Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< September 18 September 20 >

Purge server cache


















































 :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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it.

(non-admin closure)[reply
]

Media

Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was this page intentionally deleted? If so, why? Oicumayberight 16:17, 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 Redirected Yomanganitalk 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon

Reason

Nickelodeon (TV channel) Needs To Move To The Article Called Nickelodeon[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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it.

(non-admin closure)[reply
]

Salami Shoulder

Salami Shoulder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

i wrote an article and jeffrey gustafson deleted it. i thought it was useful and he never let me know he was deleting it.

i hate jeffrey gustafson and i hope he gets hit by a train.

Spencersutton 04:27, 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. alphaChimp(talk) 00:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Minton

Delete. The subject of this article does not appear to meet the criteria of

WP:BIO. His acclaim is not verified by any sources. [Check Google hits] shows about 1,300 results, but in the first 5 pages there are few mentions of him specifically. Most of the hits are for a writer and an antiques dealer who may or may not be the Joseph Minton in question. Prod tag (which I added) was removed. ... discospinster talk 00:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete' dot dot dot.
    Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Non-notable.UberCryxic 00:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious Delete Notability seems to be an issue. The page was only created today, so obviously little work has been done on it. I think if verifiable claims of being shown at major exhibitions or museums can pop up, or multiple articles in periodicals perhaps the article deserves a spot. As the article is now, however, there is little to support his "claim to fame". Xiliquiern 00:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending some claim to notability appropriate for an artist. FrozenPurpleCube 00:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
extra comment we should probably speedy delete the image though as it is quite clearly a copyright violation, unless of course Joseph Minton put it there but then we would have another problem... Pascal.Tesson 01:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability as an artist. NawlinWiki 05:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.UberCryxic 15:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just invested some time in it.

--TWrex 00:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think this is a beneficial and applicable entry. The art is clearly real? --TWrex 01:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I am the artist and I added the art after I received the request. My art is very dear to me and it is all privately held, I do not sell my art so it is rarely shown in the public (the sale of art is the common reason for a living persons art being displayed and few galleries show art that provides them with no profit). I do not hold the same level of fame as someone like Picasso or Pissarro and I fully understand if my work is not appropriate for your listings. I thank you for the time each of you invested in this. Perhaps it will be a better fit at a later date. Sincerely, Joseph —The preceding
    unsigned comment was added by JMinton (talk • contribs
    ) 05:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


I am not sure if this matters but I did some more work on the page. --TWrex 00:23, 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 keep, no consensus. 1ne 07:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EU three

  • Bush used this term in an interview with Wolf Blitzer Sept. 20th 2006
Comment: This is the reason I found this article to begin with. To view the video, go link here to CNN.com (direct link to video). My personal opinion is that this term might spread and become more commonly used in the future, so why delete the article when it might be required to recreate it later? Mastgrr 05:00, 22 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, Sam Blanning(talk) 00:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Looking at a few articles from a Google search, it seems that the term has indeed entered the political vernacular in the UK and in the US (at least within the white house itself). The page could easily be expanded by providing brief chronological actions taken by the EU 3 and their repercussions, as well as comparing the common goals and interests of the member nations. The article needs expansion, and I believe it to be a valid topic. Xiliquiern 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I think that phrase is commonly used. I'm not sure I'd call it a neologism though. At the worst you could accuse this of being a dictdef and you might have a point but I disagree that there's no room for it to grow. For instance it could be extremely interesting if someone were able to trace how this informal group happened to form. I don't know and I'd certainly welcome an explanation. For instance, Germany's involvement in military affairs was pretty much unthinkable before reunification. It's yet another attempt by European countries to form some sort of coherent counterweight to the US in foreign affairs and should be documented as such. Pascal.Tesson 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to European Union. It might be commonly used, but there's too little to say about it for a separate article. JIP | Talk 05:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never heard of it. EU politics is a constant circle of blocks forming and breaking-up over different policies. While these three countries may have a united approach to Iran (which is itself debatable), they differ over topics like federalism and agriculture subsidies.
    Catchpole 06:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment Sorry to insist but if you haven't heard the term "troïka européenne" in the last few weeks then we are not reading the same french newspapers. [4] [5] [6] [7].
  • Strong Delete: this term is a journalistic neologism used in the context of the nuclear talks with Iran. Since these talks include other non-European nations (eg, the USA), and those three countries generally act in concert in the context of those talks, it is convenient to refer to them as "the EU three". For example: «the US is calling for an ultimatum, while the "EU three" prefer to continue the talks without setting a deadline». However, this is only valid within the context of this specific international crisis; in other instances, those countries can easily be on opposing sides (see, for example, their stance on the Iraq war), and within other groups, you can have an "EU three" or "EU four" or "EU five" consisting of different countries, depending on the situation. 82.55.199.200 14:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not contesting that it is a convenient term and not much else. However it seems like a particularly good encyclopedia topic. Would you also recommend deleting the article "Collaboration of Germany, United Kingdom and France during the Iran nuclear crisis of 2005-2006"? I think "EU three" is just a convenient title for that article and one that is likely to be a search by users. Pascal.Tesson 20:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra comment I'm not sure why I'm fighting for this but I do think that the delete opinions expressed here are too weak. The fact that the common man has not heard the term is not an argument for deletion, especially since the common man doesn't read the foreign affairs section of his newspaper. I am certain that people who have followed closely the negotiations with Iran have heard the term or at lest recognize this group of countries to have had a particular, coherent role in this affair. In any case, this debate has focused on the notability of the term when in fact it should focus on the wisdom of keeping the content of the article. I think the content is uncontroversially valuable and we can always move the page to another article. Pascal.Tesson 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I dont like this: "especially since the common man doesn't read the foreign affairs section of his newspaper". All the more so because as with your other assumptions - that those who vote Delete live in the USA and only see US TV - you are mistaken. (I know that in my own case I have voted for delete because I have NOT previously encountered the term and I DO read both politics and EU matters in newspapers and on the internet. I also watch French mainstream TV and listen to France Inter. And I have heard no mention of the 'EU Three'. Consequently whilst I dont doubt that you have encountered the term I do doubt that it is both widespread and of note/significance). So please, no more assumptions about what others do or do not do. That is not the way to "win" an argument. Marcus22 19:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I meant no disrespect to you or, God forbid, the common man. But it's not uncommon for Wikipedia articles to be about little known things and the fact that 90% of people have not heard the term is beyond the point: it does not resolve the basic question of whether or not this is an encyclopedic topic. And I will say again that the debate should not be about the prevalence of the term but about the value of the content of the article. Certainly the history of this alliance would be an interesting contribution to the project. Pascal.Tesson 22:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. A term used in a speech, which will soon die out... and before you jump the gun, I live in Geneva and read the Tribune de Genève and Le Matin. So yes, I get European news and no, I've still never heard of it. --Storkk 23:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xiliquiern. Markovich292 22:51, 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. 1ne 07:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kull (Inheritance)

All of the current info is already written in a better style

Hemhem20X6 00:56, 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. 1ne 07:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Hardt

Procederial nomination, contested PROD. Yanksox 01:05, 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. 1ne 07:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Kaplowitz

I'm finishing up this nomination started by

WP:BIO. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 01:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I fail to understand why naysayers wish to delete this article. It is a fair, brief, objective description of a household name within American education circles, particularly conservative ones. Teach For America is the premier teacher training programs in the nation, and Kaplowitz's story represents the zeitgast of its failure. Moreover, Kaplowitz' later article was widely read and cited around the country, including articles in the National Review and Wall Street Journal. If you feel the article is incomplete, by all means expand it. But it is censorship to delete it without rational explanation. First off the "notability" criteria is not official Wikipedia policy; even if it were this entry would qualify under 4 different notability headings: newsworthiness, published and widely cited and reviewed, and a strong local character.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellis21 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete and merge any relevant info into the Teach For America article. Serpent-A 01:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge as per Serpent-A. While I agree that TFA has its critics, and perhaps they need more space on Wikipedia, Josh Kaplowitz seems less an educational milestone than a minor watercooler story, and he is certainly not a "household name". His lawsuit is notable, and should be merged with TFA, but Kaplowitz as a bio article goes too far.H0n0r 21:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant information into TFA article, which includes his article among its references but currently doesn't discuss his case and related criticism. Kaplowitz's sole claim to notability is his connection with Teach for America. A similar AfD a few months ago was Justin Layshock -- his sole claim to notability was his connection with myspace.com, so the relevant information from his article was moved into the myspace article. I'm sure Layshock got considerably more media attention than Kaplowitz, and I've seen nothing to suggest that Kaplowitz is a figure of major local importance to either DC or UVa. I'm neutral on whether the article should be deleted or turned into a redirect after the merge. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 00:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    WP:NPOV. Sugarpinet/c 23:01, 20 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. --

Steel 23:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Thor Misko

Incomplete nomination started by 198.169.188.225 who claimed in the edit history that the subject of the article was non-notable. Yomanganitalk 01:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.
    WP:BIO makes an exception for those individuals who are the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works," but this individual is only notable for being part of a team that won a national engineering contest, and being of a recipient of various student awards is also non-notable. - Runch 04:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per User:Runch. JIP | Talk 05:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Graduated in 2005! Hardly a leading member of his profession yet then. -- Necrothesp 22:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-notable employee of a semi-notable (at best) company. Userfy? --Storkk 23:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Runch. Markovich292 22:58, 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 keep. 1ne 07:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Budde

Prior nomination was closed as "speedy keep" without an explanation and without sufficient discussion. As it stands, collectable card game players should rarely be considered notable themselves, and amount of winning ($300,000) is not sufficiently notable either (as it does not distinguish him from any successful, but non-notable, member of another profession). Delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following for deletion, based on the same rationale:

You want to start adding articles for International Science Olympiad champions? --Nlu (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might get away with that, but it is streching the principle further. MtG is a game, not a sport, sure, but it's one with a large following, professionally organised tournaments and press coverage (i.e. ESPN2) - I don't know if the OIs are comparable (after all, I've known OI competitors and I don't think any received noticable press coverage). WilyD 19:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You want to start deleting articles for Chess Olympiad? I see at least a half a dozen articles there with no claim to notablity besides being on a national team. And ISO has a few articles with players with no notablity outside of the competiton. FrozenPurpleCube 20:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Malber: DALLAS (October 10, 2005) --- An exclusive interview with World Champion Kai Budde highlights the newest edition of Beckett Magic The Gathering #3 which will hit newsstands and subscribers later this month. If a magazine produced by Beckett isn't notable and independent enough for you, tell me what will. FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sugarpinet/c 23:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep on both. MTG's most well-known competitive players are just as notable as most pro-sports players or, for that matter, pop-culture writers. Anyone who cares about CCGs should have a use for this article. However, the article on Kai Budde may need to be better-Wikified.Blue Crest 01:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep* With a bit of incredulity that it's up for AfD SirFozzie 23:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep* For all the resons above and flabbergasted it's even here on AfD CodyM 17:09, 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 (sorry, can't think of a witty phrase). --

Steel 23:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Raging Fetus

Delete. All signs point to

hoax. They're from Fetusville, Alaska. [Check Google hits] "Raging Fetus" brings up some MySpace pages and forums with people by that username. No proof that the albums exist, or that "death techno" exists for that matter. I originally added a prod tag but an anonymous user removed it. Someone please abort. ... discospinster talk 02:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

actually they're not from Fetusville, Alaska dumbass. they're just such a big band they can't release their hometown otherwise it would draw to much tourism and take away from New Yorks tourism and economically destroy the United States of America. Raging Fetus is completely patriotic and thow releaseing their hometown would increase their profits ten fold, it would oddly enough force the economy to collapse on itself.....you retard. duh

SAVE THE FETUS!!!. This is completely true, I am a long-time fan of the band. http://www.myspace.com/ragingfetus DO NOT DELETE THIS ENTRY PLEASE — Preceding

single purpose account: 68.40.99.43 (talk • contribs
) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

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. It has been transwikied already (see below). alphaChimp(talk) 00:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How To Burn A Disc On iTunes

Wikipedia isn't the place for tutorials, which are not encyclopedic. With this title and subject matter, the article could never be improved to an encyclopedic level, anyway. I put a prod (proposed-deletion) notice on the article, but it was removed without explanation, so I'm moving the discussion here. Switchercat talkcont 02:58, 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 a (not so) speedy close because AfD is not for proposing merges.

masterka 04:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Campaign for Alcohol-Free Sports TV

Insufficiently notable for separate article: merge with Center for Science in the Public Interest THB 20:27, 8 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 03:29, 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 speedy delete. Next time, use {{

masterka 04:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Dhom(rapper)

Clearly non-notable person. He's only 17! -

Desk) 03:44, 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. alphaChimp(talk) 00:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Carnations

I have reason to believe that most or all of this article is a hoax. Google brings up next to nothing about a band with this name in London. (Most are about a band in Toronto.) Response I have seen this band play and they can be reached on the UK search page of google.. Martin I cannot verify any of the claims in this article. (Those citation links are not citations.) The original author has repeatedly removed others' tags, including my cleanup and needs sources tags. The

masterka 04:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I notice The Lovegods have no mention on Wikipedia or Google.. presumably they don't exist either.. or perhaps that have not achieved suffiecient notoriety yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.168.174 (talk • contribs)

I entirely agree with the summations posted. The band has no notability nor sufficient prominence to be included in this encyclopedia and like many aspiring bands are merely trying to use this site as a vehicle for publicity. I eagerly await their swift removal, so that we can all get on with our lives, and so that they too can join the pioneers of indie such as Art Brut, Hefner and let's not forget the not forgotten Special Needs (now renamed The Needs) who rose to success through the notoriety of obscurity.. rock on! The band definately exist though and it's not a hoax.. I promise

Surreyboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.168.174 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per gross violation of
    WP:MUSIC --Storkk 23:25, 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 no consensus. -

iablo 11:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

EDUCANG

Nonnotable institutional neologism, delete --

Peta 04:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply Lack of a wikipedia article does not mean lack of notability. The schools in question appear to cumulatively have an enrollment about 3000. They are conservative religious schools, which probably explains the low Google hit count - Richfife 22:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would treat this organization as if it were a governmental school district, which is probably the closest comparison available. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: - This is their website, which gives absolutely no information other than acting as a portal to the 5 schools concerned. Are they notable? Fails
    WP:CORP to me. LOUD COMPANY NAME ALSO! (but that has no bearing on my decision). -- Longhair 12:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 00:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a neologism, although it is an acronym. It is a company name and as such I would need a bit more information to decide why to delete, keep by default for me as I cannot see the harm in recognising a body which runs schools... Ansell 00:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Longhair. Arbusto 22:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spammish-non-notable-per-
    WP:CORP oddity. --Storkk 23:27, 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. alphaChimp(talk) 00:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mac2pc

This article is a nonsense article about a project that does not exist, and it contains a teaser link leading to a rambling article, called

perardi 04:43, 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 no consensus, however, I blanked and listed it at

WP:CP since it's cut and pasted from their website. The Manjit Minhas article wasn't tagged with the afd tag so this result doesn't concern it. It's probably also a copyvio but I can't find a source for it. - Bobet 09:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ravinder minhas - now at Ravinder Minhas

vanity page, npov Doldrums 04:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major News Publications about him:
Maclean's Magazine: http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/business/article.jsp?content=20050815_110500_110500
The Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050506.wcareercoach07/BNStory/specialSmallBusiness/
On News Radio: http://interact.cbc.ca/pipermail/hotsheets/2004-November/000087.html
Calgary Sun: http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Jackson_Paul/2006/04/01/1515906.html
Calgary Herald: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=035bc0d1-cfd5-4865-8315-0df748617d78

I would say he meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." AmitDeshwar 01:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep At the very least the first two of those are independent reliable sources about the individual. Thus, the
    GRBerry
  • Agree with your comments: The article needs improvement and should be capitalizedAmitDeshwar 16:00, 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 Speedy keep. This site is clealy notable. Its deletion outside of notability criteria is beyond the scope of AfD. You can either present immediate issues to the administrator noticeboard/s, or seek a special mandate from the Arbitration Committee or from members of the Foundation. El_C 07:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stormfront (website)

massive vandalism through sock/meat puppets (evidence provided), doesn't satisfy 'notability', article is an advertisement, discussion and arguments below Stick to the Facts 04:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Stormfront (website) wikipedia article has been embroiled in a massive edit war for several days. I uncovered evidence of sock puppetry/meat puppetry on a massive scale (see below). The editors continue to scrap other editors' contributions, including one with 11 cites that was claimed to be inappropriate due to "original research".

