can be killed by the blades of the turbines. And the questions of regulation and government-versus-investor ownership of electricity generation and distribution companies can be matters for significant public concern. Electricity generation is more complicated than it might seem. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've just given reasons for having an article on wind farms, not for having an article on this particular wind farm. Uncle G 23:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge, locally important facility and tourist attraction/eyesore. Many of the google hits are news sites using the farm to establish the notability of the company which built it.
  Kappa 07:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails to give any reason why this wind farm is deserving of special attention. Indrian 16:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge into Wind farm. Cerro Gordo ≠ Altamont Pass. ~ trialsanderrors 17:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Wind farm. Michael Kinyon 11:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too stubby to warrant own existence; no indication of particular notability amongst wind farms in general. (Possibly merge into wind farm article as an exemplar if feeling particularly lenient, although said article seems to be little more than a collection of exemplars already, with no generic information on the topic.) Cain Mosni 10:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets content policies, has substantial local significance. The problems pointed out by delete voters simply aren't solved by deletion; merging is the appropriate action, if action is needed. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heartware

Vanity entry of non-notable film. No distributor, no IMDb entry, all redlinks. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since not on the radar and per WP:VAIN.Pascal.Tesson 07:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete distributor included, redlinks deleted, IMDb status being processed.
• Don't delete as I have included a distributor, which can be verified. Redlinks have also been removed and approved external links to provide more information included.
• Delete per above. --InShaneee 15:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --
  Charlesknight 20:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I am not sure. This article sounds like a spam link collection. Gives the feeling of adv or exposure enhencer but not encyclopaedic. A purple wikiuser 22:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  TheRealFennShysa 16:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. IMDb status applied for (even if that anonymous poster is correct about that) is not IMDb status. Wryspy 19:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Leidiot 12:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ten-minute indy film without distribution is not notable, with or without an IMDB page. (IMDB page is necessary, but not sufficient.) Fan-1967 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was kept without prejudice against a consensus merge/redirect. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Wal-Mart

The very nature of this article violates

• Merge anything sourced and verifiable with
  Wal-Mart, and delete per my nom. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note that "merge and delete" is not a possible option, since the history of the original page must be preserved for GFDL reasons when merging into another page. --
  talk) 11:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong Keep. Critical commentary does not necessarily equal NPOV, and there is far too much information here to merge with
  references!). - Runch 04:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep While I agree that it's a challenge to maintain a neutral point-of-view on such an article, objectively chronicling verifiable and nationally-covered controversy or criticism of an international corporation is perfectly encyclopedic. A better solution would be to watch the article and try to neutralise any ranting or POV that may surface, but the topic itself has merit. — NMChico24 04:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I too feel that NPOV is tough to achieve in an article that basically just slams a company, it is needed to keep the overall NPOV, and a deletion and merge would make the wal-mart article far to long. EnsRedShirt 04:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I find that the sheer amount of coverage of the topic is also a form of POV bias. The main points need to be presented in

Wal-Mart, and the rest needs to find another home. We aren't the BBB or Consumer Reports and we shouldn't try to be. The fact that this has become nearly as large if not larger than the main article is a problem. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Obviously the POV of this article has to walk a fine line, but the concept itself is well-established, and the potential length warrants seperation from the main Wal-Mart article. It's certainly as notable as
  Criticism of World of Warcraft, and the decision was to keep that. Or you could pick the GWB article and put the criticism and praise together if you wanted NPOV. FrozenPurpleCube 05:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hmm.. maybe the GWB article is next... I think just in the length we are showing bias though. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of criticism of Wal-Mart. It's not bias to include it. But if you're objecting on the grounds that Criticism of X articles themselves are unacceptable, well, I think that would best be taken at the policy level, not on the individual article. FrozenPurpleCube 06:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All of the Wal-Mart articles are being tendentiously manipulated by the company. Stand up and put a stop to it. Abe Froman 05:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like their practices either, but this article is one-sided. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it cannot be merged because of article length, why does that merit deletion? It makes no sense, to me. Abe Froman 05:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Article length should not be a concern here since the article length issue is only a guideline (not a set-in-stone policy). The Wal-Mart article is only 42Kb, some articles on WP are 200-250Kb.

