< August 23	August 25 >

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 — FireFox ^(talk) _{19:00, 28 August 2006}

List of actors who have played lesbians, bisexuals and gay men[edit]

I could be wrong and I don't know much about the subject, but isn't this list a little useless? A list of lesbian/bisexual/etc. characters on television could be useful (and I believe we have such a list somewhere here), but a list of actors who played LBG, etc. characters seems incredibly pointless and very much a batch of loosely-connected information, which Wikipedia is not (i.e. one can imagine a similar "List of people who have played politicians, Irish Catholics, Jews, priests, nuns, etc....) . Delete per nom Mad Jack 23:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it is useless. In fact, I think is good. If I came across this article was just because I was interested on it. As a gay man, I like that this page exists for the fact that we are normally interesed in actor who we have seen on movies on a GLB role. Hope this isn't deleted.--Nauki 00:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But then you have Hamlet fans looking for List of people how have played Hamlet, and Einstein fans looking for List of people who have played Einstein, and so on and so forth. I can totally see where you are coming from, as I too tend to be fans of actors that previously had roles that I enjoyed, but I don't think this is the place to store that information. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh...leaning towards delete The "What links here" page for this article seems to indicate that it's only linked by other lists and personal pages. I am not really sure what sort of use this could have, and it really isn't used anyway. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep. I'm normally not at all listicrufts, but I do see a diffrnce with this one. Firstly, there do not appear to be any categories for LGB actors/actresses, and as there are some heteros who have played homo roles, this list does seem to have a place.

Ohconfucius 02:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After a period of intense thought, I think that there's no reason not to keep this list. As for the nominator's other examples of lists he believes Wikipedia is not the place for (actors who have played politicians, Irish Catholics, etc.), I say again: why not? While this list might only be seldom used, that, in itself, is no reason to delete it. NigelQuinine ^{Blather• Toil} 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that "List of actors who have played nuns" is encyclopedic? Really? You could have a million "list of actors who have played X". From policemen to nannies to mothers to celebrities. "Fictional policemen, nannies, nuns, etc." and "Real policemen, nannies, etc." are encyclopedic. Combining the two in this manner really has no value Mad Jack 04:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia is known as a very GLB-friendly website, a resource for people of GLB. We must keep this fact in mind. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Not really. Wikipedia is very encyclopedia-friendly, so to speak. There's encyclopedic content and un-encyclopedic content. While, of course, a list of GLB characters would be encyclopedic, and more or less so would a list of GLB actors, a list of actors who have played GLB has almost no value at all. In fact, a list of GLB characters would logically mention who the actor was who played the character, leaving this list with no purpose at all Mad Jack 04:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would be better as a category. Lists like these become unwieldy. — NMChico24 02:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Contains nothing of encyclopedic value. What article is this a list of examples for? GRBerry 03:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although if needed actors names can be added to List of gay and bisexual people in film, radio, and TV fiction--T. Anthony 04:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the list I was looking for! List of gay and bisexual people in film, radio, and TV fiction. I knew we had a list of GLB (or LGB?) characters in film, etc. That list seems to have encyclopedic value. The characters on this list should be added to that one, if they aren't there already Mad Jack 01:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup. I actually like lists, but there's no reason to have ones that are basically redundant.--T. Anthony 11:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unmaintainable and somewhat unencyclopedic. —Scott5114↗ 17:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, useless listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 19:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless. Might have been an interesting list 10 years ago, but doesn't serve any purpose now. An entry on early/influential LGBT roles in movies (with information on HOW and WHY) would be much more interesting. SnaX 23:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 13:20, 28 August 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 with no prejudice against the nominator relisting the article individually. Gwernol 05:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of college a cappella[edit]

Withdrawn--I'll relist individually shortly. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC) I am nominating the following college a cappella groups for deletion. Such groups should be held to the notability standards of WP:MUSIC. Obviously most of the criteria there are out of reach from most a cappella groups. However, I didn't nominate any articles for deletion which had: (1) "multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers)" (2) "won a major music competition" or (3) "performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show"--although this is not sufficient by itself.[reply]

However, Wikipedia is not a free web host for college a cappella groups whose only claim to fame is alleged popularity within their own campus, articles in their school's newspaper, self-produced albums, or their own website.

Without further ado: AllNighters, Amalgamates, Aural Fixation, Beelzebubs, Chorallaries, Chord on Blues, Effusion A Cappella, Elizabethans, Gimble, Guerillacapella, Harvard Din & Tonics, Harvard-Radcliffe Veritones, Hit Paws, Humtones, The Idlers, King's Singers, Magevet, MIT/Wellesley Toons, Nassoons, Noteworthy (female a cappella), On a Sensual Note, Penn Masala, Raagapella, Ransom Notes, Redhot & Blue, ScatterTones, Smiffenpoofs, Something Extra (American musical group), The Duke's Men of Yale, The New Blue, Tonal Ecstasy, Tonic Sol-fa, WPI Simple Harmonic Motion, Williams Octet, Williams Street Mix, Zumbyes

I'll strike any of these which can prove they meet an established notability criteria at WP:MUSIC, but none currently contain evidence of that. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Beelzebubs who seem to have released several albums and have longevtiy, delete the rest (I'm re-reading some though, so this might changed). --Wafulz 23:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-produced albums do not meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. These albums would have to be with a major label or do well on the charts to make the group notable enough. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Bubs apparently were on Letterman, according to their site. Isopropyl 00:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Regardless of the verdict, I suggest that all groups be mentioned on the individual institution's page. SliceNYC 23:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah just go with merge. Most of them shouldn't go beyond a listing in some form of a "clubs and sports" section. Others, like The Idlers, who claim to have performed for the president and Ed Sullivan, should get a more substantial mention. --Wafulz 23:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being president I'm sure you have to listen to lots of a cappella...I don't see which notability criteria that meets. There's also nothing to merge in these articles because they have no sourced content. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just so we're all on the same page here: Mention is different from merge. SliceNYC 23:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggesting we keep the Chorallaries, as two-time finalists at the International Championship of College A Cappella, and take a closer look at Penn Masala, who claim to be the first Hindi a cappella group and as such may or may not be notable. The aforementioned champsionship is probably the closest the college a cappella circuit gets to a "major music competition", in the words of WP:MUSIC, so I'd suggest any group that's placed in the finals should be kept. Keep in mind that not meeting WP:MUSIC is not grounds for automatic deletion; see this discussion. Isopropyl 00:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed the Chorallaries. I don't think I nominated anyone else who reached the finals of the International Championship of College A Cappella (that's why I didn't nominate Resonance--the group from the discussion you cite). However, I still think we should delete Penn Masala. I could start the first a cappella group only for Econ majors, etc. It's not a claim to notability. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an arbitrary list -- for example, I doubt the Harvard Krokodiloes or the Yale Alley Cats or the Yale Spizzwinks(?) are any more notables than, say, the Nassoons, the King's Singers, or the Din & Tonics (the last of which does regular world tours and regularly has sold-out concerts on those same tours). Either delete/merge them all, or keep them. Chart123 03:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of these articles is of course not a justification. I'm hesitant to add to this nomination so late, but feel free to nominate those as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. My point is that the list is arbitrary -- some have been deemed "notable," others not notable, but there's no real distinction between the notable un-listed and the not-notable listed. So, yes, I think the arbitrariness of the list is reason enough to keep all of these, insofar as the justification for deleting them is a lack of notability.
• Keep, list individually. I wholly agree that many college a cappella groups probably don't merit an article, but this shotgun approach is non-functional. Unfortunately, these simply have to be done one at a time. JDoorjam Talk 05:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The contradiction between the two preceeding keeps is the reason for the group nom. If they were listed individually, people would point to other similar articles not on the chopping block. The objection to all of these articles is the same so there's really no reason to clog the AFD page, other than to allow AFD regulars to get 20 edits for the price of one! savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As mentioned above, this is too broad a nomination. I may be biased, but the Din and Tonics are fairly major, and have been for years. Penn Masala is definitely notable; and the King's Singers? Has the nominator ever seen the choral shelf of their local HMV's classical section? When last I looked the King's Singers had a bit of a stranglehold there. Hornplease 06:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even seen the choral shelf of my local HMV. Fortunately, that's not the way we determine notability of musical groups on Wikipedia. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord, what a shockingly pointless reply. As I clearly should have made obvious, releasing several dozen major albums for one of the largest record companies in the UK (EMI) and completely dominating the choral music scene in terms of output for thirty years or so is what we look for on WP. A good indicator of those things: the choral shelf of your local HMV. A poor choice for someone to put choral groups up en masse for deletion: someone whose never even seen the choral shelf at their local HMV. Sigh. Hornplease 09:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can't comment on US College a cappella groups - but the King's Singers are something quite different. A major UK group, the original line-up featured prominently on UK national TV during the 1970s - including having several of their own national TV Shows. From a cultural point they popularised a style of music unfamiliar to many people, demonstrated the appeal of classically trained singers performing popular tunes, and arguably influenced the growth in "popular " classics, now a major part of the music industry. In addition, at least two of the original members are still high profile: Brian Kay is a well-known presenter and personality on BBC Radio 3 and Nigel Perrin a prominent classical choral conductor in the UK.
• Keep, unacceptably broad nomination. There may well be some of these groups that aren't sufficiently notable, but the presence of several obviously notable groups in the list, as highlighted by other comments above, suggests that the nominator has simply listed a capella groups en masse rather than considering each individual article in detail. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 07:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These groups have albums that have sold more copies than many of the equally small time bands or authors (in terms of books) that are present on Wikipedia. Most of them have history and tradition that is an important part of their campus community, yet merging them into the campus articles would be a disservice to both. And I echo comments above that this looks like a sloppy deletionist event rather than a thought out AfD nom. --SparqMan 13:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: What do we do with these groups once they're gone? The Dartmouth Aires (savidan is a Dartmouth undergrad, according to his personal page, which is why I mention this) are mentioned in a Dartmouth College student groups page. Ok, is that what we should do here? I think making sure the information on these pages have homes -- the Aires have a home -- should be a priority before we vote to delete. Chart123 16:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is already withdrawn. I'm not familiar with the Aires but I wouldn't disapprove of including marginally notable a cappella groups on "student groups" pages. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Tonal Ecstasy meets the following criteria for notability:

- Has won or placed in a major music competition. (ICCA, the International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella.) The group has placed in several rounds of ICCA and group members have won individual awards. - Several alumni later joined a band that is otherwise notable. Alumni Micah Shapiro and Mike Libis were both members of Throwback. Throwback toured extensively in Canada and New England and had a large regional following (I can't think of an absolute indicator of their following, but Throwback does have 12,577 friends on their myspace page). Throwback was also mentioned in a recent McGill News article about McGill alumni bands (which also mentions such notables as Arcade Fire and Leonard Cohen): http://www.mcgill.ca/news/2006/summer/rock/three/. Dee Nedd-Roderique (former member) was a member of Kobayashi, which has performed at such notable events as the Montreal International Jazz Festival. Jkisch 16:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is absurd. You're basically saying you want to delete the groups that a) don't compete in competitions or b) aren't good enough to win them. If a group has an official webpage on the school server they are legitimate, not that legitimacy is a requirement for being on Wikipedia. Point out in the deletion policy what infractions the pages made and I'm sure the various authors will be more than willing to change them accordingly. The nominator has unreliable criteria, as they are subjective. Please leave the articles without a giant banner on them and work out something that can be approved by other contributing members of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.40.230.219 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As has been mentioned on this page, the articles violate the the notability requirements for musicians at WP:MUSIC, which isn't something that the article authors can fix, it's up to the individual a cappella groups to become notable. I see you're upset about the "giant banner" (and tried to remove it yourself from one group's page) but that is the already-established procedure that you're asking people to come up with. -- N2f 02:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banner removal[edit]

The "nominated for deletion" banners should be removed until the sites are re-listed for deletion. Chart123 03:17, 27 August 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. Teke ^(talk) 17:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Klein Four and Musical Fruitcake[edit]

The first nomination was a total joke, with rationales for keep such as "Wikipedia is not paper" and "for great justice""v." Individual college a cappella groups which have recieved no media coverage oustide of a few articles in their school newspaper and a clip (not an article) on college humor are not notable enough for their own articles. The closest this article comes to a claim to notability is: "An unconfirmed report suggests that the group's "Finite Simple Group" video appeared on the German television program NBC Giga." Obviously not sufficient for WP:MUSIC. Delete the article about their Musical Fruitcake album too.

I'm keeping this nomination separate because there was a previous nomination. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For great justice. (talk · contribs) was the account name. The rationale was "v." — 2 characters. One could guess at what that meant ... Uncle G 00:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in that case... savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
• Neutral—Can't in good conscience vote to keep since I can't name a criterion they meet. But they are real (or a good enough hoax to have a site). The article is reasonably well composed—I find it an interesting touch—I'm sure we all recognize that the Klein 4 group is word play on a mathematical term Klein four-group in geometric group theory—making it somewhat obscurely clever. I'm rather inclined to hope this article survives, even though I don’t see a overwhelmingly compelling argument. Give me a reason to vote keep. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This fails WP:MUSIC and does not belong. Indrian 04:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; fails WP:MUSIC. (Per entry directly above, I imagine we're going to hear that phrase a lot in the next few days.) JDoorjam Talk 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is the musical equivalent of intramural. ~ trialsanderrors 17:36, 29 August 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 — FireFox ^(talk) _{19:02, 28 August 2006}

Interactive Multimedia Culture[edit]

Semicomprehensible semi-POV/OR essay. ~~ N (t/c) 00:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 00:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What he said - Richfife 02:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is written in a POV style. This leads us to the impression of originality of thought which Wikipedia is not. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Exactly. Leuko 02:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but needs a rewrite. kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a POV/OR essay. It looks almost like a term paper. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pretty useless in any way I can think of - who would even want to rewrite something like that? Much easier from scratch if ever needed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its not only pointless but it also needs to be cleaned up. Tarret 01:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• An important Essay on emerging discourses across the cybercommunity. This is not an original thought, as some claim, but a statement of certain facts about the future. I will wait for others to share their thoughts before I decide how to vote, but perhaps the author should publish this. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
• Delete. Interesting but better suited for a magazine. Plinth molecular gathered 18:17, 26 August 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. 1ne 06:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-cement[edit]

Article reads like an ad, primary author is the creator/seller of product, product is non-notable per WP:Corp#Criteria for products and services, title of article is trade name rather than generic name. Argyriou 00:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argyriou is confusing me. Previously the deletion header asked for opinions in the discussion page! I have copied my comments here

Eco-cement has had tremendous global publicity (see http://www.tececo.com/media.php) ranking it as one of the most important contributions to combat global warming this millenium. If Argyriou (is this some shortening or hyper word for argue?) wrote "I also don't have any reason to believe that cement with magnesia added is important enough to deserve its own article rather than a section of the articles I listed above; though even if that changed, the article shouldn't be named for one proprietary brand of the stuff" is displaying profound ignorance and is therefore not in a position to judge of what should or should not be included.

The name has been given historic and scientific legitimacy by the many articles written about it (type "Eco-Cement" into google to find hundreds not written by the inventor or associates of the inventor).

Given the enormous level of publicity about eco-cements (over 50k hits a month on the web site and hundreds if not thousands of articles about it - most positive and one or two negative (paid for by the industry - unfortunately the cement industry is behaving a little like the tobacco industry. )

Wikipedia should at the very least say what it is so people can make up their own minds about whether it will in fact result in a giant carbon sink in the built environment. The page I have written gives enough information to enable them to do so. The entry is minimalsist and written totally for lay people. To reduce the level of criticism and claimed commerciality I will try and refer to independent articles about the article if I can get to edit it before it is deleted!

There are also chapters in at least two major book publications giving reference to the cement and I shall also refer to them in the article. The publishers, who are not small companies, would not have asked me to write about the cement unless they at least were aware of the importance of it.

On the matter of other uses of the word Eco-Cement. TecEco have the common law right to the name by the shear volume of numbers. Nobody else is using the name which also happens to be unregisterable as a trade mark other than perhaps the irrelvant use for dog poo cement Argyriou rather flippantly referred to. Could I have their contact details so I can let them know that we believe we legitimately own the common law rights to the name.AubreyJohnWestonHarrison 00:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and hundreds if not thousands of articles about it - most positive and one or two negative

Mind linking to these articles, then? Preferrably ones from reliable sources. Website hits alone do not make a product notable. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 00:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable sources cited in the article to verify it's claims. Article is written like an advertisement. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 00:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam masquarading as article. Leuko 02:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:VSCA, apply directly to the forehead! Danny Lilithborne 02:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm no expert here, but a quick Google bash reveals many apparently reputable independent sources eg The Guardian, New Scientist. The article could do with a rewrite to put the issue in better context and mention related products, (eg see: [1]). Perhaps a rename away from the semi-trademark might emphasise the importance of the general area? Espresso Addict 03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the best link I've seen about it so far. Almost every other link I've seen was essentially a rehash of Tec-Eco's press releases: popular media articles focusing on the environmental claims. There's been some discussion about this at Talk:Eco-cement already, too. Argyriou 04:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read the discussion, I'm formalising my comment as a keep and rename to something like 'ecologically friendly cement'. Espresso Addict 17:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but needs wikifying kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanispamcruftisement. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I feel that those users that are against keeping this article are missing the point somewhat, whilst it needs to be re-written in order to cite sources, and represent a broader, more neutral point of view (and could be renamed with eco-cement as a redirect), the actual subject matter of the article is worth keeping on wikipedia. I suggest that Argyriou more carefully reads the criteria for notability of products and services as I believe that this product passes under criteron one, The technology has appeared in New Scientist, on ABC (Australia)'s New Inventors and http://www.exn.ca/dailyplanet/view.asp?date=4/21/2003 The Discovery Channel Canada] (Mid page). None of these sources are "rehashes" of press releases. Noodle snacks 06:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs an over-haul but a quick database search for peer reviewed scientific literature on the product revealed several hits, e.g. Lin, K.L.; Chiang, K.Y.; Lin, C.Y. (June 2005). "Hydration characteristics of waste sludge ash that is reused in eco-cement clinkers". Cement and Concrete Research. 35 (6): 1074–1081. Bobby1011 09:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this article was a copyright violation from [2]. I know this has been noted on the talk page but Copyrighted material cannot be left around unless express permission is granted (ie on the talk page). I dont see that, so even if the author appears the same you cannot assume :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 09:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Leuko --Mecanismo | Talk 10:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep with a re-write. Eco-cements as building materials, at least, are notable. There are other companies who also make eco-cements, for example the Taiheiyo Cement Corporation in Japan [3] and EcoSmart Concrete in Canada [4] and an interesting article (IMHO) could be written about the its advantages and disadvantages. TecEco's Eco-Cement, developed by John Harrison, is written about in Transmaterial: A Catalog of Materials That Redefine Our Physical Environment [5] (published by Princeton University Press), and also Sustainability at the Cutting Edge [6]. The product seems notable. Transmaterial says that it "offers partial solutions for global warming, climate change, waste, and cost-effective mass housing". It could be a subsection of a more general article until good sources for User:AubreyJohnWestonHarrison's information are added. Bláthnaid 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons cited by Espresso Addict. Atlant 12:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Tend towards Delete This is just one of many forms of composite cement based on Portland cement and other constituents. Whilst it is possible that this cement may well lead to a revolution in cement technology, it is currently of far less importance than other composite cements that are used world-wide, for example Portland fly ash cements and Portland blastfurnace cements, that do not have their own articles - and for which there is considerably more peer reviewed scientific literature. Giving this eco-cement its own article gives it far more importance than it is worth, particularly as it is only one specific patented form in the much wider field of magnesium oxide cements. I believe it is sufficient for it to be mentioned within the articles on cement and Portland cement. If it is kept, then it needs wikifying and the vanispamcruftisement deleting. Kpeyn 17:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename, and rewrite, needs a wider context. Notable as per above, and for me at least due to its enviromentally-friendly orientation. I revised a bit and added an intro. Karol 18:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to be verifiable and notable, though it will need a significant re-write to comply with WP:NPOV. --Scott Wilson 21:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and Wikify and improve. EuroSong ^talk 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and well done to Karol. The capitalisation of eco-cement (vs. Eco-Cement) should be reviewed, peer reviewed literature seems not to capitalise, but it also appears to be a brand name. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & expand or alternately a weak merge with cement—Technically sound. There are variety of formulations of cement—the cement article would benefit from expansion—and this article would benefit from broadening to cover the relatively broad class of more ecologically friendly formulations. Williamborg (Bill) 04:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to what?[edit]

There appears to be a consensus forming that the article should be kept, but re-written and expanded to include various "environmentally-friendly" cement formulations besides TecEco's formulations. So what should the article be named? "Eco-cement" is claimed as a trademark by Mr. Harrison and TecEco, at least in Australia, and if the article is to cover similar products, some of which are not named "Eco-cement", it would appear that naming the article "Eco-cement" is not appropriate.