The article is, in my opinion, essentially being used as an extension of the Stormfront forums. There is only the weakest form of criticism permitted in the article. It has the look of a recruiting tool for the 'organization' including a link to a page where donations can be made.

The editors continue to reinsert a link to a donations page on the Stormfront website. There is no indication that Stormfront is a non-profit organization, a status that must be applied for and must meet rigorous requirements including rigid tax reporting requirements and fiscal spending constraints. At least, no one has alleged that it has such status and it is extremely doubtful that such an 'organization' would qualify.

The Stormfront forum also contains a post to recruit editors to 'keep an eye on' the Stormfront article dated September 14th: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:seUEv9D__TQJ:www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php

Many new people began editing the Stormfront wiki article on sept 15th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stormfront_%28website%29&limit=250&action=history

User Brimba's user contributions page - began heavy editing of Stormfront article beginning Sept

15th http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Brimba

User Conserve's user contributions page - account first used to edit on Sept 13th, has only edited

Stormfront articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Conserve

User Magnetic's contributions page - account first used to edit on Sept 13th, has only edited Stormfront articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Magnetics

User ExplicitImplicity's contributions page, created account Sept 11th, first edit was stormfront article on Sept 13th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=ExplicitImplicity

User Alecmconroy's contributions page, began editing stormfront article heavily Sept 16th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=Alecmconroy

User UberCryxic's contributions page, began editing stormfront article heavily Sept. 16th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=UberCryxic

Alecmconroy's talk page, showing solicitations from UberCryxic to assist in reverting pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alecmconroy&oldid=76349940

UberCryxic's talk page, showing messages from Alecmconroy discussing reversion strategy to avoid violating 3RR: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UberCryxic&oldid=76147892

Poison sf is also in this group, I believe, and is the only one who has been editing since before September 11, 2006.Stick to the Facts 04:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not going to attempt to explain in how many ways this person's account of events is wrong, but I agree with the fundamental point that this article should be deleted.UberCryxic 05:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure if I get a vote or not since I posted the tag, but... As for notability - I also believe the article should be deleted on that basis. Its 'notability' appears to stem merely from a concerted attack on a tv news dial in vote on whether or not people would want a segregated prom. Ironically, people solicited voters on the Stormfront website and stuffed the ballot box so that the results were not announced and Stormfront was named as the culprit. One or two pranks doesn't seem to satisfy notability. It seems that most of the articles that are cited that are alleged to be about Stormfront are actually about Don Black. Perhaps I'm wrong. Stick to the Facts 05:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite The site is execrable, the creators are scumbags and there is nothing I would like more than for them to go away, but... They are notable. 553,000 GHits for "stormfront.org". Wikipedia is not censored. - Richfife 05:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article only an ad for a discussion board. Non encyclopedic. It can be listed on list of nazi sites, in articles about nazis, holocaust denial and so on. as it is now, it's just spam. Amoruso 05:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The subject of the article is only mildy notable. It's been mentioned in a couple of CNN stories, but, it's right on the edge. I did to support having it around, but it's hard to see this article as being much more than a stub. We are having a hard time covering the subject neutrally, just because of a lack of secondary sources that talk about the subject. So, it's a toss up, but i tend to error on the side of not deleteing. --Alecmconroy 05:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD is concerned with what an article could be more than what it is. I think the article should be semi-protected, at the very least, and then someone should write a completely dry, boring article covering just the facts and nothing else. Nothing pisses off a neo-nazi more than people yawning - Richfife 05:31, 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. HappyCamper 02:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rageh Omaar Launches Rabina Khan's new Book at Borders Oxford St in London

An article for a book launch? The event did happen, the article was already deleted when it was created as an announcement of a book launch to come and is now back as a reort of the happening. The event is real (Rabina Khan + Borders gets 32 distinct Google hits, some of them about the launch), but is extremely non notable, and worthy of perhaps one line in an article about the author or the book. I can't see anyway ever using this title in the search box either...

Fram 05:04, 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 no consensus. -

iablo 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Computer and video game settings

original research. I've nominated this article for deletion before
. However there was no consensus, so the AfD defaulted to keep, with many users suggesting that the article should be cleaned up with citations added. Even so, it's already been around for two months and still no one has bothered to clean it up or add sources. I'm also starting to doubt the article can be cleaned up, since many of the listed "clichés" are either:

  1. Seen in other forms of media, and not specifically related to video games. For example, Area 51-related facilities appear commonly in all science fiction related media, not just video games.
  2. Due to technological restrictions, such as cities having fewer builings than what one would see in a real city.
  3. Appear commonly in real life, so they can't really be considered as a "cliché". This includes settings such as jungles, deserts, grasslands, and forests.

Also note that similar articles to this one have been deleted before, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer and video game character stereotypes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fighting game character stereotypes --TBCTaLk?!? 05:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just so much navel-gazing - Richfife 05:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup preferably with a volunteer to improve it. Although I could accept moving the content into a wikibook if somebody is working on something suitable. FrozenPurpleCube 05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As I've mentioned aboved, it can't really be cleaned up since most of the cliches are either seen in other forms of media, due to technological restrictions, or appear commonly in real life. Either way, wouldn't it be better for it to be transwiki'd to a gaming wiki instead of wikibooks?--TBCTaLk?!? 05:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That something is a cliche in another media/genre (and may well be mentioned in an article about that media/genre, or cliches in it) actually helps convince me that it should be included. See for example
Science fiction themes. As to technological restrictions, in fact I was actually thinking that that explanation should be included in the article (when I saw the 255 and 65535 I thought to myself, that I really should explain the memory issues behind htat). As for existing in the Real World, that too doesn't bother me, as the character of an inclusion can be relevant. Once again, see SFT. Clones exist in the real world, yes, and even Robots. But the issues brought up in Science Fiction about them are still important. Video Games being a different and less communicative media may not have the same depth of meaning (and due to their relative newness have a lot less depth of research and respectiiblity), but that doesn't mean they don't have any, or that expanding it is not a good idea. That said, if you care to name a suggested wiki to move it to, I'll be glad to support it. I'd look, but you seem more involved in the situation, so you might remember something from past discussions. FrozenPurpleCube 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
First of all, if most of the cliches in the list apply to all media forms, what's the point of having a seperate article on one for video games? Also, it isn't considered a cliche if it's unintentional, such as due to technological restrictions. After all, note that a cliche is defined as "a phrase, expression, or idea that has been overused to the point of losing its intended force or novelty". This also applies to things that exist commmonly in real life, which are seen in video games due to common sense, not for an intended force or novelty. As for a good wiki to transwiki it to, I reccommend Encyclopedia Gamia.--TBCTaLk?!? 07:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because computers and video games are a seperate and distinct media, that often have their own genres which are not directly comparable to the genres in say books and film, that's why. It's a question of presentation, they are different enough that they can't be linked. Your objections as to whether or not any particular thing constitute a cliche more properly belong in a discussion about the article, not in a VfD, but I note that if you examine the various entries under cliches (like the Doctor Who cliches, cliches in animation, and probably others), you'll find many of the same things. So you may have a lot of work to do. FrozenPurpleCube 14:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And since you brought up EG, if you want to make the transfers, and get a consensus agreement on that, it would seem to qualify, but you'll have to check with its members to see if they'll accept the concept. FrozenPurpleCube 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is defined as a place for "Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted". I feel that the article should be deleted since all of the listed cliches are technically not cliches, thus AfD is a perfect place for it to be discussed. Also, you don't need the consent of Encyclopedia Gamia to tranwiki an article there, since they are a wiki as well.--TBCTaLk?!? 19:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the reason that articles like Doctor Who cliches and cliches in animation exist, is that there are cliches that are specific to that series/genre, whereas this article is simply listing cliches that have existed in all forms of media, such as Area 51, jungle, grassland, etc. settings.--TBCTaLk?!? 19:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't concur with you that all of the items are not cliches, as I've read more than a few articles which mention those things. Sorry, not sufficient. And note, cliches in animation is as specific a genre as video and computer games, in fact, there are some overlaps with the two. FrozenPurpleCube 23:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though I do respect your opinions, if there really are "a few articles which mention those things", then why haven't you referenced them in the article? Also, if the cliches of animation and other forms of media "overlap" with video games, then what's the point of having a seperate article for video game cliches?--TBCTaLk?!? 05:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What I find funny is that you could have asked for it to be moved without an AfD, why did you chose to go about it this way and not ask the people who have contributed to the article to move it, and maybe even started a discussion on the WikiProject CVG page? Last I checked AfDs should not be used for cleanup.
Havok (T/C/c) 07:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Though I admit that transwiki'ing is certaintly a possibily, I'm personally advocating for the page to be deleted. Also, as I've stated before, I feel that the article can't be cleaned up since so much of the article is original research, that if the original research were to be removed, the article wouldn't have enough content to merit either a seperate article or stub. As for mentioning it on the WikiProject CVG page, the WikiProject has already been notified of this discussion through
Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Deletion.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, why did you not start a discussion before you put it up for deletion? Going around deleting things is bad practice, specially for the people who have worked on said article. Starting a dialog and trying to come to an agreement first might be the best way to handle such matters. Example, like I stated, you could have asked for it to be moved to another Wiki and forgo the AfD all together. You had several choices in the matter, and you chose to AfD it and at the same time step on the toes of the editors behind the article.
Havok (T/C/c) 07:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Isn't AfD itself a discussion? As quoted from
Wikietiquette, please remember that this "debate is not a vote; [but a place for] recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." Also, as I've stated above, note that I'm not advocating for the article to be traswiki'd; I'm advocating for it to be deleted.--TBCTaLk?!? 07:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. Seen in other forms of media, and not specifically related to video games. For example, Area 51-related facilities appear commonly in all science fiction related media, not just video games.
  2. Due to technological restrictions, such as cities having fewer builings than what one would see in a real city.
  3. Appear commonly in real life, so they can't really be considered as a "cliché". This includes settings such as jungles, deserts, grasslands, and forests.--TBCTaLk?!? 19:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to #3 is simple - rename the page, perhaps to 'Typical computer and video game settings' or something. One can easily fold in reason #2 within it, explain that these come about due to technical restrictions. Also, I think a major point of this is not just that they exist, but are often "within the game world" bizzaringly in proxminity. As for #1, well, if you can't see why then you're probably not going to be convinced. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this article were to be changed from a list of cliches to a list of "Typical computer and video game settings", this list would become unmaintainable, like the the List of firearms in video games article. After all, since there are thousands of video game settings out there and it isn't clearly defined how typical typical settings have to be, then basically any video game setting could be added to the article.--TBCTaLk?!? 18:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Angus McLellan. Markovich292 23:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Solberg. —Coat of Arms (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As an actual gamer, I can recognise many of these level types, and I certainly would consider them to be clichés. The article lists common types of obstacle or enemy found in several of the levels, which are clichés. The article also describes many things that have nothing to do with technical restrictions and are largely exclusive to video games - for example, shops where the proprietor charges someone for items necessary to save the world, lava that collects in pools and doesn't harm those who approach it, and fire-based weaponry that continues to work underwater. The lack of citations is certainly a problem, but I'm sure it could be overcome with careful research. Actually, I don't see why the games themselves can't be cited as evidence. RobbieG 15:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup, and rename to
    talk) 12:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Keep per RobbieG and Wrathchild. The Kinslayer 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Angus McLellan, TewfikTalk 18:55, 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. alphaChimp(talk) 00:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jem Cain

Political candidate, no evidence that he meet BIO, delete. --

Peta 05:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Arrrr, ye doesn't seem notable outside election. Walk the plank. MER-C 08:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like someone on his campaign staff created it as a WP:VANITY page for the upcoming local election. --151.200.246.168 09:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Candidates for local elections are just a little too non-notable. -- Necrothesp 22:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.UberCryxic 00:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unelected candidates aren't generally notable just for being candidates. --Storkk 23:30, 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. alphaChimp(talk) 00:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog curse

Looks like

original research to me. Google produces no sign of it, the only results coming from Wikipedia/mirrors. Article fails to cite sources as well, and all indications point to this being something that the article creator just happened to notice. -Elmer Clark 05:15, 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. alphaChimp(talk) 00:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Guerrilla events

Listcruft. We don't need a page listing each and every event ever for a pro wrestling promotion. RobJ1981 05:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as just listcruft. TJ Spyke 05:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 05:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arrr, ye listcruft. Walk the plank per nom. Arrr. MER-C 08:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Markovich292 23:15, 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. alphaChimp(talk) 00:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ROH: Round Robin Challenge

Non-notable wrestling event TJ Spyke 21:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's a non-notable event. Edgecution 01:47, 17 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, Mangojuicetalk 05:42, 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. alphaChimp(talk) 00:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Urban Animal

A magazine which scores well under a thousand Googles (complicated by the existence of a similarly titled magazine in Sydney, Australia). Unsourced, most of the top ghits are spam. So: a worthy endeavour but of no objectively provable significance. Guy 21:44, 8 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, Mangojuicetalk 05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mangojuicetalk 05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails all guidelines and policies for inclusion, including
    WP:CORP. --Storkk 23:32, 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. Sango123 15:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike baroni

  • DeletevUnsourced and not particularly noteworthy Downunda 05:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article doesn't have an AfD template on it, it has a prod.
    Danny Lilithborne 07:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Arrrr ye vanity article. Walk the plank. (By the way, I've changed the prod to an afd). MER-C 08:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't decide but I'll keep but it needs some major copyediting work and formatting on it. Sugarpinet/c 23:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, and not even a solid assertion of meeting
    GRBerry 13:56, 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. alphaChimp(talk) 00:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Huff

A nicely put together article; unfortunately, the subject does not meet

WP:BIO criteria as far as I can tell. If this article is deleted, the related article Tynas (a "language" created by the subject) should also be deleted. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:37, 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. Sango123 15:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-Systems

An article about a non-notable company, written with all probability by the founder and CEO himself. Since May with a notability tag, but nobody proved its notability till now. So I decided to AfD it. Ioannes Pragensis 07:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Arrrr, ye non-notable company. Walk the plank. MER-C 08:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nigel (Talk) 12:29, 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. alphaChimp(talk) 00:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Botme

Almost purely spam with no real assertion of notability. The article is also starting to become a link farm. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.
    Danny Lilithborne 07:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Arrr, ye spam. Walk the plank. MER-C 08:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. Nigel (Talk) 12:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.UberCryxic 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - are you kidding me? Wow is that a stupid article. YechielMan 22:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Botme? Even the name sounds spammy. --
    speak to the Llama!) 00:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per MER-C. Markovich292 23:20, 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. Sango123 15:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stringbeans

Textbook

Danny Lilithborne 07:15, 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. Sango123 15:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ezhava Tharavads

The listing is unencyclopedic, and unverifiable (per User:Deepujoseph). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:38, 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. Sango123 15:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paraball

Non-notable game invented in a laboratory. (See

WP:NFT for guideline.) Zetawoof(ζ) 07:52, 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 speedy keep. MER-C 09:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy

Out of scope for an encyclopedia, this is news, not knowledge. --Pjacobi 08:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - article is currently
    Brendanfox 08:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Even more an indication for Wikipedia moving from encylcopedia to news portal. --Pjacobi 08:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it just happens to be that current events are, by virtue of current news reporting, much easier to research. It just happens to be that researching old world events needs some extra work, but when it comes to current events, everyone's practically dumping references here with a wheelbarrow, because there's a lot of stuff, easy to find. It would make it a lot easier to research, say, the beginning of World War 1, if all of a sudden, half of Internet-based newspapers screamed "that one guy shot the other guy" and reported on all fascinating details of the case, don't you think? Instead, people have to bother going to the library to look at the big books. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a frivolous nomination, I guess. Everything worth knowing about history was news in its day. Azate 08:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pjacobi is just out to prove a point [9] with this nomination. Azate 08:48, 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. Sango123 15:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V.J.Reji Vasanth

Contested prod, vanity, non-notable person. MER-C 08:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The related

WP:VSCA. MER-C 09:45, 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. alphaChimp(talk) 00:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POIP and QoS

Non notable neologism. Prod removed by author. No google hits for POIP with the explanation, or POIP with the inventor of the neologism. Fails thus

Fram 08:37, 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. Sango123 15:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Carleschi

Non notable political activist.

