< December 1	December 3 >

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

The result was The result was Withdrawn by nominator, who indicated (by page-blanking and leaving an edit summary), that Prod will be used instead. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape discontinued items[edit]

Would nominate even if it was sourced. Unencyclopedic list. ∴ here…♠ 00:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article hadn't had an AfD tag added to it although all the other steps were completed. I've added the tag now. No comment on the merits of the article itself (yet, at least). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:42, 2 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 ]} 06:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srul Bronshtein[edit]

Delete. Possible, wrong information. No any info in Internet: Google, Yahoo!, Ask.com.--Paukrus 22:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am being stalked by user Paukrus: he marked this very article (and several others) in Russian for deletion citing only the fact that "this poet is of Jewish descent". There are sources cited in the article entry, including two web sources: in McGill University Library [1] and in Harvard University library (his book Moldove, mayn heym is under Brunstein, S. [2]; his biographical data are in the Lexicon of Modern Yiddish Literature, the whole chapter 6 in Yiddish writer I. Shraybman's book "Seven Years and Seven Months" (cited in main entry on the poet) is about Bronshtein; there's an entry in S. Spitalnik's book "Bessarabian style" (cited in the main entry, too).--SimulacrumDP 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's slander. :( No any national difference to me! IMHO, This Article must be delete because There's no any information in Internet.--Paukrus 23:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep has citations, has publications.--Buridan 14:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per bur, also not buying into unsubstantiated allegations (they can be linked here even tho they're in russian), but have to query good faith of nomination: assume "wrong info" means potential innacuracies, definitely not grounds for deletion, same for no info on internet (quite apart from the fact that a russian-speaker shld be well aware of probs w/ searching for transliterations of non-roman script surnames) ⇒ bsnowball 14:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 14:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. Has got nothing to do with Judaism. - crz crztalk 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That board is not restricted to religious topics, it is effectively "Judaism and Jews". Given that he was a Yiddish-language writer, I think it should have remained there. - Jmabel | Talk 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Using google to try to look for a pre-war Yiddish poet is not intelligent (an understatement). - crz crztalk 16:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Paukrus seems to be abusing non-notability notion. Valters 21:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Internet info is not required to establish notability, and historical events and figures represent common examples of notability without google listings. The publications cited appear to meet WP:N --Shirahadasha 22:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite our modern reliance on the internet, it is not the "be-all and end-all" of notability. Sufficient references to paper sources show notability. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 22:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least at this time: no reason to doubt the cited sources. - Jmabel | Talk 01:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's little information about the Yiddish literature on the internet -- I don't think the number of google hits is a good indicator in this case. bogdan 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since when is the internet the indicator of notability? VaclavHav 00:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems subject is notable and sources are there. ← ANAS ^Talk? 15:30, 6 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saif Energy Ltd[edit]

Non notable company. Plenty of google hits, but most of them belong to the company's website. No google news results [3] at all. Delete this page as company is still a start up and having no mention at all in the media Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these articles for deletion because they are related directly to Saif energy ltd, and are non notable and having very few google results.

Ahmed Nawaz Khan
Saif Group of Companies --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Article is mostly written in future tense ("is eagerly looking forward", "The company will operate ", etc) so a large element of notability via crystal ball. Also, User:Jawadrox has no edits apart from these 3 articles. Emeraude 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed, the fact that it's all in future tense does not bode well. It also has the faint smell of a press release about it. Lankiveil 01:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, as it is an actual company that does exist today. If they do make any notable advances in oil exploration, it can be updated on the Wiki. Sharkface217 03:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence is not a criterion for keeping. I exist, yet an article about me would be deleted in a heartbeat. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- You can still do that when the page is deleted, by writing a verifiable article about a notable company. Right now, the articles are neither. And existance isn't an argument for keeping, vanity articles about some random school kid get deleted all the time. MER-C 03:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP per above. MER-C 03:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. No evidence of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable, all articles should be deleted. ← ANAS ^Talk? 08:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a press release regarding the company here, but otherwise it fails WP:CORP. Black-Velvet 12:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --SonicChao ^talk 15:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious case. - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 16:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete vanispamcruftisement. Danny Lilithborne 22:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 00:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete straight away per nom. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:39, 3 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 11:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Taib[edit]

Fails WP:V and WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 17:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:27, 27 November 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 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, liberalism in Saudi Arabia is to be championed, but the utter lack of ghits makes this fellow's notability tenuous at best. Lankiveil 01:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
delete, Can't find sources, none in article. ∴ here…♠ 01:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - based on gulf news, needs more. ∴ here…♠ 00:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Saudi Arabia isn't a country like the US where you can find anyone on the Internet. Considering how their government regulates Internet usage in country, this man may exist but it is punishable in Saudi Arabia to publish info about him.

