< August 24 August 26 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secularization of Christmas[edit]

The previous debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christmas. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 10:14Z
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Holiday. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 10:25Z
and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christian holidays--Arktos talk 10:52, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Holiday[edit]

This article is based on Christian beliefs and deserves no place at Wikipedia. Easter is a secular holiday anyway. --Ravingatheist 10:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christmas (2). —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 10:28Z
and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christian holidays--Arktos talk 10:51, 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 keep. - Bobet 11:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amalgamates[edit]

College a cappella group which does not meet the notability standards of WP:MUSIC. Already mentioned in Tufts University. Claim to notability in article is a vague claim about touring nationally. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:57, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfio Bonanno

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 08:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape holiday items[edit]

I believe that this Wiki is probably one of the most fancrufty in the RuneScape series. I nominate a Delete per WP:NOT, as this is not an in-game guide for RuneScape. Who wants to learn about what items were dropped in a game so many eons ago when the information can be found on the main site? This kind of information doesn't belong here.Makoto 00:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I simply added those notices to every article in Category:RuneScape, I didn't stop to judge the quality. They do seem to be working, however. CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I didn't mean any implication to the contrary. Let me rephrase "and also because it breaches the fancruft warning" :) It's a nice article though so I hope it's get sent to another wiki. --kingboyk 14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What "important points"? Placing information about these items would be deemed fancruft, and they'd be removed. Makoto 19:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Already merged by Hyenaste, and looking good, disregard above comment RE merging. QuagmireDog 01:52, 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 deleted by Mailer Diablo. - Bobet 11:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canine Performance Events[edit]

This is a dog of an article. Fails WP:CORP. Delete. BlueValour 00:29, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Flexible Learning Framework[edit]

Seems like nothing but an advert to me. No useful information, just ad jargon. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:51, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Emrys Smith[edit]

Unsourced vanity page. Was deleted by me as CSD A7, but after some more looking at it, I think the only thing making this article delete-worthy is a utter lack of sources. Please don't tag this as a repost. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:00, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shuli[edit]

I nominate this article for deletion. It was created about a year ago, however the name only gets 150 google hits [1], neither does "shuli": [2]. By all accounts he is a funny guy, but not notable in any way. juicifer 01:04, 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 08:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Robertson (Canadian politician)[edit]

OK, so he was elected in Etobicoke, a minor suburban GTA district. Atrian 15:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Wikipedia is a global creation. All articles should meet this standard and not be judged on some colloquial local standard. Suttungr 14:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is possible that there may be a partisan interest in the Canadian votes ;-). I don't think the save/delete debate should hinge purely on the numbers of people represented, as this ignores the electoral system in place, and also the qualitative element of the importance of minor conurbation vs a major city. Right now he is a minor figure, but it would be a lot more difficult to deny the subject a page should he win his contested seat. Ohconfucius 07:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nah, there's no partisanship in Canadian municipal politics... out of curiosity, does anyone know who the Toronto municipal councillor was who made it through Vfd? -- Samir धर्म 10:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Samir is right in that, on the municipal level, Canadian politicians do not run under a party banner. However, many politicians do have a known history supporting one or another federal/provincial party as does this one (a fact that I only know from reading his Wiki page). I'd just like to point out that I live in Toronto but not in Etobicoke, I do not know Robertson personally and I am neither a supporter or a non-supporter of the party that he supports outside of the municipal level. I am voting for keep here based on unbiased grounds so if there is a "partisan interest in the Canadian votes" its not coming from me. Also, I never said that 'number of people represented' was the only factor. It is a deciding factor for me because, as someone who lives here, I already know that the former city of Etobicoke was (for an intents and purposes) the city of Toronto (so he already meets the 'big city' criteria in my mind). Pre-merger, 70% of all city services (police, ambulance, transit, etc) in Etobicoke were provided through Toronto. Suttungr, my judgement is not based on some "colloquial local standard". Having City of Toronto police and ambulances on your streets and TTC busses on your streets (along with a TTC subway line below them) means you live in Toronto. Etobicoke was far more Toronto than it was Etobicoke and an Etobicoke city councillor would, in a way, be just as much a Toronto city councillor as they would have a degree of power over those "Toronto"-wide services. CindyLooWho 15:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to your reference to voters you identified as Canadian - these being somehow worth more than non-Canadian votes. Wikipedia votes are co-equal, by my count it's 8-3 in favour of deletion (Strong keep, doesn't count as double). That being said, none of your points has anything to do with David Robertson. Let the article stand (or fall) on his merits, not on the relative importance of Etobicoke. Suttungr 16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. I didn't count 'strong keep' as double. 2. AfD is not a vote. Majority does not necessarily win. If 5 people say delete and back it up with poor or no reasoning and 1 person says keep and backs it up with very solid reasoning, keep can "pass". Regardless, as AFD precedent has already said that 'big city' councillors "pass" and should not be deleted, that is what I am basing my case on. I believe non-Canadians are very unlikely to have sufficient knowledge of Etobicoke/Toronto to know that Etobicoke is and was part of Toronto (a big city) and therefore, as a past concillor, the Robertson page passes under AFD precedent without needing to provide any more citation of notability regarding Robertson as an individual. Also keep in mind that AfD etiquette suggests Wikipedians should "consider not participating in a AfD discussion if a nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." Although the issue might look clear cut to non-Canadians, I have pointed out that the people who presumably have stronger knowledge of the specific subject matter (not just general AfD policy as everyone here has) generally find this page to be in a very grey area re: deletion policy and currently are slightly supporting 'keep' over 'delete'. I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing that out. CindyLooWho 18:16, 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 CSD G1. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erfyl[edit]

Total hoax; no visible relevant ghits, no images can be found. A real animal would have both. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:08, 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 08:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Vaughan[edit]

NZ newscaster allegedly dogged by paedophilia scandals. Tagged as db-attack, but I thought it'd be reasonable to bring it here for a consensus, since it lists "references". Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This week the state broadcaster offered him the settlement, which he accepted." Capitalistroadster 04:48, 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 consensus. - Mailer Diablo 08:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Systems[edit]

A DRV consensus overturned the previous deletion of this article through this combined AfD, determining the closure was improper. Please review the DRV before commenting here. The matter is submitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:15, 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 major consensus = keep — FireFox (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2006

9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium[edit]

First Deletion Reason -- delete and merge into 9/11 Truth Movement, meetings subsection[3]. This gathering is not notable enough by itself to have a separate page. There's a place for it at the Neo-Con Agenda Symposium here[4]. I also question that we need 12 Alex Jones forks on Wikipedia, of which this is one. See Alex Jones (radio), Prisonplanet.com, 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, InfoWars, Infowars.com, America Destroyed By Design, TerrorStorm, Information Clearing House, Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State, 9-11: The Road to Tyranny, Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove, Police State 3. Morton devonshire 01:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of all the media coverage? rootology (T) 03:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the event wasn't notable as a part of 9/11 Truth Movement. It just doesn't need it's own article. A one or two paragraph blurb in anohter article that is covering the same stuff is sufficient. This is a form of '9/11 Truth Movement' spam. It will be cruft once everything dies down. Let's merge it now before it we have all these dead cruft forks. Let's put it this way: GWB takes a vacation every year. He makes speeches all across the country. They ALL receive considerable media attention (more than this conference) but they are included in Wikipedia in the many broader articles that cover the administration and Bush. We don't have articles that are "May 9 Bush Speech to Veterans in Kansas". It's too arbitrary a collection. Consolidate this into the broad overview of "9/11 Truth Movemment" and be done with it. --Tbeatty 03:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Important! --Prof.Thamm 08:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom and Tbeatty. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 03:41, 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 speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination. It is clear that the nominator is a single-purpose account or sockpuppet, and the item in question appears to be notable. If an admin believes this should go forward, feel free to reopen it. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Cleo[edit]

Delete. Unencyclopaedic. DeleteLittleCleo 01:33, 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 speedy delete.--Andeh 02:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonship[edit]

Non-notable band that fails the WP:MUSIC criteria. The band hasn't been featured in any reputable media, won any awards, released any albums on a major label, or gone on an international concert tour. No allmusic profile [6] and not a lot of relevant Google results [7]. Also nominating the following related articles:

--TBCTaLk?!? 01:36, 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 08:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fear blankets[edit]

Smells like a hoax? Get real it is an attempt at humor, I guess the author may not realize this is suppose to be a place for serious essays. Anyway it was funny. 9:19 PM EST

  • This was written by the article's author and sole contributor, FYI. Wavy G 18:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smells distinctly of hoax material, alleged "Copertawrapaphobia" gets zero ghits. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:48, 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 08:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monolith (Novel), and Terra War[edit]

Article is about a non-published novel. I am also nominating the author's other works in this AfD as well. The Author currently has a speedy tag on his article as he is an UNPUBLISHED author. Wildthing61476 01:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed The Gate from this AfD and will remove the tag now. Thanks for the change Dekimasu! Wildthing61476 12:06, 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. 1ne 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arte Mecco[edit]

At best, the non-notable style of a single artist. At worst a hoax. Rmhermen 02:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS If someone know how to and cares, a proposal for deletion of wiktionary item of the same spelling would appear in order. Created by the same author. It has already been tagged "rfv'"Ohconfucius

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Arte Mecco. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

One thing which you can do to assist other Wikipedia editors is, if you already maintain a personal website, please ensure that any information that you want in your Wikipedia article is already on your own website. As long as it's not involving grandiose claims like, "I was the first to create this widget," or "My book was the biggest seller that year," a personal website can be used as a reference for general biographical information. As the Wikipedia Verifiability policy states: Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves . . . so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiograph64.12.116.66 21:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Hugeaux 21:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote only once. Thank you. Khatru2 23:40, 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 - although we might be able to use an article on virtual airlines in general. Do we have one? DS 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Virtual Airlines[edit]

nn webforum, alexa ranking of 4,490,720. And apparently they can't agree on what the name of the forum is. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

timetables, route maps, anual reports and newspaper ads. I think that is a good website to learn about a great airline that is no longer flying. 19:03, August 27 2006 (EST)

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, authors request Allow repost later if verifiability resolved. Shell babelfish 05:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rho Epsilon Zeta[edit]

15 ghits, therefore non-notable. Quote: although there is no proof that it exists, therefore unverifiable as well; delete (|-- UlTiMuS 02:16, 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 Speedy deleted by User:Shell Kinney under CSD G7. BryanG(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamo's law[edit]

Violates WP:NOR (to which page author agrees) as well as WP:HOAX (the math is simply not right). Irongargoyle 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, ok, i made a mistake, please delete it!

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 08:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia Liberation Movement / Army (SLM/A)[edit]

nn website, nn organization, copyvio. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:21, 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 08:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Of Geri[edit]

Nonexistant album with a "rumored" track listing. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:26, 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. Mangojuicetalk 05:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United-SF[edit]

As per talk page, not verified, nor notable, and vanity article AndrewRT - Talk 21:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Samantar Abdirisaq 05:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Teke 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Comment This should be renamed to United Somali Front - who would look for United-SF? Eusebeus 20:27, 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 08:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spunky Dunker Donuts[edit]

Fails WP:CORP by about a light year. Fan-1967 03:07, 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 08:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenberg Nicoletta &Stein[edit]

No concrete assertion of notability, no sources given. Reads like an advertisement as well. Delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:08, 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 Speedy Delete CSD A7. Not notable and no assertion of notability as far as I can see. kingboyk 15:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Petersen[edit]

Article appears to claim notability, but further research can give no information on this person. Doing a search for Vogue and Flora Petersen turned up no hits. Previous tag removed, sending to AfD Wildthing61476 03:15, 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. - Bobet 11:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC) ===Simona Fusco===Simona fusco is staring in a movie on SHowtime. Very notable. Been in many movies. Many magazine covers worldwide[reply]

Pretty, aspiring model? Yes. Notable enough yet for an article? No. Eusebeus 03:27, 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 Speedy Delete as a copyright violation of a copyrighted web page. The article is a straight copy and paste of the "about" page on the company's own web site, which is copyrighted and not GFDL licensed. This application of Copyright Judo is stretching the copyright speedy deletion criterion slightly, as it might be argued that Staffoffshore.com (talk · contribs) was implicitly dual-licensing the text. But in order to have an encyclopaedia article about this subject we'd need to both completely rewrite the article from sources and move to the article a proper title. We might as well start from scratch without any concerns over copyright or corporate autobiography. Uncle G 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Staffoffshore.com Offshore Staff Leasing[edit]

Standard corp advert article. No assertion of notability, and I see no need to try to find one in light of the completely spamish tone of this article. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:28, 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. - Bobet 11:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WebShop 2.0[edit]

9k ghits, however almost none are in English and I couldn't find a single one that looked reputable. Therefore, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:41, 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 08:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Gray (Gaven)[edit]

Notability assertions everywhere, but none are up to WP:BIO. Article can't decide what it wants to be, and even if it were to be kept, it would need a complete rewrite. Delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Gray has recieved Centenary Medal (awarded by Federal Government), has streets named after him, and has demonstrated awards and services - how is this not a notable person? He's one of the most decorated non-military persons in the Gold Coast and Hinterland region. Search Hansard for citation in Parliament regarding his services. Has various monuments to him in stone and bronze in Studio Village/Helensvale region (Northern Gold Coast). I'll check the BIO requirements in a sec... Johnpf 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the WP:BIO policy, I find 61 links from Google on him ("Phil Gray" Helensvale), including links to all the major TV channels (7, 9MSN, ABC and 10) Newspaper articles from as far afield as Townsville and Newcastle (1500 and 800km away each - not everyone gets noticed that far from home!), Sydney newspapers (different State!). I didnt include his entire record in Education - he has been a major voice in policy and standar disation in Queensland over a 38 year period. He has impacted on the lives of at least 100,000 people directly, and about 6 million indirectly. I'd also point out that the WP:BIO tests are as follows:

The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field

Education and Community Service, awarded Centenary Medal, so is nationally recognised as notable, including by Federal Government of Australia

Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage

in by-election last March 2006

Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events

for his work with Westfield Helensvale.

