< December 14 December 16 >
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 Speedy delete per MER-C. Deizio talk 14:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Break a Leg (SitCom)[edit]

Mkdwtalk 11:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Doug Bell talk 15:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Show[edit]

My Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article describes a low-budget show featuring an aspiring talk show host named Matt Chin. An example is available here: [1] My view is that the show or the host could eventually achieve sufficient popularity to be included in Wikipedia, but that at the moment there is little to distinguish it from many other programs on Youtube and elsewhere. Arsene 3:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 01:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Chan[edit]

Milton Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Being mentioned once or twice on the news doesn't make one article-worthy. Two other similar articles (Emmanuel Morin and Sheryne Morcos) created by the same user have already been deleted. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 00:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment He's vice president of policy for the Young Liberals, not an outright vice president (as in second-in-command), according to the article. Also, the president of the organization doesn't himself have an article. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 01:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 01:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lotacracy[edit]

Lotacracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. voldemortuet 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is already an article named Floor crossing. The term is nothing but a regional synonym. There isn't any need for a redundant, parallel article. voldemortuet 18:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 00:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, after hearing everyone arguments, I think it makes sense to have this article in wiktionary or somewhere rather than here. So change my vote to delete. --Barastert 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Hudson[edit]

Rachel Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neither Rachel Hudson, nor her murderers' trial, has encyclopedic importance. Yes, the trial is the subject of multiple news articles. But, while media coverage is necessary for inclusion at Wikipedia, it's not sufficient. One of the rationales for the primary notability criterion is that we rely on the editorial judgment of reputable publishers as to a topic's importance: if they think it's important, we consider it worthy of inclusion here. But importance is not the only reason things get published. In general, when sources exist on a certain topic, we have to look at the reason the publisher decided to publish on that topic before we conclude that it's appropriate to have a Wikipedia article on the topic. We should ask, did the publisher consider the topic important or consequential in any way? In this case it should be clear that the BBC and other news organizations decided to publish articles about this trial only due to its sensational aspects: Rachel Hudson's brutal treatment and death at the hands of her own family was truly horrific and attention-grabbing. The trial had no importance, or consequences; as far as I can tell, it engendered no widespread discussion on crime and punishment or on the human capacity for cruelty (that's been around for a while now), and had no impact on the legal system or on society at large. In 100 years (even 10 years? even now?) this case will (has been?) surely and rightfully be forgotten, and almost surely not included in any history books. Rachel Hudson herself should, of course, not be forgotten, but that's no reason to keep the article here, because Wikipedia is not a memorial. (Note: De-prodded with comment "seems like there are reliable sources... perhaps it should be renamed, since it was the trial rather than the victim who was notable, but not deleted" -- as I have explained, I don't think either the victim or the trial has encyclopedic notability.) Pan Dan 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 00:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability - the BBC, the New York Times, The London Times, CNN whatever... these are mainstream news channels which cover much non-encyclopedic material, including serious matters, on a daily basis. WP:BIO is a guideline. The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, and not to be a news report archive. And there's no evidence that the murderers have displaced the Sheriff of Nottingham as a local icon except short-lived tabloid headlines. To be encyclopedic, there needs to be substantive evidence that this case has lasting social/political/cultural impact beyond personal tragedy/police log/media sensationalism e.g. if this case brings about a new law; if it inspires a movie; if it leads to creation of a significant charitable foundation etc. Bwithh 04:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to assume good faith here, but it seems like you and some other British folk are engaging in some vanity denial, same way Richard J. Daley had the garage that the St. Valentine's Day Massacre took place in plowed under (there's no historical marker for that or the spot in Chicago where John Dillinger was gunned down, either, but if you ever visit, I'll point the spots out to you). WP:BIO states Subjective evaluations are irrelevant to determining the notability of a topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. Same criteria is why Elvira Arellano has an article... yes, I know about WP:INN, but her article survived an AfD based on the that criteria. The fact that it's embarassing to some folks or others would like to subjectively minimize the newsworthiness of the subject by declaring the news coverage to be sensationalistic is not part of the criteria. Fact is, much material in WP is decided to be encyclopedic by WP standards based on mentions in the same mainstream media, and plenty gets deleted due to lack of mentions in the same media.. because that's the standard set by WP:BIO. And, honestly, I think one could safely assume that books and other media on this weird crime will appear in the future, probably because it's embarrassing and sensational... and it's a fairly good wager some law might turn up to prevent a similar incident in the future. Now... how'd I get involved in two British related AfD's in one day? Oh, yeah, the other one was in the hoax-article category... Tubezone 05:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your points about sensationalism, notability, and "subjective evaluations" -- I explicitly acknowledge in my nom that this story passes the primary notability criterion. You, on the other hand, fail to address the main concern of the delete voters here, which is that this story is not encyclopedically notable, due, in the opinion of most of the delete voters, to lack of any indication of legal or long-term significance. Whatever you think of these arguments, none of us is making "subjective evaluations" as you claim. We're making an objective and reasoned judgment that this story doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Pan Dan 16:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment such as by being assassinated, not specifically being assassinated. Actually, WP:NOT doesn't say "WP is not tabloid journalism", either, that's not to say it is, but there's no rule that tabloid journalism can't make an event or person notable enough for a WP article, eg: Paris Hilton. Tubezone 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC is not an encyclopedia. There is clearly much published or broadcast by mainstream media which is not encyclopedically notable (which is not a tautology by the way - see WP:NOT which clearly excludes a variety of notable forms of knowledge, information and discourse from Wikipedia as it detracts from Wikipedia's primary purpose to be an encyclopedia). Bwithh 03:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got the wrong end of the stick with those sources. These articles do not support the idea that there is a wider social impact of this case - they merely place the case within a broader social context. It's like any drunken spree by teenagers can be said to raise the question of the wayward behaviour of kids today. Or any time there's a major traffic accident, it can be said that this shows that we should all be more careful drivers. Bwithh 03:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rachel Hudson is not current news. The trial ended a year ago. Also WP:BIO does endorse a little crystal balling, see "Alternative Tests". Also, your or anyone else's judgement of the overall social impact is not part of the notability ciriteria, besides WP:BIO, you might want to read User:Uncle G/On notability, which is not policy, but part of what WP:BIO is based on. As to encylopedic notability, where in WP is that defined? If there's no WP definition, it's subjective for the purposes of this discussion, right? Tubezone 04:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Rachel Hudson is not current news." Well, of course. Nothing stays current news forever. The point of Bwithh's citation and comment (I think) is a distinction between news that has fleeting interest, and news that has lasting significance. If we apply WP:BIO's crystal ball test, which you seem to favor in your comment, it is clear that the article should be deleted, because there is no sign of lasting significance. Pan Dan 13:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're still here discussing here a year later, aren't we? But that and Alternative Tests don't apply in this case as the subject already passes other WP:BIO criteria. If you want to discuss notability criteria, there's a place to do that, discussions on notability, which are ongoing. The guidelines have been explained, even an admin explained them. JMHO, you're beating a dead parrot here. This AfD is 10 days old and should already be closed. Tubezone 13:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Re: "guidelines have been explained" -- Guidelines are not policy. I, for one (can't speak for other delete voters), acknowledge that this story passes the guideline WP:N. You continue to ignore our arguments that there is good reason to be stricter than the guideline WP:N in this case. Note that the guideline template says "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (2) Re: "even an admin" -- There's at least one admin who has opined to delete above. (3) Re: "a year later" -- The only reason we're still discussing this a year later, is that I came across this article in an alt-x search. A Lexis-Nexis search shows that the last mention of Rachel Hudson (in Headline, Lead Paragraphs, or Key Terms) in European papers was in March, in two local papers; there has apparently been no mention of Rachel Hudson in the BBC since the last family member was sentenced. That's a very good indication of fleeting interest, not lasting significance. Pan Dan 13:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 01:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3D-Analyze[edit]

3D-Analyze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Original reason was no notability within WP:SOFTWARE. However, I found a third-party user guide at http://www.3dfxzone.it/dir/articles/template.php?id=5, implying some notability (even if shaky). --Sigma 7 17:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure I selected the right category. If possible, can you change it? --Sigma 7 17:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 00:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Húsönd 04:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezekiah Griggs III[edit]

Hezekiah Griggs III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. This is vanity. - crz crztalk 00:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestra Right Records[edit]

Orchestra Right Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a record label that currently represents six bands. [Check Google hits] Ghits total 12 for "Orchestra Right Records" and even searching for "Orchestra Right"+label" brings very few relevant articles in the first five pages. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 16:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding two of the label's clients:

Herowin - Music available on MySpace only; record not released yet. Few relevant Ghits for the name, and none of them indicate that the subject meets WP:MUSIC.
Paperfilm 67 - No album released yet, but his friends (including Herowin) like his music. 55 Ghits for the name, 17 of them "unique".

... discospinster talk 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Húsönd 04:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Ray Sucks[edit]

Rachael Ray Sucks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A prior debate was speedily deleted, a decision which in turn was overruled at deletion review, and is now back here for a full run. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. trialsanderrors 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which you can read if you have a subscription - it is, therefore, technically verifiable--Dmz5 07:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Rachael Ray wants me to be her sockpuppet, she'll have to do more than cook and look cute on TV. My old lady can cook circles around Rachael Ray, but Rachael Ray's looks and cooking abilities are not at issue here, this is about notability of the the RRsucks web site. So far, we have one verifiable NYT article, one unverfiable LA times quote. Keep digging, what else you got? Tubezone 10:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the fact that it's still there, I'm all for simply deleting this article.--Dmz5 21:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per TonyTheTiger, this LiveJournal was apparently the subject of a human interest story in November in the New York Times, and that is its claim to notability. I remain unconvinced that this is the sort of news coverage that has enough legs to keep this site interesting after a few more months have passed. And personally, I think the pendulum has swung too far, and editors are becoming too timid about making decisions which might be called subjective. I don't think that this news story makes this journal noteworthy enough. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times Article Posted on Discussion page at 19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC) by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) TonyTheTiger 19:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 01:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R G C Levens[edit]

R G C Levens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Speedy deletion for lack of assertion of notability was overturned, so Mr. Levens gets a full run at AfD now. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that ISBNs are 100% reliable proof of a book's existence anyway, but at least one of the books mentioned does have a ISBN[8][ Bwithh 05:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I should also add that I think he passes WP:PROF. As noted above, editing a widely-used edition of a major text pretty much guarantees that he passes "Criterion 1", and this is before we get to the academic papers. WMMartin 14:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Books project includes the digital archiving of old book texts from Oxford, Harvard, Stanford, New York Public Library, and several other major libraries[10]. I ran a search through it and specifically looked for references to his work mentioned in other books - not simply books that he wrote. I also ran a search through the Oxford University library catalog, which even threw up a prize essay he wrote as a student. So I didn't base my conclusion on a cursory use of normal google. If he was a prolific scholarly paper writer and that hasn't been shown by searches so far, that still needs to be verified (WP:V) and not simply assumed. btw, I graduated from an old, venerable college in the Oxbridge system too - but I don't see why simply being a teacher at a place like this is a supporting reason for justifying a encyclopedic article. Bwithh 15:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 then Redirect to Bear Camp Road. Cbrown1023 01:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dewitt Finley[edit]

Dewitt Finley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable / Wikipedia is not a memorial -- a sad story, to be sure, but not every untimely death is worthy of inclusion. Pop Secret 00:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that article be merged into Bear Camp Road article. Yaf 05:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could co-sign a redirect. Pop Secret 09:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Húsönd 04:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Parkway West Longhorn Baseball Team[edit]

2006 Parkway West Longhorn Baseball Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable; high school team which didn't even win a state title, just a local championship. MisfitToys 00:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 01:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offer of the Albanian Crown to Victor Emmanuel III.[edit]

Offer of the Albanian Crown to Victor Emmanuel III. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article is just a string of two long quotes. Overall, useless by itself (very trivial), and useless for the article Victor Emmanuel III as well (I checked, and I don't think anything can be merged). —EdGl 00:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 01:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MaxiVista[edit]

MaxiVista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Page is about a generic commercial kvm product and should be merged into the kvm page. The page is only used by the company to advertise their product. References to competing products, alternatives or even the general kvm page are frequently removed by company officials and thus this article does not bear any encyclopedic value. Qdr 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Keep 1. Maxvista is not just "a generic commercial kvm product". If you review the specs carefully, you will find that it rather consists of two different features while the major feature is rather the screen extension to another computer by using a virtual video adapter. As far as I can see, this is a quite unique functionality. The links to other software programs do not have this major feature and cannot be compared to Maxvista at all. The particularly mentioned program "Synergy" is frequently considered falsely as an alternative to Maxvista. However, it completely lack the essential virtual video card functionality.

2. I cannot see any false statement or advertisement language in the debated article. It uses neutral description according to the Wikipedia guidelines.