• Keep per above. VegaDark 05:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete. —
  ExplorerCDT 05:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note that "merge and delete" is an impossible option, since the history of the original page must be preserved for GFDL reasons when merging into another page. --
  talk) 13:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep as we all know that criticism of Wal-Mart is non-trivial and would overwhelm the parent article. Either that or make it
  History of Wal-Mart or something. --Dhartung | Talk 09:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep as many users have said, Criticism of Wal-mart is well documented from a variety of sources. I would say that it is more POV to delete the article then it would be to keep it since by doing so you eliminating an important coverage aspects of Wal-mart. As for merging and article size, there is certainly ideal article sizes and content forks such as this serve a purpose to maintain readability. 205.157.110.11 09:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The idea that an article critising an entity must therefore violate
  WP:NPOV is abhorrent. It is clearly beholden on editors to maintain a neutral point of view, but to delete it because it might contain something awkward for Wal-Mart? Nonsense! Markb 12:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per Manticore and MarkB. JoshuaZ 13:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to
  talk) 13:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I've just noticed that there are several criticism articles which are children of this article (such as
  talk) 13:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong Keep per others. I note there's concern that Wal-Mart employees/agents/whatever are unfairly manipulating the Wal-Mart related pages. What is the actual evidence on this? - CNichols 20:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A few months ago there was repeated editing of the article that pushed all the criticism to the criticism page and then managed to somehow get the criticism link taken off the article. JoshuaZ 20:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per others. --
  Charlesknight 20:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep What about Criticism of Wikipedia? Several topics have articles on criticism. Some P. Erson 20:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. A really notable topic. This article should definitely be kept. However, a simple fix of POV issues should help the article (even though it should negative, since it's titled Criticism of Wal-Mart). --Nishkid64 21:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, yarrr Shouldn't this nomination consider all articles on the criticism of Wal-Mart? Last time I checked, there were four of them counting this one. They are as below: Tuxide 18:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Criticism of Wal-Mart

  Wal-Mart employee and labor relations

  Wal-Mart workforce diversity

  Wal-Mart product controversy

• Comment, yarrr Much criticism from Wal-Mart comes from union funded campaigns/organizations such as
  Wal-Mart Watch. It is in my opinion that such criticism rationale should go into the articles about the organizations criticising Wal-Mart, not in an article about Wal-Mart itself, with links provided from the main article. Specific lawsuits should go in separate [[whatever v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.]] articles, with links again to the main. Everything directly related to Wal-Mart should go in the main article, while criticism that is common to big-box stores in general should go to big-box store. Avast, Tuxide 19:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think there is some backwards logic here in regards to moving to the criticisms to the union pages. You want to keep information as centralized and relevant to the topic as possible. When the

New York Times Book Review makes a comment about a book, should we include the comment in the Literary criticism section of the book's article or on the New York Times page? When President Bush criticised Trent Lott for his Strom Thurmond comments should those criticisms go on the GWB page or on Lott's? The normal "ideal situation" would be for this information to be in the main Walmart article, however the breadth of criticisms would makes that cumbersome and unfairly tilt the POV in the main article. Hence, the reason for this article's existence and a strong reason to keep it. 205.157.110.11 10:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The difference between the

New York Times Book Review and Wake Up Wal-Mart is that the purpose of the latter is to exclusively criticise Wal-Mart; hence such criticism is more directly related to the campaign. The problem with this nomination is what is not realized here: Not only is Wal-Mart's criticism considered a notable subject by a lot of people, but so is the very existence of this article on the English Wikipedia. Despite we still can't decide how the hell to resolve the disputes in this article, it is amazing to see this much energy into keeping an article with so many problems around. Obviously, you work for Office Depot but I don't know if it's unionized or affiliated in any way with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. It makes me wonder where this energy is coming from, for it is either the Pro-Wal-Mart side or the union-funded Anti-Wal-Mart side. Or maybe just Wal-Mart bashers in general. Regards, Tuxide 23:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