Google Test

as above, with specific search for '"Phil Gray" Helensvale'

I guess the issue is whether WP is a global resource or not. This man is important and notable to about a third of Australia's 6th largest city. I accept the point that the article is not well written, and it was something I was intending to rewrite over time. I didnt expect it to be put up for deletion within 3 hours though! Keep and Clean Johnpf 05:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if being like Mother Teresa was the standard there'd be what, 10 or 11 bios in wikipedia! Johnpf 11:39, 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 08:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour de Kits[edit]

A bike race of uncertain notability, no sources cited for its existance. Was speedied (improperly) by me as CSD A7, then re-created. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's be completely honest: comparing a drunken bike race to Jesus. Fan-1967 15:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Please not above user has already voted. This vote need to be disrgarded. --Edgelord 02:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. The earlier comment was from a totally different IP. Eboli just tagged it as a Keep. I've updated the tag. Not that it matters. No way the article's going to be kept. Fan-1967 03:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Please disregard my previous comment. --Edgelord 17:55, 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 08:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Petersen[edit]

Non notable musician. Searching for him on google gives a lot of hits , none of them which are related to music or bands. searching [9] with the bass added to the query, turns up wiki and its mirrors. Ageo020 04:16, 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 Speedy deleted by User:MONGO as nonsense. BryanG(talk) 06:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rain of a thousand foxes[edit]

Article on an event from an rpg claimed to be "the most epic event evar [sic] to happen there involving foxes." I have little doubt of that, but I'm not so sure about its meta-vulpine notability. Only two Google hits, both to the rpg forum [10]. I am not a gamer so I'll leave it to the community. Prod contested in body of article.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:16, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of World of Warcraft[edit]

Appears to violate WP:OR and cannot help but be a magnet for POV. This is not an article, it is a list of grievences. Indrian 04:34, 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 Deleted. Material copied from published survey and WP:OR.. Shell babelfish 20:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMPUTER USE AMONGST DOCTORS IN AFRICA[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of data abakharev 04:40, 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 Speedy Delete applying Copyright Judo. The article is a straight copy of the company's own advertising blurb on its web site, which is "Copyright 2004 Itwerkz Global. All Right Reserved" [sic!] and not GFDL licensed. Uncle G 17:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITWERKZ GLOBAL (ASIA PASIFIC TRANING DIVISION)[edit]

Between the terrible title, formatting, and content, there are a handful of reasons why this article shouldn't be here, but for the sake of simplicity, delete as failing WP:CORP. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:39, 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 Keep per Pagana's information on notability. Redirect lowercase to uppercase article. Tag for cleanup.. Shell babelfish 20:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northstar at tahoe[edit]

Developer flogging upcoming ski resort project. Plenty of facts, and perhaps it's notable in some way or could be but I just don't see it. Daniel Case 04:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Northstar at tahoe entry has been edited to address your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahoetracy (talk • contribs)

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Seafood Centre[edit]

Ad, more or less, for Singaporean restaurant. Given that I had to click the linked mall to find the most basic fact in a business where location is so much, i.e. where it's located, I doubt that there is any notability about this place. Daniel Case 04:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is not a restaurant, it is a hawker centre, a rather unique cultural element in Singapore One of the better-known ones, might I add. 206.255.1.73 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to show evidence, you do. Daniel Case 05:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And which I did. It seems cosier being a deletionist, is it not? ;)--Huaiwei 05:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link one is simply a listing. The Sunday Times article is a different matter. But it seems to be about disputes between restaurant owners, not the center itself. Daniel Case 05:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link one is an entry in the STB's website about the East Coast range of eateries as a tourism site. A country's tourism agency bothers to have one page just for one hawker centre (and not for most others). I would like to see you arguing the non-notability of small countries next, I suppose. The Sunday Times article talks about "disputes" between eateries in a very sought after location, even when rents where increased almost two-fold. You appear to ignore every other comment on the location in the entire article which repeatedly underscores its popularity and notability at lease in the local context and to tourists.--Huaiwei 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, please remember to assume good faith. Second, I repeat: link one is a listing. Listings cannot by themselves establish notability. As for the Times article, it has some promise there.
What would convince me is some citations from guidebooks saying "Visit this place ...", or writeups from food or travel writers outside Singapore. As it is, you're just asking us to take your word for things. Daniel Case 06:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope everyone may assume good faith here too. What kind of "guidebooks" will fit your expectations, Mr Case? I suppose Vitual Tourist [13] and Explore Holidays [14] are too low-end for your taste? The New York Times too cliche for consideration [15] (even thou it was quoted from Fodor's)? The Sydney Morning Herald probably arent culinary experts [16]? The folks from The Times got their taste buds all wrong when asking folks to go to this place for hosting a restaurant considered to be one of their best in 2006 [17]? I found all these links and more within four pages in google search. Do you intend not to lift a finger and do any research yourself, while wasting time for those who have to show notability even in a clear-cut case like this?--Huaiwei 11:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now these are the kind of refs that might establish this place as a notable tourist destination.
I would consider withdrawing the nom but for Huaiwei's attitude, particularly as expressed above. First, the burden is and always has been on those advocating keep to supply references supporting a claim to notability. Second, to complain about this is something I fully expect (and have gotten) from single-purpose accounts with no interest in Wikipedia beyond getting their article about some subject of dubious notability on, or people who make things up in school one day, but to see it from a veteran, established editor is particularly dismaying to me. It's conduct unbecoming a Wikipedian IMO.
Those who have been asked to supply sources in AfD discussions have earned respect by doing so without complaint. Here, instead, Huaiwei sulks resentfully and seems to be more interested in getting in anti-deletionist jabs than reaching a consensus, suplied refs notwithstanding. Daniel Case 21:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, I'm not sure that's a helpful characterisation, even if true. I agree that someone who cares enough about this article ought to be adding the refs, true, but there's no need for anyone participating to be upset about the process, you, Huaiwei, anyone... I'll add them myself if I have time and no one beats me to it. Making an article useful and preservable is more important than proving a point. Sorry to pick on you alone as I think everyone could benefit from that view. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the references given to the article, it was just a quick cut and paste job so maybe they could be further improved. Many of the references I spot checked were one or two line mentions in an article about Singaporean cuisine reather than in depth articles about this facility, but the guide book entries are more comprehensive and focus on the facility. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 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 as failing WP:BIO.. Shell babelfish 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonnis H. Venhuizen[edit]

An anonymous user listed this article on the AfD log but did not post an AfD notice on the page and could not have completed the nomination. I am just completing the nomination processs but not giving a recommendation at this time. --Metropolitan90 07:50, 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 Redirect to Late Registration. Shell babelfish 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crack Music[edit]

While a song from a notable album, it is not a single, nor does it hold any significant value to have its own article. Ted87 04:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Per nominator", basically meaning for the same reason as (the nominator)". --Ted87 20:35, 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 —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 09:03Z

The Derek Tonin Show[edit]

Either a hoax or WP:NOT crystal balling. Take your pick. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:58, 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 09:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Correa[edit]

Speedy removed and replaced with hangon by article's subject and likely creator, bassist for unsigned band. Claims of importance to regional hardcore scene are not cited, nor anything else. But it wouldn't matter because nothing there indicates any WP-worthy notability, neither under WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Daniel Case 04:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding

the band in question, since with three self-released CDs it fails WP:MUSIC. Daniel Case 05:04, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirit Shelat[edit]

Administrator with no claims to notability. Books mentioned in article are published by nn, probably vanity press. Article basically unchanged since July 2005. Hornplease 05:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is not the issue, notability is. As I noted below, he is not an IAS officer, but a Gujarat service officer. WE cannot assume that the thousands of state administrative officers across India are notable simply for serving out their careers. That his book is reviewed in the Hindu is not as indicative as it could be, because the book page of the Hindu relies on submitted rather than commissioned reviews. THe review was written by a former teacher at an Ahmedabad college, and is one of only two reviews by him. The book itself is not on record as being possessed by any library in the WorldCat system - an theres no systemic bias here, thousands of locally published Indian books turn up in academic libraries across the world - and is not available for sale at any major Indian online bookstore. He simply does not meet notability criteria, and is not a senior enough government official to be encyclopaedic. Hornplease 05:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher of his book on development is the same as the publisher of his book on Yug Purush Swami Maharaj - and doesnt seem to have any record on the web of having published anything else. He's not an IAS officer, but a Gujarat Administrative Service officer, which means he has to do something more than serve his tenure to be as notable as an HC judge. However, if he's Narendra Modi's advisor, which has been added without citation to the article in the last few minutes, then he may- repeat may- pass over some bar of notability, as Modi himself is so very very encyclopaedic. (Indeed, some months I seem to have done nothing on WP but discuss things Modi may or may not have done.) Hornplease 07:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannjot find articles in either WP, but perhaps I am spelling his name incorrectly there. Hornplease
The books are not notable by most standards. A WorldCat search of libraries reveals no copies in participating institutions. THe fact that one was released by the CM of Gujarat does not in itself make the book notable, especially if the officer in question works in the CM's office. Hornplease 05:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reason to suppose that the books are notable? Hornplease 10:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the writer is mistaken. Secretaries of state-level departments do not have to be IAS. Hornplease 07:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hooray. Whatever that means. Hornplease 07:48, 30 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 (A6) —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 09:00Z

WORMFACE[edit]

Protologism with unpromising Google results and nonexistent Wiktionary page. NFT as well. Daniel Case 05:09, 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. - Bobet 12:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Pathak[edit]

Very non-notable administrator, at the lowest level of the Indian Administrative Service. No claims to notability in the article or available through looking around a little.Hornplease 05:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

District collectors are certainly not the lowest level of the IAS. In fact collectos are sp,e of the most powerful positions of the IAS. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are neither the lowest level nor the highest level. Doctor Bruno 15:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out [18] and [19] I am not able to understand the difference between these two discussions
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 (A3) —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 08:57Z

Christmascarnivals.com[edit]

Site is a spam hub, and certainly fails WP:WEB as well. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:14, 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 keep. - Bobet 12:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghislain Sauvé[edit]

Vanity entry, non-notable. Michael Dorosh 05:15, 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 per discussion for failing notability and WP:V.. Shell babelfish 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Barr (Canadian military)[edit]

Non-notable. Michael Dorosh 05:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the article suggests he's done anything notable, other than be named as "designate commander" of CSOR. Why is it you specifically feel he is notable? Simply because he is in the Canadian Forces with a rank higher than captain? I thought the reason we had notability requirements was to prevent every Tom, Dick and Harry from having an article. Can you cite a US "equivalent" article you feel is on a par with this one?Michael DoroshTalk 22:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar enough with the US military structure to know what the equivalent position is. NorthernThunder 00:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant, sorry for the confusion. I meant can you cite an example of an article on a US officer such as the ones you listed as an example? You asked if we should delete similar US articles, but never gave an example of one. It is quite possible we should look at deleting them as well. Can you provide and example of one of the articles you were referring to?Michael DoroshTalk 01:30, 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 Merge to List of Wal-Mart brands. Shell babelfish 21:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Value[edit]

This article has been deleted twice before (see deletion log), and continues to be recreated. Request is to either outright delete, or merge with List of Wal-Mart brands. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:23, 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 consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Erxleben[edit]

Notability not proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Dorosh (talk • contribs) 05:25, 25 August 2006

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Hero[edit]

WP:SPAM , WP:NN and WP:CVG. CSIN 05:28, 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 09:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-BANGI.COMmunity[edit]

nn website. spam. CSIN 05:30, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenberg Nicoletta & Stein LLP[edit]

WP:CORP, WP:NN. CSIN 05:31, 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 Keep per discussion passes WP:CORP.. Shell babelfish 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Fencing Club[edit]

Delete. Not notable. Article reads like an advertisement. See also Talk:Dubai Fencing Club for ongoing notability discussion. Twisted86 05:22, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Swing[edit]

Needlessly technical and non-notable article. Kerowyn Leave a note 05:32, 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 09:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dellosso and Greenberg[edit]

Spam. nn. CSIN 05:32, 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 SPEEDY KEEP. WP:SNOW take this to the relevent talk pages, or try WP:RfC -Doc 13:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weber and German politics[edit]

This was an 11Kb section in the Max Weber article. The section was created when the article appeared on the Main Page in Dec 2004 and has grown over the years to this length. This section is part of the reason the article was brought to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Max Weber. Because the section was so big (and troublesome) I split it off onto its own article (where we can add whatever template tags we want without harming the feature article) and attached a link to it in the Max Weber#Sociology of politics and government section. I nominate the new article for deletion to ensure (a)it belongs as a separate article (b)it is not original research (I do see a thesis statement in there) (c)all the appropriate template tags are added (needs ((fact, ((citecheck)), etc.) and (d)that it should exist at all.)) Maintain 05:31, 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 Keep. Shell babelfish 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Applied Sciences for Business and Technology[edit]