You guys gotta remember that not everything is on the internet (yet). I think we should keep this article in. Sharkface217 03:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The reason why there are no sources is irrelevant. Sources are still needed. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Source or delete. MER-C 04:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This article fails W:P and WP:BIO, and per Lankiveli's comment. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol at W:P. :) -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn-bio, V.Keep - I added one source, needs more. Crum375 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many sources are available, maybe not many in English, but there are many Arabic sources. Islam Today, Arabic Wikipedia, Al-Jazirah Magazine (search "محمد سعيد طيب") should be enough to prove his notability. I think English sources are available, but maybe his name is transliterated differently. Hold on, here is a reliable English source Gulf News. Keep? :) ← ANAS ^Talk? 08:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does appear to be sourceable, just google-resistant. BCoates 09:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I want sources, but it would appear they exist. Black-Velvet 12:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (conditional: more sources!) /Blaxthos 15:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:V. Although Saudi Arabia might be a country where not as much information is published on the internet as in a country like the U.S., some form of printed references should still be avaiable and cited accordingly. - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 16:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anas. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep, the man is real but the article poor. If no more sources can be attached it should be nominated for deletion again as soon as possible Alf photoman 13:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand+cite. the gentleman seems notable in his publication, but we need more.--Buridan 13:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I really wish I could read the Arabic Wikipedia article. The Gulf News article shows that he's a notable dissident in a country that is famously non-deomcratic. --Oakshade 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I can translate the page some time tomorrow, and maybe add a few sources to please everybody. :) ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - spelling Tayeb finds a few more online sources in English. --HJMG 08:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it is sourceable and notable too Yuckfoo 04:49, 7 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. Kimchi.sg 08:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Space Transport Company[edit]

Fails WP:CORP Otto4711 17:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 10 unique Google hits, and most of those are Wikipedia and mirrors thereof. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:55, 26 November 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 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "the United States Space Transport Company (USSTC) will provide space transportation of persons and property from the United States by 2007.", Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Lankiveil 01:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. Sr13 02:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sharkface217 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nat91 03:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:03, 2 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 ]} 06:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles L. Sullivan[edit]

Strong Delete - worthless tidbit; 1 line page?? Yankeedoodledandy 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I can't find any references to this chap as an elected politician, but there is a historian at the University of Mississippi named "Chales Sullivan" who has written a few books. I also found this offhand mention of him as running for governor in 1971. Assuming he wasn't a fringe candidate (and I don't know), he's probably notable enough, especially if they're the same person. Lankiveil 01:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep, adding my vote as per Oakshade's excellent research below. Lankiveil 02:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. I have found nothing to indicate that the politician is the same person as the historian, who seems to still be alive, whereas apparently the politician is quite deceased. --Dhartung | Talk 01:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just added new info to article. He was in fact Lt. Governor of Mississppi.[4][5]. A US Air National Guard facility was named after him. --Oakshade 02:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Sharkface217 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sounds legit but needs more sources. Crum375 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, added TIME cite about earlier Presidential (!) and Gubernatorial campaigns.--Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Seems simi noteable Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 07:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:N. He lost the presidential race as an insignificant, and did not make it for governor either. Besides that, he was involved in the army, but the article makes no mention of any medals, honours or courageous acts. - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 16:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a Lt. Gov. he technically meets WP:BIO per Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office. --Dhartung | Talk 01:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a lieutenant governor is more notable than most folks can expect to be -- it's an elected office (although I can't say whether it always was) and exceptionally powerful in Mississippi. Having an Air National Guard facility named after you is a nice bonus, too.
Keep per above. Close this already. Just H 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 15:32, 6 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. Kimchi.sg 08:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences[edit]

The entry reads more like a press release (clear WP:NPOV) than an actual article. Additionally, as it stands the ICUS appears to be a non-notable organization which generates about 600 Google hits. Nedlum 20:05, 26 November 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 00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the NPOV is no reason to delete this, but the seeming non-notability of the organisation is. Lankiveil 01:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete as G11. JChap2007 02:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sharkface217 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:10, 2 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, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sara roybal[edit]

No assertion of notability, but speedy tag was removed twice, so I'm bringing it to AfD. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 01:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, having famous family does not make you encyclopædic (normally). Only 82 ghits. Lankiveil 01:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete A bare majority of those 82 google hits seem to be about Colorado State Fair Fiesta Queen Sara Roybal, who seems to be 24 years old and therefore could not be the 33-year-old subject. No assertion of notability, no real notability lurking out there to be found. Darkspots 02:15, 2 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 06:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob P. Steinbach[edit]

Seems very hoaxy to me. No ghits of note for "Jakob P. Steinbach", "Jakob Steinbach Bible" or "Jakob Steinbach Russia". Additionally, the claim about the town name is unsubstantiated, as it says in Steinbach, Manitoba, it simply means "stony brook" Lankiveil 01:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. No relevant Ghits for "Jakob Steinbach" or "Jacob Steinbach". Neither the UK nor Hanover actually bordered Russia (even in the 1700s), so it would have been unlikely that George III of the UK and Hanover would have punished a Russian Army officer. Creator of article a single-purpose account. Steinbach was actually named after Steinbach, Ukraine, according to the City of Steinbach. --Charlene 03:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nat91 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sharkface217 03:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Charlene. Mr Stephen 16:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 22:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, someone is taking us for ride YamSan 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a gyp! Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 00:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:45, 3 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. Mind matrix 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depolarization radiation force theory[edit]

In view my article "Deprolarization radiation force theory" does not meet the wikipedia.org's policy, I ask my article to be deleted promptly. The author jxzj. 2006-12-04.