3. I cannot see a compelling reason why a product description must include competitor links. If they are considered to give the feeling of objectivity they should be appropriate and as far as I can see the links which have been added and removed occasionaly do not have much in common with the virtual video function of Maxvista and can be considered as spam.

In conclusion I formally request to remove the deletion tag. 84.166.80.9 23:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Unless I've been dooped by for-hire reviewers, there appear to be multiple reviews of the product including [12] (though I'll have to say that review is suspiciously optimistic). Lots of blog chatter which isn't notable in and of itself for the purposes of WP:RS, but its always a good sign in my opnion. Needs to be re-written to be a bit more neutral, but squeaks by WP:SOFTWARE. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 01:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 02:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Fatman[edit]

Does not contain references to support claim of notability. Appears to fail WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Original closing statement seems to be closing this out of order:
The result was Speedy delete, spam at worst, no assertion of notability at best. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, in my eyes this is a clear pass of WP:SOFTWARE, which is not policy but certainly makes a good start. The sources seem perfectly reliable which passes WP:V. QuagmireDog 12:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any references to print articles on the AGSwiki page linked. The AdventureGamers website is not obviously a significant source. Getting a passing mention in an O'Reilly Book as an example of an AGS game doesn't prove much. Roger Ebert has won a Pulitzer Prize for his review work and is the first film critic to have been awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and has his work published in 200+ newspapers. If the people behind DIYGames can claim a relatively comparable level of recognition, that would make up for their being few in number Bwithh 13:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at the corrected media link that Amaccormack sent me. My opinion of AGS is not that it may not be very obscure, but its is still peripheral to games culture. Bwithh 19:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lower standards? No less than 8 rival adventure sites have reviewed it! WP+SOFTWARE does not state that the non-trivial need to be in print. Since anyone can make a print-on-demand book via BookSurge these days, the printing doesn't really add very much in notability IMHO. Just Adventure, one of the reviewing sites has been described by USA Today as "an editorially rich destination for adventure gamers on the Web. It prides itself on pulling no punches and digging for scoops." PC Player touted Just Adventure as "the ideal meeting place for adventurers old and new." JA have been quoted on box covers, in magazine advertisements, and in newspapers. Adventure Gamers built a solid, dedicated readership over 7+ years, owing to its reputation for high editorial standards. The website has been quoted in magazines and on box covers, has been cited in game-related books and appeared on television several times. Adventure Gamers has over 20,000 unique visitors every day. gametunnel.com have been on G4TV in February 2006, September 2005 and January 2005. etc. etc. if you care to look. Please, if you are going to deny the validity of the references in the article, please specifically denounce each one, with evidence, until there are less than 2 left and the article then fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Amaccormack 16:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 02:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanakh (band)[edit]

Tanakh (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. A few releases on an obscure label. - crz crztalk 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable..."
Notable musicians which have performed as part of this collective include David Lowery and Mick Turner; the outfit's labelmates include Polmo Polpo and Tim Hecker. --Folajimi 04:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article states they merely "collaborated" with the band. - crz crztalk 12:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quit grasping at straws; members of any musical collective usually have to collaborate. --Folajimi 18:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 01:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Middle School (Libertyville, Illinois)[edit]

Highland Middle School (Libertyville, Illinois) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article was prodded and deleted but restored on request at WP:DRV, so it's now here for full deliberation. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD A7, nn group, no assertion of importance. Deizio talk 14:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noesis Interactive[edit]

Noesis Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:CORP and has no reliable sources. BJTalk 01:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Dakota 05:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coyle's Country Store[edit]

Coyle's Country Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Relatively small chain of stores in southern Ontario. Originally prodded as a nn company that does not meet WP:CORP. It is claimed in the article, without proper verification or reliable sources that a past proprietor of the store invented instant coffee. This runs contrary to the verifiable attributions of the invention to others. Absent the instant coffee claim, there is nothing encyclopedic about this company. (See also the AfD discussion on A.J. Coyle‎, the purported "true" inventor.) Agent 86 01:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I forgot to sign my comment: Preston47 02:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Preston47, I'll reply on your talkpage. Newyorkbrad 02:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shen Gong Wu. Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wudai Weapons[edit]

Wudai Weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article is an exact duplicate of a section in Shen Gong Wu. Jay32183 02:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Húsönd 05:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stunner at Staples[edit]

Stunner at Staples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable, unclear writing, no articles link to it. Croctotheface 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Gone to Selkirk Delete.--Húsönd 05:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Go To Selkirk[edit]

To Go To Selkirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. prod removed by author with non notable source added. WP:NFT also applies. delete Aagtbdfoua 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dakota 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Company B (a cappella)[edit]

Company B (a cappella) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A student society with no claim to fame than being oldest a capella group at Brandeis University, and does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. The article is mainly a vanity list of names. 0 hits on CDBaby, 3 hits on Amazon.cm - it's a girl group by the same name. Will they sue or be sued?? ;-) Delete per WP:ORGOhconfucius 02:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hangovers[edit]

The Hangovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I feel it better serves the Wikipedia community to strive for a broad coverage of articles than to cut itself down to only the most notable or impressive in some broad category like "music." I recognize that some organizations use this site for blatant publicity, but I think this article serves a broader purpose. Honestly, would a general encyclopedia have incredibly awesome articles like the Back to the Future timeline? Such articles only appeal to a small niche, but they are part of what makes Wikipedia great. (To clarify, I am not a member of The Hangovers.) CREarle 07:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Whilst you may have a point with some of the arguments, I have just re-read the article, and now believe that if we trimmed out a lot of the trivial and POV crap, pardon my French, in the earlier part, I would have not got completely turned off by the time we got to the tours section. However, I must contest some of your arguments:
"backwards notability" is highly problematic, IMHO: the Tone Rangers may have came out of the Hangovers, but the fact is that group "became" the Tone Rangers, whilst the Hangovers "became" another group on their departure. Members have drift out of it by rotation on their graduation (sic), and the Tone Rangers does not equal the Hangovers.
I do not feel that WP:MUSIC/WP:BIO defines that being placed in a regional competition is noteworthy.
Songs from the Hill is a history of the Cornell Glee Club and not the Hangovers (which is but a later offshoot), Having said that, anything less than a chapter in the book on the latter would IMO be a death knell. It is indeed correct to say that it is not independent, nor is it multiple.
By (10), I'm pretty sure the drafters didn't really mean that anyone who has publicly performed "The Theme from the Rockford Files" or "Who Are You?" be notable. They were referring, inter alia to Trevor Rabin, Stanley Clarke, Stewart Copeland, Thomas Dolby, Bobby McFerrin, who performed theme songs "for" (and not "from") films and TV shows. Ohconfucius 08:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry to be pedantic, but nowhere in the article does it state the group "performed the theme for a PBS broadcast" - that's a new piec of informaion you've imparted; I'm not deprecating the ICCA, but the group won competition at a regional level, whilst policy states this should be a major competition. In all the other debates I've read, the consensus meaning is competition at a national level. Ohconfucius 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted. Grandmasterka 08:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hit Paws[edit]

Hit Paws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

College a cappella group with very weak or no assertion of notability. I see nothing on their website which would indicate it passes WP:MUSIC Ohconfucius 03:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elizabethan era. Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabethans[edit]

Elizabethans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

College a cappella group. Article has little or no assertion of notability. Albums appear to have been self-released, and most likely fails WP:MUSIC 0 hits in Amazon.com, 0 hits on cdbaby. Delete Ohconfucius 03:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Luna Santin 10:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game-Spectrum[edit]

Game-Spectrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable. Fails WP:WEB. MKoltnow 03:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humtones[edit]

Humtones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

College a cappella group. Article has some notability. Albums appear to have been self-released, and I hardly consider 7 gigs (in fellow universities) over 2 semesters a "nationwide tour" per WP:MUSIC. With the possible exception of two alumni listed, most likely not to be notable. 0 hits in Amazon.com, 0 hits on cdbaby. Delete Ohconfucius 03:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Whitby Incident[edit]

The Whitby Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

From what I can tell, this is an old stale joke, (traditionally associated with Hartlepool in County Durham) restated to poke fun at Yorkshiremen (who supposedly think a chimp is Frenchman because of what they read in London newspapers). Google gives only 2 relevant hits: WP and the reference used in the WP article. The real Whitby incident involved the first Luftwaffe plane shot down in England during WW2. The joke is adequately covered under Hartlepool, although I'm pretty sure similar jokes predated the Hartlepool incident. Tubezone 03:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, I think several Luftwaffe planes had already been shot down in Scotland. .. dave souza, talk 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centaurs in antiquity[edit]

Centaurs in antiquity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I'll skip the prod since I'm sure it would be contested. POV fork from Centaurs as acknowledged in the page history. I assume the controversial assertion is that Centaurs actually existed and the article suggests (via non-reliable sources) they still exist today. One section outlines reports of centaurs in antiquity, which can be merged back to Centaurs Aagtbdfoua 03:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. --- RockMFR 18:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Dawg House[edit]

Out of the Dawg House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I find absolutely nothing notable about this college a cappella group. Self-released CD (nothing on CDbaby). No assertion of notability otherwise. Delete. Ohconfucius 03:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Freeman[edit]

Bill Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

(See also first AFD) This page was brought to the attention of WP:BLPN so I took a look at it. It is filled with nothing but rumors and allegations against the subject of the article. "By the late 1990s, allegations resurfaced that Freeman's wife, Patsy, had caused numerous divorces in different cities and mentally abused many different church-members." What the heck does that mean? She caused numerous divorces? That doesn't even make sense. The ENTIRE article is an attack page - it isn't just one or two sentences. I looked back in history and this article is basically identical to the first version [28] 1.5 years ago, so there is no good version to revert back to. The article was kept at AFD before, but the only question was notability. But we now have a new policy, WP:BLP which says that unsourced or poorly sourced information must be removed. I have no idea if the guy is notable or not, but this attack page ought to be deleted so that a decent article can be written, if desired.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a current student at MIT myself, I must agree with the conclusion that Resonance isn't that notable. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resonance (MIT)[edit]

Resonance (MIT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Second nomination for deletion (see first one here) The article only asserts notability weakly, as having been "recognied by the Contemporary A Cappella Society". They play on campus and do not seem to go on tour, and their albums are self-released, so it fails WP:MUSIC. The article has remained in this state since March. Delete. Ohconfucius 03:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it cost anything to appear on BOCA? Yes. Groups are required to pre-purchase 50 CDs at $5 apiece, for a total of $250, in order to appear on BOCA. Note that you are not limited to 50 CDs; some groups have bought many more and sold them on campus for much more than $5 each. What do we get out of appearing on BOCA? Bragging rights for one. More than 100 CDs are submitted each year for BOCA, of which we will choose fewer than 20. You can sell your copies at any price, though you only pay us $5 for them, so at $15 per, you make a 200 per cent profit. You also get international publicity, and we include contact information in the liner notes so people who like what they hear can order your disc.