"Environmentally-friendly cement" is POV, and I don't think anyone is claiming fully "sustainable" (in the environmentalist sense) cement, so "sustainable cement" isn't very good, either. "Low-environmental-impact cement" seems accurate, NPOV, broad enough, and shouldn't run into trademark problems, but it also seems clumsy as a title. Any suggestions? Argyriou 21:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree most formulations are clumsy. I'd personally be OK with 'eco-friendly cement' or 'ecologically friendly cement' or 'environmentally friendly cement', if the article contextualised the title, but I do take your point there's an element of POV there. Anything encompassing the lower CO2 emissions cf Portland cement would seem to be NPOV. Wrt your suggestion, I think 'low' should perhaps be 'lower' or 'reduced', as they're not objectively low, merely lower than the default material. Espresso Addict 00:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC

• There's no reason why a redirect page couldn't be left in both the names 'eco-cement' and 'Eco-Cement'. Espresso Addict 01:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As John states, (he did forget to sign his name) I think a list of environmentally friendly cements, linking from the main cement page may be a good idea. Merging all these things in to one article is not the best approach as the information presented on all of these technologies could be expanded upon significantly. Noodle snacks 02:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Plea for Common Sense from John Harrison[edit]

The Brand Name Diffusion Fiasco[edit]

Eco-Cement is eco-cement and yes it is a brand name TecEco has used since inception covering a blend of reactive magnesia and another hydraulic cement such as Portland cement and usually a pozzolan.

The point is that Wikipedia exists to provide information about what is important, brand name or not so please stop running this diversionary arguement about it being a brand name and therefore it should be deleted.

The Capitals Cop Out[edit]

The capitals arguement is also irrelevant. TecEco own the brand name in upper and lower case through common law usage (hundreds if not thousands of articles including many important sources as cited) We don't really mind which Wiki contributors use as long as you stick to recording fact not making up fiction.

Making Eco-Cement Generic[edit]

This would really be writing history. Who is it that thinks they have the right?

Several have incorrectly referred to other users of the name as being a reason to make it generic. This would be rewriting fact and not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Closer scrutiny is required. What is happening is that many are trying to rip off the publicity associated with the eco-cement technology, environmentally friendly reputation and product. The dog shit cement referred to by Argyriou is irrelevant and he seems unable to support it with references. My research indicates it is an yet another example of an unimportant rip-off or our name that post dates our common law right. The reference to Lin, K.L.; Chiang, K.Y.; Lin, C.Y. (June 2005). "Hydration characteristics of waste sludge ash that is reused in eco-cement clinkers". Cement and Concrete Research 35 (6): 1074–1081 also falls into the category of a minor post dated rip off of the name. Taiheiyo released ecocement (all one word) around 2002 (thus post dating our contribution to science and the effort to stop global warming). It is a more disguised post dated rip off of our name some years after we started using the name eco-cement. In this respect Bláthnaid 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC) did inadequate research. I repeat, the Japanese product is called ecocement (all one word) not eco-cement. Taiheiyo will probably get away with it legally and we have no plans to challenge them (they are bigger than us!!).

It is discouraging that so many Wikipedians seem to want to have a hand in rewriting fact or history, not in putting together a world class assemblage of actual fact! Wikipedia exists to record only so those who suggest the page be generalised need to be aware that eco-cement or Eco-Cement is a blend of reactive magnesia and another hydraulic cement such as Portland cement and usually a pozzolan. It is not something or anything else. It is important and should be referenced and the arguement about brand names is a red herring.

I agree however that Wikipedia would be diminished if it became an advertising bill board so edit it down if you like but do not change the name as doing so would be reinventing both history and sience.

Changing the name of the Page[edit]

One or two people have made the comment that the name eco-cement should not be there as it is a brand name.

The precursor to modern day cement was invented by Smeaton in 1759. It was Joseph Aspidin that gave his particular and superior formulation the name "Portland cement". The most used material on the planet next to water was originally a brand name. Who still thinks it should be deleted?

A Page About Environmentally Friendly Cements[edit]

If I had the time I would write a page on environmentally friendly cement and refer to the page on eco-cements. If anybody does have the time then they should include geopolymers, tec and eco-cements, slag and fly ash cements, belite sulphoaluminate cements and a whole host of other formulations I have referred to in some of my articles on our web site at [7]. Unless you really are an expert please stay away from the task as remember, Wikipedia exists to record important facts, not create them.

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 — FireFox ^(talk) _{14:27, 29 August 2006}

Celebrity Big Brother (UK series 5)[edit]

The article is about a television series that, if it actually goes ahead, won't be happening until January. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 00:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep So what if it wont be going ahead till January. It is still going ahead and therefore, along with all the other Big Brother articles, deserves an entry Jezabelda 24 August 2006, 01:37

• The article has no new information in it that isn't already elsewhere, and it's unsourced. WP:V _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 00:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article is not speculative. It is about a future event. The fact that it's about a future event does not make it speculative. The article is about a notable subject that belongs in wikipedia. - Richardcavell 01:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If a source can be provided that says that this series of Big Brother is actually happening, I'll withdraw this AfD nomination and start discussion on the article's talk page. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 01:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found this which mentions the "next" Celebrity Big Brother in January.

However, the site is going nowhere - Big Brother UK Website - and definitely the Big Brother Forums - will remain online for the foreseeable future, so you can expect to find us online in a brand new format (which is being kept under wraps for now!) in January for the next series of Celebrity Big Brother!

Not much left for us to say, apart from may the best housemate win and thanks to all of you lot for your continued support and for visiting the site and choosing us as your choice for everything Big Brother! See you in January! --Wafulz 01:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How reliable is that? _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 01:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I honestly couldn't tell you- they seem to be a very well established website that's been running since the show's premier in 2000. However, they're not marked "official" anywhere that I can see. --Wafulz 01:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Big Brother (UK). Half of the article is unsourced speculation; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only real fact here is a date, which doesn't need an article of its own to mention. It can be split off into its own article when more information (such as who is participating) becomes available. Extraordinary Machine 03:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As the long-running program is already clearly notable - I think info regarding a confirmed upcoming series of the show is also notable. It will be not much more than a stub for a few months, but I don't think that really matters as the article clearly will grow. The info on the page does need to be cited though.CindyLooWho 03:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if and only if a properly cited source can be provided during the duration of this AfD discussion; otherwise merge and redirect to Big Brother (UK)#Celebrity Big Brother until confirmation of the show's go-ahead. --Stormie 05:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now, the article curtrently is speculative having no sources. And adds nothing to WIkipedia. WHen dates are confirmed or Davina is confirmed as being contracted to do it (with sourcing) then it can come back. For now it is just pointless --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 09:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Fairly certain to go ahead, but this might be a harbinger of overenthusiastic editors making articles many series in advance. Jefffire 10:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Temporary Delete it does currently fail 'wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Blood red sandman 10:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and re-create when it's officially confirmed and appropriate citations can be given. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as far as I can make out, there is no verifiable information about this possible future series, and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. An article can be made when there's actually some information to be put in it. Robotforaday 18:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are plenty of future events that are very likely to occur; that doesn't mean we need to create placeholder articles for them before any official information is available. This is an encyclopedia. That means reliable information comes first, and then we write the article. Those who want to speculate, kindly go and speculate somewhere appropriate. That is, somewhere not here. — Haeleth Talk 19:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above; WP is not a crystal ball, and this contains no information that a link to the other articles on the series would not provide. We lose nothing by leaving this space blank until there is such a series, and something to say about it. JCScaliger 20:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Davinia McCall said at the end of BB7 "See you in January for Celebrity", I believe. HornetMike 21:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. As it stands, this is a crystal ball, but if an official confirmation that this is in production is found it would be fine. BryanG^(talk) 22:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this should not be used as a reason for deletion when the information is found or the show comes into existence. JCScaliger 22:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but only for now. There are articles on individual Big Brother seasons, of course, but my feeling is it's a bit premature. Make sure it's mentioned at the main BB article, and when the show actually goes forward (as in there's information beyond speculation to print) then by all means recreate it. An exception would be if for some reason the new season becomes somehow noteworthy before broadcast (such as the controversy that has erupted regarding the yet-to-be-broadcast new edition of US Survivor.) 23skidoo 22:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article is almost entirely speculative. -- Whpq 00:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If it has not been confirmed yet then it should not be an article yet, it's the same reason the PlayStation 4 article was delete a few weeks ago. TJ Spyke 01:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is nothing wrong with articles on TV series whose airdates are pending, they provide useful information. I only wish this one cited sources. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • If they haven't confirmed this season yet then it should not have a page, that is the same policy that applies to movies/video games/other stuff that hasn't been confirmed. TJ Spyke 03:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jlambert 00:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep There is no point in deleting this. Jiei 01:59, 26 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buck the World[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced and purely speculative. John254 00:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First hit off of Google --Wafulz 01:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I get it as number two. Leuko 02:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But more information and sources need to be added as they become available. kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and include anything necessary under Young Buck, where I see this album is already listed. JCScaliger 20:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Provides potentially useful information about notable topic and is not "purely speculative." Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
• Keep This article should not be deleted because it is an official album, and gives people informarion on the upcomming album. Darkneonflame 03:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep If this gets deleted, the cabal must destroy all articles in [Category:Upcoming albums] (over 250 articles, many with the only reference being the artists website). Mceder 15:06, 25 August 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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sgha[edit]