2 ghits, so fails WP:CORP. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:46, 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 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury 1 wrestling[edit]

A small wrestling promotion that simply isn't known enough to be on Wikipedia

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 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margalit Tsan'ani[edit]

The most notable ghit she gets is her myspace profile. Fails WP:MUSIC. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:00, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

പശു[edit]

Cow is a cow is a cow. Why do we need a special article on Malayan cows? abakharev 06:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title's in Malayalam script, so it's probably your browser (it should display as a collection of curly characters). BigHaz 09:09, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Ausburn[edit]

Though a winner, Maggie has done nothing else signifigent in her outside life. Drew Daniel, season 5 winner, was also deleted even though he has a small acting career and thus is tchnically more significient. Comedy240 18:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I stand corrected about the "winner" part. I had misread the reference to $1m, thus thinking it was a second prize, although that was probably why I didn't nominate he when I first came across the article. I am sticking by my other comments. Ohconfucius 04:46, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Ivies[edit]

non-notability, neologism, just another list ExplorerCDT 06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for nomination: This is a term that appeared in an article in Newsweek magazine LAST WEEK. I don't believe it has been around suffienciently long enough to be inherently notable. It is pretty much a marketing gimmick Newsweek does to sell magazines, so this time, instead of calling the article "Hottest Schools" like they usually do, they named it "New Ivies." Thus, it's technically a neologism This is not a group of schools like the Ivy League, the Colonial colleges that have been around for a long time and as such the term and their association becomes notable. This is a term invented last week, and aside from one magazine article (reported also by their coverage partner MSNBC), it has no longevity backing it up. If this were an article titled "Hottest Schools", it undoubtedly would be deleted. This is academic boosterism. Lastly, Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of lists of loosely associated stuff, a reporter of news (since we're just pushing forward Newsweek's article), and considering we are not here to haruscupate, extrapolate, speculate, etc., we should not be determining right now by giving this article credence, whether this term "New Ivies" will experience longevity or be a new force in higher education. How do we know next year's list won't be "Newer Ivies"? If it's not a "flash in the pan" after a few years, the article would be more than welcome. Right now, it's a newborn, and unless the newborn were the Prince of Wales, the Second Coming of the Messiah, or the next Panchen Lama, this enumeration of "New Ivies" hasn't been around long enough to do something worth noting here. —06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Inherently notable concept. The nomination chargesthat this concept was 1) invented by Newsweek to sell magazines (a tautology in the sense that everything Newsweek does is with the intention of selling magazines) 2) That this is "boosterism" of the specified schools (so what? Does it delegitimize Newsweek's coverage of any other notable institution to label that "boosterism") 3) That this will be a "flash in the pan", an argument of the form, "It's of note now, but won't be in a year" (if I created articles on "Hula Hoop" or "Barbie doll", could those be listed for deletion on the grounds that "Nobody will care about this in a year?)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per discussion as failing to meet WP:V.. Shell babelfish 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

88MPH Studios[edit]

delete ill-fated, non-notable company appearing to fail WP:CORP. Nothing notable but its failures, in short, nothing that notable Ohconfucius 06:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly say this is grounds for deletion, an encycleopedia is meant to report something and I think that should be regardless of whether it is out of business or not.
People would likely want to read about what happened so I think the grounds for deletion are highly unjustified. Yes, the article needs work per the Wikipedia standard of formatting but it's questionable standards if other articles for relevent companies have been deleted due to them appearing to go out of business.Kingpin1055 11:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment deletion was proposed because no notability was asserted, and that there was insufficient indepently veriable facts about this company's notability in general, and not specifically about its failures. Article not in the wiki format is not grounds for deletion; failing WP:CORP is. Ohconfucius 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At any rate, I believe a case should be put forward explaining the nomination, should the nomination exist simply because of the non-wiki template, then such should have been mentioned in the 88MPH discussion page before the warning was placed. This would've given any editors ample time to begin planning a large-scale re-write to conform with the standards and practices. Kingpin1055 13:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still have four days. Fan-1967 16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small consolidation I suppose... another member has proposed condensing the article into a 'Reader's Digest' style entry fit to the Wiki format. Hopefully this'll prove satisfactory so that the article can be expanded properly according to the Wiki standards at a later date.Kingpin1055 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A web forum doesn't count, despite it being the company's forum? Now, I apologise if I get the next section wrong, but it's difficult to fully understand the WP:CORP based on the way it's written. Because 88MPH has only published comics in collected and singular form, that they haven't been commented greatly outside of online news sites and 'blogs', and that it isn't a chain then it fails the guidelines of WP:CORP and as such isn't deserving of it's own Wiki page? I think the link to Adam Nichol's DeviantArt page as that's the place where he proved something. I would like it if he hd a more official place for posting it but some of this stuff isn't made hugely public. 88MPH has bee involved in a number of serious issues, and the full removal of the article will only serve to make things worse. Please give a list of criteria that needs to be filled so that the 88MPH page can be retained.Kingpin1055 13:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is important to be retained for those who wish to find out what has been going on with 88MPH Studios Inc. With little updates on the news page and a mountain of posts on the company forum a site browser can easily look up the page and find out what exactly has happened. Despite the issues 88MPH Studios has released a number of products and it is yet to file Chapter 7 bankruptsy so, even in it's state it is still technically in business. There is also a ongoing legal case which can be reported here as soon as a result has been reached.Kingpin1055 20:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Per WP:V, Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Unfortunately, a company's own website and forum are first-party sources. The reason this caveat exists is because it is not too difficult for someone to spend five minutes writing a website in the hopes of getting a vanity mention on Wikipedia. (I'm not accusing you of this, of course... merely trying to provide examples of the potential abuse that could exist if WP:V was not policy.) You should check out that policy, along with the recommendations at WP:RS, in order to see what can be used to properly source the article. It is entirely possible that an article on this company would encyclopedic, and I have no prejudice toward changing my recommendation if it can be properly sourced. Thanks! --Kinu t/c 20:16, 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.
This page Syed Ahmed has been histmrged with Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur), which is a new article about the same man, and I have AfD'ed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per discussion as failing WP:BIO, notability outside television show not established. Shell babelfish 21:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmed[edit]

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed with the consensus of all nine participants to the discussion. It now seems to have been re-created without a deletion review (in clear violation of our policies) and amazingly has survived a subsequent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed2.

Syed was a contestant on The Apprentice (UK series 2), and a perfectly adequate biography of him is provided in that article. He was not the winner, nor has he obtained (to my mind) any notability outside of the TV show. Media coverage of Syed seems limited to media speculation about his private life (almost exclusively in the Tabloids). Our precedent for shows such as Big Brother, whose contestants also received such media coverage, is to include a biography only on the programme's page. I therefore propose a delete and redirect to The Apprentice (UK series 2). └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 07:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • a few mentions of his private life in the tabloids does not constitute sufficient notability per our policies! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 07:21, 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. No clear consensus but article is well sourced, future name change not difficult.. Shell babelfish 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Duff's fourth studio album[edit]

WP:NOT a crystal ball. Reporting on a soon to be released album is fine, but when we don't even know what's it called...??! kingboyk 07:29, 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 Redirect to Krayzie Bone. Shell babelfish 21:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thuggish Bone[edit]

Album not due for release until next year. Pointless one-line stub. kingboyk 07:34, 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 redirect to Trey Songz. - Bobet 11:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Day[edit]

Not due for release until December. Also a pointless stub violation of WP:NOT. kingboyk 07:35, 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 nomination withdrawn —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-26 08:35Z

Ashwath Sundarasen[edit]

delete non-notable actor, who only played in a minor part on a sci-fi series, and who has not done anything notable since.Ohconfucius 07:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Ashwath Sundarasen is listed as a "main character" in The Tribe, and the actors for all other main characters of The Tribe also have articles on Wikipedia. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 08:34Z

Ashwath had a main role in The Tribe for a total of 3 years to. (Raintheone 14:45, 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 Merge to The Walt Disney Company —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 08:28Z

Mousewitz[edit]

Does not deserve a separate entry, should be merged to Walt Disney Company abakharev 08:05, 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.. kingboyk 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seekexperience[edit]

Not a notable site (a grand total of 9 unique Ghits for "seekexperience", 3 of which are wikipedia!). In violation of WP:SPAM, WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Article created by a single purpose account. Prod contested by an anonymous editor (also his single edit). Pascal.Tesson 09:14, 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 09:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese settlers in New Guinea during 1919-1940 times[edit]

First should be deleted as OR, and second as an article about a small group of people, each individually non-notable, most of whom have 0 Ghits. Dekimasu 09:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it's doubtful that the OR problems can be addressed by other sources when the people involved have 0 Google hits. As an aside, I find this a somewhat interesting topic... but I also find it to be so esoteric as to be cruft. To fix the article, I think someone would also have to explain the notability of the topic in the lead. Dekimasu 10:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an idea, but it might ultimately be that this particular group of settlers aren't notable, while a broader group (1900-1940?) are. BigHaz 11:27, 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 09:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottalk[edit]

Non-notable website. 660 Google hits. Prodded but prod tag deleted so coming to AfD. Mike Christie (talk) 10:41, 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. Punkmorten 12:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airline Empires[edit]

Non notable browser game, fails WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Additional info: Alexa ranking is 114,928. Peephole 16:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:42, 20 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 Niagara Falls - shopping facilities as content is already moved there and fails WP:CORP as a stand-alone. Shell babelfish 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Park Mall[edit]

As I understand it a shopping mall is not noteable. Blood red sandman 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:20, 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.

RCW Women's Championship[edit]

The result was delete Tim! 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable wrestling championship. Along with this I am nominating RCW Tag Team Championship. Lid 23:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition - since making this AfD another page has appeared at RCW Lightweight Championship and another page was speedied at RCW Internet Championship[25]. I'm adding the Lightweight belt to the list as looking at the website for the belts illustrates it's a small scale promotion and doesn't show any assertion of notability. --- Lid 06:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't think it's not notable doesn't it's not. Not all indy feds will be as big as JAPW, ROH, PWG, ECCW, Stampede Wrestling, etc.. Mr. C.C. 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no assertion of notability, and even the website leads no credence to the notability of the championship. If the only source of the notablitiy is the website itself it also fails to meet the guidelines. --- Lid 07:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:35, 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 per discussion as failing notability requirements and WP:V. Shell babelfish 21:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dally in the Alley[edit]

This is a poster competition. It scores a couple of hundred Googles. And that, basically, is it. No real evidence of significance and every winner appears to be redlinked with one exception, an unrelated policitican called Glenn Barr. Just zis Guy you know? 23:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:39, 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 09:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StraightWay[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable evangelical corporation, providing no verifiability. Prod tag was removed. IceCreamAntisocial 21:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pulling back to Neutral on this one. Evangelical organizations raise my hackles a bit, so I should compensate for that in my vote. - Richfife 17:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:51, 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. - Bobet 11:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podstreaming[edit]

Yet another podcasting protologism. Claims to have been in use for a year and a half, but still only 136 Google hits. --Haakon 21:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:55, 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 per discussion as failing notablity requirements and WP:V. Shell babelfish 21:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-Age Cluster Class (MACC)[edit]

Not encyclopediac, of local (if any) interest only, implicit attack Wtshymanski 21:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be saying that on every AfD, even those which are not of notability concerns, could you try to be more specific? ST47 12:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question that needs to be answered here is whether it is verifiable through reliable sources as being notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That site would appear to be made by the group in question, not a reference to it from an outside source - which was what I was referring to by my Google comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:57, 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 per later discussion.. Shell babelfish 21:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetarion[edit]

Non notable webgame. Fails WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE and WP:V. I prodded it on august 1 and the prod was removed on august 18. Peephole 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:13, 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 Keep as references were provided. Shell babelfish 21:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car dealer auctions[edit]

Original research, not suitable for an article. Delete Owen× ☎ 18:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OwenX,
Please understand that I wrote this article in part based on my direct experience, but to a large extent based on secondary research with the original intent to aggregate information about the subject of car dealer auctions that is not readily available to the public. I tried to keep personal opinion out and still believe in the informational, educational and encyclopedic nature of this article. I'd be happy to provide links to my outside sources, if you think this would strengthen my position, and I would also gladly edit any parts that may sound "not suitable for an article" to you or to other potential readers. I'm hoping that in time other automotive experts will expand and improve on what I originally wrote. I humbly ask that you reconsider deleting it and provide constructive feedback that will be in the interest of the community at large.
--cfherbert 19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Tony Fox,
Thank you for clarifying. I think two of my sources actually meet the criteria from the policy. I'm not sure how best to source them in the article, but here they are:
1) "Auto Auctions: Prices Influence What You Pay for Cars" by Jerry Edgerton <http://hffo.cuna.org/story.html?doc_id=1170&sub_id=12433>
2) "Chapter 4. Buying A Vehicle At Auction" by The National Auto Auction Association <http://www.naaa.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=3382>
I hope this will save my article from deletion.
--cfherbert 00:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:16, 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 per discussion as failing WP:MUSIC. Shell babelfish 21:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin Santos[edit]

Nonnotable rapper. Bare assertion of notability, but then article says "his dream is to be widely recognized". NawlinWiki 21:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His dream is to be widely recognized in the Latino Communities in the United States (see article! He is already widely recognized throughout El Salvador. Want some proof? here's some proof.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fat Lui (talk • contribs)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:48, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Velvet Abstract[edit]