LOL, actually I don't work for Office Depot. I just gladly leech off of their wireless network. :P (Seriously, it's 2:30 in the morning here. Do you think they're open?) As for the example, the purpose of the New york times book review is to criticized books (positive or negative). I agree that the article needs some clean up but AfD never has and never will be a substitute for clean up. Personally, I like Wal-mart. I am actually a small business owner and from a cost perspective, they are valuable. However, I recognize that criticism about this company is notable and commented on by a variety of reliable sources--not just those union organizations. As I noted before the deletion of a notable and encyclopedic topic just because you disagree with it, is more POV then this article will ever be. 205.157.110.11 07:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per all the above keep votes. Prolog 15:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Merge Verified and sourced criticisms should be merged into a critics section of the main article. We do not need an article on every notable company, and then a separate article on the criticism of every notable company. The position that a merge would tilt the POV of the main article is pure nonsense. Facts are facts, and if a company has earned a poor reputation then stating so in Wikipedia when verifiable sources are provided is proper. Wal-Mart has made their bed, they ought to lay in it now. We are here to provide a non-biased presentation of the FACTS. Not to whitewash corporate America or help them look good to their customers. The subject is Wal-Mart. Therefore, an article on that topic would present any favorable and any disfavor able information on the same page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortfuse (talk • contribs)

Ah yes, not sure why I forgot to sign that, but it is mine. Shortfuse 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment we do have articles on
  Criticism of CNN, Criticism of CBS, Criticism of Hewlett-Packard, No. But we do have Criticism of Microsoft? Where among these does Wal-Mart fall? Carlossuarez46 02:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  In capitalism, as far as I know there has always been one company considered to be the "evil empire", or the most evil/hated out of all in the general public. That company used to be Microsoft Corporation due to its monopolistic business ethics, now it is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. due to its business ethics again. Tuxide 02:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As fashions changes and the fickle finger of frustration points at a new company, we then will create an article about all those criticisms? And, depending on what your POV is, some would charge that any of the above companies are the evil empire of today... Carlossuarez46 20:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. WarriorScribe 10:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that "merge and delete" is not a possible option, since the history of the original page must be preserved for GFDL reasons when merging into another page. --
  talk) 11:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge and redirect to
  Wal-Mart as outlined in my above comments, and the suggestions on the essay Wikipedia:Criticism. Resulting article should be marked as {{cleanup}}. Also having numerous Wal-Mart articles around is just Wal-Mart cruft. Tuxide 21:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Well sourced articles, which are matters in public discourse are wiki-worthy. Due to its size, this is a content fork, not a POV fork. It does need some POV clean up, but it is no reason to delete. Arbusto 02:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because it's a criticism article doesn't mean it volates NPOV.

Crumbsucker 12:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Informative, Well defined subject and content. Does not violate NPOV.

Wikiace 19:58, 22 September 2006 (CST)

• Keep per the comments above. Yamaguchi先生 05:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. --Weatherman1126 (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto: Shinobi Retsuden

[10] A scan showing screenshots of the game and information. Speedy keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does that constitute any sort of