This article was PRODed, but the tag was removed with no discussion. SGHA is nominated for deletion as an organization failing verifiability, as an article failing WP:VAIN, and as WP:OR, not to mention that it misses the mark on WP:ORG -- Whpq 00:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (I was original prodder), elaborate description of kids playing street hockey after school in one Canadian town. NawlinWiki 01:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per nom. SynergeticMaggot 01:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable local amateur league. Fails WP:ORG, probably WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:VANITY as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete This article relates to a small hockey league in a small Canadian town, organized by a few dedicated volunteers. It was organized to allow underprivileged youth from the surrounding area to participate in hockey for free. It is important to the community and we thought it would be fun for the kids to be able to read about themselves online. It completely arrogant to suggest this isn't important; it has made a big difference in the lives of several kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameronbuttz (talk • contribs) (user's only edit)
  • If you want the kids to be able to read about themselves online, why not make a page on MySpace or even eteamz.com? This, however, is a general reference encyclopedia, and the criterion for including articles is not, unfortunately, whether they make someone happy or whether they make a difference to "several kids". See Wikipedia:Notability. NawlinWiki 01:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete SGHA does not fail verifiability as news of the league has been reported on quite frequently in several local newspapers as a venue where the premier roller hockey players in the region gather to compete. There has also been a long standing, and very significant SGHA webpage, which until recently was the source for all SGHA-related information. Many of the techniques and strategies formulated within the SGHA league hierarchy have been implemented in professional rollerhockey associations across Southern Ontario, most notably the Greater Toronto Inline Hockey League. The SGHA is widely known, with hubs of interest pocketed across the country, and in many cases across the continent. Locations as varied as Portland, Calgary, Toronto, and New York City have all had their own unique and significant experiences with the organization. I will do my best to update this entry with the correct references and format in due time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.232.186 (talk • contribs) (user's only edit)
  • Please cite those newspaper reports. Uncle G 08:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom -Ladybirdintheuk 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Kinu -Draicone ^(talk) 22:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete The SGHA is a well known developmental/summer league in the Greater Toronto Area. Those who have chosen to delete it are extremely unfamiliar with it and thus are therefore threatened by it's reality. Many professional players play in this league during their off-season. Most Americans are unfamiliar with the SGHA term. A conflict of cultures is apparent in those who are attempting to delete this entry. 23:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinco100 (talk • contribs)
  • Just a note, the preceding comment was unsigned by a user who's only 3 contributions start with a personal attack on my talk page (I won't be pursuing it as it isnt worded very offensively, and per WP:BITE) and then voting here, the third edit being to prepend his vote with a '*' that he may have forgotten. However, he has a valid point; please take this account when commenting here. (AfD is not a vote)
  • It seems odd that we've had two users with accounts made solely for the purpose of voting on this... sockpuppetry by the article starter? WP:SOCK --Draicone ^(talk) 22:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Instead of making accusatory generalizations about other editors' abilities to objective assess whether an article meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards, consider improving the article to meet these standards, i.e., by verifying your claims of notability by citing reliable sources. And for what it's worth, I am quite the hockey fan, despite living in steamy Texas. No bias here. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and Zinco, nominating other articles for deletion because they happen to be created by other editors who are recommending deletion of this one, like you did here, isn't a good way to help your case. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete - organizational verification [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunstorm34 (talk • contribs) Account whose edits consist of those to the article in question and this AfD.
  • Comment - That links doesn't actually, uh, go anywhere. WilyD 13:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: That link appears to go to an error page. For what its worth, I've found zero Google hits and no Factiva references for this club to date. If you have other sources, please don't hesitate to source the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A roller hockey league in a town of 50,000? Um, no. -- Kicking222 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Dont Delete - In contrast to NawlinWiki's post. There is no mention of "school, afterschool, or "street" hockey in the article.(Zinco100 23:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)) User has already made recommendation; see above.[reply]
• Dont Delete - In contrast to NawlinWiki's post. There is no mention of "school, afterschool, or "street" hockey in the article.(Zinco100 23:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Note Struck out user's second "vote", despite this not being a "vote". Note that this user also left a personal attack on my talkpage, as he previously did with Draicone and Kinu. -- Kicking222 23:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Kicking222 uses the term "personal attack" as a scapegoat due to his inability to debate/accept accurate information and statements. Suggesting Kicking222 should formally refrain from posting on any Canadian content is not a personal attack. It is a factual statement to keep Wikipedia from becoming an American melting pot of information.(Zinco100 05:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Response Zinco100, please note that you are in no position to suggest that a user refrain from editing - WP:BOLD. And per WP:VERIFY, your 'factual' statement is unverified and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia. --Draicone ^(talk) 07:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Struck out Kicking222's bulleted point, judging by his user information page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kicking222) he is marked by several items that suggests a lack of normal maturity. For example, repeatedly using the words "d*mn" and "sh*t" in his profile. By no means is this adolescent prepared discuss any article's relevance in Wikipedia.(Zinco100 06:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Response This is no reason to strike his vote. I see no problem with his participation on Wikipedia and would rather doubt your ability to remain civil and be aware when you are wrong. Wikipedia does not censor content, as there is no need to. --Draicone ^(talk) 22:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD no longer needs to be paused. Feel free to continue putting forward your opinion.

• Comment what is there to pause? The AFD process is in place to provide discussion to come to a concensus on the action to take for the article under consideration. The stated reasons for the nomination are:

  1. Verifiability
  2. Vanity
  3. Original Research
  4. Organization

• In the discussion so far, I don't see any of the comments in favour of keeping teh article really address these points very well. -- Whpq 13:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The AfD process is designed to allow for improvement of the article within the five day course of listing. I feel that enough good faith has been given to Zinco100 (and any of the other supporters of the article, for that matter), despite the personal attacks, generalizations, WP:POINT violation in nominating another article for deletion. I have seen no desire by the supporters to improve the article to meet WP:V as explained herein, despite repeated requests to do so, and thus there is no need to break process in this instance. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Draicone, I'm sorry to burst your bubble but there is no hierarchy of authority in regards to deleting pages based on Wikipedia experience. It doesn't matter if a user is newly registered or been on here since the beginning. We are all equal. I refuse to be bullied. (Zinco100 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Response Zinco100, I'm not saying that there is a hierarchy of authority for AfD. However, new users are not always familiar with policy, such as the four listed above by Whpq which clearly apply in this situation. In addition, I am not attempting to bully you. However, if you feel this way, then WP:BITE no longer applies and the standard policies that Whpq listed above state that this article should be deleted, end of story. Failing notability generally is not an issue, but verifiability, vanity and original research don't give very much reason to keep the article. If you feel it deserves a place on the web, I suggest you put it on Wikia. --Draicone ^(talk) 07:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD does not appear to be transcluded anywhere, due to this edit. Listing it on today's page for eventual closure. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It seems like the general consensus is to do so, but I'm adding another vote to make it clear in light of all the debate and argument. It doesn't satisfy on counts of verifiability, vanity, notability, OR, organization, neologisms and perhaps even the spirit of WP:NFT (yes, I know it wasn't made up in school per se) in that it uses seemingly unique rules for roller hockey. SliceNYC 01:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is far too minor of an organization to have its own article. --Wafulz 01:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 02:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An amateur neighborhood league? Definately not notable. Leuko 02:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I guess it needs to be said...While I can respect the feelings that some of these anons have completely, the fact of the matter is that this AfD is not about censorship or picking favorites or suggesting the organization isn't important to the children. It is about if the Article can pass all of Wikipedia's rules. Let me help out a bit so the people new to wikipedia understand. The real problem with this article is that it doesn't follow the three pillars of wikipedia. An article must be Verifiable through multiple, reliable, reputable, independent, third-party sources. It must not be original research, which means there are no sources to back up the claims of the author(s). It must also have a neutral point-of-view and not show bias. As a guideline for the above rules, an article must cite it's notability with reliable sources and be must be encyclopaedic. This article fails to meet WP:V, some sections of WP:OR, does not follow the guideline of WP:CITE or WP:RS. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. An article on this org must cite multiple, reliable, secondary, independent of the organization, non-trivial, third-party sources such as books, magazines, and papers that have national and/or international coverage. The articles must be based, or completely focused on just this org. Just a mention in passing is not acceptable (as it is concidered a trivial source...even if it is in the New York Times...the source isn't trivial, but the coverage by the source was. So far no one has shown that there are reliable secondary sources that fit this criteria for this article. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (as explained above). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. In essence, please explain why this article should be allowed to not follow WP:V when all other articles must. I hope this helps understand my take on this discussion --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 03:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete for completeness' sake - non-notable local organization. Opabinia regalis 03:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All it needs is to be wikifyed (it already has had the template informing about that) kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)please note this user's vote history[reply]
  • Comment Keep? Please explain why this article should be allowed to ignore WP:V. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 03:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Can't this discussion simply be closed- and this article deleted- already? The AfD has already been up for 10 days, and there's a very clear consensus pointing towards deletion. Why not just get rid of this now? -- Kicking222 04:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:ORG. The article cites no sources, and the league gets only three Google hits; one from Wikipedia and two from its own site at Geocities. [9] --Metropolitan90 04:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable local amateur sports league. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Brian's eloquent explanation of Wikipedia's principles. --Stormie 05:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced, unverifiable. Easy as 3.14159265358979...WilyD 13:09, 24 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voices (song)[edit]

Non-notable song. No real content to warrant its own page. - Stezton 09:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete AfD nomination not transcluded on any log page. Listing it here. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There's little content (and nothing that would be worth a merge), and I doubt it would pass any possible song criteria. -- Kicking222 02:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Leuko 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Sickness says already says about the amount of information as the atricle. kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, void of encyclopedic value --Mecanismo | Talk 10:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, just non-notable. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 12:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above --Wildnox 21:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since this song sucks poop! --Nintendude ^message 00:56, 28 August 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. Metamagician3000 11:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor Downtown Travelodge Hotel[edit]

A 12-story hotel run by an international chain that gives no evidence of being more than your run-of-the-mill establishment without distinguishing features. This articles is part of a series about buildings in Windsor, Ontario, one of which has already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers). Indrian 18:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into "urban renewal" or "high-rise buildings" section in Windsor, Ontario article? User:Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 16:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete AfD nomination not transcluded on any log page. Listing it here. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable. Leuko 03:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Leuko or Merge per Raccoon Fox kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - remove it outright. Why merge? If this is merged, then the same reasoning would apply to every building in Windsor. -- Whpq 16:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wonderfully quirky and of interest to Windsor-philes: Wikipedia should not delete articles just because they are random, since they enhance wikipedia's interestingness. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
• Delete - not notable, no need to merge. - David Oberst 06:43, 26 August 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 per Arenacle. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderman (truck)[edit]

Duplicate stub, also on Spiderman (Hummer truck) -HKMARKS 18:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete AfD nomination not transcluded on any log page. Listing it here. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to one or the other. --Wafulz 01:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect = free. Leuko 03:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect its the oobvious choice. --Edgelord 14:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirected Spiderman (Hummer truck) to Spiderman (truck), and added information linking the two vehicles. As such, Keep this article, and I will move it to Spider-Man (truck) when the AFD is closed (which it appears the proper name is).Arenacale 00:43, 26 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon ability[edit]