A short film that does not exist yet. Unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Let's wait until it exists and see if it becomes notable. Weregerbil 09:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:54, 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 Keep. Subject notable, sufficient verifiable information to merit seperate article. WP:NOT does not apply as information presented is much more than simply plot summary. Shell babelfish 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Warhammer 40,000 universe[edit]

An article which is "solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction" (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point 7). Prod removed because "Warhammer 40,000 is very popular", which, while true, doesn't override WP:NOT. Delete --Pak21 08:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Erm, why? J Milburn 01:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:58, 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 09:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Sterling Walker[edit]

Similar to the ones above, but appears to be even less notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • can't see why the other ones survived AfD. Ohconfucius 04:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:13, 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 09:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ICWA World Heavyweight Championship[edit]

Non notable wrestling championship with only one listing and no context - also up for deletion are ICWA Womens Championship and ICWA European Championship Lid 06:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition - I missed including ICWA Cruiserweight Championship. Adding to deletion list. --- Lid 06:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't know which fed these related to but now that I do I nominate deletion of that as well. --- Lid 01:28, 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 per discussion as failing notability guidelines and WP:V. Shell babelfish 21:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intuitive Central[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:WEB, non-notable website with an alexa ranking of 1,400,000+, no reliable sources on this that I can find, so violates WP:V. Xyzzyplugh 05:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:18, 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 09:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StorageByMail.com[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Google hits all link back to this wikipedia article, or to a PR piece which the company put out and which a few minor websites picked up. The website has no alexa ranking Xyzzyplugh 05:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:17, 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 09:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Codeps[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Non-notable website, no alexa ranking, no reliable sources on this so doesn't meet WP:V Xyzzyplugh 05:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:17, 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Nicola Giacomo Aluigi Giuseppe Linza. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 notability discussion. Most of the media coverage is trivial, but traffic reports and subculture discussion in the Adbuster article seem to clearly establish notability.. Shell babelfish 21:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NikeTalk[edit]

This article about a Nike shoes collection discussion site survived a prior AfD as "no consensus" back in March (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NikeTalk), but since then has not been improved one bit, nor has the notability been shown further. It is still my belief that it is nothing more than spam and should be delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a peek at an exemplary wikipedia fan club entry: [[32]] There's something odd about this one. This entry has no sources and doesn't even contain correct grammar, yet I don't see any deletion request. I don't see Nlu calling the entry's notability into question, and yet I can't imagine how THE DOYLE FAN CLUB has more members worldwide than www.niketalk.com. As I don't read any poorly dittoed fright rock "zines," I can't recall the last time THE DOYLE FAN CLUB has ever breached the mainstream media.

I could accept a style critique. The article, while constantly vandalized, was not well written to begin with, and I'm aware that this site's pedantic gatekeepers typically require that each entry be uniformly encoded in pretentious academic jargon - using as many cute latin phrases as possible so as to more accurately indulge the fantasy of actually participating in a real academic journal. If you want to condense this entry down to a banal recitation of verifiable facts regarding the site's traffic, history, and external mentions - go hog wild. We can all live with that.

What irks me is that this has, for whatever reason, become a personal crusade for a wikipedia administrator. Nlu, you really destroyed any shred of objectivity by continually railing against NikeTalk.com's "notability." How did this site require FURTHER proof of notability than VERIFIED mentions in Time, Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal? The site's popularity may be verified simply by viewing the independently collected web stats. Since I doubt you've ever visited the site, let me give you a hand: [http://extremetracking.com/open?login=ntjordan ] Currently, the site receives between 70,000 and 90,000 unique visitors per day - and this is off peak. Over 4.6 million unique visitors viewed the site in January of this year alone. If that is not notable, you have a hell of a lot of entries to delete.

What's more, you've obviously attempted to narrow the scope of this debate in order to railroad this entry from wikipedia. You DELETED several "keep" votes - which in no way violated wikipedia standards - and then blocked all new and unregistered users from participating in this forum and prevented a TRUE public hearing. The NikeTalk entry has been vandalized on probably hundreds of occasions, and yet after ONE miscreant violates this topic you place it under security? Your motives here are transparent. I honestly can't imagine what your problem is with a harmless online community for sneaker fans sharing wikipedia space with millions of other articles, but you've clearly demonstrated a subjective bias against this entry. You've abused what little "power" you possess. And for what? To keep a sneaker message board from "contaminating" an encyclopedia that enshrines, among other things, warcraft mods and testicle cuffs? This is a resource that is, supposedly, open to the general public.

There is NO standard violated by this entry that has not been violated a thousand times over by entries you continue to allow. If this entry is spam, what of the entry for www.newegg.com? Does anyone really need a wikipedia entry to detail the history of a web store? If this entry is not notable, then what of The Doyle Fan Club or any of the thousands upon thousands of other equally obscure entries?

Look, wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia for the people. It's intended to include topics that stodgy "formal" encyclopedias wouldn't deign to include. www.niketalk.com is the largest online community for sneaker collectors in the world today. Whether that's important to you or not is utterly subjective - and your standards are SUPPOSED to be OBjective. The entry should exist for those all those who might seek it. If you can abide an entry for the Cinderella Stamp Club, (600 members) I'm sure there's a place for the world's largest community of sneaker fans.

Wikipedia users, I'm not asking you to LOVE this entry. I am asking you to be fair - and in this case most of the criticism levied against this entry has been inconsistent and superficial at best. --RakimAllah 03:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the records, I reverted to a pre-vandalism version because these anons/newly registered users removed valid delete votes and defaced the AfD discussion itself. See the history of the AfD. Since those votes would have been disregarded anyway (not only as vandalism but also as votes by users who were too new), there is no loss. --Nlu (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still more hypocrisy from Nlu... First of all, unless you have IP records PROVING that all of those individuals were responsible for vandalizing the site you have NO basis for removing their valid "keep" votes. You have to admit, it all looks both petty and suspect to have cut off ALL "keep" votes and restored all "delete" votes. Altering or deleting votes makes a mockery of Wikipedia's "honor system" - and it appears you're every bit as guilty as those you consider "vandals" in this instance. Even though I clearly want the article kept, ultimately I respect the integrity of wikipedia enough to acknowledge and respect votes that go against my cause. You can't make the same claim - and you're an administrator. What does that say?
Simply because they are new users, you don't feel they have a say in the matter? MOST wikipedia users do NOT register for this site. Shouldn't all wikipedia viewers have a say? If an article is important to someone, shouldn't they be able to voice their opinions and contribute to the discussion? What you're attempting to accomplish is to limit this debate to those who have little to no understanding of the subject matter. Imagine if we put one of your prized articles on Chinese historical figures up for a deletion debate and allowed only Alabamian Klansmen to vote. Do you think they'd consider your subjects "notable?" You appear to have no respect for or understanding of the subject matter - and it's clearly biased your judgment.
Look at the quality of arguments tethered to these "delete" votes. How well supported are these sputtered fragments? "Spam" How so? If this is spam, you have thousands and thousands of other articles that would seemingly fit the same criteria. Wikipedia hosts hundreds of articles promoting businesses both online and off. Is it only spam if the author veils her or his bias behind third person objective? Not that it matters, but NikeTalk.com isn't even a business. All ad revenue above and beyond the site's hosting costs goes to various charities. It's a community that holds a unique position of influence within the sneaker industry, as indicated by all of those sources you fail to acknowledge. If someone can type "newegg" into your search engine and find an article that reads like a brochure, why is it that a sneaker fan cannot type in NikeTalk to find more information? If vandalism weren't such a pervasive problem here, perhaps there'd be a better core article for those interested to update. As it stands, the article can take one step forward and three steps back. Yet you clearly care more about the vandalism of your prized "delete" votes than the vandalism of actual CONTENT. How fair is it that people who have no real interest in this article, yet enjoy feeling as though they're really "editors" of something as ostensibly intellectual as an encyclopedia, are able to impose snap judgments in this space - yet those who actually care the most about the subject of this article are locked out because they had no reason to open an account in the past? Aren't they still wikipedia users? You're simply afraid of opening up the floor because you know that you'll never achieve a consensus delete under such conditions - so you JUMPED at the chance to manipulate the process to engineer your desired result. That's pathetic. You could've simply reinstated the lost "delete" votes, since you're following this so closely.
You have NO case with regard to notability - and you know that. How many other entries are asked to CONSTANTLY add new sources merely to prove their notability over and over again? The site was just mentioned in Time magazine in March. While the EASILY verifiable traffic and membership figures and previous mainstream media mentions should have been MORE than sufficient, the site has since been mentioned in the LA Times and Adbusters magazine. What more do you want? How is it that a stamp collectors club with 600 mentions is notable, but a community with over 50,000 members and 70,000+ regular visitors that has received international media attention is not? What, exactly, remains unproven about the site's notability? Have ezboard.com, extreme web tracking, Time magazine, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, the LA Times, the Washington Post, Adbusters, Details, Strength, etc. etc. ALL fallen for some "hoax" here? Visit the freaking site. ONCE. You'll find a community with 50,000 plus members - just as ALL of these sources claim. What more can you POSSIBLY ask for to demonstrate notability?
Compare the NikeTalk entry to other fan club entries. There are NO SOURCES in any number of unchallenged fan club entries - not ONE. There's no source to verify its content. You have XBox live "clans" with wikipedia articles for crying out loud. Go bully them. This article contains verifiable sources from some of the most respected mainstream periodicals in the world and that's suddenly not enough to "prove notability?" You have to acknowledge that you're being a little inconsistent here, to say the very least. While you may prefer starcraft mods, testicle cuffs, fright rock, and stamp collectors to sneakers - that's no reason to try and run a site off what should be a public resource. As with any encyclopedia, wikipedia ought to have the potential to BROADEN one's horizons a bit. Take advantage. It's not just about what interests YOU. --RakimAllah 08:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether those users were vandalizing or not is open to public judgment. I've posted the link to the history of the discussion. I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that they did vandalize this discussion. Your attacks on me just, I think, shows the lack of case for keep (at least prior to Pixelface's rewrite). Even after Pixelface's rewrite, however, I believe this is still a spam magnet.
As for the strawman argument of "but there are other articles more deserving of deletion!" it should be noted that you can propose articles for deletion, too, and if you think that those other articles don't belong, propose to delete them. --Nlu (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LACK of a case? That's rich. I've posted an actual defense for this entry. You've posted nothing more than a bunch of empty claims. You CLAIM the site is spam, but you make NO argument for it. You CLAIM the site isn't notable, but you make NO argument for it. Have you REALLY passed the bar? For crying out loud, since when has "because I said so" been a valid argument? For the sake of novelty, try to make a point here.
Go back and look at the log you posted. This entry, and ONLY this entry, is responsible for the removal of valid "delete" votes: [[33]]
There's one other superfluous entry, the "get off ISS" entry. SEVERAL other entries contain nothing but valid comments from wikipedia users, which you then removed. What's wrong with these entries: "* Dont Delete You can't delete it, it has 500,000,000 page views - cafa301" "* * Dont Delete This is one of the biggest forums on the internet-samberkun" If a red user name indicates a new user, you KEPT delete votes from new users and, conversely, you DELETED keep votes from new users. What does that say about you?
Your claim that the site isn't "notable enough" for wikipedia remains indefensible. That you've repeatedly asserted this claim only proves your bias. Even so, let's prove your bias a few more times for the benefit of those who haven't yet been totally disillusioned. If the revised NikeTalk entry is spam, surely the article for www.newegg.com is spam. For crying out loud, go look at the entry. They're using it to advertise their upcoming 'regional expansions.' The whole entry reads like an advertisement. So, what's the difference? Please, tell me. IF you were a person of principle, I imagine you'd wish to apply the SAME standards to every single entry. IF you were a person of principle, you'd vote to DELETE the entry for www.newegg.com on these same grounds. If it is NOT deleted and "fails to improve" even after the community allows it to stay, I would then expect you to HOUND this entry with future delete requests until a "consensus" decision is reached. Otherwise, you're PROVING that you're treating this particular entry differently than others. Of course, I shouldn't have to be the one to propose the article for deletion. Now that you, an administrator, are aware of another spam entry like www.newegg.com - YOU will be the one to propose and argue for the article's deletion. It's your goal to remove all spam articles that you're aware of, is it not? Or, are you going to admit that you're only interested in removing "spam" articles if they somehow irk you? So much for your objectivity. This isn't a campaign against spam. You just have beef with this entry - and it's now obvious to all. At least have the integrity to own up to it and explain why you'll tolerate "spam" from newegg and thousands of other sites - even after they've been brought to your attention - but you're willing to wage this little crusade against niketalk's entry.
You're still not going to reach a consensus, especially after the article has been stripped down to include ONLY those statements easily verified by the included sources. The moment the NikeTalk entry was cleaned up, your claims were nullified. The subject is obviously notable. The entry has been scrubbed to the bone. That you continue to press for deletion only indicts you further. Stop the bleeding. Sadly, it all reflects poorly on wikipedia since you're so flagrantly misusing your administrative access. Fair-minded users won't stand for it. --RakimAllah 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There is no independently verifiable membership statistic. --Nlu (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of.... Do you do any research at all when you condemn these entries? NikeTalk is hosted by Ezboard. You may know them as one of the world's largest message board networks. The address www.niketalk.com is actually a redirect leading to http://p093.ezboard.com/bniketalk. So, it's not NIKETALK claiming 52,162 users - it's EZBOARD's own system. Not good enough for Nlu standards? Email someone at ezboard and ask them to confirm it. Or, you know, just man up and accept it. Either way works. --RakimAllah 15:12, 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 Keep per discussion after article update. Shell babelfish 21:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 3166-2:TT[edit]

This is all covered in Trinidad and Tobago. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Blood red sandman 12:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is a possibility. I believe there are templates, such as template:mergeto, to give notice of proposed merger. A concern to keep in mind is the length of any final list.-- danntm T C 02:15, 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 09:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Wrestler Rick Love[edit]

Can't find evidence of even existing, article written in nonsensical non-encyclopedic way. Claims of notability are iffy at best. No sources or links to evidence. Lid 12:08, 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 09:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fameism[edit]

Article is about a neologism (Google turns up 9 hits, most whch do not seem to be related to this "term"), could also be seen as original research. Prod removed without reason Wildthing61476 12:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article may well be original research, this does not make it any less true. The term 'Fameism' is a neologism, but the description of 'fameism' is none the less an occurance that is happening today. As an original piece of work it could be a template for incorporation into mainstream language and culture. Google turns up 22 hits, 2 of which are related to this 'term'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.119.144 (talk • contribs)

The 2 hits related to this term are on Urban Dictionary and have been created by the same person who made the entry on Wikipedia. There are no hits from reputable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.13.250 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was Delete, copyvio. Aguerriero (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nshanian[edit]

The article is about a extremely obscure person (google test lists a single article) and the article itself was copied from some other source. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nshanian is an international soprano, who is well known in Armenia and Russia.