Well, the "international publicity" sounds nice (though all the groups on the 2006 CD were from the US, and the organization running the contest is taking, rather than giving money away...) Bwithh 04:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, any mergers remain an editorial decision. Sandstein 06:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hash Bash[edit]

Hash Bash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I think that this article does not establish notability for the event that it describes. The second paragraph does not seem to have anything to do with the event. Delete unless material is added to establish notability. I prod'ed this but the prod is contested, so that's why I'm bringing it for discussion. It does return a lot of google hits, but there does not seem to be a lot of national coverage. The most pertinent guidlines for notability on this might be WP:ORG and it does not seem to pass those.TheRingess 04:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure that comparing this to the CN Tower is a good analogy. According to the article the CN Tower is listed in the Guinness book of records as the world's tallest building. That fact alone qualifies the CN Tower for an article in Wikipeida. John Lennon and Yoko Ono must have played lots of venues in their time, does that automatically qualify every venue for inclusion in Wikipedia? I simply think that this is fine as part of the culture in Ann Arbor article, but does not qualify for a separate article. Lots of universities have street fairs, carnivals and parades. Should wikipedia have an article for each one? I change my vote to redirect to the culture article and if an interested editor wishes to expand that section (for example, to include a history of the event, notable performances, coverage in national media, etc) to the point where a separate article is warranted, then great.TheRingess 05:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide examples of other "university street fairs" that are quoted as legal precedent, I'm all ears. You ask "Should wikipedia have an article for each one", but that's a non-sequitur, whether or not it should (and I say "sure") is no argument on whether or not this one should be here. It seems more than notable, which pretty much ends the argument IMHO. And it's not like merging it into some other page would save resources or anything, all that would do is make it more difficult to find. Maury 15:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, but I agree to disagree. A merge would not make it any harder to find, it would simply redirect them to the culture article (which as pointed out) already contains pretty much exactly the same material.TheRingess 15:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event is of broader historical/cultural interest for several reasons, including: A.) its catalyzing role in broader battles over marijuana legalization in left-leaning U.S. college towns in the early 1970s (see, for example, Marijuana laws in Ann Arbor, Michigan); and B.) its creation as part of the widely noted struggle to free poet/activist John Sinclair from prison, which drew support from a number of nationally noted figures. I do agree that the article could use quite a bit of improvement at this point. Ropcat 17:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frenzy on Figueroa[edit]

Frenzy on Figueroa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable, no references, unclear writing, no articles link to it. Croctotheface 04:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, discounting the last comment as rather unhelpful (see WP:ILIKEIT). Sandstein 06:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antistatic (band)[edit]

Antistatic (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neutral bump up from contested speedy. A claim that it meets WP:MUSIC is on the article's talk page. Procedural nomination, so I abstain. Kchase T 04:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I placed the speedy since it did not appear to meet WP:MUSIC, but the author has clarified and the band seems to meet the criteria. --Walter Görlitz 06:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its a small article and it seems like the band will be GREAT someday68.6.66.11 07:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Johns Hopkins Mental Notes[edit]

The Johns Hopkins Mental Notes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The weakest assertion of notability. 3 self-released albums. No indication at all that it has toured. The group is known, presumably to the University only, for "exhibiting wild, deranged and often depraved qualities for the sake of being funny" Delete Ohconfucius 04:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom Notes[edit]

Ransom Notes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Second nomination for deletion (see first one here). The article has remained in this state since it was nominated for deletion in March 06. It only asserts notability weakly, as having won a regional ICCA award for a song arrangement in 2001 . The group does not seem to have gone on any serious tours, and the albums are all self-released, so it fails WP:MUSIC. CDbaby search shows up 1 article, a Texas a cappella group, and I don't think this is a case of mistaken identity. Delete. Ohconfucius 04:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Satanic Edition[edit]

Ubuntu Satanic Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Just a desktop theme, no more notable than anything on freshmeat. Twinxor t 04:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niche RMS[edit]

Niche RMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Only mentions in the media were reprinted press releases. Contested prod. MER-C 04:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neco-Arc[edit]

Neco-Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character. Unreferenced. Contested prod. MER-C 04:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outdoor vending[edit]

Outdoor vending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable and obscure department of Disneyland. Crufty. Contested prod. MER-C 04:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Jewellery Shop[edit]

My Jewellery Shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This business is a small jewlery shop in Mexico. There are insufficient, third party references availible to expand this article to a fully encyclopedic article, and thus it fails the Primary Notability Criteria as spelled out in WP:N. Additionally, there are problems with violations of WP:NOT specifically, Not a directory of businesses. Jayron32 04:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centro (company)[edit]

Centro (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- ((db-g11)). Looks like the author did quite some improvements since it was tagged. It is not a clear cut advert in my view. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 04:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Reilly[edit]

Thomas J. Reilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Was tagged as speedy delete and contested, but meets no WP:CSD. Still, I fail to see how this person is notable under WP:BIO. Sandstein 06:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, A7 —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 10:28Z

Newcastle Tango Society[edit]

Newcastle Tango Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn Tango society, deprodded without comment. Possible speedy candidate Hornplease 06:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teabagging (disambiguation)[edit]

Teabagging (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

original research, unverified, dicdef, and oh yeah, only links to one actual article on the topic Vicarious 06:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Carter[edit]

Cameron Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested speedy, there is an assertion of notability here: "the youngest pilot to ever attend a Chicago Public School". However, this seems a fairly standard case of WP:BIO failure and probably WP:COI. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 21:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Celorio[edit]

Victor Celorio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

contested prod (removed from article); reason given was "InstaBook PR ad and non-notable bio". Google search backs up assertion that he's NN. Dave6 06:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's primarily an issue of notability, not spam. If he's in the historical record, then references to that record would help establish notability. Dicklyon 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank's I'll try to fix it. User:BadBull 10:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The genesis of the main article was the inclusion by somebody else of Victor Celorio in Wikipedia on a List of Notable Mexicans. My article specifically didn't mention the trademark name (InstaBook) to avoid the appearance of promotion. While it is true that a search of InstaBook will provide more hits, the fact remains that a search for Victor Celorio pulls a significant number of hits as a leader in Print-on-Demand technology, which is a growing segment of the publishing industry.

Therefore I believe that the entry of Victor Celorio meets the criteria set by Wikipedia and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llambert (talk • contribs) — Llambert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits 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 Redirect. ~ trialsanderrors 22:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Fellows[edit]

Lulu Fellows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Curious one, but I'm not at all certain about notability. Young girl about whom little is known, who died in 1883, and whose grave is slightly enigmatic. The article is unencyclopaedic, poses as it does more questions than it answers. Created by User:Lulufellows ;-). Make of that what you will. Ohconfucius 06:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bama bangs[edit]

Bama bangs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Probable nn haircut. Prod removed, references added of debatable RS status. Neutral listing. Hornplease 06:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Abbot[edit]

Article has been a stub for three years, little hope it'll ever be more than a stub. -- RosemaryPark 06:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taran Rampersad[edit]

Taran Rampersad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete or Merge/Redirect to Digital Divide or Linux Gazette. Individual does not meet WP:BIO. Seems to not have any media coverage beyond the one BBC article in which he just interviewed and not the actual subject of the article. The Digital Divide works seem to be primarily promotional as he is associated with that. Doesn't meet WP:BIO on his own merits but could be an inclusive part of other articles. Strothra 15:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huh? What evidence is there for this? I don't see any to justify such a major claim Bwithh 07:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The volunteer work assisting disaster relief project is of course admirable, but I'm not seeing how that is exceptional - I have friends who are working in development/aid programs (one of them is an engineer too) and come up with original schemes; it's not that unusual... there are many (though not enough) people who volunteer for this kind of disaster relief effort. In this case, the Alert Retrieval System is a great idea, but not groundbreaking - as I understand it, it consists of ARS receiving SMSs and then posting them on a website and in a mass email bulletin in order to circumvent cellphone reception problems in an affected area. (Incidentally, the article suggests that Taran proposed the idea for the Alert Retrieval System but the ARS website says someone else came up with the concept and Taran is the "project coordinator"[38]).Ran a Factiva query on him - 17 hits breaking down as 1 letter to the editor by him, 1 passing mention in a list of people speaking at a conference; 1 question posed by him in a transcript of a public online chat by User:Jimbo in 2006 in which various people asked Jimbo questions; 14 reprints of a 2004 newswire story about this newfangled invention called Wikipedia, in which Taran is used as an example of a typical non-US Wikipedian who creates articles, including one on his hometown. Is every Wikipedian who creates an article to get a Wikipedia article about themselves now? Bwithh 07:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I was Editor in Chief, Community Facilitator, etc at LinuxGazette.COM. A reading of the history of LinuxGazette is necessary for that. I tend to agree with many of your other points, but I take issue with this statement: "Taran seems pretty deft at building up his online profile through writing on various websites". Why? Simply because of my work on digital divide issues, which by the nature of them requires someone to write them. As a human being, Bwithh, I don't appreciate that statement. I have *never* written of myself to portray myself as being larger than I am, and that one line is something I find offensive. I'm a writer. I write. No one else covered conferences in the Caribbean. That said, I can go with a delete based on present Wikipedia policy, but I find fault with a policy which enforces a digital divide. I didn't write the bio in the first place, and I have problems with the way it was written and the manner in which it has been dealt with on Wikipedia. --TaranRampersad 20:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close, for obvious reasons. El_C 14:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Halakha[edit]

Orthodox Halakha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Canceko[edit]

Lyle Canceko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The subject scores 28 unique Ghits, all of which were "trivial mentions" as part of the nominations of the Gregoire's team. I find nothing substantial among the hits, no articles about him. Ohconfucius 07:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Naconkantari 20:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idiotarian[edit]

Idiotarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-Notable Internet-only Neologism

Please see: Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms - F.A.A.F.A. 07:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To wit:

Articles on neologisms

Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate:

Reliable sources for neologisms

Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.

Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). - F.A.A.F.A. 23:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd vote to delete Fitzmas in a New York Second. Go ahead and nominate it. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed, Fitzmas needs to go too. As does any other use of Wikipedia to give unwarranted promotion to agenda-pushing neoblogisms whether from the left or right. Dragomiloff 00:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books [50] and Google Scholar [51]. Capitalistroadster 01:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Keep" voter/commenter Jinxmchue has voted against keeping "santorum"; which brings up serious questions about the motivations behind this comment. WP:AGF, and all that, yes? -- weirdoactor t|c 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lymph node biopsy[edit]

Lymph node biopsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Excessively specific article/title. There seems to be no discernable difference between this and any other type of biopsy, only the target cells. The article could feasably be merged to Biopsy. Ohconfucius 07:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Move to WikiSpace and Delete. Cbrown1023 02:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative ranks and insignia of Star Trek[edit]

Comparative ranks and insignia of Star Trek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There have recently been several Star Trek rank articles brought up or deletion, most of which were far better sourced and referenced than this one (like this one). This article is pure original research, with broken image links, and little or no sorucing except material taken from private web pages. Should be deleted as unreferenced and unsourced Husnock 07:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The problem isn't with the ranks. They have a place on the articles concerning each race. The OR problem comes with the comparissons i.e. this rank for species A is equivalent to that rank for species B. That has never been said on the show, and is pure speculation... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes damn it. I will rewrite it in such a way it wont be a comparasion chart anymore. It will instead be "other ranks and insignia" as in ranks of klingons and romulans and etc. Just let it rest on my userspace and close this afd. Speed up the process. --Cat out 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"*Comment: Coolcat redirected the main article to his user page, breaking the link and now this AfD is actually an orphan. I think Coolcat wanted to establish a project page, but in doing so broke all the links. Can someone repair this? -Husnock 07:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major Media Scandals[edit]

Major Media Scandals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article appears to be a disparate collection of items of what may be called fraudulent media reports, although none of the terms have been defined. Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Ohconfucius 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 21:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sultans of Sulu[edit]

List of Sultans of Sulu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a tough one. While I in principle think a "list of the sultans of Sulu" can be a good subject for an article, this isn't it. SInce its creation in september 2005 (i.e. more than a year ago), it has been tagged for cleanup, and for months it has been tagged for NPOV and lack of sources as well. The article is a mess, and is one big POV list. It seems unsalvageable to me, and none of the editors (over a 100 edits so far) has done a serious try to improve the article (wrt Wikipedia standards and policies). As it stands and has stood for over a year, it is POV, WP:OR, and heavily lacks WP:V sources, and I think it would be better to just erase it completely, and if needed start again from scratch, with a sourced, neutral article (neutral meaning: if there are disputes, show both sides, with their sources, and without taking a stance). Fram 08:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind keeping it, but I do feel that in this case, since there isn't nothing really salvageable in the history, it may be better to just get rid of all the heavily POV history (never mind the terrible layout, just look at the contents) and start from scratch. I think cleanup has had more than its chance (over a year!), so saying that we should keep this because it needs to be cleaned is basically saying that any article, no matter how bad, can be kept indefinitely. I wonder where the benefit is in that, and if we in those cases aren't better of without an article than with a bad one. But anyway, I would be happy if the result of this AfD was a much improved article, then it hasn't been for naught. Fram 20:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York minute (abuse)[edit]

New York minute (abuse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page was split from New York minute (time) more than a year ago, and I'm not sure why it needed a split, or why this info wasn't deleted in the first place. This page, apart from the definition of the term, is pure original research, and I cannot find any verification that this term is commonly used in the way this article claims it is. (I certainly have never heard it used this way. Any New Yorkers care to comment?) Even if this term is widely used in this manner, which I doubt, this page should be nuked anyway for being virtually all original research. Grandmasterka 08:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GigaFrag[edit]

GigaFrag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable gaming event - unsourced, Google hits are from some blogs but nothing in the press. Most likely not notable outside its community. 125 people for the event is not a lot. --Wooty Woot? contribs 08:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


I have considered the AFD discussion below, and decided to redirect the page to AMC Theaters. Regards —Encephalon 12:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Sounds[edit]

Cinema Sounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

All information in this article is already in AMC Theaters. It adds nothing more, it appears to me as though someone just wanted to make an article, so they lifted the Cinema Sounds section from AMC Theaters and made it its own article. Electricbassguy 09:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yahtzee Takes On The World[edit]

Non-notable webcomic which fails WP:WEB. No references to support notability. Andre (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 09:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian james colmer[edit]

Ian james colmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This unreferenced biography of a non-notable person is "By Akane Yoshioka, publicist". Contested prod. MER-C 09:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: really is artistic crew, but don't change a lot. Cate | Talk 10:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 such, I also withdraw my procedural nomination. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wakulla Volcano[edit]