• Wikipedia is not a game guide. Edit: I just want to add right up front for the closing admin to make sure there is no confusion that this article is merely a list of every ability the various pokemon have in the various pokemon games, what these abilities do, and which pokemon have them. Therefore the sole purpose of the article is to be an in-depth guide to a facet of a video game. Here is a quote from WP:NOT: "Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." (Emphasis added) To quote Wikipedia:Deletion Policy: "[I]t's worth noting that (as with all Wikipedia consensus decisions), the purpose of a discussion is to bring out a "sense of the community" and the valid points for or against each view. So deletion is not a strict "count of votes", but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing (emphasis added). The policy arguement for deletion is that it is a violation of the WP:NOT point quoted above. The keep votes are based mostly on an desire by pokemon fans to keep an article they have worked on and find useful, but no arguement has been made relating to policy, nor has the proposition that the article violates WP:NOT been refuted. Just some food for thought. Indrian 01:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Whoa, hold it! Wouldn't it be more appropriate to discuss this on the article's talk page instead of instantly nominating it for deletion? I'm not for deleting the article, but I also see how it doesn't qualify for the Best Article award. Maybe it could use more expository text and have more of an overview of what a Pokémon ability is instead of being merely a huge list. Several people put a lot of work into this article (there's a lot of Pokémon to list and link); it'd be a shame to lose it so fast. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is none of my concern whether a lot of people have worked on this article or not. Please read WP:NOT, paying particular attention to the part about wikipedia not being a game guide. This article violates policy, and I see no way this article could be changed to not violate policy. AfD is the proper venue for this discussion. Indrian 01:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say Keep because this article is relatively new and could be fixed to have more generic information in it, rather than being a big list of data. With the new Pokémon game coming out soon, there may soon be a plethora of information to add. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Though there are other wikis where concerned Pokemaniacs can harvest info, a small article is ok.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no it is not because it violates policy. I hope that if this keep vote trend continues the admin who closes this AfD will take a close look at the article and a close look at policy and realize that this article is in violation. Indrian 02:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep TJ Spyke 02:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - we're not a game guide, although there are obviously sites out there which are or don't mind being. BigHaz 02:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, the information on the specific abilities of the creatures either is already or should probably be in the articles on the creatures themselves, rather than here. This makes it look very gameguidey. BigHaz 05:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR. Even merging is not an option as nothing here can be saved without looking like a 'how to' or 'guide'. -Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 02:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Brian. Leuko 03:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and prosify. Possibly provide longer, more gradual intro to abilities. This is not OR, the game guides for all the G3 games list abilities and descriptions, as well as which Pokemon they are on. I will gradually be rewriting/prosifying/modifying this article. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The work is complete. A lot of it was copied from in-game descriptions. The new listings note similarities to other abilities as well as stat boosts. The game is very vague on the latter and does not cover the former. I also notice WP:V is a non-factor, it's also not OR. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwikify to Wikibooks kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this would be good on 'Books. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's a game guide. Move somewhere else if there's anywhere that wants it, but we shouldn't have it. Opabinia regalis 03:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: It's not fit to have its own article. Perhaps certain information could be merged into the Ruby and Sapphire article, as long as it doesn't list out the abilities and their effects... That's irrelevant to Wikipedia.--Coltonblue 03:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although it could do with references moving onto the article itself instead of via wikilinks, it passes WP:V, my most important test. For the WP:NOTABLE crowd, it also clearly passes by virtue of being Pokémon. The information detailed within this article cannot be currently aquired in a concise form within wikipedia, and hence this article serves a purpose. I also see no instructions on the explicit use of these abilities (implict use by their description alone is unavoidable, but hence not an issue), or a guide about them. LinaMishima 06:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also believe that AfD without prior discussion on a long-standing and well-edited article is very bad practice. Discussion first will result in either a consensus to delete in advance (saving a lot of trouble), or the article being fixed. LinaMishima 06:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reading this article doesn't help make me a better Pokémon player, hence it's not really game guide-esque. --SaturnYoshi 06:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hold up! Where does it cite sources? Why should this article be allowed to ignore WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS when all other articles must follow them? While I can respect the feelings that some of the other editors have completely, the fact of the matter is that this AfD is not about censorship or picking favorites or suggesting that pokemon isn't important to children or such. It is about if the Article can pass all of Wikipedia's rules. Let me help out a bit so the people new to wikipedia understand. The real problem with this article is that it doesn't follow the three pillars of wikipedia. An article must be Verifiable through multiple, reliable, reputable, independent, third-party sources. It must not be original research, which means there have to be sources to back up the claims of the author(s) and all information provided in the article. It must also have a neutral point-of-view and not show bias. As a guideline for the above rules, an article must cite it's information with reliable sources and be must be encyclopaedic. This article fails to meet WP:V, sections of WP:OR (if not all of OR), does not follow the guideline of WP:CITE or WP:RS. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. This article must cite multiple, reliable, secondary, independent of the organization, non-trivial, third-party sources such as books, magazines, and papers that have national and/or international coverage. The articles must be based, or completely focused on just pokemon (and in this case, the powers). Just a mention in passing is not acceptable (as it is concidered a trivial source...even if it is in the New York Times...the source isn't trivial, but the coverage by the source was). So far no one has shown that there are reliable secondary sources that fit this criteria for this article. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (as explained above). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. In essence, please explain why this article should be allowed to not follow WP:V when all other articles must. While we know that pokemon is Verifiable, where are the New York Times, Washington Post, or CBS nightly news report on the pokemon abilities? I hope this helps understand my take on this discussion. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 07:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply There are ungoing debates over the use of wikilinks as references. Whilst featuring the references themselves is generally better, if a direct wikilink has the reference this also tends to count. Secondly, Primary sources are valid sources for indisputable facts, such as the engine of a car, or rules within a game. If you read WP:NOR and WP:RS, this use of primary sources is allowed, if not perfect. It should also be noted that the article clearly meets WP:NPOV. LinaMishima 08:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The section where it lists what abilities each Pokémon has should simply be on the individual Pokémon pages, however a general article describing the gameplay mechanics of abilities (i.e., everything above the list) is fine with me as long as it doesn't become a game guide. BryanG^(talk) 07:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would change to keep ONLY if the lists were removed permanently and sources cited for all the information above the lists (and not links to other wikipedia articles but actual links outside of wikipedia. Or books/magazine/tv references) --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 07:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you cite a video game? I'm just ignorant--I'd do it if I knew how. Regardless, I didn't use any external resources to write the upper paragraphs (above the list), just my own personal knowledge of what Pokémon have which abilities. Besides, the List of Mario series items is also video-game-related and it doesn't seem to cite any resources as well. --Brandon Dilbeck 14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So Brandon, by your comment you admit this is original research. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My research wasn't original; this information can be found in many places on the Internet and it's been published in many playing guides and even in the game itself. I was just stating why the upper paragraphs didn't have citations--because I didn't know how. But I think I got them right now. --Brandon Dilbeck 19:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a central concept of the Pokémon game, but maybe remove the listing of specific abilities. JIP | Talk 09:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm getting the feeling that the insisting of deletion here may be prejudice against Pokemon. Although I'm not a Pokemon fan myself I do agree with those who say the article may merely just need cleaning up rather than a full scale deletion. --204.116.124.117 09:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This whole Pokemon cruft thing has gotten out of hand. They should really start their own wiki along with professional wrestling and the legions of wannabe indie bands. --Xrblsnggt 09:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete void of any encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a publisher of game guides. --Mecanismo | Talk 10:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — article needs to be cleanup. Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 14:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As one of the main contributors to this page(fixing links, adding secondary effects), I believe this article should stay. As mentioned before it is a central concept of the games, and as a central concept I believe there should be a page describing and listing all of the abilities. The article does need a bit cleaning up, but other than that there is no reason for deletion. 0-172 16:39, 24 August (UTC)
  • A page listing and describing all the abilities is a game guide in violation of policy. Cleaning it up will not save it. Indrian 17:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm all for having an article that explains what Pokémon abilities are, which assumes no prior experience of Pokémon, and generally describes some of the various types of abilities. But a listing of each specific ability and which Pokémon creatures have that is utter gamecruft, and should be removed. JIP | Talk 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • However surely the article you propose, stripped of descriptions of all but a handful of abilities and without additional information is of less intrinsic value than the current article? It would, however, be more immediately accessable - but this is easily fixable in the current article. LinaMishima 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The question is not one of value but of being encyclopedic. If one wants a description of Pokemon abilities, one should go to GameFAQs. Wikipedia is not a substitute for the internet. Indrian 19:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see why not--isn't it Wikipedia's goal to absorb as much knowledge as possible? I don't see why this list should be less important than a list of Gargoyles episodes--are we implying that television is more important than video games? Never mind, this isn't the place to discuss this. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If Wikipedia's goal was to "absorb as much knowledge as possible", then every single non-notable vanity article would have been kept. I've written articles about my former company, a fan club I'm part of, and myself. All got deleted for non-notability, and I agree with the result. If you really want "as much knowledge as possible", I can document every single old newspaper, empty beer can, and ball of dust I have lying around. JIP | Talk 20:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup — Based on the desriptions of the abilities, which delve into things like HP's &c., most of the content is pretty clearly game guide. It needs a significant re-write to bring it in line with wikipedias consensus policies. I suppose the creature combos could be moved to the individual creature pages, in the manner of "other creatures with this ability". — RJH (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 21:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. TJ Spyke 22:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC) TJ Spyke 22:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Selmo 00:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not sure the full list of abilities is necessary, but I don't see anything wrong with having the article. Ace of Sevens 00:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Edgecution 00:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Brandon Dilbeck - Sonic3KMaster(鉄也)^(talk) 01:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pokemon = cool. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
• Delete WP is not a game guide. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup, explaining important aspects of games is part of providing an encyclopedic treatment. Not a "how-to" so the prohibition on game guides is obviously being misapplied. Kappa 04:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & cleanup Havok (T/C/c) 12:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One day, we will have accumulated enough pokemoncruft to create an entirely separate pokemonwiki and we can all celebrate by transwikying this ballast! Eusebeus 20:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That exists, right here. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 00:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wp is not a game guide--Peephole 21:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Dare I cite WP:PKMN? TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 00:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You certainly can if you want. But what an essay which amounts to a personal opinion of the author(s) proves about whether or not this article violates a policy is beyond me. Indrian 00:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment. I don't understand the jump between an article being about a game and being a game guide. To my mind, a game guide gives you hints and suggestions about strategies, etc. Documenting facts about a game need not constitute a guide. Also, for articles about fictional works, the work itself often serves as a perfectly good primary source. — brighterorange (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this can be a difficult area to define. To me, it usually comes down to focus. Obviously, an article must give a general overview of how a game works in order to convey the subject properly. However, when an article begins to go into every facet of a game, or a part of a game, then it is starting to cross the line. By analogy, a plot summary is necessary to explaining a novel, but a chapter by chapter summary goes beyond explaining what the book is about and becomes a substitute for the novel itself. As for pokemon, describing the role abilities play in the game and giving one or two examples helps inform on the game. Something this comprehensive can only be useful to one attempting to formulate game strategy even if the article does not give specific strategies itself. In other words, only one playing the game requires this level of deatil. That, to me, is what makes it a game guide. Indrian 04:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added a proposal to the article's talk page. This would remove all the Pokemon names from the list and would certainly make the article seem less Pokecrufty. Please provide feedback on this proposal. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree and would put the Catagories into a Deletion review, personally. There is no reason for catagories on 'growth' or 'lightning' just to catagorize the characters. The articles on the characters are enough. There is no need to catagorize them or even have a 'list' like this. Remove the list, leave the top paragraph but reference the hell out of it. Why do we need a list when it is easy enough for people to look directly at each characters' page and/or get a free game guide/FAQ online? The only people who would be interested in knowing this information are the people who play the games...hence it is a game guide. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see my reply to that in the article's talk page. I don't want to cause the same discussion to happen in two different places. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete didn't we delete this a while ago? On their own, abilities lack any distinct encylopedic value. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 23:01, 27 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UWICK[edit]