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in the War on Terrorism[edit]

Page was created by a sockpuppet and is redundant with pages War_on_Terrorism:_Allies and War on Terrorism as well as the general template Template:War on Terrorism --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:21, 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. Shell babelfish 21:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Dinitto[edit]

Article on obscure, not notable radio host. Google test lists less than 900 hits and article is a constant copyvio mess. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:22, 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 09:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aozora: Another Blue Sky[edit]

Article on very obscure webcomic. The google test only lists results from wikipedia and other comics wikis. The article's author only wrote this particular article and his user page is exactly like this article. Very obscure, possibly vanity. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nexis comes up empty (though it is hard to be sure; there is a Japanese financial firm called Aozora whose hits number into the hundreds and may be obscuring some hits for the webcomic). Uucp 14:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, when Adonisclopin created the "Aozora: Another Blue Sky" article .. Adonisclopin probably didn't realize there already was (and still is) an article about the Aozora webcomic. Perhaps move info from "Aozora: Another Blue Sky" article to Aozora? --EarthFurst 18:32, 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 09:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2010s in fashion[edit]

Article (obviously a template) was tagged as patent nonsense, which isn't correct. Maybe the fashionistas really are looking ahead in a verifiable way? Doubtful, but I'm bringing it here for a wider audience in case I'm wrong. Creator user:Jocasta shadow seems to be an editor in good standing. -- nae'blis 12:31, 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 consensus. —Xyrael / 08:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of neologisms on The Colbert Report[edit]

Despite being a Colbert fanatic, I feel that this page is quite unnecessary. It currently lists two neologisms- The Simpsons, this is not. The list consists of truthiness, which has its own article, and wikiality, which is covered in the article dealing with WP in pop culture (among many other articles which mention it). If Stephen can come up with a significant number of widely-used terms, perhaps this page can be recreated; at this point, it's simply redundant. Kicking222 12:55, 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.

List of neologisms on The Colbert Report

List of neologisms on The Colbert Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
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 09:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dania Aguirre[edit]

Very elaborate article, but not much there. Even the article basically says she's a student. The listed credits are not supported by [her IMDB page, which lists one uncredited appearance, one voiceover, and one unnamed character ("College Student"). Looks like, at this stage of her career, she's barely above an extra. Seems to fail WP:V and WP:BIO. -- Fan-1967 13:08, 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. Shell babelfish 22:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Phelps[edit]

Can't establish meets WP:BIO. Only about 700 g-hits for "Calvin Phelps" +artist. Bio page lists student awards and scholarships, and exhibitions but nothing that meets wp-bio. Different webpages give different dates of birth. :) Dlohcierekim 13:08, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatic ecosystem[edit]

wikipedia dead end which adds nothing new to the ecosystem article and is simply taking up space in the server. --Mecanismo | Talk 13:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

totally agree. 158.143.159.64 16:36, 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. Shell babelfish 22:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquilaine Diffusion[edit]

less-than-stub dead end article about a extremely obscure radio station. Google test lista 66 hits. --Mecanismo | Talk 13:39, 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 speedy redirect to GI (Liberatore, 2006). 12:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gi[edit]

Self-promotion - this stuff should be kept on the user's user page! Adambisset 13:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - grubber 19:37, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen McGarry[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) as being the youngest person to appear on a quiz show. The article does not cite sources, and the only link to that article is from the quiz show The Einstein Factor. The page could either be deleted or made into a redirect to The Einstein Factor. apers0n 13:46, 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 Speedy copyvio. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstraction by the pool[edit]

No ascertion of notability, all content is simply a copy and paste from the website as evidenced by the link. In a tone where it assumes the reader knows what it is talking about. Lid 13:49, 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 Speedy delete, transwikied. Aguerriero (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arimaa strategy[edit]

Cruft article on attempt to create another game HowTo on wikipedia. Article doesn't have any information whatsoever and only claims the intention to add information that doesn't belong on wikipedia --Mecanismo | Talk 13:50, 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 Speedy delete, transwikied. Aguerriero (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arimaa tactics[edit]

Cruft article on attempt to create another game HowTo on wikipedia. Article doesn't have any information whatsoever and only claims the intention to add information that doesn't belong on wikipedia --Mecanismo | Talk 13:51, 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, no significance established. Note that I am reversing the closure made by Wikizach (talk · contribs) because a) it was nothing but a head count and b) the user in question is not an administrator and should not be closing discussions where the outcome isn't obvious.--SB | T 03:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LostCasts[edit]

Non notable podcast for the TV show Lost.-- Jtrost (T | C | [34]) 14:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These points can be verified by listening to each of the podcasts that are avilable on the LOSTCasts site or ITunes and reviewing the comments sections for each podcast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.230.22 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 27 August 2006

Note: The LostCasts website has published this message to its users:

In addition, we cover recent Wikipedia issues. One of our listeners started a LOSTCasts entry, and some clueless users are trying to get it deleted! Help save our Wikipedia entry by visiting this page and telling them to "keep" the entry! Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not another fan site; it's meant to be encyclopedic.

Which really doesn't explain how the entry on Lindsay Lohan was ' identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community.' 1. I mean, that piece doesn't exactly look like it was written by her arch enemy now does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.230.22 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Yes, and the issue is not whether it's a good podcast (it is), or "notable" in terms of effort and results, but whether it's notable for Wikipedia, in the WP:Notability sense. Defenders of the article here (driven to this page by the comments on the LostCasts site) have taken offense by being called not notable, but that's not meant to be an insult. The question is, then, is whether every major fan site should have its own article too. To me, obviously not. So why this one? Again, it's a slippery slope. -- PKtm 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testerer 03:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Lostcasts is not for every LOST fan, but for someone like me, who is interested in going beyond watching the show, this is a great resource for news, commentary, and fascinating speculation on what is behind the creative curtain for this show. These podcasters have given up a great deal of time to try and offer an entertaining resource that has at times overlapped with the actual production of LOST. The nomination for deletion of this article is spiteful and obviously from someone that wants to be a petty irritant rather than genuinely being concerned with the accurracy of content on wikipedia. I suggest the folks in favor of deletion subscribe to other podcasts and allow the great many listeners to be more than enough validation for an entry here. This entry is not a mere plug for a podcast. This podcast is as valid as a television or radio program and for me is a fabulous wealth of information. Devaluing this by stating it is made by fans is ridiculous. You want people producing a podcast about LOST to love the show enough to do their best. Please do not delete this entry! Micahsherrill 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) Micahsherrill has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

That's why we were honored when, on August 14th, a commenter on our site (Loren), posted that she'd created a Wikipedia entry for us. You can see that comment here. Just a few days ago, a comment on our site let us know that the entry was up for deletion. The reason was that several Wikipedia editors said our podcast was "non-notable."
Yeah, that upset us. We know that we're one of the top LOST fan podcasts out there, but I don't expect everyone to be familiar with us. In defense of the Wikipedia editors, if they had not heard of us, they would have no basis by which to judge our "notability."
I started some bad blood by calling the Wikipedia editors "clueless", which was irresponsible. In fact, Wikipedia editors spend their free time doing something they're passionate about, with no compensation. This is something we can identify with, because that's what we do. But we have to make an argument for our notability. Here's a shot at it:
  • LOSTCasts has appeared regularly in the iTunes top 100 podcasts. We were consistently in the list when season 2 was on the US, beginning in November 2005. Of course, during the off-season, this has been intermittent. One additional item of note is that the iTunes top 100 is not based on total number of subscribers, but on the number of new subscribers within a given amount of time. We'll breach this top 100 again when season 3 starts.
  • Most podcasters don't publish subscriber statistics, but we do have a glimpse from an AP article published in May of 2006. LOSTCasts is also cited in this article. In terms of numbers, The Jay and Jack podcast subscribers are cited in this AP article at 13,000 subscribers. In the month of May, our subscribers started the month at 18,000 and grew to 22,000. This would make us the most popular LOST fan podcast being published at that time. Of course, this is the only window since that we've had into other LOST podcast subscriber numbers. But everyone would agree that once the Transmission left, it was really just us, and Jay and Jack.
  • ABC and LOST listen to us. As noted in the articles of deletion, Jorge Garcia, who plays "Hurley", is a regular listener and has called into the show numerous times. As well, we have been personally contacted by a number of other official LOST folks.
As I said, we're honored to have had a Wikipedia article written for us, and we'd love to see it stay. But it's up to the Wikipedia community to accept or reject claims of notability.
If you are going to comment on the articles for deletion, make it a logical argument for notability, not a flame. If you don't believe we're Wikipedia material, then say so! That's your right... and it's what makes Wikipedia great.
The outcome won't affect the future of LOSTCasts. We validate our notability through the voice of our listeners. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.136.57.214 (talk • contribs) .— Possible single purpose account: 69.136.57.214 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Comment re: podcast notability: It appears that podcasts have a disadvantage under WP:WEB, as a fairly new medium that is relatively rarely featured as content articles in the traditional press, thereby decreasing chances for notability. 1) WP:WEB notes that Category:Awards may suggest notability, but there are no podcast-specific award categories, (and if any are added, they should be added to WP:WEB IMHO). 2) Traffic ranking sites such as Alexa (used in older versions of WP:WEB) also do not accurately reflect podcast traffic, which may be directly downloaded by music applications rather than web browsers. In general, I am left wondering if discussion for a WP:PODCAST article would be of merit (but I'm too lazy to embark on that endeavor), but consider that if one were to exist, it seems that an iTunes Top 100 ranking would be a reasonable criterion for podcast notability, a criterion that does not exist for other media in the umbrella category of WP:WEB. Yes this vote has attracted an array of single-purpose accounts and puppets voting "strong keep", but look beyond that and consider what podcast-specific criteria you would choose for notability. (My previous comment moved here with minor copy edit) --Santaduck 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although that may be true, it does not make this podcast notable according to Wikipedia policies. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a note that tagging every annons message (even though there not accounts so i fail to see why your tagging them with SPA) doesnt make there opinions any less valid. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really a question. In Wiki articles about entertainment entities, in this case a podcast, are the editors judging the entertainment value of the podcast? Using another example, if I were to post an article about the 70s band The Goodrats, would editors remove it because they think it was an non-notable band because they never heard of it? If so, then so be it. But if not, I don't understand why you want to remove this article. It is a podcast. Some people enjoy it. Ten years from now, long after the Podcast is gone, somebody will turn to their friend and say - hey, what was that podcast we used to listen to with the great theories about lost, and that friend will turn to Wiki. Isnt that what Wiki is for?