Catchpole 09:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 11:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, somewhat reluctantly. He looks as if he may be of interest in the next few years, but I don't think he's there yet. It would be helpful to to have some Scottish input as to what all this really adds up to, particularly in terms of SNP organisations. BTLizard
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. --- Glen 09:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dannychoo

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 09:20, 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. —Centrx→talk • 04:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samineni narsaiah

Vanity, not notable. Contested prod. MER-C 09:24, 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. — CharlotteWebb 17:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vedanta Resources

Little more than a re-write of the company's web-site, possible copyvio. Markb 10:16, 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 flagged as copyvio. MER-C 11:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SibSoft

Advert, questionable notability, POV Cordless Larry 10:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Advertising. Just company info. Like "Luxoft" and other companies available on Wiki. SibSoft Ltd SibSoft

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. Sango123 19:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OculusGen

Contested prod about a non-notable product. MER-C 10:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Reads like an advertisement, Doesn't assert notability. Canadian-Bacon t c e 15:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious advertisement. --72.75.117.73 20:58, 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 per author request. Flowerparty☀ 16:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portable Components

Contested prod about non-notable software. MER-C 10:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I found the page with guidelines for software, according with these guidelines: please remove the page (pschojer, author)
  • I have added a {{db-author}} to the page as per Pschojer's request. ... discospinster talk 15:13, 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. Sango123 19:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Creation

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 10:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Fram 13:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Fram 13:29, 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 no consensus. -

iablo 16:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

E. M. Washington

Delete seems to have a notable grandfather and had a minor mention in one article in 2004 when he was accused of making copies of his grandfather's work. Maybe worth a line on his grandfather's article but that seems to be it.

Charlesknight 10:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment - no verifiable grandfather on whom to base an article! Bridgeplayer 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've seen enough work on eBay and at other auctions attributed to E.M. Washington. It's all (to the best of my ability to tell) recent work, mostly on old paper, much of it copying older prints. They're significant as forgeries. Given that there doesn't seem to be any evidence that E.M. Washington (the grandfather) was a printmaker, the article should be about the grandson or E.M. Washington as an entity. But that's just my 2 cents. cbustapeck 03:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sourced, verifiable and encyclopaedic. Oh, and interesting :-) Bridgeplayer 02:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both links to the same Forbes article; fails

WP:BIO. TewfikTalk 19:11, 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. Sango123 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number One Baby

Unverifiable, fails

Fram 10:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete, unless properly sourced. PJM 12:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Xio99 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, highly likely to be a hoax -- the "Japanese" phrase cited, "私は第1 赤ん坊、私持っている鉄のグリップをである", bears very little relation to grammatical Japanese, but coincidentally does happen to be roughly what you'd get if somebody who spoke no Japanese at all attempted to produce a Japanese equivalent of the English "translation" by looking up the words one by one in a dictionary. — Haeleth Talk 19:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I was going to say what Haeleth said about the Japanese text. It makes no sense. --Kunzite 01:25, 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 Speedy delete a7 per MER-C. NawlinWiki 14:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clemdev Omniglov

Delete seems to fail WP:BIO - he's called a "politician" but that could mean anything. I can find no information AT ALL about this person besides a link back to the wikipedia article

Charlesknight 11:03, 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn and no other delete opinions expressed.

GRBerry 12:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Hays (Pittsburgh)

Delete - I just realised I could be noming this due to a difference in terminology but we will see. A neigbourhood (which in the uk is a very small area but I've just realised could mean something else in the states) would be entirely non-notable. If not I'll get to work on my Berwyn View article

Charlesknight 11:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

just for my future reference - is there a policy on neighbourhoods and notability? are they inherently notable --
Charlesknight 17:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Nope, there is no policy or guideline here... I can completely see why you initiated this AfD. in practice though, physical places like cities, towns, etc, usually get kept. As far as neighborhoods, it gets a bit murkier as you start to get into "what defines a neighborhood". I only speak for myself, but personally I have no problem with a "neighborhood" article as long as it can be
reliably sourced that a specific area of a city is refered to by a specific name. In this case it would appear that Hays is a term used for this area. Personally, I don't believe anything is "inherently notable".--Isotope23 19:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Just for reference, here is a map of the area in question. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a primarily industrial area set between various low-income residential neighborhoods that used to be mill housing. It used to be classified as an independent borough,[10], not sure whether it still technically is or not. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, it's also rather notoriously flood-prone.[11]. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It may just be the Pennsylvanian in me speaking, or that I'm unwilling to set a precedent of deleting neighborhoods, but I believe established neighborboods in cities can be notable.-- danntm T C 20:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Districts of cities are notable. -- Necrothesp 22:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is where the langage difference comes in - is a district a neighbourhood? --
Charlesknight 22:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I was using the term generically to mean an area, not a formal sub-division. "The neighbourhood" in the UK usually just means "the locality", not an area with a name as it does in the US. I think we'd generically call that a "district". -- Necrothesp 23:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'm convinced - what's the process for me closing this AFD?

--

Charlesknight 23:33, 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. Possibly rename, possibly merge, but retain nonetheless. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 E2 K

Re-nominated for deletion after speedy tag was (correctly) removed by another editor. Original reason included below. I believe this should be deleted, but the nom was simply in order to move this deletion to the proper process.

eeb (chat/patch) 11:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Original db-reason, by User:Mbeychok:
At least 90 percent of the visitors to Wikipedia probably have no notion of what 1 E2 K means, so why choose that cryptic title? In any event, the article is simply a list of useless trivia.
eeb (chat/patch) 11:10, 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 Speedy delete a1, no content, and

WP:SNOW per comments below. NawlinWiki 14:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Cringe

Strong Delete This is not even an article. It's a rumor on a book that may be written in 2010 with no information? It should not be here. Rabid 02:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no context (csd a1). Tagged as such. MER-C 12:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Faster than light Delete - This barely merits the single line mention it gets on O+A's article... Onebravemonkey 12:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as above. Piece of rubbish. BTLizard 12:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:49, 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. —Celestianpower háblame 16:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.P.A.M. Records

Unsoureced hearsay, as far as we know its made up, not much on google. del this article is on a non-notable entity. Guaguis 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ironic delete per nom. MER-C 12:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nigel (Talk) 12:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Delete, Delete, beans and Delete. (Beans are off). Onebravemonkey 12:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: not really notable, but not made up. It was a garage record label out in Oakland, CA... only was ever heard of because of some of its extreme activist songs it produced. Article is made by a fan though, and doesn't accurately represent S.P.A.M.'s extremist nature (the only reason it might be notable). Utopianheaven 12:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sugarpinet/c 23:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Please see the talk page for many links to S.P.A.M. Records - it doesn't show up on Google because the word spam is a dirty word in internet-land - but the label was called that well before the use of spam to describe junk mail. The recent 10-year anniversary of Geekfest (a music festival that S.P.A.M. was the official sponsor of) booked over 40 bands and drew large crowds for several days at underground venues in Oakland, and S.P.A.M. itself released over 50 records before its dissolution.--Johngeek 02:48, 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. —Mets501 (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concord Cup

Minor amateur golf event. Most of the Google hits are for a youth soccer tournament or a rowing tournament, each with the same name. blameless 11:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a significant event in Michigan. It receives many more hits on ASK.COM than the Soccer and Rowing tournament.

The last comment was mine, but I've signed in now. I'd also like to point out that the article does not fall into any of the categories identified in "What Wikipedia is not." Granted, it's not an event with national following, but there are many non-participants that follow the event which gives it greater status as a valid entry in a large encyclopedia.—The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Rfgeorge (talk • contribs
) .

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. Sango123 19:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITI Consulting

Not notable Cordless Larry 12:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - spammy as well. MER-C 12:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- but not speedy as notablity tags only added today (and new article today), time should be given for author to establish notability - standard 5 day AFD discussion should suffice. Asp 12:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above, but at least I was able to figure out from the article what this spammer was selling. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Markovich292 23:27, 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. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 06:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kuntayithote

Non-notable place. Couldn't find a single Google reference to this name or its alternate Kuntayithode. Since no references are cited, I suspect that this article violates the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Suttungr 12:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article should be kept. Google gave you no results merely because there is no standardisation about transliterating Malayalam words or names in English. You can google Kundayithode and find at least a dozen references. There is nothing original about it and that will be later made clear. As such I can only cite certain research papers and that will be done shortly. A word about Google Fallacy: Search kozhikoad on Google and tell me how many results you get. That was how Calicut or Kozhikode or Kozhikkode or Kozhikkot was spelt for more than a century when Kozhikode Taluk was referred to. Kuntan 13:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then can you give us the Malayalam script and some sources for it? They can be book sources too and someone can verify them. But you do need to cite sources. gren グレン 15:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending verification. Even small towns are notable. Google may be of small help searching for pages in Malayalam. This needs a fair amount of cleanup. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you check the edit history, you will see I had mixed feelings about it, before deciding it should be kept. But I think any place that exists should be in Wiki should be listed. --ArmadilloFromHell 18:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE this speaks more of one family than the place.

    • "Any place that exists" doesn't work. Notability is not a blanket. The patch of grassland to the side of my house exists, and I can point to government documents that are authoritative on the subject. It doesn't deserve an encyclopaedia article. Places that are notable are notable by dint of having lots of stuff published about them, from census reports to local history books. Uncle G 19:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This place is not listed in the India 700K Project by either spelling. Yes, this place appears to exist. I can find people who put this on their mailing addresses, such as this rubber company. It's also a parish of the Syro-Malabar Church. But that's all that I can find about it. I have been unable to find a source that confirms a single sentence in this article as currently written. Uncle G 19:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep pending better sourcing on notability. Ramsquire 20:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a source ascertaining its notability could be find. I am looking for a pointer to an article in a Malyalam newspaper online, a scan from an article in Malayalam magazine or some such. I can find scores of mentions online of the street where I live but that doesn't make it notable. Tintin (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question The article says something about "After devastation by the flood many archeological objects which lay buried for centuries came out. The maritime artifacts suggested the existence of a busy port there." Which flood is this referring to? Earlier in the article a flood in 1963 is mentioned, but this quote is from an entierly different paragraph. I suspect, but am not certian that the flood this referrs to might be the 2004 tsunami, in which case I wonder if the place this article is talking about is the "lost city" exposed by the 2004 tsunami mentioned in this article? If so, then keep and do a drastic clean-up. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This place has nothing to do with Tsunami. This is in the west coast of India and that side was not touched by the tsunami. The "lost city" in the east coast, some 60 km south of Chennai. Tintin (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the article comments: The article was meant as an innocuous hoax. It is hightime it went. Please delete it as soon as possible. Kuntayithote is a highly non-notable place (nowadays, a busstop) off Calicut. It is not worthy of an artlcle on Wiki.Kuntan 06:05, 26 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. CSD A7. --

Steel 14:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Taegyun kim

Note: I believe I neglected to add this to the log on the appropriate day. ... discospinster talk 12:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No

sources provided for his alleged popularity or even his thesis. Probably some kid messing around, but I couldn't verify it one way or the other so I dropped a prod tag. Author Anon removed it. And here we are. ... discospinster talk 22:27, 17 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. Sango123 19:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oney

Non-notable emoticon variant used on a chat forum. Weregerbil 12:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - borders on nonsense and per nom. MER-C 13:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above. BTLizard 13:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources (and why would there be?). I hate the internet sometimes... Recury 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - How can you have a disambiguation page for pages that do not exist??? --72.75.117.73 21:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note -- page was changed from "emoticon" to a disambiguation page (of a sort) in mid-AfD. 131.111.8.102 01:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • makes sense to me let them have the darn thing. who are you all to judge it? get over yourselves.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicdva (talk • contribs) 04:00, 23 September 2006
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. —Celestianpower háblame 16:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italia blue

This lady appears a long way off satisfying

WP:PORN BIO Ohconfucius 13:21, 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. Until your religion has achieved notability, enWiki is not the place to proselytize. Sorry. alphaChimp(talk) 00:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliottism

Unverifiable nonsense. Deletion notice removed several times without comment. Delete. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 13:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are other websites to do this on, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is designed to be an encyclopedia, not a hosting of someone's idea of a "religion" just because it's "funky" or "pretty cool". Again, if you have verifiable independent sources stating why this is notable, then the article can stay.
Wildthing61476 18:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Is this person the Elliott Wragg that the religion worships? If so, delete. Actually, delete the article anyway. It appears to be a complete hoax, and Wikipedia isn't meant for such things. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No i'm not Elliott Wragg, and am i not allowed to use words that people can actually understand? Such as "Pretty cool" and "Funky". We have published our religion on many other sights and they find it quite interesting that people like ourselves can come up with ideas like this. If you think it's a hoax then think differently, the religion is very real and will never end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.133.87 (talk • contribs)
  • This has nothing to do with whether it's "real". I guess these "many other sights" are ones that google and yahoo search can't find, because everything we can find is that Wikipedia is the first place it's been posted, and Wikipedia never wants to be a groundbreaker for anything. We only publish things that we can
    Reliable Sources. Fan-1967 19:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • See
    Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Without coverage from sources like that, deletion is pretty much automatic. Fan-1967 20:40, 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. alphaChimp(talk) 00:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photosynthesis misconceptions

This is the last of the "misconceptions" series to be considered for deletion -- they appear to have been a class project to write up instructional materials regarding scientific misconceptions. In this case, (1) the article appears to be irretrievable OR -- none of the misconceptions appeared in the first cited source, and the second source is an unaccessable cd-rom; (2) it appears to be advertising -- the entire second half is either copied from the promotional materials for the cd-rom discussed or is simple advertising for the cd-rom; (3) it's instructional, not encyclopedic, and belongs on wikibooks if anywhere TheronJ 13:39, 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 Speedy delete a8, copyvio. NawlinWiki 14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digispace

This entry fails

reliable sources. Speedy tag removed by creator. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:13, 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. -

iablo 11:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Staff of Rar

Contested prod. Per the article, slang term for a marijuana cigarette, claimed as common on IRC. Likely vanity in attribution.