Non-notable. Delete. RobJ1981 02:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete AfD nomination not transcluded on any log page. Listing it here. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject doesn't meet proposed criteria in WP:SOFTWARE and is largely limited to use by Washington students. Also, I've moved your deletion recommendation with your nomination so others don't get confused- it's not even necessary to mention that you support deletion given that you nominated it. --Wafulz 01:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Leuko 03:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with University of Washington kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. The software would only be used by persons at one particular university, not the general public. --Metropolitan90 04:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Metropolitan90. JIP | Talk 09:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, void of any encyclopedic value --Mecanismo | Talk 10:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — WP:SOFTWARE, not notable enough. Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 14:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:30, 25 August 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 Concensus. Teke ^(talk) 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World Gameplay[edit]

This is nothing more than an instruction manual for this game, and wikipedia is not a game guide. Indrian 01:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Empires: Dawn of the Modern World --Wafulz 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, explaining how a game works is not the same as being an instruction manual. Kappa 02:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ummmm, that is exactly what an instruction manual does, explains how something works. This is a guide on how to play the game and on how various facets of the game work. That makes this a game guide in violation of official policy. Indrian 02:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • An instruction manual explains how to do something, that's what "instruction" means. An encylopedia's duty is exactly to explain how various facets of the game work. Kappa 03:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you ever read an instruction manual for a computer game? They usually include both information on how to play the game as well as information on what various things do so that the player knows how best to use them. Anyway, why don't I just quote WP:NOT: "Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks." I have often been at odds with you on AfD, but this is the first time I have seen you blatantly disregard an official policy. Indrian 04:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Game manuals obviously have to explain how the game works, in the same way an encylopedia does. We've already established that this isn't a "how-to". Kappa 04:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • And pray tell how is this not a video game guide? Indrian 04:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Wafulz. TJ Spyke 03:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and/or Transwikify to Wikibooks kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Wikibooks is not the place for game guides any longer. I believe you're looking for StrategyWiki. -- nae'blis 03:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete void ofany encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a publisher of game guides. --Mecanismo | Talk 10:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this is Wikipedia, not GameFaqs. I doubt Wikibooks would accept this either, so transwikifying is not an option. In addition to being a game guide, it's also largely incomprehensible: what on earth is "Citzens [sic]] build buildings, with the exception of England and the United Kingdom" supposed to mean, and why is it such an important fact that it's in the lead section? Bizarre. — Haeleth Talk 19:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about it not being able to transfer to wikibooks. I think that that if you are completly unmovable on keeping this, other solutions can be found. You're saying that wikibooks won't accept this? All it takes is a little love and a little editing to make it up to snuff for transfering (I've already done a spell check and rewrote the into). If you are not willing to accept that solution we could tranfer to it to strategy wiki. Your basis for no one else not accepting this is justified, but I think fixing it is fizable (and already underway). Of course I'd like to keep it, but I'm willing to negoiate. What are your thoughts? --Clyde Miller 00:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Um...I'm the person that wrote this article, as well as much of Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, and I wasn't aware that I was breaking policy with this. I thought it added understanding to the game article if someone wants to look further into the game or how it's played. I know it looks like I suck at writing, but I haven't had time to edit this and Empires: Dawn of the Modern World simultaneously. I did most of this myself, but I could see about minimizing it or wikifying it if you guys don't like it. If you look at the main article I was able to summarize the gameplay with the knowledge in mind that if someone wanted to look up more into the gameplay they could so. Empires: Dawn of the Modern World is up for GA nomination right now, and I'm just worried it will be failed because the gameplay article was suddenly wiped from the face of the Earth, which would make the Gameplay section look rather pathetic. I'm also rather sad that Indrian decided to go after this one article. I thought I was doing a good thing by making this only one article. I noticed that articles like Runescape have 16 articles that could be considered exactly the same thing as I'm writing, so would it be better for me to split this into a few more articles and you guys can decide which sections should be up for deletion? I'm really up for any solution other than deleting, and I'm hoping that can be done.--Clyde Miller 21:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify; these are genuine concerns, and we may eventually be able to use some of this. JCScaliger 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The problem with a lot of video game articles like this one (as well as articles about TV series and books) is that they seem to cater to people who are familiar with the topic...extremely familiar with the topic. Maybe if articles like this one could be written more for people who have never played the game (or never played video games at all, *gasp*) they would fit in with the other articles a bit more easily. As it stands, I can't really make a decision about this article because it doesn't relate much of anything to real life^TM. If the article is kept or userfied, a severe amount of wikification and general cleanup in tone and spelling is needed. But it may have a shot. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I cannot understand why someone would want to delete this long and informative article. Some people don't understand this game and think games of this sort have no importance. This viewpoint is not correct in my opinion: many people think this is important. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • This is a straw man. Indrian 03:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A game isn't important, noteworthy, relevant or has encyclopedic value just because someone claims it has in the middle of a pile of baseless accusations and personal attacks. I suggest that if you try to defend the article you keep your arguments objective and on topic. --Mecanismo | Talk 11:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A very sharp and ironic comment. Can you help me identify what in my comment constituted an "attack" rather than a harmless statement of my opinion? I would like that. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
      • In your vote, you stated that the people voting delete do not understand the game or its importance. However, the reason given for deletion is that the article violates policy by being a game guide and no one here has advocated that the article about the game itself be deleted. Therefore, your comment is a straw man because it attacks an issue that you made up rather than one in controversy, and it is an attack because you call people ignorant rather than attacking the policy arguement. Anything still unclear? Indrian 21:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It may have been a straw man (that depends on whether you think there was some "real issue" that I was ducking in my post), but was no attack. What I wrote: "Some people don't understand this game and think games of this sort have no importance." What you say I wrote: people voting delete do not understand the game or its importance. Those are two different statements. If I wrote, "people voting delete" have no idea about the importnace of the game, that might be a personal attack. But I was making a more general point that the article deals with a subject about which some (most?) people know or care very little but yet that should not preclude it from being on wikipedia. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • The issue is not the game's importance, but whether or not this is an encylopedic explantion of the mechanics of the game. Kappa 00:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and redirect to the game's page. Eusebeus 20:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and re-direct to Empires: Dawn of the Modern World. Edgecution 21:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Transwiki it to Wikibooks. Davodd 09:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sabotage Mine: Reduces a mine to rubble which must be moved before mining can proceed says it all. Even the title announces the WP:NOTness of the article. ~ trialsanderrors 18:09, 29 August 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, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 17:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Silver Fish[edit]

Non-notable band. Appears to be vanity article. - Stezton 09:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An unsigned band that has come in second out of four twice in the Spring Green, Wisconsin Battle of the Bands... has to be close to the paradigm of non-notability. · rodii · 15:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinPuj (talk • contribs)

Incomplete AfD nomination not transcluded on any log page. Listing it here. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article states they have released no albums, fails WP:MUSIC. DrunkenSmurf 02:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Biggest claim to notability is that they played at their HS Homecoming. Leuko 03:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity page of an insignificant highschool band. --Mecanismo | Talk 10:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity for a non-notable band. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, blatantly fails WP:MUSIC. Probably could've been speedied, since I see no assertion of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In fact, so tagged... saying The band currently has no albums released and a list of covers played at a battle of the bands contest really doesn't cut it for me for dodging CSD A7. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:14, 26 August 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. W.marsh 02:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Campbell[edit]

Clearly not notable - nothing more needs to be said. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 01:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy A7, no assertion of notability in there anywhere. No, being a former Miss America's granddaughter does not count. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete TJ Spyke 02:04, 24 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiago Della Vega[edit]