The same is true about a number of other fan podcasts, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't make any of them notable. As for the podcast affecting the direction of the show, I would like to see a verifiable source for the information. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!!! Why Whold You Delete This??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfgiants2062 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 September 2006 — Possible single purpose account: Sfgiants2062 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dataduplication[edit]

Delete Non-notable company that fails WP:CORP, blatant advertisement. Prod notice was removed without comment Gwernol 14:14, 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 CSD A7. kingboyk 15:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duffy (group)[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, 1 self-released EP. I'm also on the verge of saying CSD A7. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 14:50, 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 09:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100 best online[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Non-notable brand new website. Prod was removed by annon. editor. Was that editors only edit. Dipics 15:31, 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 09:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Inevitable Dossier[edit]

Non-notable web publication. Title gets four google hits. Deprodded. Weregerbil 15:41, 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 as failing WP:V. Shell babelfish 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gematria of Nothing[edit]

Does not explain relevance, history or importance. <1000 Google hits, Wikipedia mirrors at the top. Failed PROD on 14 March (author removed PROD) and was not listed for AFD. Delete unless strong arguments for its encyclopidicity can be advanced. JFW | T@lk 15:42, 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 one spate of coverage on murder does not two noteworthy news items make.. Shell babelfish 22:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Alaneme[edit]

Looks like an nn-bio to me, but I was not sure enough to put it up for speedy deltion. Only around 650 Google hits. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:50, 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. Shell babelfish 22:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kermit Paint Factory[edit]

Doesn't seem to be real. Google turns up nothing, the history notes that the author has newspaper clippings but doesn't know how to cite them here. He was told how to cite them on his talk page, but still nothing--Nonpareility 15:52, 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 09:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Drop a Deuce in your Can, Brah?" (radio prank)[edit]

De-proded. I strongly question the notability of this prank. This article lacks any verifiable coverage by reliable sources to support the claim of "popular and well-known radio prank." -- Scientizzle 16:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable and unsourced.Michael Dorosh 16:38, 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 09:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteen Bullets[edit]

Non-notable. See too John Ling. Seems like the author is promoting himself. Moreover, some "fan" of the person is deleting every comment questioning about the validity of the entry sneakily. Therefore, delete. __earth (Talk) 16:18, 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 09:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Ling[edit]

Non-notable. Vanity. The author himself started the page. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourteen Bullets. Furthermore, there seems to be "fan" of his that keep deleting comments that question the validity of this article. Therefore, Delete __earth (Talk) 16:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prima facie, John Ling might seem insufficiently notable, but I put this question to you. Is there anyone else, doing what he's doing, as prominently? Tanyiliang

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

The result was Delete per discussion as failing notability and WP:V. Shell babelfish 22:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lac Marois Country Club[edit]

This is a private club open for only 2 months of the year. No significant media coverage here and fails WP:CORP. Possibly of interest locally so I have merged the encyclopaedic content into Sainte-Anne-des-Lacs, Quebec where it fits nicely. I set up a redirect which has been undone by the creator. This is a nice looking article but it is completely unsourced with much POV. The parts of the article that I haven't merged are unencyclopaedic detail about activities and internal organisation, effectively a recruitment brochure. After any redirect a delete is needed to stop the redirect being undone again. Delete. BlueValour 16:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not written with the objective of recruiting new members or serving as an advertisement. Lac Marois Country Club does not actively seek new membership as residents of that city know of the existence of LMCC, and residents of other cities cannot be members.
First, i agree that there are some elements that do not have a neutral POV. As a goal of making this article conform to Wikipedia standards, I have begun removing all non-encyclopedic entries, like names of the current staff members and all comments that do not directly describe the Lac Marois Country Club or its activities.
As there are articles written on every subject in Wikipedia by those who are passionate about them, this article is intended to present readers about LMCC's activities and events. For those who search about Country clubs, Lac Marois is certainly a good find, as it does not conform to the pragmatic view of what is a Country Club. Furthermore, the activities presented are valuable to anyone in need of inspiration for events and these events are described here since they form the foundation of what LMCC is.
Once we can all agree that this entry is encyclopedic in nature, then I can see no reason that it should not be included in Wikipedia. MzK 2:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I appreciate your attachment to an an article that you created however it is simply not encyclopaedic. To fit into Wikipedia it needs to be verifiable - WP:V refers and says Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources - and all the content about the club's activities is simply not verifiable. It is fine on your website which is a suitable place but not here. I rescued those parts that are likely to be verifiable and put them in the main article. BlueValour 08:26, 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 09:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep green, Green cleaning, Ecologic solutions[edit]

Prod removed after some changes made by the author, but I don't think the changes are sufficient to address two major issues: it's a Neologism coined by a particular non-notable company, and it's a thinly disguised ad for the company, which doesn't meet WP:CORP. -- Fan-1967 16:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have reverted editing of the above comments by 24.39.132.131 (talk · contribs). Fan-1967 18:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added them to the header. Fundamentally the same content, same reasons for deletion. Fan-1967 12:35, 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 09:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

123.ie[edit]

Non notable organisation vanity + Non-Notable, its a small private web company, very much a vanity page possibly for the purpose of increasing google pageRank

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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legend (person)/Cult hero (included later in discussion --Dangherous 12:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC))[edit]

This can only be POV. This belongs more as an article called List of people who have achieved greatness. Could be rescued I'm sure.

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 per author's request. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lovethebluesman[edit]

Advertising for this guy's eBay store; no Alexa ranking; nonnotable website. NawlinWiki 17:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My ebay rating is 100%. I wouldn't link to it on WP though. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per author's request. So tagged. Fan-1967 19:21, 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 Userfy to User:Backburnercomics/WESKetch_Architecture. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WESKetch Architecture[edit]

Contested proposed deletion. No 3rd party reliable sources provided to assert the notability of the company. Google hits for ("WESKetch Architecture") = 302. Mainly directory listings. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: You need 3rd party references. Eg: newspaper and magazine articles or major architecture/design prizes. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what exactly is the problem? Is it because WESKetch has too many published references to it? Or not enough published references? The wording of the "notable" tag it received was very confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Backburnercomics (talk • contribs) .
Reply: Your article doesn't cite any references that makes it apparent straight away to the reader why there should be an article on WESKetch Architecture. You could insert subtle lies into the article and we wouldn't be able to verify anything because we have no sources to refer back to. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this is my first article submission, and this is all really confusing. I gathered the information on the company from their website. Also on their website are the listings of the magazines they have appeared in and awards they have received. Not only is the magazine listed, but actual scans of the article are also linked. I thought the article would be significant because they were the first LEED certified architect firm in New Jersey. And sustainable architecture seems to be a hot topic right now, including research for school projects. I wanted to save other people time on their research by including this company as a resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backburnercomics (talk • contribs)
It's not enough to just have a link to the company's website in the article. If there is verifiable information about the company on its website that supports its notability, please include that in the article (without, of course, doing a straight cut-and-paste from the site, which would be a copyright violation). And please sign your posts using four tildes (these ---> ~). NawlinWiki 19:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sorry for the trouble. Go ahead and delete this entry. I'll collaborate with my friend to bring this article up to wikipedia standards and then repost it at a later date.Backburnercomics 19:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Backburnercomics[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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of Lords[edit]

Nonnotable MMORPG. Author deleted prod tag claiming 55 million Ghits, which is true for searching Lords of Lords (Google ignores "of"); if you put "Lords of Lords" in quotes, you get 287 unique Ghits. Website has Alexa ranking of 856,374. NawlinWiki 17:24, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Busaphobia[edit]

Author keeps removing speedy tags, so bringing it here. Supposedly means fear of Jerome Bettis, running back known as "the bus", who retired last year. WP:NEO, WP:NFT. -- Fan-1967 17:27, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There (internet service)[edit]

Unnotable service - ranks 42,831 on Alexa. If it was a better quality article, then keeping it would be OK, but this article does not really discuss the technology, the pros and cons of the business model, or give a decent history of the service. Hence, either rewrite, or better, merge some of the content into a general article on this type of product. Blowski 17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Write - This may be worthy of inclusion, but as it stands it reads like an advert --Amists 18:13, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PicBin.net[edit]

RNot found on Google or Alexa. External links have been added to various relevant articles (which I have removed) so this is highly likely to be pure spam. Blowski 17:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There's nothing in WP:WEB that distinguishes a non-profit site from a profit-making one, and regardless this still doesn't pass WP:WEB by a long way. ~Matticus TC 18:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS - just as a suggestion, a far better way of grabbing traffic would be to write a blog on your site with interesting content about photography. Places like Technorati will pick this up, and if users value your service, they will start using it. Also, search for terms like 'photography' on Google, and contact the owners of those websites to discuss putting links on their site.
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 09:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Guest House, St. John US Virgin Islands[edit]

NN establishment. Fails WP:CORP and the building itself does not apear to be noteable either. Also unverified. Blood red sandman 17:38, 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 Deleted and redirected to Droit de seigneur.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prema Nocta[edit]

Title is a misspelling of Prima Nocte, and only contains information from the movie Braveheart Thirdgen 17:39, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drift brigade[edit]

NN. It says it was started on 2006 by a group of people! Add to this Charles "Chachi" Diaz -- Szvest 17:44, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dam Dirty Apes[edit]

Contested prod involving potential vanity article about a group of student film makers. Primary claims to fame are a DVD release that Google can only find mentioned on Wikipedia clones,[35] a brief appearance on a single university's campus channel, and an award from a minor website run by a recently graduated film student. Delete unless reliable sources are provided to show verifiability and establish notability. --Allen3 talk 17:43, 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 Keep per discussion as meeting notability guidelines. Shell babelfish 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kofax[edit]

This is spam. Language is written to present products as superior, to incite people to buy, and includes a link to the homepage of this company. I recommend deletion of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulysseshadd (talk • contribs) User's only contribution

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

The result was Delete per discussion for failing WP:V. Shell babelfish 22:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls 3 (second nomination)[edit]

This AfD was not completely filled out, so I've taken the liberty of fixing it up and listing it. During the first AfD the article's creator decided to delete it. No opinion (yet) from me. Srose (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You are missing the point of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a repository of every rumor you hear about your favorite singing group. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia of verified information, backed up by reliable sources. There are a list of things that Wikipedia is not, and one of those things is being used to store news and rumors like it's your own website. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LINK PROOF!!! - http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=63708349&blogID=157585174&MyToken=659177df-f6ce-4f93-ad39-7774d363bf42

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 as a WP:VANITY article.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Frontiers[edit]

I think this borders on a vanity article. Two high schools in suburban Washington have a science competition. Great, yes. But encyclopedic? Eh.... Dakern74 17:56, 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 09:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMV Hell[edit]

No real notability outside of anime music video fan communities. Not encyclopedic. Poorly written. Burbster 18:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewritten. AKismet 19:17, 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.
This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.

Time for another Afd?![edit]

The fact that this article claims former residents of communist or former communist countries are grateful to american is ridiculous! anyone who has been to Russia, North Korea or China, will have been overwhelmed by the bitterness felt towards america! this article is just an american patriot's attempt to "get an article that can make us look good" anyone who disagrees should post reply very soon or I will list for deletion--Frogsprog 14:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencylopedic

UNFOUNDED statements like "Many Europeans are still grateful to the United States and other allied forces for their participation in World War II and the sacrifice of so many American lives in defeating Fascism in Europe", "Political representatives in many European countries are in favor of close ties with the USA" and "working and lower classes in industrialized countries tend to be more pro-American" are not in any way encyclopedic!!--Frogsprog 14:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

discussion from Votes for deletion[edit]

Pro-American sentiment

No real content; just a poorly written attempt to counteract the Anti-American sentiment article. No evidence is offered for highly POV statements like 'Europeans in general are still grateful to the United States for its participation in World War II and the sacrifice of so many American lives in defeating Fascism in Europe.' Deus Ex

Funny how there can be so much anti-American material here on Wikipedia, but heaven forfend there be anything good to say about the US. RickK 02:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It's inevitable that this article isn't going to be NPOV, but then again, Anti-American sentiment isn't either. Wikipedia would fail in its efforts at NPOV if it deleted this one while leaving Anti-Americanism intact. There seem to be four just options:

My take is that either the second or the third option is the best one. The articles are natural and useful, so they shouldn't both just be deleted. --Atemperman 02:52, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

To sum it up there were 13 votes to delete, 2 that seem to support deletion, 1 suggestion to merge into another article, one undecided, 4 keep votes and one comment that seems to support keeping. Altogether a clear decision to delete but it still has not been done. I think Atemperman made a good suggestion. Get-back-world-respect 03:38, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Original Discussion (at creation)[edit]

This is such a stupid article. It only exists because some Yanks didn't like the existence of Anti-American sentiment, and so created this childish counter-article.

It contains no real content whatsoever, and deserves to be deleted. However, there is no point listing it on VfD because, being an American website, Wikipedia will always be full of dickheads who support this sort of article.

So, it looks like people are just going to have to trim it of Yankee national mental masturbation every now and then. —Chameleon 18:11, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your language, Chameleon. If people from the US feel offended by the anti-American sentiment article could they please express their reasons at that article's discussion? Get-back-world-respect 03:02, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microbe Wars[edit]

Disputed prod. Non-notable student movie. Unreferenced. -- RHaworth 18:20, 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 Speedy deleted as admitted nonsense. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Taco Supreme[edit]

4 ghits, neologism. Delete (|-- UlTiMuS 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was created by two individuals who were instant messaging each other, typing complete nonsense and developing a story from the chaos. --Wafulz 18:39, 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, because of strong comments and reasoning below. —Xyrael / 08:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riboalte[edit]

plus redirect at Kingdom of Riboalte

Disputed prod. Non-notable micronation. Unreferenced. -- RHaworth 18:24, 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 --Wafulz 19:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DN Partners LLC[edit]

142 ghits, fails WP:CORP. Also WP:SPAM. (|-- UlTiMuS 18:35, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

43119[edit]

Another ZIP code article by the creator of 43228, currently up for AFD; nonnotable/nonencyclopedic on basis of precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99775 and other AFDs of ZIP codes discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43228. Note that creator said in the 43228 AFD that s/he would continue to create ZIP code articles regardless of consensus. NawlinWiki 18:35, 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 --Wafulz 19:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dew tang[edit]

Never heard of it. 130 ghits. Delete as NFT. (|-- UlTiMuS 18:42, 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Sullivan[edit]

Non-noteable, possible vanity, definite hoax article. Article was PROD'd previously but removed by the author with no explanation. Ataricodfish 18:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was a free place to write on things and just because this cult has no "Google" hits does not make it untrue. The Cult i speak about is very true. This isnt vanity, I do not know this guy personally.Rediculous the way you all act around here. Nobel1

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

The result was merge (and then redirect). —Xyrael / 08:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blondi (fictional)[edit]

Delete Not really sure why the dog warrants his own article: he wasn't of major significance, and only appeared on Kingdom Hospital. The information here would be better suited for the main article itself, not its own page.--Kung Fu Man 18:42, 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 speedy delete --Wafulz 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shelderbeast[edit]

No google hits, so I'm calling this a hoax. Any notable animal has at least one hit. (|-- UlTiMuS 18:48, 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 Deville (Talk) 02:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vortech[edit]