WP:WINAD. -- Fan-1967 13:47, 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 Merged to Leather (there was less info in this article) Yomanganitalk 18:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrich leather

Delete. Nothing links here, and it does not expand upon relevant info under ostrich or leather. --Vossanova o< 13:49, 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 no consensus. -

iablo 16:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Living Torah Museum

A museum started by a redlinked Lubavitcher rabbi whose synagogue and book were deleted as lacking evidence of significance (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liozna). No evidence of significance, no references, 39 unique Googles. Looking at the excluded Gogole results I think this has also been astroturfed in the past. Guy 13:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE. Not notable --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong KEEP. The reason for this listing for deletion is wrong, a google search for "Living Torah Museum" produced 48,000 results. Would seem most certainly notable of an article. Mathmo 03:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
but only 39 unique ones, as can be seen when you try clicking on the pages to see the results. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a lack of both established notability and verifiable information. One of the references given is a blog, written by someone who hadn't even seen the museum. Not quite what I'd call a
    reliable source. --Huon 08:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • There are museums which fit in one room, and museums which fill whole buildings. Which is this? Is existence now sufficient for inclusion? The rest of the walled garden of which this was part has now been deleted. Guy 09:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the museum is unique since most Orthodox Jews do not visit secular museums - yet this one has the approval of being "
    Tanakh on a theoretical level. The rabbi who runs it, Rabbi Shaul Deutsch (and it is not a "crime" to be red-linked on Wikipedia as far as I know), also writes a weekly lengthy column about the subjects in the museum in the American Modia newspaper (which in itself would make him notable in many Haredi circles and always remember: notability is relative), a widely-read Haredi weekly read in Brooklyn and beyond. Google alone is no way to judge issues and subjects of importance to Haredi Jews, and how else is the world going to learn about Haredi Jews if articles about such things will be wiped off the map as illustrated by Guy's comments. IZAK 02:26, 26 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. —Celestianpower háblame 16:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blop This article just keeps on coming back, and seems to be a magnet for invention. On
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), this meaning for this verb is a protologism, and there's apparently nothing to write about what blopping actually is. Uncle G 14:31, 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. enWiki is not the appropriate vehicle for self promotion. alphaChimp(talk) 00:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes of Destiny

Article reads as advertising for a non-notable series of books. No hits on Amazon for either "Heroes of Destiny" or "Kevin Wong". In addition I suspect possible vanity, as author of article is KevinW001.

Wildthing61476 14:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Added author's article
    Wildthing61476 14:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete the book article, userfy the other one. Make that delete both. This gentleman came here to promote himself. - Lucky 6.9 14:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, blatant violation of
    Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Don't think this will be notable when the advertising is removed. --ais523 15:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment My Heroes of Destiny books are self-published and they are not available on Amazon; they are only and exclusively available from my official website: www.kevinwong.ca . That is why you didn't see any "hits" on Amazon for "Heroes of Destiny" or "Kevin Wong". "Non-notable" - who determines what is notable? You? (Whoever you are)? Just because I wrote what I - Kevin Wong - genuinely believe and am about, and hence my books are about too, does not make me vain. Just because I started two Wikipedia pages about me and my books does not make me vain; I only wanted to START them. My fans and future fans - clearly none of which are you, the posters above, and the admin / editors who harrassed or even prematurely deleted my entries - will maintain them from this point forward. Thus far, I have unfortunately only encountered regarding my entries the following people: the people who have harrassed or insulted me to this point; the people who have shown blatant disregard towards me and my books; and, last - but certainly not least - the people who have exercised a complete abuse of power by deleting my Wikipedia pages MULTIPLE times - without ever reading them even ONCE as far as I am concerned. Wikipedia is a place of knowledge and learning. I am trying to get people to know and learn about me and my books. But as is often the case with computers - and some unfortunate souls sitting in front of them - they get pleasure from causing other people pain. Even if you delete my entries now, in time, you will all eventually have to allow them, because I - Kevin Wong - and my books - Heroes of Destiny - will be too famous and too successful to deny. It's just a matter of time, and it's just a personal question of whether you want to be my enemy, or my friend. I'd rather the latter, but I've dealt with my fair share of enemies before, and if I have to here too, then fine; this comment of mine here is my side of the story - and my half of the battle. But ultimately - far beyond this inane discussion - me and my books becoming successful is all that will matter; and when - not if - this happens, I have to admit, it will be even sweeter if I did it in SPITE of today's events - not because of them. I've said what I had to say. Do as you will.
    • reply Notability of a person is based on
      WP:Auto and you have a poor case. If you wish to get people to know about you and your books there are better ways. Send your books to reviewers at major sites. Advertise in the right forums. If that succeeds, then you can certainly be included in Wikipedia, and I hope you don't feel any rancor about it. FrozenPurpleCube 15:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete - Rampant vanicruft. Onebravemonkey 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all, author page fails
    WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Kinu t/c 15:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Self-published books, impossible to verify sales, very few GHits. Per author's comments above, by all means, when you and the books are famous, the articles will be welcome. That time has not yet come. Fan-1967 15:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems that you have taken the deletion debate very personally. I assure you, this is nothing personal (around 1000 entries on Wikipedia are up for deletion at any one time, and we have no time to hate them all.) We just have policies for what articles are allowed on Wikipedia, based on the
    reliable third-party sources, like newspapers, magazines, reviews, etc. This has nothing to do with how the quality of your work, it's just that there are no sources in the article about this book (it seems that the Daily News, a paper in Halifax, has written a review, but I have no idea what the review is about or if the review has been grouped in with other books.) In summary, please read all the policies I've listed to get more of an idea about Wikipedia and why the policies are in place. ColourBurst 17:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete' because I don't like having hot air blown up my exhaust pipe.
    Danny Lilithborne 20:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Goodness. Erm... good luck in your future endeavours, sir. Delete both. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Vanity press? Well-named. Trust us, kid, you'll thank us for this later when you come to your senses. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear author: your books are self-published and that is precisely why the
    WP:BK proposed guideline says that this article should be Deleted. Pascal.Tesson 18:28, 20 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. -

iablo 15:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

2006 Queens blackout

Poorly written article without much notability, as indicated by the tags. It did happen, passes

WP:V, but not a very well needed article here. --Nicholas Weiner 14:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Did some of the editing I described above. Still needs to be brought up to date.Edison 18:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah fixing it up is definitely necessary. As with some fuckin' revisions - wouldn't that be the shit? And anyways I might be using this AfD discussion as a wake-up call to fix up this article. --Nicholas Weiner 15:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think a blackout farther from CNN and Fox and the Big Three TV networks and the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, but affecting about the same number of households, would have gotten nearly as much media coverage? It didn't affect the airports or Shea Stadium. I don't want to declare it notable solely due to an accident of geography.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I don't think it affected enough people or a large enough area to be notable, but I'm uncomfortale with non-notability per se as a reason to delete an article that's not vanity or an ad and that people might well look up.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it affected hundreds of thousands of people for an extended period of time. There were dozens if not hundreds of news stories written about it. We have notability guidelines to ensure we have enough verifiable information to write an article; this is definitely so. We include obscure topics in wikipedia because
    WP:NOT paper, and we don't need to cut things out for not being important--we only cut them because they can't meet our standards. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You show me a traffic jam that ties up a hundred thousand people for a week and I'll write an article about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calton 's comment suggests that a traffic jam lasting a few hours equals a blackout lasting a week, with elderly people stuck on the 20th floor of buildings with no running water and no refirgeration for their insulin. People died of heart attacks. UNBELIEVABLE!!!!Edison 04:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information either. I'm not saying things should be cut for being unimportant, I'm saying things should be cut if no one is ever likely to look them up. It's true there's no reason not to have such articles, but there's no reason to have them either. In any case, since we agree that 2006 Queens blackout should be kept, perhaps we should take this particular debate to Wikipedia talk:Notability–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment - Yes not that many were affected by this as opposed to other blackouts but this one lasted a lot longer too. --Nicholas Weiner 11:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Transitory news item of, at best, regional interest. That Wikipedia is not paper doesn't also mean that it's an informational garbage dump. --Calton | Talk 02:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also:
WP:NYCS} 01:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Absurd reasons for deleting this article. "List of people who caught the cold??? Does that make international news until each gets over their cold? See
2005 Java-Bali Blackout,& 2006 Auckland Blackout.Electricity is essential to life in a big city. Edison 04:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, but the nightly news still runs pieces about cold season and flu vaccines, and even though a Bonner County Idaho brown-out is a news item, it does not make any of the three (in addition to the subject of this AfD) notable or encyclopedic. Further, the common cold kills more people each year than blackouts...doesn't make it any more or less notable. In all actuality, the reasons aren't absurd, they're rather apt. —
ExplorerCDT 04:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
A brownout is a deliberate voltage reduction, typically 2.5% or 5%, done by a utility to reduce line loading and maintain service when the demand exceeds the supply of electricity. Our utility does that to us on about every hot day, but it is not much of a news item, and those without voltmeters are unlikely to notice it. A blackout is a prolonged failure to supply any electricity to a large area, resulting in people trapped in elevators, fire pumps not working, food and medicine spoiled, possible looting due to lack of night-time lighting in urban areas. When it occurs in a large city, it make worldwide news until restored. I do not see the logic of comparing a blackout to someone with the sniffles. There are dozens of articles on every known infectious disease. So what? This is a different topic.Edison 16:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has 17 citations, more than most articles and some featured articles. It's certainly verifiable and sourced, and probably notable. Any remaining problems can be attacked by a rewrite/cleanup. Cool3 22:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep please per crazy russian no reason to erase this really Yuckfoo 20:57, 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. —Celestianpower háblame 16:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for the other shoe to drop

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and that's what this is, a definition of an idiom. This belongs on wiktionary, and it in fact has already been transwikied there. Xyzzyplugh 14:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or put one of those crazy {{
    wi}} templates in there. Recury 19:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Is it possible to autoforward to Wikitonary when you do a Wikipedia search? I'd much rather have a one-stop-shop for looking up this kind of thing? 67.41.112.156 03:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not possible. What can be done is a
Premeditation for an example of this. --Xyzzyplugh 22:02, 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 keep and cleanup. Whispering(talk/c) 16:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farm Sanctuary

This article is just a push piece for "Farm Sanctuary," a non-notable organization. It contains no sources other than the organization's web site. The article has a history of copyright violations, with content directly copied from the organization's web site. Brooklyn5 is probably connected with the organization; he/she uploaded the photo in the article and licensed it under the GFDL. Few people who don't actually work there would ever go to this farm. That, or the image is falsely tagged GFDL, and Brooklyn5 isn't at liberty to license it. Davidstrauss 15:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • NPOV and Keep but only if it truly gets cleaned up. (Vote changed due to NYT article) --Davidstrauss 15:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up, NPOV, and Keep. Farm Sanctuary is highly notable within the animal rights, veganism, and vegetarianism communities. (Few people ever go to Mount Aconcagua, either, but it is notable. :-) ). -- Writtenonsand 16:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comment about how many people go there wasn't about notability. It was about highlighting the likely relationship between the article's primary author and the organization. Brooklyn5 licensed the photo GFDL-self, so he or she took it. The only way to take it is to go there. The likely reason he or she went there is an affiliation with the organization. --Davidstrauss 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okey-dokey. -- Writtenonsand 16:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are no copyright violations on this page. I work for Farm Sanctuary and Farm Sanctuary allows the use of its text under the GFDL license, and of its image under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses. I have already contacted Wikipedia about this matter on 9/18/06 Ticket#2006091810010581. I am connected with the organization, but this article is quite factual. Farm Sanctuary is highly notable among those in the animal rights community and we have many thousands of visitors each year. Please do read the New York Times article cited above for more info. Thanks. -- Brooklyn5 00:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
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. Xoloz 14:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim "Youngblood" Chapman

This was originally an A7 speedy. A DRV consensus overturned this as improper. The article is submitted to AfD for consideration, which might include discussion over whether to move the article, if it is kept. This is a procedural nomination, so I ought to abstain. I will say, though, that that if this article isn't kept, it should be merged to Dog Chapman or his television show. Xoloz 15:30, 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 Speedy deleted as previously deleted re-created content. -- Longhair 13:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Jackson (Australian political candidate)

Not notable, appears to be vanity article. User has created four identical articles using spelling variations in the title. Cordless Larry 15:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Jackson (Australian politicial candidate). Sub-stub with hardly any information on non-notable candidate. Fan-1967 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Candidates are rarely notable. -- Necrothesp 22:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Very non-notable independent candidate (and Wikipedia vandal). Rebecca 01:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I have no objects to an article about Adrian Jackson, but not an artilce that was written by him!!!136.186.1.189 05:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Vanity,
    Teiresias84 23:57, 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 delete. Sango123 19:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major Stepan Klark

del nonverifiabl. Possible hoax. `'mikka (t) 15:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete may be notable, may be verifiable, but I suspect that the information is all in Russian. Don't know if it's in ru, but if it's not, it shouldn't be here. FrozenPurpleCube 15:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It wasn't in ru when I looked some time ago. Nor was he listed on the Russian Federation website WarHeroes.ru, in either Russian or English. I could find no newspaper reports. See my note on the talk page. I suspect a hoax; looking at the names listed, they could conceivably be 'Russified' versions of English names: Stephen Clerk, Andrew Lucas, Peter Dennis, and so on. --BillC 18:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's a strong evidence of hoax. Search both in English and Russian yields no results. MaxSem 20:50, 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 delete. Sango123 19:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nerta

del nonverifiable "celtic goddess". `'mikka (t) 15:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete,
    per nom. PJM 17:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete --Bookandcoffee 17:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand--Nixer 21:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources in a google search (English language, +Nerta +celtic -Wikipedia, and god or goddess or diety) returning only 32 uniques among 52 total results. No sourcing in the article, and nothing more than a dictionary definition even if true.
    GRBerry 14:03, 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 redirect. Sango123 19:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Happy Cat

Non-notable. This was a one-time gag on The Simpsons. The article on

Itchy & Scratchy already contains this info. Nonpareility 15:52, 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.


I have considered the opposing points-of-view in this discussion and decided to delete the page. An encyclopedia article cannot be written on this subject at present, and there is no good reason to believe that this is likely to change in a reasonable period of time. Regards —Encephalon 15:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The World's Strongest Weirdo! Django The Hypnotist!