verifiable source? Erechtheus 05:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Other than the fact that it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt other than simply distrusting that the scan is legitimate that the game exists and is in development and that there is plenty of information available? Such as the fact that it utilizes the touch screen, and that it's a full 3D fighter, and the several characters available? I'm not even taking into account information that cannot be assertained from the screenshots. Can you give me a reason why we should not trust this scan? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What magazine is it from? --Kunzite 06:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trusting random scans is not the business of this encyclopedia. That's the whole point of the policy I linked in my response to you. Erechtheus 06:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this random? How is this any less reliable than all of the other scans constantly used to verify information? The way you're going on, you make it sound like the point of Wikipedia is to assume that all sources are either lies or merely incorrect. So, do me a favor and explain to me why all of the sources on Wikipedia, which could be lying or incorrect, get put on Wikipedia without a second thought, but a scan with absolutely no reason to assume is fake cannot be used as a source? Just because you do not like my evidence does not make it bad evidence. Instead of presenting the possibility that it, like literally every other source for every single piece of information in the universe, could be fake, why don't you prove it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This file is hosted on some random free image host. Before behaving in a hostile manner in AfDs, please review the relevent policy that has been pointed out to you. If you have additional questions on that topic, feel free to take it to my user talk. We need to focus on this deletion discussion in this forum.Erechtheus 08:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NOT does not apply to announced events. Add the "upcoming" tag, not delete. Furthermore, it seems to me that the first 3D fighter on a particular game system is a claim of notability. --Gau 05:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to indicate that this has been announced. Can you provide references? Erechtheus 05:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Neier 05:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNeed more info I can't find it on the gmae maker's website, but it may be too new. The title from the magazine (忍列伝) doesn't search well-- perhaps, I've used the wrong kanji. It's a likely keep, though. But some info and a "future event" tag would be nice. Got the info, added the tag. It's notable enough to keep an announcement article.... However, I think the CVG article structure needs to be re-examined. Creating seperate articles for what are essentially the same games as they are adapted to different gaming systems is a bit much. --Kunzite 06:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:V. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

And that's not even the entire list. What you're doing is assuming bad faith in the sources that I am providing. 2ch is the source of much news from Japan, especially from the Famitsu magazine. Do you have a reasoning for why 2ch is not trustworthy? Or why this magazine scan, with incredible detail, screenshots from the game and information from the game, is not a good source? Do you see any single sign that the magazine has been altered in any way imagineable? If not, do not denounce it, treat it as if it wasn't fake, like you do with any decent source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Wikipedia:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I'm saying POLICY says that you have FAILED TO PROVIDE THE ADEQUATE SOURCES. This is NOT optional, this is NOT something you get to get pissed off at ME for, this is something that YOU have to do if you wish this article to exist. This is not something that I pulled out of my ass, this is something that everyone has to follow. It doesn't matter if you gave me a copy of the damn game in my own hands, because it's "verifiability, not truth".

The burden is on you to cite sources on that article if you wish it to be kept. You can cry and scream "not fair" as much as you want, but if you used that effort to

cite some sources, then I would retract my delete. -- Ned Scott 09:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Do we have reasoning for why 2ch is not reliable? Other than the fact that it's a message board founded on the principle of complete anonymity, where posters' identities are completely unverifiable by design and where absolutely anyone can post absolutely any random claim they like? It's the epitome of unreliability. There is probably not a single site on the web where posts are less trustworthy. — Haeleth Talk 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Xiange 11:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless more/better sources are found. Recury 13:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all 'this game has been announced, but nothing is known about it' articles. --InShaneee 15:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not verifiable? Shall I point out how a whopping none of the people voting delete have even given an ioda of reason to assume that the scan is fake or incorrect? There is no reason to assume that it's fake other than the fact that we do not know what scan it is from.

However, I have done research and can confirm that this is Weekly Jump. It uses a similar style to other Jump magazines, and Weekly Jump is usually the magazine to first confirm a new Naruto game (similar to CoroCoro Comics and Pokémon Diamond and Pearl). This is hardly a bad source. If we do not assume that this magazine scan is a fake, it provides plenty of information. It is not some mysterious game that's nothing more than a name, system and genre; we have screenshots, details on what the touch screen will look like, some of the characters that are available, the visuals (full 3D fighter), the release date (TBA 2006) and other information that can't be assertained from the screenshots. And then we've got the fact that it's published by Takara Tomy. If we got somebody who can read Japanese, we'd have even more information. And if you claim that a scan cannot be a source - if it were uploaded to Wikipedia, it would not need a source to show it exists; because the user could look at the scan and know it exists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so sure that all that of that is true, and it's already confirmed, then finding other sources shouldn't be a problem. It's not like Naruto is obscure or anything. Recury 19:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The game was only just announced and only by this magazine. The only sources I could get are news articles about the scan. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete crystalballism.
  Danny Lilithborne 19:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Everything A Link to the Past has said makes sense -- it's pretty silly to discount this source over any other. That said...is there enough info on the game that it needs an article? This was brought up in another recent game that had a screenshot. The arguments were that the game wasn't developed enough to be notible, and I believe it ended up getting deleted because of that. This was a PC game, however. Honestly, my opinion is that, while the info might be verifyable...the game, at this point, might not be notible enough to have its own page. I'm sure a 'Games Based off Naruto' or somesuch page would be quite sufficient, but that's just IMO. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Publisher is known, screenshots exist from a reliable source. Seems fine to me, as long as it is updated as information becomes available. - CNichols 20:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough is known to justify an article at this stage. No reliable sources are cited (linking to scans posted on a random blog does not meet
  WP:RS). Come back and create the article when you have something more to say than "little is known at the moment". — Haeleth Talk 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Uh? We don't know enough? I've stated more than enough information not currently present in this article to justify its existence. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop. Just stop. Read