Wakulla Volcano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Was originally prodded by TheRingess (talk · contribs) with reason:

"The article is about a story that is not notable outside of Florida. There are only local sources, not national"

I personally feel that the two "reasons for deletion" listed by the prodder are flawed, and I am listing here as proscribed in the steps for deletion (contest prod means AfD, in most cases). Currently a procedural nomination - there may be some good reasons to delete this, other than those listed (which I have given my opinion for). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The delete voters seem to agree it'll be OK if it is sourced and cleaned up. Majorly (Talk) 13:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences of German Nazism[edit]

Consequences of German Nazism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contains a lot of information that is available elsewhere. Title and structure implies a very linear view of history and the article verges on counter-factual in places. In my view, framing the information in this way constitutes original research. This is especially true of the information in this article which doesn't fall under the umbrella of Aftermath of World War II (e.g. the assertion that Nazism reduced racism worldwide). savidan(talk) (e@) 10:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It would be a good idea to relist each individually. Majorly (Talk) 22:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KDEN TV Tower[edit]

KDEN TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Corridor TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trinity Broadcasting Tower Conyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emmis TV tower Topeka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Raycom National Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saga Communications Tower Mitchellville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KSDK Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Young Broadcasting Tower Knoxville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Omaha Great Empire Broadcasting Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
American Towers Tower Dayton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cowskin Broadcasting Tower Colwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Southeastern Media Tower Beech Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cox Radio Tower Newnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KDNL TV Tower 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emmis TV Tower Ledgeview Township (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SpectraSite Communications tower Glenmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Colwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KSHB/KMCI Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KTMD-TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
University of North Carolina Tower Brinkleyville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WDAF Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KSMO Candelabra Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
University of North Carolina Tower Farmville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Montgomery Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
American Towers Tower Colwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greater Dayton Public TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Western New York Public Broadcasting Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NYT Tower Figure Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CHCH Television Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pappas Telecasting Tower Lowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Briarcliff Property Tenants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scripps Howard Broadcasting Tower Sand Springs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cox Radio Tower Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prairie Public Broadcasting Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As cleanup following successful batch deletion of unremarkable masts, I'm nominating a whole bunch of US radio and TV towers that are below than that 360 meters tall. Towers below 400m are relatively common in the USA, and none of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. None of these articles have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 10:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the nomination, I had not intended on deletion of non-US masts at this point. Furthermore, the article has been dramatically improved by User:Dl2000 since nomination. I withdraw CHCH Tower from above. Ohconfucius 04:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bostonians of Boston College[edit]

Bostonians of Boston College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

College a capella group that does not meet the notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. Their only claim to fame is having won two non-notable awards as well as "slowly building into what would become their greatest success in 2006" savidan(talk) (e@) 10:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen no independent sources vouching for the BOCA as a reliable independent "award" or "contest", let alone a "major music competition". As you can see on their website [52], their submission criteria is mainly composed of the submissions not having tuning problems or poor production quality. There is no indication on their website that they reject a significant quantity of the reasonably recorded songs that they recieve, as would be indicative of some kind of competition. In fact, you can hardly call it an award when you have to pay them! You have to buy 50 of their CDs at $5 a piece to get on their CD! It's a glorified self-produced CD. If winning the National Merit Scholarship required you to pay them $200, I doubt anyone would put it on their resume. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanmail.biz[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

((subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]))
Fanmail.biz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy, article and talk page make assertions of notability and large userbase. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 10:30Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DownTown Mafia[edit]

DownTown Mafia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 10:31Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coskel University[edit]

Coskel University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. Doesn't seem particularly notable but asserts that it is in national newspapers and major fashion magazines. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 10:34Z

--Bassman17 14:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Casati[edit]

Cristina Casati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. Suggest merge to Luisa Casati or keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 10:37Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Hamlets College[edit]

Non-notable further education college. Contested prod. JulesH 10:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Vanburkleo[edit]

Sandra Vanburkleo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 11:41Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xtorrent[edit]

Xtorrent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable bit torrent client. JDtalk 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 11:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Key songs of the New Wave and Synthpop scene[edit]

Key songs of the New Wave and Synthpop scene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Completely, unsalvageably original research. Added to without any real consideration for verifiability. Eyrian 23:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hope OR never lets you down again...: Sadly, though it's an interesting read, I don't think this can be saved from ORdom, I'd be willing to make a go at fixing it or merging or doing something with it, because it looks like an informative list if nothing else. Unfortunately, this kind of thing is probably also prone to the "hey! you forgot <insert obscure one-hit-wonder here>!" unmaintainability issues. Any ideas on something constructive that could be done with the list? it's obvious someone took a lot of time on this and it's a musical genre I'm a big fan of, so if something could be done with all or part of it (IE transwiki, a music site, ect.) I'd like to try. Wintermut3 04:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Something constructive would be tracking down culture mag references that say each and every song on there is important. Not just chart placing, as that hardly denotes the sort of lasting influence that "key" implies (and then the list might as well be titled "Chart topping new wave artists"), but also claiming some sort of other effects. --Eyrian 05:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Nibart-Devouard[edit]

Florence Nibart-Devouard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I think Florence is far less notable than Angela Beesley, who herself is barely notable. Google returns about 1,000 hits by searching for "Florence Nibart-Devouard" and around 470 hits if searching for "Florence Nibart-Devouard" -wikipedia. — Canderous Ordo 00:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Try searching for "Florence Devouard" instead of Nibart-Devouard. Angela. 15:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Ong 06:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay stereotyping[edit]

Gay_stereotyping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)-- (View AfD)

Gay stereotyping is hardly a valid article for wikipedia. It consists of only a few very vague sentences, which amount to not everyone who has "gay traits" (with no explanation or example of what gay traits are) is gay. Also wikipedia doesn't seem to have any articles for any other races such as Scottish, Norse, Irish, Frech, or Italian. Chooserr 04:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant groups not races. Chooserr 08:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable commercial enterprise, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 19:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GradeSaver[edit]

GradeSaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

a non-notable business Civilizeme 21:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korki Buchek[edit]

Korki_Buchek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

Not a notable enough character. Never appears in the film or TV show and is simply mentioned ocasionally by Borat. This is the second time this article was created, the first time it was agreed to merge it with Da Ali g show page, now i beleive it should be at most merged to the borat page or simply deleted as it stands now.

Duhon December 14th 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 Speedily deleted by Edgar181. (aeropagitica) 19:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lane Appreciation Society[edit]

Thomas Lane Appreciation Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

unnotable facebook group Valley2city 06:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWF at Royal Albert Hall[edit]

I believe this should be deleted as it covers a tour that wasn't shown live all over the world, although it came out on DVD, it was not a Pay-Per-View. Davnel03 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it, like the others was not a Pay-Per-View and not shown all over the world:


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

The result was already deleted, no sense keeping this going. Luna Santin 11:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amrick[edit]

Amrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tagged for A7 but seems more like a hoax to me. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 12:13Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:V is non-negotiable, and no reliable published sources have been cited for this content. Sandstein 06:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabenclan[edit]

Rabenclan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

delete - non-notable org, original research, possible promotion, fails WP:V Frater Xyzzy 23:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stiffer[edit]

Stiffer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

(contested PROD) Dictdef and seems unlikely much more could be written about it (could add a sentence mentioning the slang term "stiff" in Tipping). As it stands, even apparent WP:NEO/WP:OR...cited URL does not mention the term at all. Hopefully this isn't just a WP:SPAM for that site. DMacks 12:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if considered more appropriate for the wiktionary, put it there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.54.150.220 (talk • contribs).
This is a subject that needs to be addressed. As pizza delivery drivers we need to spread the word about numerous subjects. For one, the delivery charge does not go to the driver. 2, describing, in detail, what our jobs entail. Such as vehicle usage, gas reimbursement, etc.
If anything, I think we can make a page dedicated to "Pizza Delivery Tipping". The reasoning for this, is that many people feel that pizza delivery is not the same as restaurant delivery and that they aren't required to tip as would be a server. We need to get detailed and explain this thoroughly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.94.110.134 (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. Sandstein 07:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haukur Halldórsson[edit]

Haukur Halldórsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

delete - no assertion of notabilty, fails WP:V Frater Xyzzy 23:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but still needs heavy language cleanup. Sandstein 06:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gharjamai[edit]

Gharjamai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A very, very vague article. I don't even know what the heck its actually meant to be talking about. There are no references stated and barely any pages that link to it Debaser23 11:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still working on it. Links will soon be up.

Suggest adding "formal tone" status rather than deletion ? Pete Orme 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this page wants to have any chance of survival I think we need more people writing it than Xghostfacexx because so far that user has been the only editor. Debaser23 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AUFORN[edit]

AUFORN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A UFO "research" network. Google news: no hits. Factiva: no hits. Cited sources: none. Other subjects edited by creator:none. Assertions of notability: none. Creator in this instance means the individual who changed this from being a redirect to the The Disclosure Project, itself tagged as ((spam)), and then complained on the admin notice board about "vandalism" (i.e. addition of an ((importance)) tag). Guy (Help!) 13:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merely existing is not enough. AUFORN has to meet the notability guidelines for organizations, as outlined in WP:N and WP:ORG. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 14:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AUFORN website is not a Wikipedia reliable enough source to use to justify a separate article on AUFORN. You need to have footnotes (references) and those footnotes need to cite to newspaper articles, books, and the like. I checked available newspaper articles. Most of the newspaper articles on AUFORN only mention when they are having a meeting and have a quote or two from an AUFORN member. I've created numerous Wikipedia articles and, even with enough time to edit the article properly, there is not enough information about the organization AUFORN contained in newspapers to support an independent Wikipedia article on the organization AUFORN. If you really want a separate Wikipedia article on AUFORN, issue press releases to have one or several reliable newspapers write up the history of AUFORN. Then you can use those newspaper articles to build the Wikipedia AUFORN article. If you locate enough Wikipedia reliable sources containing information on the organization AUFORN, post a note on my talk page and I'll help you create a proper Wikipedia article.-- Jreferee 16:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference the article is not enough. The article needs footnotes. A footnote is a link between the end of a sentence and the listed source. None of the 10 sources were linked directly to the end of a sentence. I added footnoted fact to give you an example of how to footnote a sentence. Before this article is deleted, you may want to use the 10 sources in that article as footnotes to the facts listed in the article. However, make sure that the footnoted source supports the fact stated in the article. Also, there needs to be Wikipedia reliable sources. A person's web page may be reliable for some facts, but it usually is not Wikipedia reliable for most facts. If there is to be a Wikipedia Auforn article, then Auforn needs to get its history in a newspaper such as those in the List of newspapers in Australia and/or perhaps a book. I think a main problem is that Auforn itself has no interest in promoting its own history. Take a look at the Auforn website. Even they do not have a history of the Auforn organization. If an Auforn article can be created in the future, one reason to send that new article to AfD would be that the organization does not want its history publicized. -- Jreferee 17:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PFSL[edit]

PFSL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable and no assertion thereof. Almost no ghits [58]. Akihabara 14:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 M/S Estonia, which wouldn't have needed an AfD. Mergers can, as an editorial decision, be done from the history. Sandstein 05:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marge Rull[edit]

Marge Rull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Claim to fame is surviving the M/S Estonia disaster and being interviewed in subsequent media coverage. Clearly not the "primary focus" of such media coverage, fails WP:BIO. Suggest redir to M/S Estonia. Deizio talk 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Johnson[edit]

Roman Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable (despite unfounded claims of fame) Lars T. 14:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, amateur/student football club, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 23:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPFC[edit]

PPFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A school football club with no notability assertion, few ghits. Akihabara 14:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, so tagged. I'm sensitive to potential bias towards articles of "foreign" culture/origin etc. Akihabara 13:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHICKENMAN[edit]

CHICKENMAN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

Contested prod. WP:NOT for in memoriams. Person is not notable. Cheickenman plus greg riley gets 8 Google hits[60], Chickenman plus Gregory Riley gets 29 Google hits[61], and "gregory chickenman riley" gets 10 Google hits. The events, and the friendship with the Dropkick Murphys, is apparently real, but hasn't made any WP:V impact. Fram 14:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Briancua 19:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google results for "never forget chickenman": 15 distinct ones[62]. It may be all over New England, but not one WP:V independent source seems to have picked it up, which means that it has no place on Wikipedia. Fram 20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tjsrules 18:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC) — Tjsrules (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please refrain from making personal attacks and instead discuss why this article should be kept or deleted according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Fram 20:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 there was no consensus to delete, WP:V cannot be overridden by consensus, and no reliable published sources have been given for any of this content. Recreated as a redirect to Vocus. Sandstein 05:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PR Web[edit]