Not notable and not encyclopedic. Shazbot85Talk 15:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participants may also wish to see Category:One Piece episodes. —Encephalon 17:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Articles are not supposed to be composed solely of plot sumary and nothing else. Also, One Piece already has One Piece Story Arcs article which should be trimmed little but which is enough. I am also not convinced that we need 250+ articles on each and every single One Piece episode. Some episodes, which are especially notable, should have articles on them, and they should then explain why are they so notable. Shinhan 06:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth; when nominated it was context-free CSD A1 gibberish and it is not much beyond that now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone wants to compile a list of One Peice episodes, that's fine. We don't need seperate articles for everyone, a simple list on the cartoon's main wikipage is sufficient. Shazbot85Talk 20:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth and Shinhan; there is no need to grant an article to every episode, and much less so to a mere plot summary. TewfikTalk 19:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.
    WP:ENC. —Encephalon 15:13, 29 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. -

iablo 16:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Handmark

The entry fails the criteria in

reliable sources. This is a failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:25, 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 nomination withdrawn. The article has been converted to a disambiguation page. Mindmatrix 15:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMCS Toronto

This article duplicates information already on HMCS Toronto (K538) and HMCS Toronto (FFH 333). There's no need to have a generic article as well. Suttungr 16:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I didn't think of using disambiguation... so should I just go ahead and do it or wait for this discussion to end? Suttungr 19:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and turned the page into a disambiguation. I will leave the AfD to be removed by admin. Suttungr 15:30, 20 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. -

iablo 15:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Past Of The Three Swords! The Promise Between Zoro And Kuina!

No context, despite being tagged for a long time - seems to have been abandoned. Cordless Larry 16:45, 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. —Celestianpower háblame 16:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Befreak programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia isn't the place for things invented at University in one day. This is nothing beyond a joke. Do not even put it onto a list if there are no assertions of notability. -
    n 17:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Raw stub, based entirely off befunge and easily merged. LinaMishima 01:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think that the mass delete was out of order. This one certainly deserves the chop. Ohconfucius 05:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hahnchen; as close it is possible to get to no content without being speedied. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's the past esolang AfD box (many, but not all, of these are relevant):
Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.

Previous

deletion debates
:

--ais523 08:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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. -

iablo 15:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

BogusForth

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.

Previous

deletion debates
:

--ais523 08:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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. -

iablo 16:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

2000 AD Universe

Firstly there is no such thing as a shared universe for all characters in the comic 2000ad - It's an anthology comic where links between comics are the exception rather than the rule. The major exceptions to this are the various spin offs of Judge Dredd, which could probably be the basis for a Judge Dredd Universe article, and those of Pat Mills, who liked to join his stories together and then roped in Judge Dredd as well. In addition there are a few stories which spin off from other stories (such as Strontium Dog spawning Durham Red), but that would be better dealt with by the main articles for the stories and a few one off crossovers. There is no overall 'shared universe' or 'shared timeline' and the various stories often completely contradict each other.

I don't believs this is correctable within the article and so the article should be deleted. I considered puttuing in a bunch of qualifiers but that would make the whole thing into an essay (which it leans towards anyway) and would at any rate would be contradicted by the title.

Secondly, and probably more importantly in wiki-terms, finding joins between these stories and trying to fit them together as a shared universe and a shared timeline consititute original research. Artw 16:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep There is a large central section to the timeline which is rock solid part of a shared universe (from Bill Savage to Hammerstein to Dredd and back to Hammerstein again, with various time travelling excursions stretching things forward and backwards in time) and other stories have interwoven with this (some have even been tweaked at a later date so that they fit better within the same shared Universe but that is a clear sign that there is such a thing as a 2000 AD Universe). As in the DC Universe and Marvel Universe entries there is a core timeline with other elements from parallel univserses which is a similar situation to the one we hav here. I'm unsure how to address the original research accusation - the information is in the stories so does reading the stories count as original research? I'd have thought it was more a rather important prerequisite. (Emperor 21:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - this is
    original research. The introduction puts forward some suppositions about possible connections between stories and the timeline brings together disparate storylines and characters in an attempt to present them as connected. Yomanganitalk 21:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment: I'm unsure how it can count as original research - it references the stories the information comes from and is based on other published timelines. If the wording at the start is at fault then that can be addressed. (Emperor 22:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The existence of the storylines and characters isn't original research, but the argument that they are connected (making up a single "universe") appears to be. If it isn't original research, then you need to cite
reliable sources that have already presented this timeline, in order to support your argument. Yomanganitalk 22:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The original research would come from making the connections between all these separate series, not the timeline events. Individual stories are mentioned but I don't see any specific citations for these published timelines or stories where the fact that any particular number of strips are set in the same universe is established. --
khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The work that's been going on on the 2000AD entries has been uniformly superb. However, I have to say I agree that this article seems to contradict
original research guidelines. Despite a small handful of crossovers, most (all?) involving the comic's central character Judge Dredd, the idea of a shared 2000AD universe on the same lines as the Marvel Universe is certainly not widely accepted by the comic's editors or writers (which is why the title doesn't have wank like Infinite Crisis). Although many stories do have dates attached, there is no sense of continuity between events - so Scotland, for example, can be destroyed in Dredd, and be just fine for the later Strontium Dog. For all of which reason, I vote to delete. Vizjim 22:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep: Firstly, the article does not suggest that all of the stories in 2000 AD are connected, just a good proportion of them, and there are many more of these than just those involving Judge Dredd. It does not really advance the case for deletion very far to say that one writer, Pat Mills, was responsible for most of this, because his contribution to the comic has been massive, and the series which are connected to each other are all major ones. When you consider that Dredd, Strontium Dog, Flesh, Nemesis, ABC Warriors, Rogue Trooper, Harlem Heroes and Invasion/Savage are all explicitly linked to each other -- and I haven't even mentioned their respective spin-offs, like Durham Red or Anderson Psi -- this is just as valid a subject for an article (provided it is not original research) as the Marvel Universe, as long as this article makes it clear that it does not encompass every story in 2000 AD. (Of course, I agree that speculation about how stories might fit together should certainly be avoided, so the "Smithiverse" entry should be separated from the main part of the article and should have its own section at the bottom. Any other speculation needs to be either verified or removed.)
Secondly, this is only original research to the extent that the article speculates or hypothesises about how stories might fit together but where the evidence is thin or non-existent, eg. the paragraph about the "Smithiverse" -- anything which can be called "suppositions about possible connections". Things like this should of course be edited out. However, there are many crossover stories in which the characters from respective series have actually met each other, and I don't mean (for example) that Judge Dredd has met Judge Anderson. I mean that Dredd has met Rogue Trooper, the Harlem Heroes and Strontium Dog, for example, all of which were original series, not spin-offs from one source strip. So to describe this as "original research" is simply to deny objective and verifiable facts. Arguing that there is not a shared Universe because Scotland was destroyed in one story and then was OK in another story comes much much closer to constituting original research than merely pointing out that Dredd and Johnny Alpha have met each other twice. Using facts to propose a theory is original research, but merely collecting uncontroversial and indisputable facts in the same place for ease of reference is not -- and splitting everything into lots of separate article would just make it hard to follow.
To conclude: This article could use some further editing to address the issues raised by Artw, but I do not accept that the identified problems are not even correctable, and that the only possible solution is to delete and to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." No thought at all seems to have gone into how the article could be edited to resolve these points: just a knee-jerk reaction to delete at once. (I am not suggesting bad faith, just impetuousness.) I will have a go myself in a day or two (no time tonight).
  • It needs to make completely clear, if it does not already (I think it does, IMHO), that the 2000 AD Universe does not include all stories, but that the quantity and significance / endurance of the stories it does include make the Universe notable enough to warrant an article.
  • It needs to be confined to stories with clear and unambiguous links to each other. Where there are two universes with no clear connections between them, this should be made plain, and they should be under separate sub-headings to avoid confusion.
  • The References section should (if it doesn't already, I haven't checked) list each story which explicitly ties one series to another.
  • The article as a whole should distinguish which stories are spin-offs from another story (eg. Judge Anderson from Judge Dredd) and which stories began independently form each other and were later tied together (eg. Nemesis and Flesh).
Finally, I think that the intercompany crossovers section is worth keeping regardless.
Richard75 23:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - if the article name is misleading or confusing then we could move the page. Richard75 23:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I suppose it depends on where the line is drawn on original research. If it is suggested that this could be the core of a Judge Dredd Universe entry then the main part sof this are deemed OK and the problem is with my clumsy introduction which attempted to put it in context (the mentions of the Smithiverse and Rogiverse are largely to say it is unclear how they fit in - not as an attempt to fit them in). However, a Judge Dredd Universe timeline would basically include much of what is already there due to a number of characters overlapping providing continuity over long stretches of time (Savage, Hammerstein, the Giant family, Dredd, etc.) and wouldn't be a Judge Dredd Universe timeline it would be a timeline covering the core of the 2000 AD Universe which brings us back to where we are. I do agree that a lot of this sounds like grounds for heavy edititng and clarification not for deletion and that is why I've been trying to get as much input on this as possible and it has imporved and I was confident it could have been improved further with further input. (Emperor 00:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
What you shouldn't be doing is advancing your own arguments, even if you are qualifying them with "probably" or "seems" etc. (that, in fact, makes it worse) or drawing your own conclusions from existing sources. I'm currently of the opinion it should be deleted because the timeline is an amalgam of different sources which purports to represent an established timeline referenced in the comic, but with no evidence that it is anything other than your interpretation; the first section consists of possibilities and references to other established universes which does nothing to advance the argument for the article; and the crossovers section is just that: a section on crossovers, rather than providing evidence of a 2000 AD Universe (although that probably comes closest to establishing a basis for the article's existence). I'm not saying it can't be saved, since I don't think notability is a problem here, but you'd essentially be starting a new article under a different title. Yomanganitalk 01:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The early history of 2000ad was spent creating a universe dedicated to the characters--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case then the article should reflect that. AFAIK It isn't. Artw 15:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done some extensive editing. There is one [citation needed] which needs filling in (see the article's talk page) but apart from that, see what you think. Richard75 23:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite still doesn't address the central problem of verifying the existence of a 2000 AD Universe. Right now that argument is still
original research. You need to provide a third party source that argues for the existence of the concept. I suggested to Emperor that this be rewritten from a crossover perceptive (as the comics themselves provide the sources in that case), and I still think that is the best idea. Yomanganitalk 14:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I have taken this as evidence. Even though it only covers the central period of the timeline it shows the existence on one continuous timeline covering at least 4 different sets of stories (Invasion/Savage, ABC Warriors, Judge Dredd and Strontium Dog) not including the Helter Skelter event. There has also been at least one other longer timeline which has formed the basis of the current Origins story (hence the hat tip at the start of the story). The fact that there are some continuity errors is down to them
Hammerstein carry on through the Judge Dredd era to the far future and including Nemesis the Warlock. In some ways he is, as I say on his entry, some kind of Zelig-type figure who crops up in the major stories within the 2000 AD Universe from round about now to the far future (another source for that). I can't really see how that is original research - the story of Hammerstein is the story of the 2000 AD Universe - its all there on the pages to be read. (Emperor 15:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC))[reply
]
I am aware of that timeline, and in fact have contributed to it. It is a Judge Dredd Universe timeline, with some of the Pat Mills stuff integrated in. It is not a timeline of the "2000ad Universe". It is also for the most part fan created rather than being in anyway "official". Artw 16:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is no answer to say that it is "fan created rather than being in anyway 'official'." The Wikipedia:No original research page says: "Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate". Whether you agree that the fans are right or wrong is outside the scope of Wikipedia's responsiblity, as long as it's verifiable. Secondary sources are actually preferable: "most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources". The external sources are enough to make this source-based research rather than original research.
Also I can not see any significant distinction between a "2000 AD universe" and a "Judge Dredd universe with non-Dredd stories integrated in" (to paraphrase). It's a secondary source which illustrates how some Dredd and non-Dredd stories relate to each other chronologically, and for the stories to appear in the same history/timeline then they have to exist in the same universe. As for the Dredd timeline only covering the middle part of the bigger 2000AD timeline, that is dealt with by the information on Hammerstein. In short, this article does not postulate some new and innovative theory that has never been described before, it just reports on an already existing idea discussed outside Wikipedia. Richard75 18:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles only back up your ideas if, as you say, there is no difference between there being a "2000ad Universe" and "Judge Dredd universe with non-Dredd stories integrated in". I'd argue that theres a huge degree of difference there, and also that an article defining the term "2000ad universe" as "Judge Dredd universe with non-Dredd stories integrated in" would violate
WP:NEO
- check out the low number of GHits on the term. Conspicuously the current article doesn't stop there, and that's were the bulk of the OR comes in.
Also by citing fan created sources the article risks becoming an OR compendium of fancruft, which would be further reason to delete it. Artw 19:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So now citing sources constitutes original reserach? You're reaching now.Richard75 00:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely possible for an article to cite sources and be original research, if attempts to draw some OR point from those sources. Artw 01:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the entry doesn't say anymore than those sources - a number of 2000 AD stories exist on the same timeline (Invasion, ABC Warriors, Judge Dredd, Strontium Dog and Nemesis the Warlock) and a number of others have interacted with this core as parallel universes. That's not original research that is a fact - its all there in the comics. Also as you've suggested it could form a Judge Dredd Universe and Yomangani and Vizjim have suggested it might work better as "2000 AD Crossovers" (although I highlight problems with that above) it suggests to me the issue is with the wording and the focus (and possibly the title) which is an issue for debate rather than deletion. (Emperor 11:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Possibly moving it to "2000 AD shared timeline" might solve the problem? That doesn't posit the existence of a universe per se, and seems supported by the sources. Yomanganitalk 12:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not unreasonable but some of the crossovers take place with parallel dimensions (thanks to the
Dark Judges and their dimension jumping technology. I'm still unsure what is controversial about a number of 2000 AD stories occupying the same universe along a timeline which interacts with other stories in parallel universes. Its all there in the comics and isn't based on guesswork. Although there is a DC Universe and a Marvel Universe this doesn't imply all DC or Marvel stories share that universe - some exist on a general timeline (e.g., from say the Justice Society to the Legion of Superheroes), others interact with this core from parallel universes, some stories are completely separate and some others are of unknown relation to the main "spine" (although one suspects they might try and retcon some into it at some point). All of which exists in the 2000 AD Universe. It may be the article needs its focus shifting to emphasise this but in all this I haven't actually heard an arguement explaining why someone doesn't think such a thing actually exists. (Emperor 13:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC))[reply
]
I actually wouldn't mind moving it to "2000 AD crossovers", because it's a broader title, and this would mean that the sections on intercompnay crossovers and John Smith stories would be more relevant. I don't think we can fairly say that Batman, Lobo, Aliens and Predator are part of a "2000 AD universe" because they are not 2000 AD stories, and we have already conceded that Smith's stories are not necessarily crossovers with the others. I doubt that it would be enough to satisfy Artw (unless we removed the timeline, which I am loathe to do and I do not believe is necessary), but it would help to build a consensus. Richard75 16:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the moving/renaming solutions its crossovers that sounds the best one - my main concerns are that it doesn't really include Invasion/Savage (although one could suggest that the Volgans provide the crossover) and that a number of important events from the Judge Dredd part of the timeline would need removing (although again as so much is crossover material most of it can stay). If a better solution presents itself we can always move it again but as things stand that seems the best solution on the table at the moment. (Emperor 20:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. I know nothing about these particular comics and I found the article through the AfD listing. It appears you folks are really into these, like others are into Marvel. Keep in mind that WP is for the masses, not for experts. The article seems to provide quite a bit of information for someone not familiar with the topic and per above it does rely on sources. If there is some debate about whether particular stories are part of the timeline, the appropriate thing to do is point that out in a section of the article, not delete the article.
    • I do suggest renaming the article. Judging from the name alone I thought it might have something to do with physics or history. RickReinckens 05:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote in light of the arguments above to Keep and rename as 2000AD crossovers. Maybe a separate Judge Dredd timeline article as well? Vizjim 07:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've missed the main bulk of this disccussion but the article should be kept. In the early days of 2000AD the intention was always to have a shared universe for some of their stories. As has been pointed out, there's numerous examples of this throughout the comics histroy going right back to 1977. Logan1138 15:00, 29 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. Redirect optional -

iablo 15:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Brainfork

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Ohconfucius: multi-threaded brainfuck indeed. No refs beyond a dead web page. That should tell us all we need to know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Here's the past esolang AfD box (many, but not all, of these are relevant):
Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.