WP:CITE for how to add the sources to the article. Yes, that's right, you need to add the sources to the article itself and not just yell about it here. -- Ned Scott 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, and? So if I placed that source on the article, you would suddenly vote to keep? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. No cristall ball. A purple wikiuser 22:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. There's a problem here: if the source said 2ch's random scan, that would not be acceptable as a source, but the source is Weekly Jump (obviously someone would need to corroborate this.) If we don't accept Weekly Jump as a source because few people can access Weekly Jump, it seriously gets close to WP:WING territory. The source would have to be added to the article, of course. ColourBurst 22:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even if that is an acceptable source (which would need to be corroborated), we have one source. I'd suggest that the standard is two acceptable sources because that is a part of a number of the notability guidelines. Erechtheus 23:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One trustworthy source is better than two untrustworthy source. If Nintendo confirmed a New Super Mario Bros. 2 for DS, would we need a second source? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Recury 23:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That seems a bit inane. To not trust that Nintendo isn't lying about a game in development? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The issue is not truth, as has already been mentioned to you in this discussion. The issue is suitability for coverage in this encyclopedia. Erechtheus 00:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, since when is a magazine not a reliable source? — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Dboocock 14:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Keep http://www.play-asia.com/paOS-17-71-2-74-17a-49-en.html[reply]

• Keep looks like we got the source issue cleared up, as well as a second source from Dboocock. -- Ned Scott 15:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -in my view WP is not a forum for announcing forthcoming games, movies, books or anything else because a balanced encyclopaedic article cannot be written until the product is available to review. BlueValour 02:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are hundreds of games unreleased with WP articles - do you want to create precident to delete Final Fantasy XIII, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories and Halo 3? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have sources, that being Weekly Jump. I'd say that's a great source, to boot. When it comes to games, this is the best (and only) source we could get, so I don't see point of even considering deletion of this specific article. If a game's existence can't be proven with just what one company says alone, then all articles of games not having been mentioned by two separete companies need to be removed to keep consistent with the rule. Donkey Kong Country has for instance (and this is just an example for the discussion at hand, which is why I won't go out of my way to hunt for sources - it serves its purpose even if it would've been fake) been talked about by both Rare and Nintendo personell, in which case we have two sources proving the existance of said game(s). But does a game really require a second company to comment it for it to be available to read about on WP?KiddDaBeauty
• Strong Keep per [11], which shows the release date of "Winter 2006" and the platform of "Nintendo DS". The page it's from is linked from the article at [12]. This article is completely verifiable, and due to the immense popularity of the Naruto series, it's very, very unlikely the game won't come out. ···
  joe 03:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

List of maps in Company of Heroes

Gamecruft at best, provides no useful information to the reader and appears to simply duplicate material from the game manual. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a collection of such information.