PR Web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete. Advertising. They justify their name at least. Akihabara 15:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm not sure it's any big surprise to see a lot of press releases from a public relations firm. Not many of these hits are third-party, however, and I could not find any that were non-trivial. Do you have any specific cites that you think might qualify? If I'm wrong, show me and I'll admit it. -- Satori Son 02:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 13:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CIRBAS[edit]

CIRBAS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Article on a non notable, university based research centre. Currently reads like spam, with a hint of vanity Nuttah68 17:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of the article is a research facility in New Delhi, India located at the Jamia Millia Islamia university. This research facility appears to be notable and important in the field of Science Research within India. As a reminder, Wikipedia recommends avoiding describing "vanity" when referring to deletion of an article "as the term can be considered insulting to the subjects of articles." [[64]] Drew30319 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gay rights in Greece. — CharlotteWebb 00:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athens Pride[edit]

The Athens gay pride march does not deserve its own encyclopedia article. Only two "Athens Pride" marches have been held, and it's not certain that the march will continue to be held. I think we should either merge with Gay rights in Greece or delete. Mitsos 15:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard-Radcliffe Veritones[edit]

Harvard-Radcliffe Veritones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article does not cite sources, so nothing here is verifiable except via the Veritones website. Amsuther 15:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD G1. A Train take the 18:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sega PU[edit]

This is a combination of speculation, original research, and quite possibly a hoax. From the article: "Although Sega denise the making of this". There are no sources and the only link is to Sega's website, which has no mention of an upcoming console. Koweja 17:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DELETE Inherently POV, offends against non-negotiable core policy. Most of the discussion can be ignored as it misses the point: the non-neutrality is not in the content but in the existence of this. -Docg 22:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)-Docg 22:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dictators[edit]

Never this article would reach a NPOV status. People (see history) are deleting and adding what they call dictators randomly. It is like if it was a battleground of additions and deletions. Please discuss. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the plethora of sources on many, if not most of these people, I can't imagine how OR or NPOV is a real problem here. FrozenPurpleCube 04:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet this page asserts one point of view as the truth by its very title. It also woefully fails the basic tenets of attribution, WP:ATT by not attributing who is making each claim. --Zleitzen 04:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the word dictator has a negative meaning. Democracy in its western meaning is a phenomenon of 20th century. So leaders of earlier times were all undemocratic in its modern meaning. However they were not necessarily bad people. The word dictator has a negative meaning. We need to include British qeen and Kings and princes of Denmark and Netherlands etc. here as well. Gorbeh 14:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I read the criteria again. It is vague. Many of the rulers mentioned do not have absolute power. Many of these countries have parliament, elections and the king have to work in the framework of law. The very good example is Iran. The leader is not a democrartic leader. However he is not able to do what ever he wants. He has to follow the law and can in principle be kicked out if he does something against the law. And the law can only gain legitimacy by a referendum. I suggest change the name of the article to Undemocratic leaders rather than dictators (too strong). Gorbeh 14:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep - nomination apparently from lack of knowledge, it's 24 hrs later so keeping - David Gerard 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ero guro[edit]

Ero guro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fancruft Tueid 17:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC) — Tueid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, recreated as redirect to Kinoko Nasu. Sandstein 08:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasuverse[edit]

Nasuverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

fancruft. Original Research. Tueid 17:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check again. Wikipedia:No original research is policy. Find another reason to keep. --Kunzite 00:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News 12 Sound off board[edit]

News 12 Sound off board (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

News forum for Long Island TV station. Speedy declined, because the article asserts notability as "the nations most visited public news forum". However, article also states that the forum gets 25-30 posts a day, which seems to contradict the first claim. Certainly seems nowhere close to WP:WEB Fan-1967 17:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 10:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Ridge Church[edit]

North Ridge Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This church is not notable as per WP:Church. It does not have any national or international influence, it is not historical by any means, and it does not even have any verifiable sources to back up anything. Adam Riley Talk 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three-Way Automotive Group[edit]

Three-Way Automotive Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related pages because WP:CORP as explained below:

WP:CORP GM Dealership group with additional pages for dealerships including 1 of CA's largest may not be notable. I support merge of all 5 pages at Dealership group page, but deletion is a consideration TonyTheTiger 17:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 10:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Memorial Church[edit]

Stanford Memorial Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-verifiable as per WP:CHURCH, and also non-notable, and doesn't have any historical significance. Adam Riley Talk 17:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 13:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XXX Church[edit]

XXX Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This church is non verifiable and non-notable per WP:CHURCH. Delete The only links are to within the church, google video's uploaded, and non-notable blogs. This seems more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Adam Riley Talk 17:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see my comment above for verifiability Bwithh 05:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 10:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gray-Tea Green[edit]

Gray-Tea Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable color. No source has been forthcoming. Not in a notable color standard like CSS. Google hits seem mainly Wikipedia mirrors. No need to give names to all the 24-million hex values Notinasnaid 17:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are some colours that would be notable, but as Notinasnaid mentions, there's a possibility of having over 24 million articles on individual colours. Something that should be avoided like the plague! SkierRMH,08:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. list of colors in some GUI code documentation (possibly derived from the WP list)
  2. list of colors in some adventure game parser source code (I excluded from the search many hits that appeared to be logs of gameplay using this parser)
  3. pocket notebook for sale
  4. Italian edition of Dante for sale
  5. handcrafted ceramic tile for sale
  6. pashmina shawl for sale
None of these mentions any kind of definition (e.g. as an RGB triple) for the color, and none seems usable as an authoritative source. The shawl has a color very similar to the one in the article, but the tile doesn't. —David Eppstein 08:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Maalouf[edit]

John J. Maalouf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article created and quickly linked to a number of corporate lawyer-related articles. Limited notability from unreliable sources (see the article talk page for a detailed accounting). Author may be a sockpuppet and seems to have a possible conflict of interest, especially in light of the similarities in account naming between User:Maximilian.stone and User:John.maalouf (who have also both edited a family-related article. ju66l3r 18:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 02:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Church First Nation[edit]

Burnt Church First Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete Speedy keep Mistakenly tagged this as a small non notable church, when it is obviously not. --Адам Райли Talk 20:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 13:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Point Community Church[edit]

North Point Community Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete Non notable as per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 13:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For The Children (politics)[edit]

For The Children (politics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Soapbox, poorly referenced article, original research, etc. Dragomiloff 18:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Beanie[edit]

Bernie Beanie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nomination for deletion Non-notable and fails WP:V. Contested prod. Anonymous IP which contested prod gave no reason for preserving the article and did not make any edits to the article content. Non-notable, unverifiable puppet. Zero google hits for "puppet power collective". Zero google hits for "Bernie Beanie" with "puppet power". There's this canadian puppet power activist site:[69], but there are no relevant hits for bernie or beanie on this site[70][71]. "Bernie Beanie" google hits refer to the highly capitalist US corporate beanie baby, not this underground "cult" Canadian version. Zero Factiva hits. Bwithh 18:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 13:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puyi Church[edit]

Puyi Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non notable, non verifiable per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 18:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 assertion of notability. ~ trialsanderrors 08:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crosspointe church[edit]

Crosspointe church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable, not verifiable per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proto::► 10:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azure Flame[edit]

Azure Flame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Clear case of self-promotion Deb 18:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a clear case of self-promotion? Please elaborate. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 20:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe deb meant WP:COI? -- Ben (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I don't see how it is a clear case of COI. There is a contributer in the history with a username of User:Azureflame, but most of the article was written by one User:Dmmcclanahan. How is that a conflict of interest? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 21:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe since it looks like User:Dmmcclanahan is a single-purpose account? I don't see it either. Time for Deb to weigh in.-- Ben (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation: Firstly the 49000 Google hits you get when you search on "Azure Flame" are not actually for this singer - in fact, I could only find one or two that referred to her. Secondly, the user had not only created an article for the singer, but another under the name under which she wrote a book, another entry for her autobiography (which was self-published) and another for her album, which again has no notability. They had also created interwiki links, but when I checked, none of them existed on the other wikipedias. If I had spotted this article when it was first set up, I would have speedy deleted it. Deb 23:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proto::► 10:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Church[edit]

Victory Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete This church is non notable and non verifiable as per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 18:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 7 August 1994, the first church service of Victory was held at Putnam City original High School with an attendance of 53 people. One man who had heard the radio advertisements came to the service and came forward to "accept Christ" for the first time. That seems like an advertisement for the church. Also, there is nothing in the article about having its own TV show. --Адам Райли Talk 21:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 13:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculata Church[edit]

Immaculata Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable, non verifiable per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 18:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are talks about a "painted scroll" in the article, but that's the only significance. It is a pilgrimage church, yes, but there is nothing stating the significance of a pilgrimage church. --Адам Райли Talk 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OinkOink 01:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 13:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddleback Church[edit]

Saddleback Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 18:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article that says this stuff. --Адам Райли Talk 22:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the article about Barack Obama. I don't see how something that isn't in the article can illustrate its importance. I would support a merge into Rick Warren, however. --Адам Райли Talk 22:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 11:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Creek Community Church[edit]

Willow Creek Community Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 18:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slivercasting[edit]

Slivercasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As it has very little information (mostly pointing to links, has not been edited since October 06 which was by a bot that maked it for cleanup Wrcmills 20:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proto::► 10:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northland Church[edit]

Northland Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 18:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 already. Proto::► 10:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westchester Church[edit]

Westchester Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 19:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 11:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship Church[edit]

Fellowship Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable and non-verifiable per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 19:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack M. Silverstein[edit]

Jack M. Silverstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prodded, but had previously survived prod. Article describes him as a columnist. Relevant guidelines would be WP:BIO NickelShoe (Talk) 19:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 notability asserted ~ trialsanderrors 10:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Nicholas of Tolentine[edit]

St Nicholas of Tolentine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete Not notable per WP:CHURCH. Adam Riley Talk 19:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: Speedily deleted as vanity. - Mike Rosoft 23:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstood (band)[edit]

Misunderstood (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable band, violates WP:MUSIC, vanity page. Static Universe 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well, they clearly have no idea what an encyclopaedia, let alone Wikipedia, is. -- IslaySolomon | talk 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train take the 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kornei Yashmaa[edit]

Kornei Yashmaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The page is a copy of the information in Minor personalities of the Noon Universe Struds 20:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 10:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Alexander Glennie[edit]

Craig Alexander Glennie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I am not sure exactly what the position of Costituency Assistant to a (presumably Canadian) MP entails, but it looks like he's more of an intern at the office of some MP. The article also fails to mention anything he did while being Constituency Assistant but talks at length about his achievements at school. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise, but methinks Craig should wait a couple of years until he's an elected official himself, then maybe someone else will write an article about him - at the moment it looks like just another vanity article. -- Ferkelparade π 20:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after cleanup. Sandstein 21:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Singh[edit]

Reuben Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

It looks like an attack page, but the subject seems to be fairly notable, so I didn't delete it outright under A6. Requesting comment here, but I suggest deletion without prejudice toward recreation. theProject 06:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete. THe way I read it, A6 doesnt specify that it applies only to nn subjects; "..Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject.." This meets that criterion, and then some. Delete without prejudice, and do it soon, its a giant WP:BLP violation.Hornplease 08:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an attack page. So tagged. MER-C 10:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Good point. Since the article in that version seems backed up by citations, and he seems to be the subject of several mainstream media reports, I suppose he meets WP:BIO; also, per recent ArbCom decisions, the page isnt mainly criticism, so it can stand. Changing my vote to Keep. Hornplease 11:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note also this.Hornplease 11:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, A Train take the 20:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 22:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Arnold Stahmann[edit]

Mark Arnold Stahmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Plus, article created by User:Jstahmann...possible relative => vanity? Ozzykhan 20:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Oops, forgot to check the age, sorry. Anyway, make that a regular delete as above. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 since cleaned up is now verifiable and NPOV -Docg 22:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DC Design[edit]

DC Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

It's an ad; fails all the criteria of WP:CORP Mikker (...) 21:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Requests to provide reliable third-party sources on the topic (rather than just self-interested first-party sources) have not been answered. The article has been edited during the run of this AfD, but the main problem persists. ~ trialsanderrors 08:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tantra massage[edit]

Tantra massage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I'm concerned that this article somewhat reads as an advert for the "Tantric Massage Association", but moreso that the references don't appear to be reliable sources. The book appears to be self-published (or perhaps a vanity publisher?). I'm not dead set on deletion, but I wanted to get more eyes on it after it came to my attention from an edit war.-- Syrthiss 22:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I know there is nothing like a licensed association in Germany and Switzerland. Every group of interested people can form an association, and there are a lot of associations in Germany and Switzerland... See also the entry in the German Wikipedia Verband (Recht) --Edi Goetschel 22:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to this. --Edi Goetschel 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there is nothing too strange about that, a lot of thousands of years old practices (or so they are claimed) coming from the asian region will have little references to them in the western world. Mathmo Talk 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you a search for this and it's variations in name you get hundreds of thousands of ghits. Am sure with minimal effort you can find verifiable sources to you heart's content. Mathmo Talk 16:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm closing as a default keep for now. Wikipedia cannot make a comparison between two things. No matter how well referenced each of the things compared it, it will still be original research. All we can do is report comparisons made by other scholars. We report research, we don't do it. That's a fine but important line. I'm closing as keep for now to allow the article to be re-written with citations to comparisons being made elsewhere. If such cannot be added after a reasonable time, then the article MUST be deleted. If it isn't properly cites, I invite someone to re-nominate it after, say, two months, or alternatively an admin to delete it on the strength of this debate. -Docg 22:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ido and Novial compared[edit]

Ido and Novial compared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. Page is WP:OR, and at first glance is probable to stay that way (more contents, but still original research). No WP:V sources given, and none seem available as far as I can see (see e.g. the 410 Google hits, which don't look to be really about the subject[83], and the fact that there are no Google hits for any text containing either "novial and ido compared" [84] or "ido and novial compared" [85]. For the moment, no encyclopedic content at all. Oh, not a reason for deletion, but using a Christian prayer as the comparison text in the article (and similar ones) is probably not the best choice for a neutral text about languages intended to unite the world in friendship. Fram 21:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. This is evidently a nascent form of something much like the article Esperanto and Novial compared. A link needs to be added from the Novial page once this reaches an equivalent form. I'm puzzled how this could be considered original research any more than a table of corresponding identities of circular and hyperbolic functions. Nothing has been made up and all is well known. Links should be added of course, but this page has just started. To see what it will probably evolve into, look at Esperanto and Novial compared.