Previous

deletion debates
:

--ais523 08:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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 redirect.

Petros471 16:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Braintwist

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Here's the past esolang AfD box (many, but not all, of these are relevant):
Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.

Previous

deletion debates
:

--ais523 08:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


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. -

iablo 15:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Bubble programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.

Previous

deletion debates
:

--ais523 08:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postromancy

Neologism, vanity, original research. Contested prod. -- Merope Talk 17:09, 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. -

iablo 15:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Outerworld

A long unencyclopedic article on a Canadian novel that, quite possibly, has never been published. Although the article states that the novel and associated works "have so far only been released in French" (titles and dates of publication not provided), the author, Jean-Michel Morency, is unrecognized by the Bibliothèque de Montréal, Abebooks, Amazon.ca and Chapters.Indigo.ca. "Jean-Michel Morency" receives 5 unique ghits - this Wikipedia article being the most prominent. The remaining four hits appear not to be related to the author. Victoriagirl 17:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 18:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, although "As they talk about what happened, a bus loaded with sexy women drives up to them." was good for a laugh. Recury 19:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:BK. I would like to add that I live in Quebec and do follow (albeit not that intensely) the local litterature. No clue who this guy is. Pascal.Tesson 18:31, 20 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

WP:CSD G1 (Liberatore, 2006). 17:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

John cena quotes

This is a procedural nomination as it was not comepeted. - neutral. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 17:33, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiralmouth

No evidence of notability per

talk 17:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Who cares! This article stays. You're obviously not a Crash Bandicoot fan. Cat's Tuxedo 18:05, 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. -

iablo 15:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Islam in Greenland

So there is possibly one Muslim in Greenland (unconfirmed). Wouldn't this material be better covered in an article about religion in Greenland? Greenland has 70,000 people which is barely equivalent to a small city in most countries. MacRusgail 17:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with this entry. It could be merged with Religion in Greenland, but I think it is fine on its own. Other countries and pseduo-countries have articles on Islam see Islam in Barbados, Islam in Seychelles or Islam in New Caledonia.
  • Delete there's no point in having an article just to report that something is virtually inexistent. It's like Singaporeans in Liechtenstein.--Húsönd 18:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not statistically significant enough to warrant an article, and there probably isn't enough research material available to base an article upon either. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - That said someone should create a religion subsection in Culture of Greenland or perhaps even a Religion in Greenland article as it could be of interest. They were the first part of North America to have Christians, the Viking Greenland colony was largely Christian before dissolution, and Inuit beliefs could be of interest. Islam would be a very minor part of such an article, at best.--T. Anthony 19:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per everyone. Recury 19:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Greenland is not a country, like Barbados, Seychelles, or New Caledonia ... it's part of Denmark, like Alaska and Hawaii are part of the United States. --72.75.117.73 21:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm you are aware that New Caledonia is not an independent nation and that Greenland has more autonomy than Hawaii. I voted delete here, but let's try to use valid justifications.--T. Anthony 23:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment England, Scotland, Wales are not countries either. They have statistics articles. 132.205.44.134 00:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, England Scotland and Wales are all proper countries and refer to themselves as such. As is Greenland. But they are not sovereign states, which is I think the term that you folk are looking for. Don't confuse "state" with "country". --MacRusgail 15:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article is NN. Arbusto 19:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. JASpencer 10:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, subject is non-existent. RFerreira 04:26, 26 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 20:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally Vitamins

Does not appear to meet

WP:CORP. Mere advertising. Deli nk 18:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, if you are going to have "nutraceuticals" as a category, it seems appropriate to also reference companies in the nutraceutical industry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrenzyme (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator about WP:CORP as it applies to this article. I'm neutral on the question of an article about Marlyn Nutraceuticals, if someone wanted to write on of those and then smerge this into it. As for the Hoovers link cited above, I don't know what it's meant to indicate, but it's giving me a "page not found" error. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here is a different Hoovers link. The point of providing the Hoovers link is in response to Point 2 under "Criteria for Companies and Corporations" which reads:
2 The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.
Hoovers, a publication of Dunn & Bradstreet, is the foremost aggregator of company lists and profiles. Marlyn Nutraceuticals does business as Naturally Vitamins and is listed in Hoovers, consequently meeting point 2 in the Criteria for Companies and Corporations. In the WP:CORP requirements, the Criteria for Companies and Corporations states, "A product or service is notable if it meets any of the following criteria".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrenzyme (talk • contribs)
Point 1 of the Criteria for Companies and Corporations states, "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Here are articles relating to Marlyn Nutraceuticals and Naturally Vitamins:
Naturally Vitamins extends Wobenzym deal
Green Manufacturer Marlyn Nutraceuticals Recognized as 2005 Manufacturer of the Year by Arizona Association of Industries
Marlyn Nutraceuticals Awarded $6.3 Million by Federal Jury
Vitamin maker debuts new pills
  • Your second and third links are "media reprints of press releases", which are expressly disqualified by the passage in question, and the fourth link does not qualify as a
    WP:CORP as applied to the Hoovers profile, as that section is meant to apply to printed statements of being "the Nth-largest manufacturer of Commodity X", or the "Nth-largest company in Country Y". There are more than 18 million company profiles in the Hoovers database, and as such, the distinction is not a particularly exclusive one. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I think you meant that point 1 was from an unreliable source and link 4 was only two sentences, as I can't imagine you'd believe the Business Journal isn't a credible source.
In response to Link 1 being from an unreliable source, please elaborate. NutraIngredients-USA.com is a credible, third party news source that publishes articles related to the health food industry. NutraIngredients-USA.com is published by Decision News Media, a publisher of 23 highly targeted industry news websites. Their website traffic is audited by BPA Worldwide to ensure advertisers are paying for credible links.
Here are some more relevant links that I've uncovered since first posting:
Business Journal: Vitamin firm's ads noticed
Business Journal: New vitamin plant debuts
Business Journal: Vitamins donated for children
Business Journal: Avoid blood clots while traveling
In response to the point that articles 2 and 3 are PR reprints...yes, they are however I believe they should be considered relevant because they are not promotion pieces but rather verifiable facts. In regards to the link indicating that Marlyn Nutraceuticals received the Arizona Association of Industries Manufacturer of the Year award, AAI only publishes the most recent year. This year Intel and Armor Works were the recipients. While yes, the press release was generated by Marlyn, the award was provided by AAI and can be verified by contacting them. Here is another link, not Marlyn's press release but a mention in a 3rd party publication regarding the same award
In response to Link 3, the judgement awarded by a Federal Jury. Marlyn won a trial against a company making false claims in Federal Court. Here is a link to the case report at morelaw.com
Here is a separate link I found regarding a cybersquating case involving Marlyn Nutraceuticals.
In response to the point 2 in the Criteria for Companies and Corporations, the criteria is that the company is "listed" in the ranking indices. Hoovers by it's nature is a ranking index and Marlyn is listed. Where a company falls within the listing or the number of companies in the index are not stated in Point 2, and I consequently I feel your point that Hoover's has 18 million companies listed is irrelevant. Please understand, I get your point, it's just not part of the criteria listed in WP:CORP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrenzyme (talk • contribs)
  • You are correct in your assumption about link one and four; apologies for getting my wires crossed. In general, websites like that one are not considered reliable sources (See
    WP:RS#Using_online_and_self-published_sources). NutraIngredients-USA.com is not peer-reviewed, it is not produced by an well-known independently-published journalist, its articles do not cite their own sources, and the degree and quality of editorial oversight are unclear. As such, it doesn't meet our guidelines for sources. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • strong keep this is the most important article ever written in Wikipedia Oh, wait, it's just advertispam. Delete. Stev0 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, naturally spam. RFerreira 04:26, 26 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 merge anything useful into Dublin. Since I don't know what's useful and the people who should know better at Talk:Dublin don't think it's useful, I've just redirected and placed a notice there. If someone disagrees and thinks there's more to merge, they are free to get it from the history of this article. - Bobet 09:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Dublin

Reasons for nom:

  • Article does not refer to a defined geographical, geopolitical or cultural term.
  • Subjective POV content and
    weasel words
    . ("It is thought that...", and "used more by Journalists ... based in Dublin 4 ... to indicate anywhere among the new suburbs ... (with) ... lower socio-economic profile.")
  • No sources/references provided.
  • Limited value as encyclopedic article. (Opening intro even suggests that topic is not notable: "neither a formal administrative area, nor has it any historical significance")
  • Redundant given that there are plenty of articles which cover the topic and which do refer to defined geographical, geopolitical and otherwise defined concepts. (Namely:
    Dublin postal districts, and the other constituents of Category:Geography of Dublin
    )

Guliolopez 18:16, 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 merge and redirect to

Greenhills Shopping Center. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

V-Mall

non-notable shopping center. Nekohakase 18:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article as it currently exists doesn't add anything of value, and reads like advertising. This might potentially be salvaged if some kind soul went through, cut out all the trivial details about individual stores, and re-focused the article on the major software piracy ring that was based there (as described in this link, among other places). Even then, it'd be borderline, though. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (partially) into
    Kappa 23:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    Kappa 01:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)"[reply
    ]

*Delete as a non-notable mall. Malls are almost inherently non-notable and nothing here is at all a claim to notability. JoshuaZ 03:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Smerge Since there is a logical target article. I'd rather not have it either but we might as well stick this there for now. JoshuaZ 23:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    Kappa 04:04, 20 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. Whispering(talk/c) 05:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asma Gull Hasan

Notability. Also, even if this person is sufficiently notable, the article is barely a stub. Caliga10 18:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Her work is cited often enough by other authors (Some books: [12], [13], [14], [15]. Some journals: [16], [17].) , she's had columns printed in the New York Times[18] and San Francisco Chronicle[19], appeared on CNN as an expert on Islam[20], etc. It's also a good sign that her book was published with a major house, that it went into two printings, that the Library of Congress has three copies in the stacks, and that it was reviewed by reputable publications (like this review in Sojourners). When articles on notable subjects are short, we should expand them, not delete them. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with that sentiment, and you seem to make a good argument for notability. Are you interested in expanding the article? Also, the "Muslim feminist cowgirl" thing sounded like a joke or something to me, so I wondered if the article was a serious entry. Also, 2 of the 3 links referenced in the article point to external pieces highly critical of her; I wonder if the article has an NPOV.--Caliga10 13:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article is in need of some work, and I often try to expand articles on AFD when they seem worthy, but I generally also try to stear cleer of major changes to articles related to religion. I went ahead and placed a request for expansion at Wikiproject:Islam, so maybe someone there will rise to the challenge. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:48, 20 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 -

WP:CSD#G4. Recreation of deleted material.  Netsnipe  ►  18:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Rome total war clans

Advertising for non-notable "gaming clans". Virtually identical article deleted 8 days ago, AFD notice is here: DarthBinky 18:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About time the importance of online clans is recognised (see artical 7 of the Eu's human rights act). --Viper X 18:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt retroactive criminalization has anything to do with online gaming. --Wafulz 19:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Article 7 - No punishment without law
1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
2. This article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations."
Not really relevant, is it? Hut 8.5 20:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Gaming clans are almost never notable. Also note that Viper X is pushing the 3RR limits on this and Rome: Total War --Jamoche 18:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Viper X has also now vandalized my userpage, addition- and based on his behavior, I suspect he is another sockpuppet of user:Mechanismtongs .--DarthBinky 18:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is some evidence that Viper X is a sock, as Mechanismtongs has previously quoted EU human rights regulations to support his ideas [21][22]. And if whoever is doing this feels the urge to vandalise my user page for saying this, please don't bother. Hut 8.5 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most gaming clans are non-notable, and this is no exception. Not that you can tell from the stub that's there. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Have improved the page and i do NOT expect the template to be added again" was good for a laugh, though. Recury 19:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't gaming clans, especially non-notable ones. --Wafulz 19:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete huh @ Viper X?!
    Danny Lilithborne 19:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Jamoche, though I'm not convinced that any gaming clan is ever notable. Fan-1967 20:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually - yeah. I just have an automatic aversion to stating absolutes. --Jamoche 23:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burnificate till cooked-through and slide it into the wayward burger-bun of gameclanlookatuswe'regreatcruft. There are a thousand-and-one little game sites simply dying to have clan names slapped all over them, WP is not MySpace. QuagmireDog 23:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: G4: reposted content from Rome total war online clans (AfD) --Pak21 08:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the end, this is not even the beginning of the end but this id perhaps the end of the beginning.--88.108.249.200 17:18, 20 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. alphaChimp(talk) 00:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Copeland (QA)

Delete: Fails

WP:BIO. Ghits show that all bar one results are Wikimirrors. A president of a minor student club cannot be notable unless he has done something else notable, even if that club itself is notable. His name can appear in the list of club officers, but he has no place in a freestanding article. Fiddle Faddle 18:32, 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. -

iablo 15:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Youth Voice FM

Non-notable internet radio station that doesn't look as if it's even broadcasting. I reckon this is just vanity. No assertion of notability, really. The JPStalk to me 18:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 365 google hits, 32 appear unique. Quote from the Youth Voice webpage, Voice FM sub-page -

"Youth Voice FM is currently offline but we are putting the plans together to launch again in October 2005 so if you're interested in getting involved, contact us for more information!!" Doesn't sound promising. Though it claims on the WP page that it broadcasts worldwide via the web, it really does look more like a local-interest organization. Article is very stubby, if I wasn't familiar with NE England, South Shields and North Shields, I wouldn't have known it was UK based till I saw the Union Jack on the bottom of the article. I'll change my vote if someone can come up with something better, but it's either dead or is so small-potatoes it doesn't update its own website. QuagmireDog 23:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'union jack' comment should also have added that the article is not well written since it doesn't even establish that it is based in North East England as opposed to North East USA or wherever. QuagmireDog 23:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable station staffed by non-notable DJs. Bridgeplayer 03:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn per nom, TewfikTalk 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and lack of Google results. Prolog 19:34, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Weetman

Non-notable internet radio presenter, on a station whose article is also up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Voice FM The JPStalk to me 18:58, 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. Woohookitty(meow) 16:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American (ethnic group)