I was cleaning this up after finding it on a Random article click.. I realized that perhaps it does not qualify as a Wikipedia article based on notability, after I noticed that their albums were self-released. Anyways, listing here for the wise to decide its fate. Mceder 18:54, 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 Delete as a sub-stub, stillborn article. The subject could not become encyclopedic in scope and content.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwarts Online[edit]

A game that was never even announced. Most notable ghit is on geocities. Delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 18:57, 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 as an ((advert)) for a future event with no prior history to mark it as notable.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmameddevice[edit]

PROD removed without explanation. Event is a non-notable future event which reads like an advertisement. Ataricodfish 18:57, 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 as a non-notable band, WP:Music refers.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Asad[edit]

Non-notable musical group with nonsense written in the article. Article fails WP:N and WP:Music. Prod was altered, and thus removed, by article's creator without explanation. Ataricodfish 19:11, 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 as an ((advert)) for a non-notable establishment, as per WP:CORP.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cafe creation[edit]

Article is about a non-notable, and not as yet opened restaurant. Prod removed by author Wildthing61476 19:21, 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. —Xyrael / 08:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape_monsters[edit]

I've looked around at other MMORPG Wikis, and not one of them covered any of monsters. Why should this one? I vote a Delete per WP:NOT, as the guide does not appeal to anyone outside of the RuneScape understanding and lacks an encyclopedic tone. Why should anyone really care about what the "Chaos Elemental" is? It's great for a game Wiki, but definitely not for Wikipedia. Makoto 19:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ironically, the latest RS update has changed the graphics of several generic monsters AND the kalphite queen. I've not seen how drastic these changes are but the two KQ animations may now be out-of-date, and I'm struggling to see what few sentences could be ported. It may will be there's nada to take except a the KBD image and perhaps a few others. QuagmireDog 22:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've still not seen the new KQ, but the giants and demons are profoundly different and improved compared to their old incarnations. The Chaos Elemental and KBD pictures are the only thing here that IMO are worth keeping for the combat article. QuagmireDog 00:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~(Keep)~ Wouldn't everybody think best if Wikipedia covered EVERYTHING like an encyclopedia since that is what Wiki is. If you don't need to read it...then don't look it up correct?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.26.221.66 (talk • contribs)

You should read What Wikipedia is not. This is fan stuff. It's not encyclopediec.--24.109.220.202 20:15, 1 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 Deville (Talk) 02:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hofmann[edit]

A non notable radio personality. A google search for "The Life According to Larry Show." only returns what seems to be his myspace profile. A search for "Larry Hofmann" WHFR only returns a mirror. Nonpareility 19:33, 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 as a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Inn and Suites[edit]

1 ghit, fails WP:CORP by a landslide. (|-- UlTiMuS 19:37, 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Canty[edit]

A non-notable DVD box artist for B movies. IMDB has no listing of him "stepping in front of the camera" Nonpareility 19:49, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bamba Productions[edit]

Comment What if we have our website up, can we put this back when we aquire a domain? We can send the html of our site if you want to see it...wait this is the site server...[36] - Megaegga 14:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get 5 git, the article itself claims This group creates video sketches that can be found on Youtube, Google Videos, and Myspace. so therefore, NN failure of WP:CORP (|-- UlTiMuS 19:43, 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 No Randi Prize for Sylvia this week.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of predictions made by Sylvia Browne[edit]

Doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic. Does a list of predictions by a psychic qualify as encyclopedic? I tend to believe no. Further, I wonder if having this list of her predictions violates any of her copyright on the lists (like having the Newsweek Top 1200 High Schools was found to be copyright infringement I believe). Delete as unencyclopedic. Metros232 19:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep maybe merge? the more notable ones with her main article? I think this was broken off from the main article when it had gotten too large. Also since the list isnt taken from any one place there isn't any copyright issue. Since Brown is a notable psychic a people pay attention to her predictions certainly some of them have notability, such as those she made on Larry King Live about the mining accident (but I think that's covered in her main article anyways). JoshuaZ 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The entire page is not taken from any one place, but the individual breakdowns do appear to be: the first section, the second section, and the last section. I found the 3rd section in a blog but can't find an original source for that. Metros232 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, subject to that, take the most notable few and move them into the main article on Browne. Delete the rest. JoshuaZ 20:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is "encyclopdic" its a list of predictions that are believed to have been made, its information. That's what an encyclopedia is for information, reference. So if you wanted to be informed on Sylvia you could "refer" to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.56.208 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was Delete Deville (Talk) 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sogonow.com[edit]

Blatant advertising. The author even managed to mention himself by name in the article. Prod tag removed without comment. If it's not deleted, it needs a total rewrite. IceCreamAntisocial 19:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appeciate the feedback - I reviewed many of the other articles in the Travel Website category and tried to incorporate the information that they have provided to maintain the accepted standard - and I have continued to update the article with more information. If you have suggestions I would certainly appreciate them-User:Will Seccombe

I have edited out any reference to the ownership - I believe that the entry now is completely in line with other articles listed in the travel website category and it is not a vanity lisiting - any other suggestions would be appreciated - Will

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 List of English suffixes Deville (Talk) 02:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ee and Er[edit]

Kind of a pointless article. The one example given doesn't even follow the "rule" described. If anything, this could be a two sentence blurb in English language. It was speedied, admin changed speedy to prod, which was then removed. To be completely precise and specific, I believe this violates WP:NOT in that Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information. --Wafulz 19:59, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsukasa Minami[edit]

Model/porn actress with no notability asserted. Prod removed without explanation. Orphan article Catchpole 20:01, 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 all three articles Deville (Talk) 02:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polar inflation[edit]

I'm proposing this and two other articles by the same author for deletion, because they are either extremely non notable neologisms, or otherwise plain and simple hoaxes. Author (of the neologisms, and of the articles) calls himself "noted", but is extremely invisible on Google. Neologisms are equally unused, and seem to fail at least two Wikipedia policies, WP:NOR and WP:V Fram 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: Sills Point and Tropposite. Fram 20:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


To quote the wikipedia standards you cite in your proposition for deletion: Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves: Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:

It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability; It is not contentious; It is not unduly self-serving; It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.


Clearly every single article I submitted meets these criteria, and therefore my articles should not be deleted. Sillsm

Go to WP:NOR, and read the section: What is excluded. The section you quote is irrelevant, as a) the article is not about yourself, but about some idea you supposedly launched, and b) there are no sources given. Fram 05:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


To rebut your interpretation of the wikipedia criteria: a) The article is clearly about myself as my name is in it and it cites me as a source. b) All material considered for deletion has been self-published, and distributed in a university setting. Therefore I am the authoritative source to cite on these ideas. And this does not violate WP:NOR, because all ideas presented here are at least a year old. Sillsm



Kinu I suggest you read WP:VANITY more carefully. I have here cited a relevant passage to clarify its meaning. As you have begun to edit and mame my defense, I believe you are no longer an impartial third party. The merits of my articles should be judged by the community as a whole, and not single partial editors.

An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of articles, for instance see Template:IncGuide). Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on WP:AFD. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Both Maxwell Sills and Courtney Chatellier, both mentioned in the article, are high school students.24.61.160.163 This comment deleted here; restored.

Where is the proof that the two authors mentioned in the articles are currently enrolled in high school? There are no credentials accredited to the two authors except notoriety in their respective fields, which is subjective. There is only the mention of the ideas being distributed in a university setting. Where is the proof for that?

The theories in the articles are exactly that- theories. They are new ideas derived from literary criticism, and stand on their own legs. There is no truth or falsehood to a theory or concept. The articles don't make any claims at all, just explain the use of critical tools and give examples for their possible usage.

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 Userfied and deleted.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantor Judith Kahan Rowland[edit]

Vanity autobiography written by Judirow (talk • contribs). Only claim to notability is having been an "Immediate Past President of the American Conference of Cantors". Goggle hits for ("Judith Kahan Rowland" -wikipedia) = 22. Fails: WP:NPOV and most likely WP:V for lack of 3rd party reliable sources. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AfD instead.
In this case signicance has been asserted, and the claim is simply being disputed. So AfD is the proper course and the article can be deleted in due course if the consensus is it's not notable.--Shirahadasha 22:08, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mario Wii[edit]

No sources given for any of the information given in the article. Main contributor has a history of adding unverified and speculative information to articles, asserting it as fact. This article in particular appears to contain outright hoax information. Dancter 20:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also including Mario Kart Wii in this nomination, as it shares the same issues, with the main contributor being the same one for Paper Mario Wii. The only verifiable claims in the article are vague statements by the co-director of the Mario Kart series indicating that the next Mario Kart would be likely be for Wii. This is not enough information to justify an article. Dancter 21:03, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideological nomadism[edit]

Philosophy made up in vanity press-published book Tribalizing America, which was recently successfully AfD'd. Term produces 5 unique Google hits when -wikipedia is added to the search. Almost the entire article is based on that book, and borders on original research anyway. -Elmer Clark 20:46, 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 speedy deleted for having no useful content. Who says we can't speedy obvious junk? This isn't a bureaucracy. :) Friday (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Robert Crosby[edit]

Article appears to be yet another hoax article that can't be speedy deleted becuase it makes claims of notority than cannot be verified. Prod, hoax and verify tags removed by author. Wildthing61476 20:48, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ox of Boll[edit]

A hoax that has been on Wiki for 10 months, it is appropriately WP:Complete Bollocks RMHED 20:48, 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 speedy delete (A7) —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-26 09:35Z

Damian Almeida[edit]

No assertion of notability. Looks like it should have been speedied. About 24 Google hits. I will be very surprised if this can pass WP:BIO. However, I don't want to be Americo-centric and know nothing about India and its people.  :) Dlohcierekim 21:02, 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 This project has been touted since the demise of Spaced. This article can be recreated when the project is given the green light & a press release states this.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Triviata (tv)[edit]

The page was created because the Sun (newspaper) got confused on something and stated that this long predicted Pegg project will start filming soon. However, his management have stated that this is not the case - http://chortle.co.uk/news/aug06/pegg078801.php HornetMike 21:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My mistake in making the page in the first place. --ChinaNailStorm 12:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No mistake! It was based on what seemed like reliable knowledge at the time! HornetMike 15:23, 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. - Bobet 10:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black and white cookie[edit]

Non notable cookie, page originally was a rather subtle advertisment for a bakery. Not sure if the cookie warrants it's own page Wildthing61476 21:20, 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 this and co-nominated article Deville (Talk) 02:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TvTome Adventures[edit]

No reliable sources, only a dozen Google hits. Completely non-notable flash animation series. Also nominating Characters of TvTome Adventures. Delete per WP:V and WP:WEB. Wickethewok 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The site its hosted on... That would be like keeping an article on a Geocities website because Geocities gets millions of hits a day... Please see WP:WEB for criteria for web content and WP:RS/WP:V for information regarding require verifiability. Wickethewok 21:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • but it's not Geocites, it's a small collective of sites that all contribute a significant percentage to that 50 thousand.--Mewchu11 21:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Living Soul 00:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC) -Last Living Soul[reply]

  • Wikipedia articles require reliable sources to show verifiability. This is not negotiable. Wickethewok 14:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this article's source unreliable? The person directing the editing, and verifying the information is the man who wrote and flashed the entire series! How could you get any more reliable information then that? The people that do touch ups and the like are fans who have watched the series, and are close with the author, therefore knowing the series storyline to a T. I fail to see how our sources are unreliable.Damian 17:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A person is not a reliable source of published information. If you read WP:RS, you will find that people are not publications. This animation series does not meet WP:WEB, which requires secondary and indepedent sources of information outside of people involved in its creation. Wickethewok 17:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but I don't buy that, Mr. Admin. Your definition is ever so slightly askew, and if this whole site operates under that principle, then you are the caretaker to a swiss cheese factory. I wonder what else is missing around here or is mistaken under this narrow mindset. Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable data-source under that guideline. It speaks of an 'incredible' hubris. With no insult to your duties as an administrator, I think you should revise your standard. It lacks versatility. 130.49.145.77 17:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC) The Lord Massacre[reply]
    • Actually, WP:WEB says, and I quote, "Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria..." As such, as long as TTA has at least one of those three items, it's defines as notable. The third criterion is read as follows: "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Unless I am mistaken, Fireball20xl, the host, constitutes as "distribution of the content", and all staff members of the site are completely independant of Chris Niosi, unless "being friends with" is a reason to say otherwise, which is preposterous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cukeman (talk • contribs)
  • You are certainly welcome to your opinion. If you feel Wikipedia policies should be changed, I welcome you to bring your opinion to the talk page of that particular policy page in question. Wikipedia always welcome new input and ideas to policies, even though they may not necessarily be enacted. Wickethewok 23:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you that stupid?! We've been given our opinion for the past half-week! Open your frikkin' EYES or use your damn BRAIN! Cukeman 00:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm merely stating that AFD is not the appropriate venue for policy debates. This is the enforcement of policy rather than the creation. Also, please refrain from insulting other editors, including me. 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Cukeman, seriously layoff the personal insults. They do more harm than good for the cause. Insulting someone doesn't prove a point. --Mewchu11 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but they sure do help me out. XD 'Kay, I'm shuttin' up now. Cukeman 02:00, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve and Hough Entertainment[edit]

Quoting: Steve and Hough Entertainment is an upstart independent film company that utilizes myspace videos and youtube.com to get it's unique humor out to the masses. That pretty much sums up why this fails WP:CORP (|-- UlTiMuS 21:23, 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 Keep, and it seems as thought Nautilus Institute has already been merged to Nautilus, Inc. Deville (Talk) 02:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nautilus Institute & Nautilus, Inc.[edit]