Perhaps some more explanation as to why this is neither frivolous nor trivial is in order. Otto Jespersen was by far the most sophisticated and scholarly of the creators of auxiliary languages. Today he is best remembered for his profound and extensive work on English grammar. His creation of Novial was driven by the inadequacies of Esperanto and Ido. He wrote on this in An International Language, referenced on the Novial page. References to this will undoubtably be added as the article expands.

In comparing Ido and Novial, we can see why Novial is what it is, and more importantly, we can see what a first-rate linguistic thinker thought had to be changed. The topic is of interest even though nowadays the notion of an artificial international auxiliary language seems hopelessly quaint.

Finally, let me address the paternosters that Fram found offensive. In fact, this is a tradition of comparative linguistics, perhaps because a translation is almost always readily available. (Another traditional comparison is the fable of the Sun and the North Wind.) Furthermore, Novial was not intended to unite the world in friendship, though I'm sure Jespersen wouldn't have minded if it did. It was intended as a practical language for international business and science. It may not sound practical today, but when it was created it sounded like plain good sense to many level-headed people. OinkOink 03:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Esperanto and Novial compared, the page you use as an example for what this will become, has no sources or references at all. References to the work of Jespersen, if added, are no secondary sources of course, as he is the creator of Novial (and involved with Ido as well). How do you judge that this is not WP:OR? As for the "unite the world in friendship", this comes from the introduction to the page Novial: "He devised Novial to be an international auxiliary language (IAL), which would facilitate international communication and friendship, ". As for the prayer, from Talk:Esperanto and Novial compared, it looks to me as if people are making up their own translation of the prayer, not using a standard version. So what is then the value of it, and why not use some neutral text? I don't really care about tradition, especially not when it is non-neutral. Fram 20:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"He devised Novial to be an international auxiliary language (IAL), which would facilitate international communication and friendship, " I've read a great deal by Jespersen about Novial. I doubt whether he ever made such a statement. That's probably the personal opinion of the editor who wrote it. Wikipedia has a lot of opinion and clearly erroneous statements are sometimes made. It's best not to use Wikipedia articles as if they are sources: I thought that was policy. Nov ialiste 18:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a breezy dismissal of the entire field of comparative linguistics! A comparison of, say, Novial and Turkish would indeed not make sense. But a comparison of related languages, such as Middle English and Modern English does make sense, and is necessary to understand the history of English and the effects of the Great Vowel Shift. Likewise, a comparison of High German to Low German, Dutch, or English does make sense, and is necessary to understand the effects of the High German consonant shift. This article does not compare Novial with just any random language, but with one of the languages that closely inspired it, which in the realm of constructed languages, is as close to a genetic relationship as you can come. OinkOink 23:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is only a dismissal of almost empty articles with two versions of Paternoster written in almost non-notable constructed languages. I think that such things should be in Wikisource, not in Wikipedia.--Ioannes Pragensis 17:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Several articles comparing the most influential AILs already exist:

The first 3 are linked from the Esperanto navigation box. In "An International Language (1928)" Jespersen critiques the major IALs including Ido. This type of article is very informative, helpful and interesting to people seriously interested in IALs. Novial is one of the most influential IALs. If this article deserves deletion so do those other articles some of which are quite old and well developed. Nov ialiste 02:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: "if this article is deleted, then so should those" is an old argument in AfD's and usually considered invalid. As I have discussed above, none of these articles has WP:V sources discussing these comparisons (making them for the moment WP:OR), and only one of them has any sources at all. Being linked from a navigation box is not a reasdon to keep any articles, being helpful and interesting is not a reason for keeping either, being old and quite well developed isn't either. Do these articles follow Wikipedia policies? No. Can they be rewritten to be compliant to Wikipedia policies? Perhaps, but that has not been shown by the defenders of the article in question, and the "good" comparable examples don't show it either. So as far as I can see, this is still a WP:OR article. Fram 20:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why not nominate all for deletion? I was tempted to do so but that might have been viewed as disruption to make a point. All your arguments apply to *all* these articles. Why are the others not nominated for deletion? How many other articles comparing languages or dialects do your arguments apply to? Or is it more to the point that the newest article which I believe is less than 48 hours old is clearly a stub? Do all stubs get nominated for deletion?Nov ialiste 22:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I had seen this article via new pages patrol, and had not seen the others at the time, and because I wanted to try it first with this one, and could always come back to a second AfD for some of the others if this one was deleted. Fram 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


QUOTE: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are negotiable only at the Foundation level. END QUOTE.

Note that all content in this article is readily verifiable - simply read the original sources which describe the languages. Nov ialiste 23:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you describe is WP:OR: reading the original sources = original research. We need secondary sources. Thank you for confirming my point. Fram 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The following are specific quotes from "An International Language" (1928) by Professor Otto Jespersen (the book which first described Novial: note that the book is about Novial, not Ido, but let's see how often Ido is mentioned).


"Therefore in Novial, as well as in Esp-Ido, we simplify the spelling in all words containing double letters in the national languages, from which the words are taken: pasa (E pass, F passer), efekte, komun (F commun, E common), etc. "

"This is especially the case with some more or less learned words, which it would be awkward to spell with j: geologia, geografia, and others with geo-, genealogia and others in -logia; further, gigante, gimnastike, tragedie, genie, general, original, geste; to these I count also rege 'king' on account of regal, regalia, though Ido has rejo."

"Imaje is better than image, and there is some justification for the Ido differentiation of this word and imagina vb imagine."

"The second pronunciation, [ts], is the one given everywhere to c in Esperanto and Ido, in the formerly undoubtedly on account of Zamenhof's Polish extraction; and in both languages c is used extensively with this value not only before e and i, but also before other vowels."

"In Ido we have the demonstratives ca, co, taken from F ce, but with a pronunciation and endings not found in F, and further a great many verbs like formacar, importacar, where the sound [ts] is taken, curiously enough, from the Latin (F E etc.) ending -ation, which has no place as such in the system."

" Ido alleviates these groups and has such forms as cienco, ecepter, ceno scene, etc."

". This means one sound less than Ido has, in the sc-words, and the group [ks] instead of [ts] in xc."

"Very often, where Ido has c, it is best to reintroduce the L ti, e.g. tendentie, silentio, natione, sientie, pretie - with the ordinary pronunciation of t, not with [ts] or [S]. in some of these ti is found in derivatives in some languages, e.g. D pretiosen, Dan pretiosa."

"This sh is found in Ido in a certain number of words, which seem worth of admission into our language on the principle of being known to a greater number of people than other expressions for the same ideas; some of them are common to E D Sc, others are found only in one or two of these languages; I give the most important of them, and quote them as above without any grammatical endings: sham, shark, shel, shild, shirm, shov, shovel, shu, shultr, shutr."

"In Esp and especially in Ido z is used extremely often, not only where F E write s between two vowels (rozo, amuzar, akuzar, fiziko), but also where the voiced sound is found only in one of these languages (krizo E crisis, bazo base, words beginning with iso- or ending with -ozo, E -ous), and even where neither language has the voiced sound (karezar caress, mazo mace, F massue, kazo case, F cas with mute s, komizo F commis, E salesman)."

"It is no exaggeration to say that this excessive use of the letter z is one of the features of Ido which are least liked in many countries, except perhaps by the few professional phoneticians. To the many millions speaking D I S it will always be a stumbling-block."

"This is D satz disfigured by writing z for the North-German initial sound and by the Polish-Zamenhofian c before the substantive ending -o, the whole thus a very strong argument for a revision of the entire Esp-Ido system."

"As we have seen, Ido is inconsistent; it is so even through writing s where according to its own principles it should undoubtedly have had z: frizo F frise E frieze, fusilo F fusil, gasoza F gazeux E gaseous (generally pronounced with z). "

"The result of this somewhat chaotic distribution of s and z is that in writing Ido one is constantly obliged to look up words in a dictionary, and in speaking it one cannot help hesitating now and then, for no one can remember each word separately."

"I suppose no one can doubt that this consistent use of only one letter where Esperanto and Ido have three, c,s, and z, constitutes a very considerable simplification and lessening of the burden on memory."

"But there may be many interlinguists who will think that this is only possible at the cost of clearness, because as a matter of fact these sounds are often used in Esp and Ido to distiguish words that would otherwise be identical."

"The alphabetical list on p. 174 will show how it is possible to get out of all serious difficulties without disfigurements of well-known words, for it can hardly be called a serious defect in Novial that musa means a female mouse as well as a muse! (Ido musino and muzo with unnatural -o.)"

"Here it is possible to pronounce the combinations of i and u with a following vowel either as one syllable (in which case the stress would fall on the preceding syllable) or else as two, with i or u stressed: the former is the system of Ido, the latter that of Esperanto."

"If we want to make things as easy as possible for everybody, we must therefore avoid the mistake of Idiom Neutral (and to a less extent of Occ) with its heavy groups of final consonants in many words, but must rather imitate Esperanto and Ido, which are made sonorous and pleasant to the ear by their numerous vocalic endings like Italian or Spanish."

"This ending was selected in Ido (with omission of the substantival ending of the singular, thus homi from homo man), the reason being twofold: a vocalic ending was wanted in order to make the addition of the (Esp) accusative -n possible, and on the other hand the s-endings were used as in Esp for the verb."

"NOTE.- Z quite properly gave to his definite article the same ending as to his adjectives: la bona, but he also felt that it would be unsupportable to inflect it like adjectives (lajn bonajn homojn etc.) and therefore made la invariable: Ido was more consistent and made adjectives invariable too (la bona homi). But then Ido had difficulties with "substantivized adjectives" (adjectives as primaries), and there invented the unlucky device of inflecting the article, plural le bona, neuter lo bona."

"It was an important step in advance, when Ido after having had for some years the Esp system established common-sex substantives, e.g. spozo husband or wife, patro parent, with derivative endings for both sexes: spozulo husband, spozino wife, patrulo father, patrino mother (though it yielded to sentimental reasons, which some look upon as prejudices, by also allowing the use of matro for `mother'). Ido also created a common-sex pronoun for the third person, lu by the side of masc. il (ilu) and feminine el (elu)."

And so on and so on and so on (I've only checked a few chapters of the book so far). The comparison of Novial with Ido has obviously been an object of careful consideration by one of the more influential 20th century linguists. Nov ialiste 23:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yet more quutes from the same book:

"But while the principle is sound, the way in which it is carried out in Ido does not deserve praise in every respect."

"It should be noted, also, that some words had to be changed, because the -in- found in national languages might be mistaken for the feminine suffix, thus Esp has rabeno instead of rabino, and Ido mandareno instead of mandarino (though -in- has been admitted in mandarino `mandarin orange'). As Ido has diciplino for `discipline,' it could not at the same time have diciplo for 'disciple,' and therefore took dicipulo for `disciple' or `pupil' of either sex, which makes dicipulino for a female and dicipululo (!) for a male pupil. Even stranger than this is the treatment of the word for `cousin'; Esp has kuzo for a male and kuzino for a female cousin, consequently Ido has kuzo as a common-sex word, and kuzulo, kuzino for the two separate sexes. "

"Esp and Ido have the prefix ge- for both sexes combined: gepatri parents, gesiori ladies and gentlemen. "

"This rule is carried through in E and must be ours in N (as Ido, but different from Esp): natural formes; ti forme es natural; ti formes es natural, etc."