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  eeb (^chat/_patch) 05:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, I agree entirely with the nominator. JIP | Talk 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete gamecruft. I think it's pretty funny that there is a "please expand" tag on it! he he he. I'm sure people attacking the expand backlog are real happy to get that sort of stuff. Pascal.Tesson 07:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. And aren't the illustrations copyvios? BTLizard 12:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if other games can have it, dont see why it hurts CoH (Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maps_in_Battlefield_2 8:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by 70.127.136.104 (talk • contribs
  ) .
  • Other notable games. This game has been out for a week - in what way is it notable? Personally, I think the article you linked to should be deleted as well, and will be considering its nomination when I have the time.
    eeb (^chat/_patch) 12:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per nom. Manualcruft. Recury 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Gundato 21:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a game manual, and this article is certainly one. Text is probably a copvio as well. Wickethewok 23:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above commentary found in "delete" votes. --physicq210 01:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Wryspy 19:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reason to keep this, esp when there is a fan wiki version of it. --Karafias 04:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A list of maps isn't a game manual.
  WP:NOT says "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." This article is none of the above. And Wikipedia is not paper. Pixelface 00:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I think you need to take a look at the useful information that such an article as this can provide. It can either provide information on how the maps should be played (game-guide), or some information about the maps themselves: their history, significance, and so on. An example of notable, important maps that deserve their own article is at
    eeb (^chat/_patch) 08:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Use some common sense. If they don't want tutorials, walkthroughs, instruction manuals or video game guides, why would they want a list of maps? Recury 13:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

First Night Bites

Article contains no real content, and a Google search reveals not much information -- links only to YouTube, Wikipedia mirrors, and blogs. Non-notable and unverifiable. - CheNuevara 05:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it is part of Sky TV's programming in the UK. — Preceding

talk • contribs

)

• Delete per nom. Wryspy 19:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - NN show. BlueValour 02:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

We Do It All Vegas

Site doesn't come close to

• Delete. Site and company are not notable. Rray 06:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 07:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nomination, also after reading, may had fell under speedy deletion criteria for articles # 7 as it's a vanity page by the company owner --Sirex98 07:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, non-encyclopedic entry. I have bought books from this company before but hardly consider it worthy of a wiki entry. SmartGuy 13:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.UberCryxic 20:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  Wikipedia is not a soapbox!!!. Also, the website has an Alexa web traffic ranking of 42,091. --Nishkid64 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Wryspy 19:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 05:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape Quests

This is a game guide, per

• Speedy Delete, already posted before. already deleted. J.J.Sagnella 06:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just didn't know if it qualified for speedy. I thought that if I listed it for

Proposed deletion

, that the creator would object.

• Speedy delete by criterion
  G4: Recreation of RuneScape quests and various similarly named articles (log, AfD). --Huon 13:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As a non-admin, I couldn't tell the difference between this version and the one deleted earlier. If it is indeed different, delete: Wikipedia is

not a game guide. --Huon 21:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy delete - after formerly being de-evolved from summary to titles only and then deleted - can't make a worthwhile article that won't be accused of fancruft. Ace of Risk 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as re-created content, if I wanted to find out about specific quests in a game, I'd look on game sites, not an encyclopedic site.--Andeh 16:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - repost, and useless fancruft anyway. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The new article has nothing in common with the older, AfD'ed one (admins: please check here). Therefore, the new article does not qulify for speedy deletion under CSD:G4. It may still qualify for deletion for other reasons, but please address the article itself rather than the irrelevant prior AfD. I removed the Speedy notice; let's complete the process properly. Owen× ☎ 17:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete gamecruft.
  Danny Lilithborne 19:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete For the simple fact that it a terrible version of the previous article of the same topic. Its terrible, and I cannot see how the creator could imagine it would last. Get rid of it before it tarnishes the RS name anymore. I was hoping this article would be revived, but not in this way - • The Giant Puffin • 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Great game, but unfortunately, gamecruft. Many other specific RuneScape articles have also been deleted. --Nishkid64 21:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Speedy Delete if applicable--Ed^{talk c E} 22:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per
  WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The processes required to complete individual quests are neither notable nor offer a real insight into RS. An outline of all quests is already available on the RS knowledgebase (official page) and quest walkthroughs are already on several fansites. There are more than one hundred quests on RS, trying to list each, some or even a handful (the criteria for inclusion would be another hurdle) is a lost cause, replicating what's out there and boring readers rigid. The RS wiki would benefit from this sort of information, I'd suggest contributors interested in listing this kind of material would do well to pay the place a visit and have a look around. QuagmireDog 23:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Poorly written, no important information HopesFall 02:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It has no information, is written poorly, and there aren't supposed to be game guides, anyway. -Amarkov 15:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Wryspy 19:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this, but recreate a different version of the article on the same subject that doesn't mimic a terrible version of a fansite guide. Quests are certainly notable, but this article isn't how it should be. 24.66.94.140 23:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Having played RuneScape for over two years, I have closely watched the AFD debates of RuneScape-related articles. While some could certainly be de-crufted, such as
  RuneScape skills, I don't think it is possible to de-cruft an article about RuneScape quests. Unless you find a way to de-cruft this article, I regrettably have to vote delete. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Reads like a fansite guide. Jam01 07:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's not even accurate. 202.67.95.17 02:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Short not complete and not needed --Blaze1200 15:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 18:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Carling