This article contains only a small bit of information already covered in the article,

brendel 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Right, it is very important to "emphasize that this article is not about 'Americans' generally."
brendel 19:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
One should also note that many of the 7.2% who marked "American" as their ethnicity on the Census are also "hyphenated Americans" as many are likely to be European-Americans (the descendants of European settlers) as well. Fact is we don't know who these 7.2% are; thus we can't say anything about them. You're right the arguments supporting this article are OR and nullify each other.
brendel 21:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete YechielMan 22:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I guess that there are no ethnic groups and no races, because we all came from somewhere else and intermixed with others. This becomes moot, even though there are articles for other ethnic groups and hyphenated (immigrant) Americans. How you fail to see the difference between original people and subsequent additives, is beyond me. The barbarians who came to Rome may have assimilated to Roman culture and took Roman wives, but were not the Roman people themselves who founded Rome. Do you not understand such a comparison? The mere fact that the Trojans (or Greeks) were originally squatters on Etruscan (ooh, Indians--anybody?) land does not nullify the concept of a Roman people, as they were established in existence. There is no regard for traditional thinking in Wikipedia--you lot are actively hostile to the recognition of the New World's version of the Roman experience with all the parallels before you and admitted in common discourse. I guess I may have to phone up my Appalachian-based American grandma of mostly Virginia descent to inform her that she doesn't exist. Our ideals are "gone with the wind", which you are apparently blowing to knock our house down. It is you who have no perspective on the American experience. My coworkers agree with my every argument and supplement with their own personal experiences of abuse at ignorant godchilds like yourselves. Their heritage likewise dates to the colonists who fought in the Revolution to define their future and give you the place to bash them for it, as you are doing now by dismissing their existence. Know then, what stereotypical portrayals of Americans come from and why. George Bush's cowboy image is only one of the original American getups that we have--another is the planter and another is the mountain-man. I and all patriotic Americans would object to you categorizing George Washington as a British or English American. He was the Father of my country and all the ethnic colonial intermixture is encompassed within the American identity, but the Dutch and Germans strangely have chosen to identify with their previous roots as if Romans thought of themselves not as Romans but still as Trojans (what Trojan Empire?!). Ask any pro-American history buff, or military re-enactors of past wars and any soldier who bears the American flag. Don't tread on me. You are bringing the conflict onto one who never thought it possible that there could be this convergence of ignorance in one place and one time, with regards to American history! There are no smokescreens here but the ones you lot are drafting to eradicate something that exists beyond paper. Get lives, people! Éponyme 03:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as
    e@ 20:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Neutral (closing admin, please do not count this vote) The comparison to Rome has some validity. The United States census bureau does list this as an ethnic identity, although it provides no definition for what it would mean and its staticstic represents self-selection. I suspect this deletion nomination has a good deal to do with one disruptive editor's attempt to own the article and conduct original research. As a stub it would remain verifiable through census data and expand as more censuses occur. Durova 14:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All we can mention in this stub is that 7.2% of 2000 US Census Respondents stated American as their ethnicity. As anybody could have done so, inferring that these 7.2% are the
brendel 18:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually editors could expand it to state that this is a self-identified group and a newly created census category. Interested editors might seek news reports about the new category. The stub could also expand to discuss why the category has been created. The next census will take place in four years, at which time this stub would add the new information. I agree that the previous work on the article was atrocious OR, but it doesn't follow that no productive expansion could ever occur. Durova 23:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well but at this point the info we have in regards to this group is already mentioned in other articles. In case another editor ever hits the "Motherload" of info on this group, if there even is such a thing, then he or she could request another article. Also consider what this article should be called, to this day the only really appropriate title would be, "
brendel 03:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep - 20 million people define themselves as "American", this is a notable fact and an ethnic group of 20 million people - even if self defined - is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. The original research should be deleted within the article and is not sufficient for an AfD. JASpencer 08:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. 20 million (or something like that) people specified "American" "ancestry or ethnic origin". That's quite a different kettle of tea from postulating an American ethnic group. The entirety of verifiable content in the article are the two maps and "7.2% of the population self-identified as being of American ancestry or ethnic origin". That's it. No further WP-worthy information about the subject. RandomP 13:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with RandomP. I think this bit of info from the Census bureau is very enlightening. "What does the Census Bureau mean by the term ancestry? Ancestry refers to a person’s ethnic origin or descent, "roots," or heritage, or the place of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States" (bolding mine).[23] Also, here is the actual question from the 2000 census. My point is that it's still OR, no matter how you slice it, to say that there is somehow an American ethnic group based on the census. Even the census' definition of the term precludes the existence of an American ethnic group. This conversation might seem a bit silly a century from now, but for now, it's original research to claim that there is such an ethnic group. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besdies often people mark American as their ethnic group becuase they may not know their actual ancestry, becuase it doesn't fit into the box, becuase their of multiple ancestries and they just chose to simplify things by stating American or becuase of any othe reason you can think of. It is quite similar to an "decline to state" or "I don't know answer." Bottom line is that we only have one sentence of info about this people which is too little to justify an article especially as we have an article on demographics in the United States. Regards,
brendel 16:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no source listed for Americans as an ethnic group, as opposed to a (self-identifying) "ancestry or ethnic origin". There's a significant difference between the two, so I'm going to have to disagree with you there. RandomP 14:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactely, we would need to move this stub to "
brendel 05:45, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Microbial Organ

Probiotic claptrap JBKramer 19:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could someone do me the favor of pointing out where in the wikipedia policies it says that non-mainstream/pseudo science are criteria for deletion? If this is the case, then
Multiple morbidities would probably make a single good article...under Disease Causal Chain, maybe). Thanks. ju66l3r 20:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
See Wikipedia's guidelines on
Probiotics article for deletion because it is sourced. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I originally responded to your first comment. Regarding the second half of your comments, I agree with you that some of the articles that the author has created are legitimate terms; my objection is that they are all solely framed within a Probiotic perspective (and I also agree that some of them do not merit their own article;
Multiple morbidities, for example, is probably not expandable to anything more than a dictdef. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, that's understandable, although if an article is solely framed from a single PoV, it seems {{pov}} would be more appropriate than deletion. I'm also just not thrilled about the irrelevance and bias that a deletion reason of "probiotic claptrap" followed up with "delete as pseudoscience" and "delete other contributions although some fit mainstream science" give to the discussion. None of those three comments are justification for deletion...improvement, to be sure, but not necessarily deletion. ju66l3r 21:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I write probiotic claptrap, I mean just that. If you believe that an article exists that reads, in full "the Human Microbial Organ is what a finge of pseudoscientists insists on calling a Human in an attempt to dupe unknowing sick people into giving them money," I am happy to have that article. JBKramer 17:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good to see you're editing with neutrality in mind. Your crusade to delete or undo all of Deolakar's edits in total is not justified given the notability of the subject matter (regardless of its scientific or non-scientific nature). ju66l3r 19:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV requires that all controversies be described fairly and accurately. My description of this term is both fair and accurate, and describes fully the controversy. JBKramer 19:49, 20 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. -

iablo 15:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

PRIZ-ONE

Non-notable graffiti artist, recreation of a deleted page, article also apears to be possible vanity as author and article are titled the same.

Wildthing61476 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

If at any time you took a moment to read anything written about this writer, you would not make that statement. A semi knowledgable person just has to google him to see his contribution to this type of media. Wereas, I googled you.... found nothing. I am not trying to say that you are not who and what you claim to be, that would be assuming and pretentious.

For a " Non-notable graffiti artist", he has been in the NY Times, in several on-line and off line magazines. In serveral documentaries and most recently, his artwork appeared in an internationally published Blackbook. And low and behold, all of this information is verifiable.

I intially created the page under a different username. As a new member, I was unaware of how to go about posting the article using PRIZ-ONE as the subject. I then created this username, not only to post the article the way I wanted it to be seen, but also to ensure that no one else had the username.

Please take a moment to view DJ Clayworth's talk page and read the brief discussion we had last night. As well as his answer to my query, before anything is assumed.PRIZ-ONE 20:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment If you wish to establish the notability of the artist, I suggest you link to those sources yourself. however, your choice of identical names to the artist does put a shadow of a doubt on it. Furthermore, the article itself is in need of severe cleanup. See Zephyr (graffiti artist) for an example of a better written article.FrozenPurpleCube 20:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment noted, and I plan to expand on the article not only with linkable references but with photographs as well. I will be taking a look at the artist you suggested. If you have any further helpful comment, please feel free.PRIZ-ONE 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the Google hits that come up in a search do not relate to the graffiti artist. wikipediatrix 21:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Look under "graffiti PRIZ" and you will find the information on the artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.85.149 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 19 September 2006
  • Delete When doing the suggested search, I get one result. This article fails
    WP:BIO. Erechtheus 14:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment

In reading your debate as whether to keep or delete this article, I have noted that the search criteria used by |Erechtheus]] was made in error. If you remove the "" you will find a much more larger search result.

The search I found at various results came up with a much larger result. As to the content being in the correct catagory, I am writing about a graff writer who has some notability. As explained previously, I am planning on expanding on the article to make it a much better bio than it is a the moment. My main concern was to clean it up by Wikipedia standards. Before any further debate, please view the search result I have listed so that a more consise determination is made. PRIZ-ONE 19:48, 26 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 23:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valorate

This sounds like a dictionary entry. Nekohakase 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 (note that it's been moved to Rosebud (band)). — CharlotteWebb 17:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosebud (Band)

I believe this article fails

WP:BAND, but speedy was removed by thrid party claiming notability asserted. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • He didn't say that it satisfied
    WP:BAND, he just said that it should be kept. To quote from WP:BAND: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." If he wants to keep all bands that are covered in AllMusic, that's a reasonable and consistent standard. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:15, 20 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. -

iablo 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Aftermath Management and Productions

A&R guys for approximately one notable band. And then they went out of business. But now they're back! Spam, no third-party sources, non-notable, that kind of thing. Contested prod by removing it with an edit summary of "minor edit," which makes it kind of hard to assume good faith. Recury 19:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Charles and this article was/is not an advertisement. From what i've read and added or corrected, it's 'a part' of a college school newspaper article I was interviewed for July 28, 2006; writted by Kent Berry he can be contacted at [email protected]. If you feel this article needs to be removed, by all means. If there is anything I can add or questions need to be answered please contact me at [email protected].

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. alphaChimp(talk) 00:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ventana

Non-notable. Nekohakase 19:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable. They don't even have an album out the door yet: "Ventana is still working on its demo album, having only recorded four songs." --Xiliquiern 19:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of any evidence along the lines of
    WP:MUSIC. Wmahan. 20:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Sugarpinet/c 23:09, 20 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. -

iablo 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Vehko, Vaino Jack

non-notable. Someone's granddad. Nekohakase 19:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable. - Triviaa 20:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. As head of engineering for two rockets, Director of Engineering for the booster rockets that took man to the moon and former General Manager of Chrysler Space Division, he qualifies a minimally "notable". Historians of the U.S. space program would be interested in this information. It could use sources. Chrysler probably has some information on him. Google only shows a site copied from Wikipedia. RickReinckens 03:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to have been notable in his field. --
    Peta 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, though some refining and further sourcing, as well as a rename, would be in order. TewfikTalk 20:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we should also have an article on National Aeronautics and Space Administration Honor Awards [24] -- Petri Krohn 21:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep-I'm an Indian. This article revealed a novel informations to me. As the head of engineering for two rockets, Director of Engineering for the booster rockets that took man to the moon and former General Manager of Chrysler Space Division, he proves his notability and relevance. It's very interesting to know the biography of such a foreigner. Adv. P. R. Bijuchandran 14:36, 29 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. -

iablo 15:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Qari Player

This is an advertisement, unless someone can clean it up to sound like an encyclopedia Nekohakase 19:31, 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. -

iablo 15:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Toure "Southpaw" Harris

Non notable personality at independant label. Label is owned by underground rapper, subject of article is simply an A&R and producer at the small time label. --NuclearUmpf 19:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my above nomination. --NuclearUmpf 19:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly fails
    WP:BIO, TewfikTalk 20:41, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quarles Elementary

non-notable elementary school. Nekohakase 19:40, 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 redirected to

ronin. I've added Rounin (TV series) to the Ronin dab, so the content isn't gone. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Rounin

I think this comes under the "crystal ball" reasoning. Nekohakase 19:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article was created more than two years ago. Is this television series still going to appear on the air in the near future? If not, as is likely, the article ought to be deleted. If the article is currently on the air (wasn't sure in a quick Google search), it should stay. -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article created two years ago was merely a redirect that has nothing to do with the article that's here now. --Rankler 15:53, 20 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. enWiki is not here to document the latest urban legend, particularly given

WP:NOR. alphaChimp(talk) 00:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Jolly Rancher Story

This is a non-notable urban myth. There is one Google hit for the subject, and it does nothing to make this myth notable in the encyclopedic sense. [27] Deprodded by creator with no changes to the article because he claims to want to document the story's subculture. Unless appropriate sources exist, that would be original research. Erechtheus 20:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - It's a disgusting story, and almost certainly a made up hoax. It fails on several counts, including notability and original research.

  • Delete No sources, no notablity, and no reason to keep. Arbusto 02:08, 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.


I conclude from this discussion that it's best this page and the related redirected ones are deleted. Thank you for your participation. —Encephalon 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for and against the single european currency?

talk • contribs
)

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. -

iablo 16:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Dead77 Records

Non-notable record label that fails the

WP:MUSIC criteria. No google results [28], except those from Wikipedia.--TBCTaLk?!? 20:19, 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. -

iablo 16:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Lenox Candles

Non-notable company, plenty of opinion and trivial resentment in the article. Sounds like a grudge-filled obituary. Can it be fixed? Is it worth fixing? Nekohakase 20:21, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Johns

Contested speedy. I don't believe this bio sufficiently asserts notability. Further, it's completely unsourced. NawlinWiki 20:27, 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. -

iablo 16:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Nick goldman

  • Saw this had an AFD notice attached but no page coming from it. As such, abstain. Bobo. 20:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete protologism.
    Danny Lilithborne 22:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Complete rubbish. -- Necrothesp 23:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if completely true this is not encyclopedic. RickReinckens 02:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as it contains no assertion of notability or importance whatsoever. --Satori Son 03:49, 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. alphaChimp(talk) 00:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Galilean relativity