Notability - most Google hits for his name are from forum posts and his videos. He claims to be in the Guinness Book of Records, but a search on the Guinness site doesn't bring up anything related to him or to fast guitar players in general. Can't find any reference to him on any credible music publications. antiuser 02:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Google video is here [10]. He can make weird, but not very controlled, noises with an electric guitar <shrugs>. Band "Fermatha" isn't notable - Richfife 02:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fermatha gets 119 Ghits, so I doubt one member is any more notable. SliceNYC 02:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable, vanity. --Mecanismo | Talk 10:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could someone with access to a printed copy of the Guinness Book of Records confirm his claim to be listed in it? TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 11:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wiki is not the Guinness book of records. In any event, the article does not refer to the existence of an entry in the GBR. Ohconfucius 02:00, 26 August 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 to Panathinaikos, I don't see anything useful to merge. If someone disagrees, the history is still there. - Bobet 10:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gate 13[edit]

ok to delete since no notability or sources Anlace 04:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable fanclub. --Daniel Olsen 06:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think. Someone who reads greek may want to go over the links I added to the article, but they seem to be notable in a multi-national, regularly scheduled riots with lots of lovely property damage sort of way. I'm not sure I want to be on record voting against them. - Richfife 02:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless you can provide independent, recognized news coverage of their participation in multi-national riots. Just linking to the groups homepage does not establish notability. Leuko 03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply If you do a search of the name in Greek here: [11], you'll find they regularly do fan stadium demonstrations that involve the participation of hundreds, if not thousands of people. The "Articles" section of [12] contains hundreds of entries. - Richfife 03:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If all the sources of information are in Greek, perhaps the article should be moved to el.wiki? Leuko 03:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply There's presumably a separate article there already. The English Wikipedia is striving to avoid an English centric viewpoint, even though it's written in English. - Richfife 04:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Granted, but it makes it hard to verify claims of notability if everything is in Greek. On the Google search, all I found were (what I assume to be) nn fan sites. I did not note any reputable news sources making mention of the group. Leuko 04:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to reliable sources, an article consisting of solely foreign language sources is allowed, but not preferred. ColourBurst 04:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable if they are up to the standards of WP:RS in terms of quality. I don't believe a few fan sites qualify. Leuko 04:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but needs more info. kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable organization. Daniel's page ☎ 04:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Panathinaikos. Fan clubs for sports teams should be discussed on Wikipedia, if at all, in the team's article. Since Gate 13 is a one-sentence article, it should be easy to merge. --Metropolitan90 04:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Metropolitan90 --Huon 08:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as above - the external links can be added to the main article as well. -- Roleplayer 10:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect as above; if anybody wants to find this, that will get them there. JCScaliger 20:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect A Google search for "Gate 13" shows this subject, but as far as I can see, no individual article is needed. I'm not sure what there is to merge. -- tariqabjotu 04:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in someone can expand. Otherwise I support tariq's redirect rationale. Williamborg (Bill) 04:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What's so notable about it? It seems a bit local, and nothing to substantiate its claim, and even if it is substantiated, so what?? What has it done? The english site is down as I write. I see no point in redirecting. "Gate 13" is a pretty generic term, and probably exists in every airport and bus depot in every city.Ohconfucius 02:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTE. Doesn't even deserve a merge. Daniel.Bryant 13:31, 26 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Coleman[edit]

Non-notable vanity page. Does not meet WP:NN for people. Leuko 02:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Graveyard shift DJ doesn't quite do it. Even most DJ's who work when people are awake aren't notable. Nothing makes this one stand out. Fan-1967 02:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom Anlace 02:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but needs more info. kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Republitarian 04:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and post to User's space for expansion. Too stubby to be useful. Wjhonson 06:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:SPAM and/or WP:VAIN WilyD 13:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Content of this article = listen to my radio show! Delete Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
• Delete per Fan-1967. Influential among West Mids insomniacs, taxi-drivers, and refuse collectors. Second thoughts, strike refuse collectors as it is nowadays mostly done in the daytime. Ohconfucius 03:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fan-1967. Maybe notable to hotel clerks working the overnight, clearly not notable enough Zoobeerhall 05:43, 28 August 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judson Laipply[edit]

Not sure, but nothing is cited here. I believe that this may fail WP:BIO and perhaps WP:V. Though there is a lot of claimed coverage, it isn't cited nor can I find it in a search (though my browser has been acting up ever since the last update so this may be the cause). I am going to stay neutral on this but let people decide in AfD if it should stay or go. Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 02:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't a vote so do you have an arguement on 'why' the article should be kept?--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 04:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with clean-up. His act has been seen by millions of people over the internet, therefore he passes WP:BIO (A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following). The first citation on the page is from the guy's own site and the second is broken (no longer links to the specific newspaper article), so some of the facts on the page need to be cited.CindyLooWho 03:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You took that out of context to fit your arguement. If you read it IN CONTEXT then it says Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following . This only applies to movie and TV stars...not internet celebs. Nothing is cited on this page and per WP:BIO 'multiple' sources are needed...not one. So your arguement basically is just keep with nothing supporting it.--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 04:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: 1. As someone who seems to be "up" on Wikipedia rules, you should know better than to make an edit (even a small one) to someone else's comments in a discussion thread. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if I started doing it to your comments. Please don't do it to mine. If you think I took something out of context, then YOU can put it into context entirely in YOUR comment. 2. I agree that I took criteria from "notable actors and television personalities" because there is no criteria for internet video personalities and yes, I could have made that clearer. 3. The subject still passes the alternative WP:BIO "Google Test" (gets lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism) by a country mile - 65,800 hits on Google for "Judson Laipply" and 634,000 for "Evolution of Dance". That alone gets my keep vote. 4. I've already agreed that independent citations are needed for a couple statements made on the page. I've fixed some and requested one more. I'm sure it can be found. If not, it only means the deletion of one sentence - not the entire page. In my personal opinion, there is no way this page should be deleted.CindyLooWho 05:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I almost never use this phrase, but his "Evolution of Dance" video is a notable Internet meme. I'll check the citations on the page to make sure there is support for its media coverage. --Metropolitan90 04:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to agree with Metropolitan90. Numerous sources of citation are online and simply need to be added to the article; the video is indeed a notable meme as well (and he wasn't just on YouTube - he had the #1 viewed video on YouTube. Well, that is, according to him). --Jitterro 05:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Now that we have some citations of coverage, I'm thinking this would pass WP:V and WP:BIO. I am still staying Neutral on this however. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 06:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems notable, sourced and cited. Although I haven't personally verified, it seems verifiable. Wjhonson 06:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple, verifiable, non-trival sources. Catchpole 07:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the popularity of Evolution of Dance can be verified from somewhere other than Laipply's own website. That seems to be the only claim to notability here. JCScaliger 20:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • His video can be seen on multiple independent sites. Among others, YouTube.com has no ties to Laipply - and they have had over 31 million downloads of his video (this number is seen on YouTube's "Evolution of Dance" download page). This fact is already cited on the Wiki page. Quite frankly, I think this a real no-brainer keep. Tens of millions of people know who this guy is (although granted most probably don't know his actual name). That's plenty to warrant a Wikipedia biography. CindyLooWho 23:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then the article should say so, and not mention his website at all. This might have avoided the AfD altogether. JCScaliger 14:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Cindy, I need to point out this to you: Popularity on YouTube means nothing for notablility here at Wikipedia. The video could have 3 views or 3 billion...it doesn't matter. YouTube does not count as a 'source'. The only sources that are accepted are the media articles (magazines, books, newspaper articles, and tv reports). I just wanted to make that clear. I have seen 9 (nine) videos from YouTube (which all appeared on the most watched of all time list) removed because they did not have any reliable sources (YouTube and blogs don't count). --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 04:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article already includes citations of articles from the Boston Globe and the Sydney Morning Herald (the latter is actually an Associated Press article which appeared in multiple newspapers), both of which support the number of views being in the multi-millions. --Metropolitan90 07:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but clean up - he's notable, the fact the YouTube website says he's had 31 million views should surely be enough to keep him. However, the page does need cleaning up. Shouldn't Wikipedia be about giving people information on stuff that's notable? This guy seems notable enough to me. --Tyron1 14:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - interesting personality Doxent 12:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep -- And why is it that we seem to have go through this process for each and every person from Youtube? Can't we agree that after 4-6 keep votes on other Youtube folk that we can just agree to keep them until proven otherwise? I know we don't want articles about anybody and everybody. But we have people attacking the most famous Youtube people over and over. I think we should pick some criteria to use for this... be it number of video views, number of videos, google hits, or some combination of these and other things. But going through this whole process each and everytime is getting to be incredibly time consuming and dare I say stupid. I'm also getting more and more PO'ed at folks who ask for citations from various media sources, which they are then given. They then act like they were never told of them and say there are none over and over, as if "The big lie" is part of their AfD strategy. It may work in real-world politics folks, but I'm getting sick and tried it on Wiki. Dave 06:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep DXRAW 06:14, 28 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Springwood Adventist Church[edit]

Article does not assert notability of group, reads like promotioncruft. Leuko 02:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but needs a rewrite. kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable enough. Republitarian 04:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable individual church. Reads like an ad. Some of the information here is also copied wholesale from the church's website. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I could find no mention in the Australian media for this church. No reliable sources for claims in article. Possibly worthy of a mention in the Springwood, Queensland article. Capitalistroadster 08:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 09:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless rewritten, this is blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 09:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has a precedent for a church in the area, Garden City Christian Church. Needs rewriting though to remove marketing speak. If kept I would propose we move it to Springwood Seventh-day Adventist Church as that is its official name. Ansell 09:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Jesus spam --Xrblsnggt 09:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that a deletion criteria? Ansell 10:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please see WP:SPAM for the answer to that. WilyD 13:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I trimmed the page down to a history of the church inline with the other example church congregation pages I could find.
• Delete very obscure church, void of any encyclopedic value. Vanity article. Wikipedia is not a local directory. --Mecanismo | Talk 10:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable church, reads like an ad, we should introduce a guideline of notability on churches. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 11:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 13:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable church. --Roisterer 16:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and add mention and link to Springwood, Queensland; which could use some content. JCScaliger 21:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks to be OR to me. If there are any reliable references for the information about the church then they should be provided. --Mako 00:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non-notable church. - Longhair 01:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Contains no assertion of notability among churches even before it was trimmed back. Being a mega-church is not sufficient. GRBerry 03:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment megachurches in Australia are generally notable, but this does not appear to meet the criteria. Paul foord 11:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and delete Garden City Christian Church as well. Notability not asserted. wikipediatrix 14:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a notable church at all. Springwood has a popluation of 10k. The church has 103 charter members. It is a totally local group. No Way in heaven or hell (sorry) this passes WP:ORG, which specifically excludes "Individual chapters of national and international organizations". Ohconfucius 02:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep although there were only 103 charter members, it would now be attended by over 700 people each week. Its notability stems from the fact that it is the largest Adventist church in Brisbane. -Fermion 02:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I voted to keep Garden City Christian Church merely by its megachurch status. I don't think 103 charter members qualifies it as notable. Jaems 03:27, 27 August 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 because it has no proven notability. The article is a single orphaned sentence that barely makes sense. - Richardcavell 06:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sages of the Midnight Ride[edit]

notability not substantiated ; no context; no sources Anlace 02:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as nonsense. Leuko 03:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Republitarian 03:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, no context. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:48, 24 August 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. ChrisO 22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larson plan[edit]

Appears to be original research, using WP to promote an original idea. Leuko 03:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It does seem to read more like a proposal then an article. kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Deletion So what if it's proposal- what does that matter, why should it be deleted- just because Leuko has some opinion about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tparker393 (talk • contribs)