This stub about Hon. Sir

• Delete per nom, unless he was actually born in the same year as his son in which case he is notable just for that. Recury 13:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Richard 20:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Nishkid64 21:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. -

World Series Wrestling

International Assault article has been deleted, therefore this article serves no purpose Normy132 03:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment why does it follow that the article "serves no purpose"? Not a great article perhaps, but why is WSW to be deleted because one promotion was deleted? --Ogdred 03:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because that is all WSW ever did. If the promotion only promoted one show and that show has been deemed worthy of being non-notable, why should the promotion be any more notbale thatn the show it promoted? Normy132 04:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. RobJ1981 06:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete given that its notability rests solely on something whose notability was insufficient for inclusion. Looks like wrestlecruft to me. Guy 13:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm detecting a bit of sour grapes here. A quick trip through the (hist) shows that the nominator was the primary editor for this page. It sounds to me that Normy was on the losing end of a AfD debate for the International Assault page, and has decided that it logically follows that WSW is non notable too. I don't agree. Might I suggest that you could combine the old information from the International Assault article into this one, and create one good article from two incomplete ones? --Roninbk 14:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Robinbk. The nom has given no reason to delete here, except the precedent set on a now-deleted article. Ogdred 22:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Holy typo, Batman..." --Roninbk 08:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No time for apologies, old chum. We must thwart some criminals. --Ogdred 02:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Olsen 06:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am withdrawing my AfD. Roninbk raises a good point. Normy132 02:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Legalsoup

Recommending delete. Article appears to be about a non-notable organisation in the Channel Islands which offers legal advice or quasi legal advice for a fee. Author of an article (who may be a newbie) seems to have an unlikeable propensity for removing comments from talk pages that he doesn't like. Legis 07:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Basically an advert for nn website (not particularly good advert). Nigel ^(Talk) 12:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --InShaneee 15:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK people - lets be a little dynamic - Mircosoft's website is an advert but the entry is useful for other reasons. Similarly this word is actaully being consider for inclusion in the Oxford concise for 2006 entry. There is some interesting academic debate about the origins, I wrote it up in a very simple way which may be suggestive of advertising but I was following exsisting Wiki protocols. Perhaps some of you may be able to encapsulate or re-write it better than me to address the debate over the term its history and correct usage. --Alexwebpro 12:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I guess removing the AfD notice will not help your cause Nigel ^(Talk) 12:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No certainly not Nigel and I was not immediately aware that I had done that when I first edited, so point taken. But what is interesting Nigel is how so many new terms are coming into exsistance and how slow the print editions are to capture them. I recently came across the word '

• Delete per above. Wryspy 19:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --
  Charlesknight 00:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Hamilton

A biography for a nn writer. More of a promo piece for Child of Chaos, which, assertion aside, appears to be the author's only book. Dragonfly Media Publishing, described as the publisher of Hamilton's "books" is actually a provider of editing and layout services for self-published authors. The novel is available through vanity press lulu.com. Victoriagirl 07:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete along with Child of Chaos as vanity/PR. No evidence of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 09:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both NN author and book. --
  Charlesknight 12:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment An AfD nomination has now been created for Child of Chaos. Victoriagirl 18:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my nom. Victoriagirl 18:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, even if you clean up all the ridiculous praise.
  Danny Lilithborne 19:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete She does not meet
  WP:BK. Pascal.Tesson 20:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Fails
  WP:BIO. --Nishkid64 21:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 19:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite nesting