" Z simply added his adjective ending -a to the personal pronouns: mia, via, lia, etc., which is systematic enough; and Ido took over the same system, adding -a to its personal pronouns, which are somewhat different from the Esperanto ones."

"These were not imitated by Ido."

"Ido keeps the acc. ending -n, but does not make its use compulsory and specially recommends it in the case of inversion: ilun me konocas, ne ilua spozino, him I know, but not his wife; mea amiko quan vu vidis my friend whom you have seen - thus very often with interrogative and relative pronouns."

"In Ido this play of vowels was extended to the infinitive amar to love, amir to have loved, amor to love in future, to be going to love."

"Several teachers of Esp and Ido say expressly that these six participles constitute one of the greatest difficulties for their pupils (cf. also estus estinta `would have been')."

"Now the corresponding construction would not do in a language of the Esp-Ido type, with an adjectival form of the participle and no indefinite article, because a sentence like me havas perdita klefo (or the plural klefi) would easily be misunderstood as meaning 'I have a lost key (some lost keys)' instead of 'I have lost a key (some keys).' "

"This was at first imitated in Ido (me esas perdinta, me esis perdinta), but to a West-European mind these must always seem clumsy roundabout expressions, and therefore most Idists took readily to the new synthetic forms with inserted -ab-, when these were allowed after some years: perdabis 'had lost', perdabos 'shall have lost', perdabus 'should have lost' (Why perdabas 'have lost' was not adopted at the same time, will ever remain a mystery)."

"It is, of course, possible to form participles of the auxiliaries: hant veni having come, salent veni = Ido venonta. "

"These compound forms may be freely used in apposition, but cannot easily be used as adjuncts in the same way as the Esp-Ido forms can, but then they are not often wanted and relative clauses are always handy."

"The existence of more than one passive participle in Esp-Ido creates some difficulties: what is exactly the difference between esas skribita and esis skribata, between esas skribota and esos skribata - in other words, should the time indication be added to the auxiliary or the main verb? "

" Now this rule was transferred by Z to Esp, and from Esp taken over into Ido, one of the reasons being probably that otherwise it would have been necessary to create a new tense for the shifted future in (3)."

"Now in Novial there is no necessity to follow the Russian rule, and we can easily form the shifted future missing in Esp-Ido, by adding -ed to the auxiliary sal: saled. "

"The Ido synthetic forms videsas, videsis, videsos, etc., are not good, because the most important element, that which should show the passive, is eliminated, and only the empty verb `be' is included."

"On the whole the synthetic forms of Ido are often cumbersome: it is possible to form such passives as naturaligesabis, elektrizadesabos, which are not far from outdoing certain Volapük formations."

"The chief differences between the Esp-Ido system and ours are (1) that in Novial the elements are separate words, in Esp-Ido inseparable word-elements: it is true that Z claimed that each of his suffixes, etc., was independent and separable (which leads to the curious use of suffixes like inda and igi as words in themselves), but this is not true of the verbal endings as, is, u, i etc. "

"The first of these endings is in Novial the same as in Esp and Ido, namely -o, but in our system it serves to denote substantives immediately derived from or connected with a verb and meaning the simple act or state denoted by the verb (nexus-substantives)."


"For the first sb Ido-dictionaries have rulilo, rulbloko, rulajo--rather unnatural formations. The word rule should be kept distinct from role, F rôle--etymologically the same word."

"Kronisa from krone 'crown' would therefore seem correct for 'to crown' (with kroniso coronation), but it must be admitted that 'to provide with a crown' is no fully adequate description of a coronation, and the formation krona with vbsb krono is less dangerous in our system than in Ido."

"It is claimed that this system is both clearer and more natural than those of Esp and Ido. "

"n writing Ido one is constantly confronted with the problem: am I here logical justified in using the immediate formation, or should I use a suffix and which?"

"But if Ido 's rules are too strict, those of Esp are undoubtedly too lax, as they allow any substantive to be made into a verb simply by changing the ending, and vice versa, without taking the meaning into account; each writer may thus follow the practice of his native language or his own individual fancy. "

"The same is the case to some extent in Ido, which has not -iono or -ationo as derivative suffix, but which has a certain number of words in -iono besides some in -aco, vb -acar, taken from national-language words in -ation in half-Russian dress, due to Zamenhof: formaco from formation (R formatsia), operaco, naraco; similarly atenco (= N atentione from atente). In other cases Ido has changed Esp -io into -iono: naciono, profesiono, prepoziciono, but without consistency: religio, ambicio. "

"Ido has the suffix -uro joined to verbal roots to denote the result or product as distinct from the act itself. "

" Note that our e/a/o-words make it possible to have simpler forms for many Esp and Ido ilo-words; in N -ilo is used only where it is absolutely necessary to start from the verb."

"The latter is the only way in which -izar is used in Ido, but the suffix is really much less widely used in national languages in this than in the first-mentioned meaning, corresponding to Ido -igar, Esp -igi. "

"-AD- taken from such substantives as F promenade, cannonade, fusillade, is used as in Esp and Ido with verbs and verbal sbs for the repeated or continuous act: frapada beat several times (frapado continued beating, frapo a single blow); kantada; parlada go on talking."

"-AN from L is found in a great many words in Romanic and other languages; it means inhabiting or belonging to a class or party: Roman (Romani, -e, -o, -a), Italian, Amerikan, urban, akademian, senatan, vilajan, partisan, leftano member of the "left" party; further the convenient Esp-Ido formations samlandane fellow-countryman, samreligionano, sampartisane, samideane; also altrilandano, etc."

"Esp and Ido have -ema, coined with some reminiscence of the F verb aimer. "

"This suffix is very convenient with adjectives: beleti pretty, varmeti lukewarm, maladeti poorly; it is used extensively in Ido and Esp with verbs, and -eta is of a certain utility in such verbs as rideta smile, dormieta take a nap, salteta caper, frisk about (whence of course verbal sbs rideto, dormieto, etc.); still the use with verbs should not be exaggerated, and there may in rare cases be a little danger of confusion with the passive participle of verbs in -e. "

"The Ido system of composite numerals (70 sepadek, 17 dekesep) is rather confusing."

"Ido has here the verb mariajar `to marry' with the derivatives mariajo or mariajeso `marriage,' mariajatulo `married man,' mariajatino `married woman,' with the variants mariajitulo, mariajitino; mariajo-festo `wedding'; further, the independent words spozo, spozulo, spozino for husband and wife."

"Even (E): by taking even and self instead of Ido mem (F) and ipse (L) we gain the advantage of having words which are known to several more millions of people and which are unambiguous, while mem is apt to induce all those who know French to use it in the meaning either of N self (F lui-même) or of N sami (F le même)."

"Jus just now, a moment ago (D . . . S, here as in Esp and Ido differentiated from justi, justim)."

"Non may also be used as a prefix, see Prefixes: nonrational irrational; nonnesesarieso (better than Ido neneceseso), etc."

"Ido went far away to Sanskrit to find ka, which, by the way, does not seem to be used in Sanskrit in exactly the same way; it might have been mentioned that Japanese has an interrogative particle ka, only placed at the end of the sentence."

"It may even be used put twice (as Z uses cxu . . . cxu) to denote two alternatives (Ido from L sive . . . sive), as in rendering Goethe's "Er liest es jedem froh und laut, Ob es uns quält, ob es erbaut!" "

"The discrimination and correct use of prepositions is a very important thing in an IAL, and as Ido has contributed much to perfection in this point, I have used most of the Ido prepositions."

"Ido dop is very bad: it is taken from I dopo, which is chiefly temporal, not local as Ido dop."

"Ido has de, but it is confusing to have the three prepositions de, di, da - here supplanted by fro, de, da."

"which is more internationally known than Ido diafan"

"After (E, D in some compounds, Sc efter) is really more international than Ido and Occ pos, an abbreviated L post, which survives only in some compounds like postscriptum."

"Depos in Novial is a separate word (F depuis, S despues, P depois), not as in Ido a compound of de (for which we say fro) and pos, the meaning of which cannot really be inferred from that of the components."

" Ido has L dum like Esp--one of those L words which have not survived in any language."

" This use of an invariable particle seems preferable to the Ido conception of kloko, plural kloki."

"Po (from R Po, Esp, Ido)"

" The form kun (as in Esp Ido) is chosen, because the L kon (con) is found in so many compounds in which it has lost its original meaning"

" Ido has vice, which is used in no language by itself, but is derived ingeniously from words like vice-president--which, however, means a man standing next below the president rather than one who acts instead of him."

"Convention come to play a rôle here as in national languages: for `railway' Esp, Ido and N use fervoyo, fervie, which is modelled on D eisenbahn, F chemin de fer, but might just as well have chosen rel-vie like E."

" Provisionally useful information may be found in Ido dictionaries (best L. H. Dyer's Ido-English Dict, and English-Ido Dict. (I. Pitman and Sons, London, 1924)."

"Ido distinguishes basa (adj) bass (with compounds like basvoco, basreliefo, basklasa) and bazo base, basis, foundation, bottom."

"Better than Ido skopo (from I: E scope does not mean exactly the same thing); ema serves also for Ido vizar."

"FOGLE `bird' D vogel, E fowl (which in seafowl and fowler has the old meaning), Dan fugl, Sw fågel; better than Ido ucelo (I uccello; F oiseau is too far be of use) and Romanal ave, "which can be recognized by everyone" (Guérard), i.e. everyone that knows Latin, for others will rather think of Ave Maria; S P ave is rarer than pájaro, passaro."

"HUSE (or HAUSE) house E D Sc better than dom-, which both Esp, Ido and Occ have inherited from Volapük"

"Ido insulo has wrong accent."

"the Ido distinction justa and yusta is arbitrary"

"Similarly Ido."

"LEFT(I) as Occ from E `left' instead of Ido sinistra (L), which has acquired other meaning."

"Ido creates a totally unnatural word evar `to be so and so old' from L ævum which does not mean that), probably because in F one cannot ask `Combien vieux?' or say `L'enfant n'est vieux que d'une semaine.'"

"OSA `dare,' F oser. Conflict with ose `bone,' F os, I osso, S hueso, is not dangerous, and there is no reason to take osto like Esp and Ido from Greek osteon."

"Thus we distinguish Ido paco, paso, pazo:"

"But for Ido selo (F selle, I S) we must take sadle from E saddle, Sc sad(d)el, D sattel."

"Ido has celar hide "

"The echo-word D summen (Ido zumar) is best made into huma, E hum"

"Esp iri, Ido irar takes the L infinitive ending into the root, which should be avoided"

"VETRE `weather' (D Sc E) on account of the accent better than Ido vetero"


Those quotes are all in the first external link I provided: An International Language, 1928, by Otto Jespersen PhD., Litt.D., LL.D. Nov ialiste 00:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this is the book by the creator of the language, not an independent source. Has someone reliable and independent (per WP:V) cared to make a serious comparison of Novial and Ido since the creator of the former? Furthermore, this explains mainly how the roots of some words were arbitrarily chosen in both languages, which is quite different from comparative linguistics of e.g. English and France, who have an organic history, not a synthetic one. So, we have the original inventor writing about it, and then we have some editors doing original research, but we don't seem to have any independent sources, and indication that this is a scientific field of study, that this gets discussed anywhere but here. Nope, I still see no reason to keep it... Fram 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check the external links *not* by Jespersen, i.e. independent sources:
The final link among its numerous sources of information has an obituary of Jespersen at "The Times (London)" which mentions his work for Ido and Novial. Henry Jacob places great emphasis on such comparison - read the source. There are plenty of sources on this subject, i.e. the comparison of Ido and Novial. Nov ialiste 09:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is part of the book:OTTO JESPERSEN His Work for an International Auxiliary Language By Henry Jacob, 1943
So your assertion that "we don't seem to have any independent sources, and indication that this is a scientific field of study, that this gets discussed anywhere but here." is clearly false. Nov ialiste 09:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another indedependent source which compares Novial with Ido and others:

Enkonduka lernolibro de interlingvistiko Vera Barandovská - Frank ISBN 973-95604-6-8 © PDoc. Dr. habil. Vera Barandovská-Frank Unua eldono- presita 1995 che Editura Universitatii, Sibiu-Hermannstadt (RO)