This article appears to be a possible hoax, and was (mostly?) the work of one editor, who is now permabanned from WP. The consensus of virtually all others on the Talk page was to start a new page of Opposition to the theory of relativity, where possibly some material can be lifted from this article. At this point in time, the only activity on this page is the repeated attempts by the permabanned editor to edit it under multiple anon socks. Crum375 20:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. As an editor who spent some time dealing with this page (and as a PhD student in particle physics), I am quite confident that the only way to make it usable would be a complete rewrite, as Crumb375 states above. Since nobody has time to do this, I think the article should be deleted. In principle, if it turned out some material from it was useful for a rewrite in the future, undeletion is easy to do. However, to keep the article in its present form for an extended period is to misinform our readers. -- SCZenz 20:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and for those who like policy acronyms, the article in its present form severeley violates
WP:NPOV. -- SCZenz 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
This was actually KraMuc's second chance after
Anti-relativity was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-relativity. For a short time there was some hope, that something encyclopedic about Relativity's critics may come out of this (e.g. in this version [29]), but by now, I'm all for Delete. And I can repeat my comment from the last AfD: Writing an article about reception of the theory of relativity and its opponents (besides those handled already in our article Deutsche Physik), perhaps taking de:Kritik an der Relativitätstheorie as a starting point, would benefit from starting with a blank sheet. --Pjacobi 21:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep although the article is mostly complete bollocks it does have a leading critique section that makes this clear for those prepared to listen. Deleting the article will solve nothing: a new hydra head will sprout elsewhere, as it did last time. --
    talk 21:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I agree that KraMuc socks and others may be attracted just as easily to Opposition to the theory of relativity, but at least there we start off with a clean slate, include all viable opposition (there was a great article cited in the Talk page) in a single article, and of course we can limit the contents to the bare acceptable minimum, per WP and Jimbo's fringe science policies. Crum375 22:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the excellent reference provided by Harald88 in the Talk page, which can be used in the foundation of the new article.Crum375 22:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the article also helps establish community support for what I feel is the key issue: such crank-created articles cannot currently be maintained in an acceptable state at an acceptable cost to the Wikipedia community. ---CH 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. As a long-time Wikipedia user (now semiretired) who
  1. created c. 1994 and maintained for many years the website Relativity on the World Wide Web (now hosted by the illustrious mathematical physicist
    John Baez
    ),
  2. initiated c. August 2005 WikiProject GTR (now defunct, because all my time was taken up with bootless attempts to control crank-POV pushing edits; see User:Hillman/Archive for some idea of what Wikipedia has lost because of this in terms of creation of new articles and improvement of old articles concerning a rather technical topic which is however of wide popular interest and which I happen to know well),
  3. created a
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience
    ,
  4. currently maintains notes such as User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc (look but don't touch, please, as per the header!); note that this permabanned user created and continues to edit the article under discussion, despite having been permabanned,
  5. has been quietly maintaining a database tracking thousands of physics-related cranky websites, and making some effort to correlate this with problem articles in the Wikipedia,
I could be (and have been) accused of being "biased" in favor of mainstream physics, but presumably I cannot be accused of not knowing a good deal about relativistic physics or fringe physics.
Let's get one thing out of the way right away: the article in question and other edits by KraMuc (or his many sockpuppets and IP anons) expresses a tiny, tiny minority view which is about as contrary to well-established science as can be imagined. Relativity is one of the best-tested scientific theories of all time; there simply is no such subject as "modern Galilean relativity" [sic] known to modern physics. This line of crank thought has of course a long pedigree, going right back to the 1920s, but it was cranky even then.
However, I expect that many Wikipedia users who participate in this AfD, who have no particular axe to grind but happen not to be familiar with the problems faced by members of
WP:NPOV description of well-known crackpots such as Time Cube". In an ideal world, they would not be wrong (and I myself have made this argument in the past). The trouble is, current practices at Wikipedia for controlling problem edits and problem editors are far too cumbersome to admit any attempt to describe Wikipedia as an ideal world! While I and other editors of good faith are working hard to try to ameliorate this situation (which requires reforming the cumbersome policy creation/implementation process, so that we can emplace wise and effective policies for protecting Wikipedia articles from being traduced by those who come here to pursue some personal agenda which does not serve the interest of our readers, who come here seeking accurate information about topics of interest to them, including technical topics such as physics which require considerable background and expertise to write about knowledgeably, accurately, and well), at present it is far too easy for one disaffected crank to endlessly tie up, not one, not two, but a half dozen Ph.D. physicists/mathematicians whose time here should be spent in more useful activities than trying to "reason" with KraMuc. See User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc
(look but don't touch, please!) for evidence of the magnitude of the problem in trying to deal with KraMuc.
On the basis of my extensive experience here, I feel that until better policies are in place for enforcing
WP:NPOV without imposing an undue burden of time/energy upon the still too rare "physics expert" population here, it is my judgement that it is best to delete this article, because as a practical matter there is currently no way to maintain it in an neutral state at an acceptable cost to the Wikipedia community. I also would point contributors to this AfD to User:Hillman/Dig/Sarfatti to see the kind of abuse which can result when the community tries to maintain in neutral form an article on a controversial fringe figure. I would respectfully request that anyone planning to vote keep take the time to read the above cited pages and then decide whether they themselves would be willing to invest a sizeable portion of their own time at Wikipedia in helping the membership of WikiProject Physics try to maintain Modern Galilean relativity
in a neutral state.
In a phrase, my argument in this and in similar cases is that "deletion is the best part of valor". If the experiment in the German Wikipedia with various cruft control measures succeeds, and if our policymaking efforts here succeed, so that cruft patrol becomes much, much less onerous for Wikipedia users with a strong physics/math background, we can no doubt recreate articles such as this, in the fullness of time.---CH 21:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To add to your points from current WP/Jimbo
policies
:
From
Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list
:
In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.
In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced.
Above quoted from
WP:NPOV. Crum375 22:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Strong delete per all the arguments above. This "theory" is a little like Flat Earthism, really, only conceptually much more advanced: which makes it far more misleading to the public, and requires far more effort to maintain...the more of these sorts of articles that are deleted, the more time and energy competent editors will have, to work on proper topics. Byrgenwulf 06:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary it may make the work of other editors more difficult since deleting the article will not stem the input of nonsense, just make it more diffuse and widely spread. --
talk 08:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete as per nomination and CH. The pseudotheory is not notable, and there are no reliable sources addressing (debunking) them scientifically. Much of the current content started out as a diatribe by KraMuc outlining what were essentially his personal ideas and opinions on various theories, each supported by about one crackpot. As an Einstein's Witness and cyber clown, I know a reasonable amount about both relativistic physics and the dynamics of pseudoscience coverage on Wikipedia. Deleting this article is the best thing to do now. No one has the time or inclination to make the article acceptable, and to do so would require original research to show how the ideas conflict with mainstream physics. --Philosophus T 22:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the last point, the article contains a critique section which debunks the whole of "ether theory" and which isn't original research. --
talk 23:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I think we all agree that any salvageable part of the article, such as the section you mention, should be used in the new article, possibly named Opposition to the theory of relativity. Crum375 00:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many arguments above. The article was never about an existing "discipline" called MGR. Tim Shuba 21:39, 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 merge to Déprimisme. - Bobet 10:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depressionism

Non-notable neologism Cool3 20:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There are not that many G-hits (<1000) and it probably is a neologism, but I am not totally sure if this is really non-notable. Is it a legitimate artistic movement in the art world? Yarr!--Nishkid64 21:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename to Depressionist or something like that. Whispering(talk/c) 21:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a merge to Déprimisme which is not as much of an unsubstantiated neologism with a redirect from Depressionism to Déprimisme. Cool3 22:53, 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 no consensus. -

iablo 15:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Themes in The Lord of the Rings

This article violates

WP:RS. Whispering(talk/c) 21:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.

Everything that I saw in this article has been published elsewhere. This is a nice, but far from fabulous, complilation of analysis of themes in LOR that can be pulled from an abundance of secondary literature. Indeed in principle, (though not in execution), this is nicely encylopedic. But of course they have not cited any of their of these possible sources and so this article is in violation of

WP:RS on the page and come back in a couple of months. Jdclevenger 04:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Point of clarification to both
WP:V are being contravened. In fact, the article does mention several sources by name (though not in standard reference format): namely, The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien and the Foreward to The Lord of the Rings. But obviously a lot more references are needed. I agree with Jdclevenger - leave the "no sources" tag on there and leave it for someone to tidy up later. Carcharoth 11:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I agree with
WP:V are the issues involved. Jdclevenger 14:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • keep please this needs some rewriting but not erasing Yuckfoo 20:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs a large rewrite and comply with
    Bryan 11:20, 29 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 19:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Spriters Forums

Contested Prod. Web forum that used to have 120 members, but not that many now. Fails

WP:WEB by miles. -- Fan-1967 21:05, 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 - by consensus and rebuttal of Kappa's comment. Also JYolowski's comment that it is verifiable and NOR, doen't mean that it passes notability.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Park City Center

Non-notable shopping mall that isn't even really a mall: it's a shopping center that is only partially enclosed. (Here's a pic.) Its only claim to fame seems to be that it's the "largest enclosed shopping center in south-central Pennsylvania". I repeat, south-central Pennsylvania. wikipediatrix 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep South-central Pennsylvania's got a million people in its own right. Even if it didn't, at over a million square feet, it's still large enough to warrant notability. Nearly every recent mall AFD has closed as keep or no consensus. Kirjtc2 23:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems more of a shopping center to me. And I've seen several mall AfDs end in deletion.
  • Keep, how are we supposed to make an encylopedia of retail outlets activity in south-central Pennsylvania without covering this?
    Kappa 00:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Wikipedia is
WP:NOT a directory of retail outlets. Do you consider all retail outlets in south-central Pennsylvania notable for Wikipedia, then? Why? wikipediatrix 01:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Normally, I'd assume that Kappa's comment was a joke, but then, it's Kappa making it. Why in God's name would this be a good idea? --Calton | Talk 02:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All verifiable malls are notable enough to be considered part of the sum of human knowledge and to deserve an encylopedic treatment. I will substitute "outlets" with "activity" since I'm not so bothered about corner shops and 7-11s.
Kappa 02:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Really? Why not? If they have verifiable data... JoshuaZ 02:25, 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 keep `'mikka (t) 06:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mysophilia

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. Merge decision needs to be made on article's talk page as already tagged.

Petros471 16:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ebionite Jewish Community

Non-notable subject Alecmconroy 21:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This seems to be a very small religious group. After
    Ebionite" article for lack of notability, and was transferred to its own page, with the understanding that after a period of time, an AFD nomination would be made to see if the content merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. After about a month, I still tend to think it lacks sufficiently notable. --Alecmconroy 21:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Why not merge it and then ask as creator for it to be deleted? Fiddle Faddle 06:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or let the creator clean up the problem he created. YechielMan 22:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Needs cleanup but is a distinct and active religious community. JASpencer 06:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --
    Peta 04:12, 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 Speedy delete g4, new article is one sentence long and still has no sources. NawlinWiki 23:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chance's Big Movie

Non-notable film, deleted before, 4 hits on Google. Some P. Erson 21:33, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cash Extraction Mode

This entry does not meet any nobility standards, is a

WP:OR as the creators moved it from a blog they wrote. This is a failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:40, 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 merge.

Petros471 16:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Urkel

I'm not certain that a fragment of a modestly popular tv show deserves an article. A search for ("the urkel" dance) on google gets a little under 500 unique hits, and many are not about the dance. It should be deleted or possibly merged to Steve Urkel Giant onehead 21:50, 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. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Delta Air Lines Routes

Wiki is not a directory. This information can change almost daily and is better provided by other sources. Vegaswikian 22:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, information can better go in the individual airport articles. Kirjtc2 23:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't imagine a use for this. Any information gleaned from the article would have to be verified on the Delta website, so why not go there first? - Richfife 23:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not even a list of routes; it's just a list of which airports they happen to fly to. --
    Aaron 23:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge with
    Kappa 00:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, no travel guide. Gazpacho 01:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need to merge, since the information is already in the destinations article and the individual airport articles. Dbinder (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ha! exactly what we needed! Delta Air Lines Propaganda! (ironic) —Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Kirjtc2, especially --Allstar86 18:48, 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. -

iablo 15:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Online Reporter

Contested prod. This site fails the

WP:WEB inclusion guideline for Wikipedia. alphaChimp(talk) 22:14, 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. -

iablo 15:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

National Junior Horticultural Association

I'm not sure if this is a real organization or not. This is definitely not a proper article, to say the least. If this is a real organization, then add info and sources.Clamster5 22:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can verify that this organization is legit (I've attended 4 annual conventions). See also [31]. I'll see if I can clean it up some over the next few days to bring it in line with quality standards. oppose deletion --NoahElhardt 05:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose deletion. I tried to upload all the information and all that i noticed after was just the link to the website. The organization is real, you may contact any of the person's on the website to confirm that. I've added two sourses to the article, one from a page from NJHA.org, and one from a webpage from the American Society of Horticultural Science. --BJareske 21:34, 20 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. -

iablo 11:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Bright Commodity Broker

Doesn't appear to be a notable company, and the current article reads like an ad. Prod removed by author.

Danny Lilithborne 22:43, 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 redirected. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switch (The Matrix)

Information is already at

SeizureDog 22:46, 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. -

iablo 16:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Miss Mabry

This is a non-notable label that fails

WP:CORP. A search for the label name and the name of its founder yields 4 results. [32] None of them is a suitable source for the article. Deprodded with changes the creator believed would aid in passing CORP, but it still fails. Erechtheus 23:08, 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. — CharlotteWebb 16:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Smyth

Subject does not pass

Aaron 23:28, 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 tagged as copyvio. Whispering(talk/c) 06:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panic on Board / Stroke of Genius

This has been tagged with {{context}} since May 2006. I'd have tagged it for speedy deletion under CSD A1, but it's a little too long. There is no indication of what this article is about other than two episodes of a TV show. No pages link to it, and it has no links to other articles. Agent 86 23:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it still qualifies for a Speedy - orphan article, no activity since its creation months ago, non-notable. - Valarauka(T/C) 00:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not Speedy as it is an episode of a cartoon that has a poor article anyway. If anybody cares to salvage the article, the show is
    Corneil and Bernie. FrozenPurpleCube 00:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Delete A8 Tag as copyvio of [33]. The two titles are episodes of
    Corneil and Bernie. Forgot it was here since May. ColourBurst 00:19, 20 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 19:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of military vehicles in films

List of potentially unlimited size that would include everything from ancient chariots and war galleys in

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- Allen3 talk 23:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

How come this article is recommended for deletion when articles such as List of firearms in films and List of firearms in video games are allowed to go unchallenged? As for the 'Moonraker shuttles', the description of this article clearly discourages fictional military vehicles and civilian vehicles reconfigured for military use, and is also centered around motorized ground vehicles, not spacecraft. If the description is amended to show 'modern' vehicles (ie those with an internal combustion engine), would that be acceptable? Orca1 9904 00:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Orca1_9904[reply]

I suspect many people would delete those articles as well. FrozenPurpleCube 00:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the oversight. Appropriate AfDs have been added. --Allen3 talk 01:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the caveat that if the article were restricted to vehicles that had a prominient role in the film, or some particular character, it would work. Examples would be Black Hawk Down and the Tank from well, Tank FrozenPurpleCube 01:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom listcruft Bwithh 02:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of firearms in films —Mitaphane talk 03:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing wrong with 'list of ___ in films/video games'-type pages, unless the list items are so commonly found as to be unmaintanable. I bet at least half of the major Hollywood movies that came out in the last year contain military vehicles of some sort, and i bet in 90% of those the specific vehicle models were totally irrelevant to the story. Like someone else said, if lists of 'military vehicles' and 'firearms' are allowed, what's to say 'list of kitchen utensils in films' isn't appropriate? Where is the line drawn? If it's at all significant, it can be added to the film artcile's summary or possibly to the trivia/references section of the vehicle's article. I appreciate the work that must've been put into this list though. ~ Lav-chan 08:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Actually, articles along the lines of List of spacecraft in films or List of fictional spacecraft in films would be good articles. Presumably these lists would be smaller and more manageable. --Richard 06:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think a non-list article Military vehicles in films would be more valuable. Prose comparing the phyical characteristics of the tanks etc. used; why certain vehicles are used more often, in different time periods or situations; how some vehicles are disguised as others; and the ease/difficulty of getting qualified people to operate them in films (cited, of course). Good examples could then be given, and it'd be useful for military vehicle and film enthusiasts as well as interested laypeople, because they'd be able to easily identify the differences for themselves in other films (and on the news), and there'd be text describing other aspects of using such equipment in films. TransUtopian 23:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 16:27, 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.
  1. ^ http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/why-you-should-raise-ostrich
  2. ^ http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=622196
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_19&oldid=1116878437"