• Strong delete per nom as
  original research. The licensing is indeed a tip-off. --Dhartung | Talk 09:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The licensing convinces me that this is original research, too. Yes, fractal theory talks about fractals having "an infinite nesting of self-similar structure at all scales". That's nothing to do with what this article is propounding. The final statement of the theory, that "we live in an H₂ molecule", reminds me of
  Plutonium Atom Totality Theory. Delete. Uncle G 10:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Don't be stupid... leave it as is. It just a theory, people must know the alternatives. Such people as you burned Giordano Bruno. If you don't agree, add your arguments. Denis tarasov 10:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for editors to have new theories of physics peer reviewed by other editors. The places for doing that are the many physics journals that exist. Uncle G 11:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  verifiable sources, but none have been forthcoming. The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Accurizer 11:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'll add the citation. About the "license" - this is realy widely known theory. But there are no "oficial" publications on this theory, because of some sort of "short thinking" of some people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denis tarasov (talk • contribs) 2006-09-18 11:03:46
• Delete per
  WP:V. Sorry must make your pet theories known and notable elsewhere. Only then they can be considered for inclusion into an encyclopedia. --Pjacobi 11:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above Nigel ^(Talk) 12:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.TheRingess 12:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --
  Charlesknight 13:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, original research. Recury 13:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, because Giordano Bruno got what he deserved. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Gandalf61 14:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — with a hearty laugh and thanks to Smerdis. Anville 19:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. --Nishkid64 21:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear violation of
  WP:OR. If Delete had been a course-of-action option, Giordano Bruno would not have been burned. We have made some progress in 406 years.Jdclevenger 22:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• My original research? You flatter me. If I am the first, who express this theory, write a Wikipedia article about me ;) Denis tarasov 08:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mingebag

I'm all for putting stuff on Wikipedia that die-hard Wikipedians consider unencyclopedic, but do we really need one for "The name people use in Garry's Mod when they haven't changed their name"? I mean, for crissake, it's the old-fashioned "Player" problem. There ain't no need for it on Wikipedia. (BTW, if I'm really screwing this up, I'm sorry. This sort of thing is a but daunting...) Scumbag 08:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as
  things made up online one day. --Dhartung | Talk 09:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Deletebag as nom. Not even referenced in the article it refers to. D- for effort. Onebravemonkey 09:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, worst idea for an article I've seen in a while. Recury 13:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung. --Nishkid64 21:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT and above. Wryspy 19:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:RS. Not deleting based on nom; deletions of articles should only happen because of a violation of policies, which nomination doesn't address (formatting is fine, but see if you can find a deletion category that this fits into). Captainktainer * Talk 02:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, gamecruft per
  WP:V -- The Anome 18:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Dream sharing

• Keep This is a known shamanistic tenet. Reference Taisha Abelar, The Sorcerer's Crossing.

This "unstudied" and "hypothetical" phenomenon fails the policies on

• Delete Quack-cruft. 205.157.110.11 09:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 12:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "never been extensively studied" + "anecdotal evidence" = unencyclopaedic. BTLizard 12:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - besides the reasons mentioned above, I suspect the whole purpose of the article is to provide an advert for the links below. --
  Charlesknight 12:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• DeleteUnless someone can dig up something verifiable and reputable. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 18:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bollocks.
  Danny Lilithborne 19:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. --Nishkid64 21:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it - Sorry if this isnt how I should vote, I checked the guide about it but couldn't understand too well. In my view, this article is a good stub about a relevant fact and should be kept. 200.230.213.152 23:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 00:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Wryspy 19:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The phenomenon is imaginary, but used extensively in the arts, and (incorrect) belief that the phenomenon could be real or has actually occured to one is widespread. Not much of the current article should be salvaged, but an article or section about this will have to be written at some point. It's not real, but we should have an article about it (see God). RandomP 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is tripe, but it asserts its importance. AfD is premature. Should be edited for
  WP:V and then brought back for an AfD. JASpencer 09:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.