Link: 5. DETALA PREZENTO DE LA PLEJ SUKCESINTAJ PLANLINGVOJ Chapter 5 of a more extensive comparison of IALs (in Esperanto). Scroll down the page to the Ido and Novial sections. Nov ialiste 09:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. It seems all very small (for the Ido vs. Novial part), just explaining that Novial is basically a changed version of Ido with some small changes. A paragraph or two in some books about two languages that are spoken by very few (Ido, 200 to 500 speakers) to barely anyone (Novial, less than 50 speakers) and which only gets discussed by a small but dedicated group of enthusiasts (the sources all come from very limited publishers, it seems, so I'm not sure if they are good enough for WP:V) seems to me still a way too small topic for an article, but I guess we'll let other editors decide this. Fram 10:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Excuse me, but if you would actually read the sources you might notice that Jacob's 2 books have several chapters concerning Novial and Ido, not a paragraph or 2. Additionally Novial is *not* a changed version of Ido. It is based on Romance and Germanic languages and the most similar previous IAL was Occidental. It differs radically grammatically from Ido, as well as Esperanto. Novial was and is one of the most influential IALs ever. Just because a topic is unfamiliar to you, or you happen to find it uninteresting does not mean that is unencyclopedic, unless Wikipedia is "Encyclopedia for Kiddies and the Poorly Educated". Concerning numbers of speakers I believe that even small or extinct languages are of encyclopedic interest. Maybe you are against AILs, though, in which case I suggest you read the essay "Psychological reaction to Esperanto" by the psychologist Claude Piron. He claims that many have an irrational subconscious fear of constructed languages.Nov ialiste 12:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making personal attacks. As for the importance of Novial: from Ido: "Many other reform projects appeared after Ido: examples such as Occidental and Novial appeared afterwards but have since faded into obscurity." Anyway, this is not the AfD of Novial, which I would firmly oppose, even though it is obscure and hardly spoken anymore, but of the page "Ido and Novial compared". Fram 13:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: Anyway, "this is not the AfD of Novial" So why mention: "(Novial, less than 50 speakers)"?
Quote: "from Ido: "Many other reform projects appeared after Ido: examples such as Occidental and Novial appeared afterwards but have since faded into obscurity." " But it is continually mentioned in discussions of different IALS; I regard "faded into obscurity" as weasel words. Also I believe Wikipedia policy is that other Wikipedia articles are not to be regarded as valid sources.Nov ialiste 17:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "the sources all come from very limited publishers".

ON LANGUAGE MAKING By Henry Jacob A Paper read to the Philological Society Kings College, London, 6th February 1948

S. Auerbach, Pri nonmediati derivatione in li international lingues, in Grammatical Miscellany (Allen & Unwin)

Otto Jespersen, An International Language, London 1928 (Allen & Unwin)

Otto Jespersen, Novial Lexike, London 1930 (Allen & Unwin)

Philological Society Kings College, London and Allen & Unwin are obscure?

To the uneducated populist they might be. Nov ialiste 12:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, your rather lenghty citations prove only that Novial is notable - nobody denied it. Bot we are now discussing the notability of two Paternosters written in esoteric constructed laguages. Please try to be more constructive in the discussion and restrain from personal attacks (WP:NPA).--Ioannes Pragensis 15:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sources repeatedy compare Novial with Ido as well as other major IALs which is the point of contention as I understand it: "Ido and Novial compared". Nov ialiste 17:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still just a stub! We are not discussing "the notability of two paternosters written in esoteric constructed languages" but rather the validity of this article which has just been started, and of which the parallel paternosters will be a small part. Of course a great deal has to be added comparing the grammar, morphology, and so forth. The parallel paternosters are a minimal (but canonical) comparison. I'd like to note that Jespersen was not just some crackpot cooking up his own language in some utopian scheme, but one of the greatest linguists of his time. The dismissal of his work as WP:OR is misguided both because he is no lightweight and because he is not associated with anyone writing the article. Neither is he a contemporary figure. Nor is he the sole source intended for inclusion in this article. OinkOink 16:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the Times newspaper of London in Jespersen's Times' obituary (3rd May, 1943):
"International language was a subject which he passionately advocated, and he helped to form Ido and later invented Novial. It was a source of bitter disappointment to him that the rising tide of nationalism dispelled any immediate hope of their universal adoption."

Link: [86] (was already linked from one of the links given).

But maybe the Times of London is as obscure a publisher as Allen & Unwin, also of London (yes, I'm being sarcastic but somebody earlier in this page said Allen & Unwin is obscure). Nov ialiste 17:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nov ialiste, I share your frustration, but I think you should make sure your heart rate and respiration are down to normal before you post. Despite the evident biases and mulishness, I think it's clear that the deletionists are acting in good faith. Who is not biased and mulish on occasion? Who is free of the tendency to regard that of which we are ignorant as unimportant? Who is not ignorant of most things? And Merry Christmas! OinkOink 18:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think people should make some effort to find out about a topic before advocating drastic steps such as deletion. I did take the trouble to quote the sources. False statements were made in spite of the appropriate information given within the sources. It might be necessary to read the sources to know what they contain. I'm ignorant of most things but I refrain from advocating drastic actions on matters about which I am ignorant. Nov ialiste 18:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 22:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gears of War weapons[edit]

List of Gears of War weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

Original research, unencyclopedic detail, Talk:Gears of War#Weapons previously decided not to create such a list --Scottie theNerd 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, JChap knows where it's at. Deizio talk 22:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Children of the Matrix[edit]

Children of the Matrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable author. Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. JudahBlaze 22:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 22:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kidz Bop: Hardcore[edit]

Kidz Bop: Hardcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JudahBlaze 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans and Islam[edit]

Native Americans and Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Almost entirely original research, of the crackpot variety. The small part that's not, the section on African-Americans, belongs in a different article. Ptcamn 22:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: no speedy deletion doesn't apply unfortunately - USER:7day created four or five articles about the same subjectat once - click the different links and you'll find them.Maunus 06:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with what? --Striver 18:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I meant merge with Mormon historical revisionism in modern Islam, of course. — coelacan talk — 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 22:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's University Chess Club[edit]

Queen's University Chess Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

University club. PROD contested. I still do not feel that the references provided to the article do enough to establish the club's notability, especially since most university clubs are non-notable. To me, it seems that the references provided just back up tournament results for specific people, rather than demonstrate the notability of the club as a whole. Delete. Andy Saunders 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly contesting Mr. Andy Saunders' contest of the Queen's University Chess Club article. I have provided a significant number of different references, and am digging up more. While I acknowledge his points, planning and hosting the two most important events in Canadian chess, with international grandmasters competing, is a notable feat for any group, let alone a university club formed entirely of dedicated volunteers who received no payment for their months of planning and weeks of work, and created very successful championships which paid significant prize money to the champions. Several outstanding games, two of which have been referenced to a world-respected chess database, were played in these events. That doesn't happen with garden-variety groups. Then, the Queen's Club took the lead role in creating a new national organization for Canadian chess. So, this blanket, catch-all statement that most university clubs are non-notable definitely does not, in my view, apply here. We apparently have five days to improve the article, and have already significantly done this on the first day after receiving the potential delete notice. Frank Dixon, Kingston Dec. 15, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankEldonDixon (talk • contribs)

Comment: I would say that the object would be to find sources that specifically names the Queen's University Chess Club as being instrumental, and not just sources that name people who happen to be members of the club. Andy Saunders 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Mr. Bradbury for his encouragement. I will take his suggestions to heart, and plan to continue to improve the article. Not to be too hard on Andy Saunders, the Ontario Quizzer, but I took a look at his bio, and he is a trivia guy!! To a certain extent, chess competes with trivia as a mind sport, so there is a little bit of a rivalry subtext here! Organized trivia is a very recent phenomenon. But chess has been played for close to 2,000 years, is played around the world by millions of people (including six million in Canada alone), and there are more nations which are members of the International Chess Federation (FIDE) than any other sports federation except that for soccer (FIFA). Two players need not speak the same language to play a game of chess; knowing the rules is enough! Try trivia with that arrangment, Andy! Also, there have been more published books written about chess than about all other games and sports combined! Chess research has led to significant scientific advancements in other fields, some of which were attained by strong chessplayers. There are more possible ways to play a chess game than there are electrons in the universe. (And that's just with the basic starting position; do stuff like rearrange the pieces, add more pieces, change the board size and shape, add additional dimensions, and the unique possibilities multiply even further.) Dec. 15, 2006, 6:20 p.m. EST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankEldonDixon (talk • contribs)

Comment: I do not at all see how this above comment relates at all to the merits of the article. In fact, I see it as an ad hominem attack, implying that my opinion on the article's merits should be discounted as I apparently know nothing about chess (which could not at all be inferred simply by reading my User Page), and that I made the nomination in bad faith (by implying that a non-existent rivalry exists between trivia and chess). Andy Saunders 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius 13:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken. I think it's best if this article is merged with the main Queen's University article. Frank Dixon Dec. 18, 2006, 348 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 Redirect, nothing sourced, so nothing for me to merge. ~ trialsanderrors 10:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry the Puffy Taco[edit]

Henry the Puffy Taco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Most certainly not notable enough for Wikipedia. Mikker (...) 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the Ballapeño mascot to this AfD, both mascots can be merged into the San Antonio Missions article, it's got plenty of space. Only major leage mascots are really notable enough to have separate articles. Tubezone 23:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was early closure as speedy delete.--cj | talk 23:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dillonism[edit]

Dillonism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This sounds like something someone has just made up. I think it wouldn't find its way into any encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer 22:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 22:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Globulation 2[edit]

Globulation 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Alpha software; no evidence of notability. —Psychonaut 22:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 22:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aptela[edit]

Aptela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

deprodded. Fails WP:CORP BJTalk 23:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 event. (aeropagitica) 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ensemble Responsorium[edit]

Ensemble Responsorium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Early Music ensemble of unclear notability. Was tagged for speedy-A7, but a basic claim to notability is made (participation in important music festivals at national level). Seems thin though: official website contains no discography, demo soundbites ([87]) are nice but not top-notch quality. Procedural nomination from me, would like more input; neutral for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 musical biography, WP:Music and WP:BIO both refer. (aeropagitica) 18:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Calderazzo[edit]

Joey Calderazzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable and unsourced. I was taking the advice of someone to make sure and stick to articles and out of politics, which is a good idea although I'm drawn to it. So I hit random article and get this page, and am now getting into politics...

Anyway, the article is nearly two years old, with no discussion page until today when I commented on my earlier prodding of it (which I decided not to do after all). There are no sources for any of the information. I don't think sources are a possibility either - top hits on google are his own website, a music listing whose biography on him is identical to the one found on his own webpage, and a bunch of downloading sites. Even Sick Puppies is sourced, so it's no great feat. Probably not notable enough to have sources, thus delete. Milto LOL pia 22:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 22:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Wiltzie[edit]

Adam Wiltzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

WP:V, WP:BIO. Deproded. Delete - crz crztalk 16:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a household name but notable within genre. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rayne[edit]

Robert Rayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nothing of notability given; a bio Akihabara 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to add enough to the article to support notability yourself. Akihabara 20:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (no consensus). Docg 14:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo (K.U. Leuven)[edit]

Toledo (K.U. Leuven) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable: web platform of (my) university, it's just another Blackboard application; page was started by an administrator of the website (User:Vandepitte). Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Blackboard Inc. and learning platform articles, but merging with the university page seems like a good compromise to me.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may be interesting to add an note on the Blackboard Inc. page mentioning the KUL is using the system under the name Toledo. Idem for Dokeos, with the VUB (where it is called PointCarré) and the Erasmus Hogeschool Brussel using this system. LHOON 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proto::► 10:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1213 (video game)[edit]

Non-notable. Original research. No reliable sources to support importance. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The full text is below if someone wants to merge it. ~ trialsanderrors 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A School of Tomorrow school is a private school that uses Accelerated Christian Education curriculum. In these classrooms teachers are called supervisors. Students work individually on their work without direct teaching from the supervisor. Student desks are set up with dividers that do not allow students to see each other. Students have American and Christian flags that they place at the top of their desk to signal that they need help from the supervisor. Students correct their own work with score keys that are kept in a central location for all students to use.

School of tomorrow[edit]

Not sure whether delete or merge is best here. I don't think it can last on its own. Just H 23:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Docg 14:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel C. Smith[edit]

Rachel C. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No or marginal encyclopedic value, appears to fail WP:BIO. Most things mentioned in the article (doctoral candidate, 72nd female smokejumper, etc) are not notable at all. The academic papers and speaking might be notable but even they don't seem like encyclopedic material. What do you think? Dragomiloff 23:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nc). Docg 14:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Bank Studios[edit]

Kay Bank Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Insufficient notability given; few ghits Akihabara 01:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Hillaire[edit]

Keith Hillaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Only mentioned in one newspaper article, non-notable High School senior. Fails WP:GOOG. I also suspect autobiography, since both the creator and the user who removed the prod tag look like single purpose accounts. Dar-Ape 00:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 10:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Schwartz[edit]

Ed Schwartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yeah, I'm planning to re-write the article sometime next week when my finals are over. For the meantime, you can at least see that the articles exist, and I'm sure there are others available from the Tribune. Zagalejo 18:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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