• Comment: My opinion alone does not matter. That's why I brought it to AfD - so we can get a consensus of what other editors think about the article in relation to WP policies. Leuko 03:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please consult WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:V. -- Kicking222 03:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT a soapbox. "Nathan Larson"+"Larson Plan" and "Nathan D. Larson"+"Larson Plan" each get zero G-hits. -- Kicking222 03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can offer a verifiable source showing the noteworthiness of this proposal. NawlinWiki 03:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. Should be kept under the same criteria as Amar plan. If you google +"amar plan" +"vikram amar" the only results are wikipedia-related, and if you google +"amar plan" +"akhil amar," the same is true (although it appears there are about 3,810 results, if you click through the pages, it says "in order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 21 already displayed."). Tparker393Tparker393 03:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Unless I am missing something, Amar plan does not have a page on Wikipedia. Thus are you saying by your comment that Larson plan should be deleted? Leuko 03:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article to which Tparker is referring is at Amar Plan. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as unverifiable soapboxing. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very obscure, unverifiable, original research has no place in wikipedia. --Mecanismo | Talk 10:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep John Koza, whose book is cited, appears to be a fairly notable computer scientist, who has been discussing voting reform for some time. If his book mentions Larson, instead of only the other way around, this may be a reliable source. JCScaliger 21:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A Google search for Election of the President Using Nationwide Instant Runoff Voting without the Need for an Amendment to the United States Constitution yields only the WP article. The word "larson" appears exactly zero times in Every Vote Counts. Absent sourcing this fails WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT a soapbox, and problably 17 other WP:NOTs. ~ trialsanderrors 20:25, 29 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Theological Union[edit]

delete per WP:NN and WP:V this defunct religios group which existed between 1999 and 2006. The page reads rather like an advert, and drops quite a few notable names, but none of which are directly relevant to the project. No notable alumni are named. The fact that it is defunct probably says it all. The page scores 248Ghits, of which 13 are not from mirrors, and includes two from wiki, two from answers and one from shortpedia (both take content from wiki), two for Todd Albertson, whose entry is under AfD, and two to ttu.org.uk, which appears to be a dead end. This wiki page becomes a link to the alumni page, which is equally poor in details which wiki needs to establish notability. Ohconfucius 03:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator's extensive comments, no reliable sources given or likely to be found. --Huon 08:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obscure, defunct school which is void of any notability. Doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia. --Mecanismo | Talk 10:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. no assertion of notability. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 14:52, 24 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Ark Crew[edit]

• Delete: Appears to be non-notable band. Serbian reggae band whose web site gives no info and who have apparently released no albums. < 300 Google hits but claim to be first Serbian dub band - whatever that means. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Republitarian 03:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity article. --Mecanismo | Talk 10:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. I was tempted to keep this for curiosity value, but that ain't the same as notability. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mention the band in dub as a curiosity. JCScaliger 22:10, 24 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleon[edit]

Notability appears to be suspect. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks any notability. --Mecanismo | Talk 10:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete no sourcesl. -- Selmo 00:14, 25 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singing techniques[edit]

This is an instructional guide on proper singing technique, and therefore runs afoul of WP:NOT. Indrian 04:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wikipedia is not a publisher of howto manuals. --Mecanismo | Talk 10:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide; terrible non-encyclopedic language and tone, too. Perhaps the author can place this on a personal web page instead.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to wikibooks? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Sadly.) The topic is legitimate. This treatment largely springs from the subjective experience of one person. As such it has a distinct value, but is inconsistent with established policy. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillWhite (talk • contribs) 14:58, 25 August 2006 (NB to admin, users 6th edit)
• Delete - As per Samsara's idea there is a singing wikiproject which may use this information. I'll copy and paste it into the talk page, however this page should go for now--I'll bring the food 15:50, 26 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Natures[edit]

It's a guide to an aspect of the games. See What Wikipedia is not. Coltonblue 04:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No attempts to reference given aside from that implied by the title. Most importantly, it appears to be an orphan article, suggesting that WP:POKE had no plans to include an article in their project. Current formatting does not add value above the raw facts detailed (for instance, lists of pokemon with the natures). LinaMishima 08:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listcruft, game guide, no context. JIP | Talk 09:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Good call. --Mecanismo | Talk 10:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Pokemoncruft. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 11:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOT as a game guide. Thε Halo ^Θ 18:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above--Peephole 20:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 21:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup THe current version is a game guide, but I'm fairly sure it's possible to do a decent article abotu this. Refer to the Pokemon Project. Ace of Sevens 00:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete or cleanup Either is fine. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 00:54, 25 August 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 speedied (blanked by author, so I have speedied it) --Stormie 05:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Of Arcadia[edit]

Blatant advertising, prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 04:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Indrian 04:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Indrian VoiceOfReason 04:50, 24 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Russell[edit]

Originally tagged for speedy deletion as nn bio, however the author has made claims to notability. Doing a search for Ms. Russell's book on Amazon gies a page rank of over 1,000,000. Book was printed by Lulu Press, a noted vanity press. Wildthing61476 04:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While unlike many nonnotable biographical articles this one was clearly created in good faith, the subject simply doesn't rise to the level of notability suggested by WP:BIO. VoiceOfReason 04:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO as author of "non-traditional" press book that does not meet WP:BK. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, borderline for me. The claims of notability are a bit vague. Starred in Phantom of the Opera? When? Where? link? I'm thinking sources? Verifiable? Maybe she could add some of that. Wjhonson 07:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, so much activity, so few sources for it, fails WP:BIO completely and WP:V for most claims Fram 09:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fram --Mecanismo | Talk 10:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, claims don't appear to be verifiable with reliable sources. Book published by a vanity press. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Nothing to work from. RFerreira 06:53, 29 August 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 to Life Begins Again, there is nothing to merge, only thing that isn't in the album article are the quoted lyrics. - Bobet 08:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lokicat[edit]

Stubby, linkless article about a song that doesn't seem to be notable outside its parent album (which is itself marginal). Opabinia regalis 04:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the album's article. IceCreamAntisocial 05:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. JPD (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above --shadow box 23:21, 31 August 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. A& -Doc 18:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Mike[edit]

I'm not sure this person is notable enough to be included in Wiki. Amnewsboy 04:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as utterly failing WP:BIO; speedy if possible due to lack of any real assertion of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are people like this in every city. Additionally, he stole my nickname. -- Kicking222 04:54, 24 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PECompact[edit]

Nominated for deletion by User:83.30.22.177 (who as an IP user could not create the AfD subpage) with the edit summary wikipedia isnt tucows!!!. Creating the subpage and listing it here as a good faith procedural action; no recommendation from me (yet?). --Kinu ^t/_c 04:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete unless there's a good reason why this is a notable program. Currently it doesn't feel that way. BigHaz 05:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sources are provided, especially for the "known users". --Huon 09:02, 24 August 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 a bad idea for an article, bad article name and redundant, useless information. The author might like to create India's national symbols, but this one has to go. - Richardcavell 06:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of India's National...[edit]

All content already available at India. Name is exceedingly unlikely to be searched for or come upon. Lid 04:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant, nothing to merge, not a reasonable search term to justify a redirect. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Knowing that this info already exists in the article for India, there's no conceivable way anyone would want this article to be kept. It was not prodded before being brought to AfD, and while it doesn't actually fit into any speedy deletion criteria, I highly doubt anyone on WP (with the possible exception of the article's creator, who has no other edits on WP) would have any objections. -- Kicking222 04:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete redundant list. Leuko 04:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. also article is factually incorrect. india does not have a national monument. --Ageo020 05:11, 24 August 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. There's barely a quorum, but including [[User:83.30.22.177] (but not Kinu) we have 4 Delete comment and 1 Keep comment. The point made by Ace of Risk is well taken, but even being used in several products does not, to me, seem to convey enough notability to overcome the arguments of the other commentors. Herostratus 05:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASPack[edit]

Nominated for deletion by User:83.30.22.177 (who as an IP user could not create the AfD subpage) with the edit summary this is an ad. Creating the subpage and listing it here as a good faith procedural action; no recommendation from me (yet?). --Kinu ^t/_c 04:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It does read like an ad. A google search lists quite a few results but from a lot of sources like a spanish packaging association. The link to the wikipedia article is one of the first articles that is returned by the google search. --Mecanismo | Talk 10:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Moreover, it seems that the vast majority of google hits which are related are taken from sources which have heavy user participation. Wikipedia, del.icio.us, shareware download sites, etc... --Mecanismo | Talk 10:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Small but accurate, ASPack tends to be used in several products, more for its obfuscation of possible decompiling, than its capability as an EXE packer first page Ghit - identifying as a "pest" of the packer/hider type. Ace of Risk 14:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mecanismo. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --shadow box 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as insufficiently notable, see WP:SOFTWARE, and lack of reliable, reputable sources per WP:V. --Satori Son 03:56, 2 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. - Bobet 08:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macorden[edit]

Start of the article claims it's a business, however the rest of the article is an advertisement or history of an MMORPG guild. Blatant vanity page with no reason to be on wikipedia as it's function seems to be the history of the guild. Lid 04:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was not my intent to portray it as a business but to throw a fun fact out. The article is a historical portrayal of the character Macorden and the role he has played in several games in the past and games upcoming. It can fall under WP:BIO and WP:FICT. I have had used the name Macorden in all games and if anyone wants to look up the history they should be allowed to. If Fatal1ty has a wiki, I should be allowed to host a history for Macorden. Further, the article leave out many aspects of the Eclipse guild and only mentions the parts I have been involved in. The article is worthy of a wikipage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macorden (talk • contribs)

It doesn't meet criteria of WP:BIO and falls under both WP:Autobiography and WP:Vanity as well. Your reasoning that because one famous gamer has a page you should also doesn't make sense as Fatal1ty has appeared in magazines, interviews, had a chipset made for him among others. Being a gamer doesn't allow people to have an article otherwise everyone would have articles. --- Lid 05:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Badly written non-notable waffle. -- RHaworth 12:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity, fails WP:BIO and WP:V, with no reliable sources to back anything up.. --Wafulz 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Clean up. Instead of immediatly trashing it, why not help clean it up and remove what needs to be removed? Everyone has access to make changes. The character does exist and any info, even if very little, should be allowed to be posted on wiki. I will come back this evening and remove as much as I can that does not have reliable sources. --Macorden Comment actually signed by anonymous: User:70.142.50.222. Srose (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:VAIN, WP:BIO, and a lack of WP:RS (reliable sources). Srose (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up Pelase help preserve my history and make any suggestions --Macorden Comment actually signed by anonymous: User:70.142.50.222

• Delete. If that is cleaned up, it could be a speedy delete as nonsense. Vegaswikian 21:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. --shadow box 23:30, 31 August 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.