Reads like spam, not notable, and I already copied all the data to Nautilus, Inc., who looks like they may be notable. Just a spam fork, by look of it... and not needed. · XP · T · 21:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC) EDIT: Adding Nautilus, Inc. if I can. Neither are notable, even when merged. Tagged that one too. · XP · T · 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I've redirected Nautilus Institute. Sorry for the trouble, I guess this one can be closed by anyone. · XP · 20:28, 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 this and co-nominated articles. Deville (Talk) 02:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I found a couple of other articles of exactly the same type created by the same editor; I deleted these as well --- Deville (Talk) 02:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certified eCommerce Consultants[edit]

Extremely close to pure article WP:SPAM. Full of jargon and contextless content, smells like copyvio as well. Standby, I'm nominating the sister articles as well. (|-- UlTiMuS 21:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 4 more from the same family:

All are full of the same unsourced jargon spam. Delete all (|-- UlTiMuS 21:44, 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, no doubt about it.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The no doubt universe[edit]

Non-notbale fan website. Prod and speedy removed by author. Wildthing61476 21:51, 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 merge, as carried out already. Petros471 18:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Anastasia Lowe[edit]

Procederial nomination for deletion from a contested PROD. Yanksox 21:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Cash adopted Carlene Carter after he married June Carter, and raised her as his daughter. There's even an anecdote in the liner notes to The Essential Johnny Cash by Nick Lowe about Cash threatening his life when Lowe suggested that Carlene and him should share a bedroom at the Cash's house (before they were married). No, they're not biologically related, but TAL is Cash's granddaughter nonetheless. Alcuin 20:26, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Bertholf[edit]

Possible vanity article. Note username of article creator (Robertholf). Google search only gives about 50 hits. This user also created a series of interlinked articles that look like small startup companies (Zeppo Network, Empowered Internet Solutions, LLC, Zeppo Network's Partnership for Integrity, Zeppo Search). I'm not sure any of this meets the notability requirements. JW1805 (Talk) 21:57, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeppo Network[edit]

Series of non-notable/vanity/advertisement articles about a small company. About 90 Google hits. See also: Zeppo Network's Partnership for Integrity, Empowered Internet Solutions, LLC, Zeppo Search, Rob Bertholf. JW1805 (Talk) 22:08, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeppo Network's Partnership for Integrity[edit]

Series of non-notable/vanity/advertisement articles about a small company. 1 Google hit. See also: Zeppo Network, Empowered Internet Solutions, LLC, Zeppo Search, Rob Bertholf. JW1805 (Talk) 22:08, 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. - Bobet 10:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empowered Internet Solutions, LLC[edit]

Series of non-notable/vanity/advertisement articles about a small company. About 50 Google hits. See also: Zeppo Network's Partnership for Integrity, Zeppo Network, Empowered Internet Solutions, LLC, Zeppo Search, Rob Bertholf. JW1805 (Talk) 22:08, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeppo Search[edit]

Series of non-notable/vanity/advertisement articles about a small company. About 10 Google hits. See also: Zeppo Network's Partnership for Integrity, Zeppo Network, Empowered Internet Solutions, LLC, Rob Bertholf. JW1805 (Talk) 22:08, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACSIP[edit]

Delete. Google search for ACSIP produces 15,500 hits [42]. Two of which are about this organization [43]. Fails WP:NN because there are no outside sources about these articles. The two google hits are the organization's website and a mirror. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Email 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Email 22:21, 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 Redirect to Big Brother (USA season 3). User talk:The_supersonic_seahawk 10:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Reyes[edit]

The article doesn't have any information in to suggest that she's notable for anything outside of Big Brother. talk to JD wants e-mail 22:30, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extrabux[edit]

Blatant advertisement for non-notable website that fails WP:WEB. Was speedied once, but created with substantially different content, so it technically does not qualify for G4. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 22:57, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eskimospy[edit]

Non-notable wabsite. Contested prod. — ERcheck (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The article named eskimospy was recently updated and does indeed contain useful information and links to other articles of useful information.

2. If you disagree with my first reason, edit Eskimospy and add information you believe should be included -- a stoodent at wilson 23:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--User:69.244.37.20 12:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that the above message originally had a fake signature
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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tesco Dragonville[edit]

[Check Google hits]; only 6. Little context and no real way to verify this NN WP:CORP failure. (|-- UlTiMuS 23:09, 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 Speedy deleted and protected, since the article is material that has been put through AfD and deleted twice more since. - Richardcavell 12:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ingvaldson[edit]

vanity WP:VAIN. No proof noteworthy. Content not suitable for encyclopedia (see section:Conflicts etc.. Possibly an attack page. It appears this article may have been Speedy Deleted previously, then re-created: previous delete page.

Ling.Nut 23:12, 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 Speedy deleted as db-bio (G4 only applies to prior AfDs). Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susan4e[edit]

Prod removed by original author, giving full AfD. [Check Google hits]; only 1. Totally NN blogger, fails WP:BIO. (|-- UlTiMuS 23:29, 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 per CSD G7. --- GIen 18:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Dragon Showdown[edit]

Prod contested by original author without any explanation. From what I've searched, the show doesn't appear to exist. Zero Google hits, and [44] doesn't exist. The articles List of Samurai Showdown episodes, Son Inomi, and Son Inomi's Jutsu were created in some attempt at a walled garden, but they weren't de-prodded. If they become de-prodded, I'll just add them here. To be painfully specific, I believe this article is in violation of WP:V and WP:NOT, and probably WP:HOAX too. Wafulz 23:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

I'll grant that he's not doing it as a hoax, he's doing it as his "idea", his "future animated series". But yes, delete, since WP:NOT a crystal ball. DS 23:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the creator of the article. Hey, you can delete it if you want. 'Cause I've already saved it on my computer so (tongue sticks out). And I don't care about your stupid WP:NOT thing, so you are just wasting your time. No hard feelings but you guys are so predictable. Like hall monitors.

Oh, and User DS, don't be bolding "delete" in front of me! Man, learn some manners! I am going to find a page that understands me. Not like WIKEPEDIA, the home for stupid delete monitors. Shesh! You and your dirty rules! Caterpillars are nicer than you guys, but Dragonflysixtyseven is a nice guy in some conditions unlike stupid Walfulz canadian!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiomi (talk • contribs)


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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FaxTalk[edit]

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

The result was Delete all as per WP:WEB and WP:BIO.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Online[edit]

Seems to fail under WP:WEB and WP:V. A google search of Terra Online brings up no relevant hits on the first page. Wafulz 00:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

This Article should NOT be deleted. As it is a legit website. An Anime community. It should be showing up on google.com within days. Please be patient before deleting this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoma (talk • contribs)

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. -- Fan-1967 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In this case, it still isn't allowed because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Basically, you can't write articles about topics that "will" be notable. You gain notability, then you gain independent third party coverage, then you get an article. --Wafulz 00:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Terra Online is already quite notable though. But let me get this straight...once this website is on a website, for example, like google, then it would be able to obtain an article of its own? Even if numurous users already contribute to the article without being on google? (I don't mean to change the subject, but I saw you're a leafs fan. Good job, sir. Leafs will be definatly making it to the stanley cup this year, now that Patt Quinn is gone.)(Exoma 00:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • No, we judge websites by how many thousands of links there are from other sites, which show up on google. And the numerous users on your site need to be in thousands, not a few hundred. Fan-1967 00:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More accurately, we use size as a guideline more than anything- large websites are more likely to get non-trivial third-party coverage, win notable awards, or achieve some other form of fame or notoriety. Even large websites have been deleted before for these reasons. It's outlined in WP:WEB --Wafulz 00:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idiots: I am Derek Boe a.k.a Punky. I don't know where ANY of you are getting your information about our website.

Our website was shut down two years ago because our project team faded away from the site. We never had anything to do with illegal pornography, or child molestation charges.

We weren't "Shut down" we simple fizzled out. No one higher up pulled the plug. You sir, are an idiot in using false information to attempt to shut down our wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PunkyPenguin (talk • contribs)

Please be civil in this discussion. There are only two users (arguably one under two accounts) making these accusations. The reasons that we are discussing the deletion of the page are stated above in my nomination, and also from others who have voiced their opinion in favour of deletion. The whole porn/sex offender thing is irrelevant and most likely trolling. --Wafulz 22:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahahahah, oh man. The users Kyleweiss and bennyspychaj are users that are repeaditly trying to ruin my reputation. Please ignore them. I am no pedophile. As I am only 17 years old, and do not even look at ordinary pornography. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoma (talk • contribs)
I figured as much. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)- it makes it easier to identify your comments. --Wafulz 23:18, 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 The article has no sources and is just speculation. The article can be recreated when a press release with official title and contents/participants details is issued.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Album 2[edit]

This is a speculative article about Jay-Z's upcoming album. I believe it violates crystal balling and WP:V- it even says in the article that the album title is unconfirmed. Once it's released, I can see it having an article. Wafulz 00:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this should stay. It provides information on somthing that at least we know is happening even if the entiraty of it is unfonfirmed. Since it is said to be due out in October, why not wait until than to see if this article is good or just a waste of space. Deleting it now would do little good considering that there are a few proven facts in that article, though they are not cited. Have the guy or someone cite it first maybe. --The2pacfan47 06:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In that case, it would be better off as a sentence or two in the main Jay-Z article for the moment- there isn't much information available, and we don't have a title, meaning we can't even name the article properly. --Wafulz 14:18, 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist because of majority of votes here are from a sockpuppeter (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DelosHarriman).--WinHunter (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric M. Jackson[edit]

article was created by the person himself for hyping purposes. does not appear to be a notable person or notable enough to be included in wikipedia Wikiyoman 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: Jackson would be notable if all he'd done was be a vice president of PayPal (when it was a startup). Now he's also the publisher of the Minuteman book (Corsi and Gilchrist), which means he and his authors are in the news constantly. Get real. DelosHarriman 17:28, 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 Deville (Talk) 03:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist because of majority of votes here are from a sockpuppeter (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DelosHarriman).--WinHunter (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Verjee[edit]

not notable, appears to be written by the person himself for vanity purposes Wikiyoman 01:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this vote contains no reasoning or justification. Personal attacks on people you disagree with and encomia to the Internet are no substitutes for logical argument.
Similarly, there is no reasoning or justification in this vote. Rather, there is an accusation of a personal agenda. I am not the person who is questioning Verjee's or Jackson's notability, but it seems plausible to me that the only personal agenda is to remove non-notable bios from wikipedia.
Verjee would be notable if all he'd ever done was be head of strategy for PayPal. There are a lot of bios on here for lesser stuff than that.DelosHarriman 17:23, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist because of majority of votes here are from a sockpuppeter (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DelosHarriman).--WinHunter (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod D. Martin[edit]

Do you actually have any arguments to make that Martin is notable? Your personal attacks ("hot-tempered vitriol, intemperate language, willingness to misrepresent, persistent attacks, bile," etc.) do not show that Martin is notable. Please assume good faith. The fact that there is a difference of opinion about whether Martin is notable also fails to make him notable
PayPal would be enough by itself. However, politically he's clearly relevant, in that he is the leader of a participating member of the Arlington Group[45], an tight little organization of pro-family orgs led by people like Jim Dobson and D. James Kennedy which gets regular private briefings at the White House and has gotten a lot of negative press for its inside leaks from Karl Rove.[46][47] It seems obvious to me that the public would want to know who these people are and (horrors!) even what they say about themselves. Unless you're trying to cover this sort of thing up.... Samdmd 00:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reliable source that demonstrates that Rod Martin played any management role at Paypal. He is not mentioned in any PayPal histories that I have seen. You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia rules on reliable sources. Furthermore, being one of the fifty or so members of the Arlington Group is not inherently noteworthy. You are not seriously contending that all the groups listed on the Arlington Group's website are noteworthy, are you? (TeenMania? New Yorkers for Constitutional Rights?) Finally, he is not the leader of a consequential organization, he is the programmer for a self-promoting website. You seem to continue to avoid the point that no claim that the website makes about its own achievements is independently verifiable. The verbal games you are playing here illustrate why Wikipedia needs to be more than a group of articles that refer to each other; rather, they need to refer to something real and verifiable in the outside world.
This assumes things that are not true. The "special counsel" matter, contrary to what you say, is asserted nowhere except on Rod Martin's website! Being the second editor of a book is not inherently notable. Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks.
Obviously this anon editor has never been to California, where the NFRA state affiliate is the largest Republican group in the state.[51] And while former employees are not noted on the PayPal website, Martin's job title there is listed on the World Ahead Publishing site[52]. As to CNP membership, it sure has a lot of information out about it for a secret group,[53] and anyway, Wikipedia's rules require good faith acceptance of autobiographical information unless there's a good reason not to accept it. Not liking someone is not a reason. DelosHarriman 17:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Martin's alleged job title is NOT listed on the World Ahead Publishing site that is footnoted. As usual, DelosHarriman is simply making things up and hoping he will not be caught. The membership of CNP is secret; its existence as such is not. As usual, DelosHarriman is confusing two things that are entirely different. Finally, what is your citation for the idea that we are required to accept politicians' claims about themselves and not apply any scrutiny to them? Please provide the wikipedia rule. This has nothing to do with "not liking" Rod Martin, and I do not respect your attempt to divert attention away from the rule that content must be verifiable.
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.
More