This article's claims (esp. claims, since deleted, in Gravitation) are so outlandish that I thought it necessary to follow them up. The creator's name, User:Jxzj, matches the initials of the first author of the cited papers, so it's likely she's the same person. That's why I called it a vanity edit. The cited papers do exist on cite-base[6], but their only citations seem to be among themselves. The authors have also published several books, through Nova Science Publishers. The books are listed by numerous booksellers and a few (gullible) university libraries, but have not otherwise been cited or reviewed, as far as I can find.

The authors maintain a fantasy website at [7] Eleuther 02:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Err, this nom is incomplete, but~~ I've marked the article under CSD A1 seeing as it has no content. --Wafulz 02:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay nom is complete now. Remember to stay civil, no matter how ridiculous/vain you think an entry may be. --Wafulz 02:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the admonishment. I was too impolite. Eleuther 03:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Borderline speedy. MER-C 05:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Should be a speedy, since the article has no content apart from attempts to direct readers to external links. Shimeru 06:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete not speedy, I want to see what the author has to say. I will check to see if anyone has left anything on her talk page. ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 15:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C, appears to be linkspam. - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 16:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G7 based on the author's comment at the top of this AfD, and A3 due to containing nothing but external references. Tagged as such. --ais523 09:50, 5 December 2006 (U T C)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Olsen 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Jones[edit]

NN, other than being David Bowie's kid. Directing one advertising campaign, even for a well-known company is not enough. Ckessler 02:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as his current work can be considered to be "mainstream", also known as notability. Sharkface217 03:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search on Google showed 153,000 results for "Duncan Jones". A handful were about this Duncan Jones, the majority were not. A search for "duncan jones advertising" showed even fewer results. Ckessler 03:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, not notable enough to deserve an entire Wikipedia article +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sharkface217. The FCUK campaign he directed was gigantic. --Oakshade 18:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Just enough reliable third-party coverage in mainstream news publications (i.e. not trade publications) focusing on him and his advertising work to keep. But it's a very close call. Fairsing 06:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. 32,000 ghits for Zowie Bowie though (he would later change his name to Duncan Jones. Is notable for his previous name, as was Roland Bolan, son of Marc Bolan. There was another rock and roll kid with rhyming first and last names but alas I forget, but it's worth keeping as it's something people might be interested in. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:58, 8 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 Marc Bolan. Agent 86 00:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolan Bolan[edit]

NN musician, even states in the article itself that he is better known for being the son of Marc Bolan. Google search shows no sign that he has released anything notable. Ckessler 02:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC, especially when "his commercial breakthrough has not occurred". MER-C 05:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Marc Bolan page. A semall section there is all that is necessary, if that. Grutness...wha? 09:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per above. Bob talk 00:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per above. --MaNeMeBasat 16:42, 3 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 07:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William torrillo[edit]

Delete per WP:V. Borderline spam for Non notable chef, non notable photographer found on orphaned pages patrol. Suspected conflict of interest by single purpose account. Of the 13 unique Ghits (for chef), two wiki. two directory listings, a few dead-end links, and only one relevant but which fails WP:RS. 38 unique Ghits (for photographer) include a few commercial sites with little or no info on the artist, many deadend spam links for poster sites, and his myspace site, which has strangely been blanked. (cached version here) Ohconfucius 02:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sharkface217 03:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 05:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no one special. Danny Lilithborne 22:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not myspace. Bearly541 07:37, 3 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 per withdrawn nomination and no delete !votes. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News embargo[edit]

This article has significantly improved since I nominated it for deletion, and I would like to withdraw my nomination. Greyfedora 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC) This article is not NPOV, is unsourced and bears no resemblance to the term "news embargo" as it is actually used. For example, the assertion that there is a "news embargo" for the Iraq war is based on an article by an interest group from before the Iraq war that uses the word "embargo" as a pun on the economic sanctions then in place against Iraq. I am also not sure there would be much more to write about "news embargoes" beyond their definition. Greyfedora 02:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it can be cleaned up and made into a good article. Now, for somebody to take the inititive....Sharkface217 03:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and cut the article down to the more traditional meaning of the phrase. Hopefully this is a more acceptable stub, the concept itself seems worthy of being included. The media loves talking about itself so there should be plenty of sources available for expansion. Keep. BCoates 09:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like it's been cleaned up. /Blaxthos 15:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as has been fixed. RandomP 19:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, I made the nomination but I'm not sure I can withdraw it. The changes made in the past several hours have made this article much, much better thanks to BCoates and Uncle_G. Greyfedora 19:10, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nordost[edit]

Another marketer of expensive audio cables that fails WP:CORP and whose article reads like spam. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pear Cable Audio Cables for a similar example. Tubezone 02:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete: as above. - Rainwarrior 02:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sharkface217 03:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 05:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 1ne 05:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete vanispamcruftisement. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no legitimate reason to delete this comany profile. The original request reveals the biased reason for requesting deletion, namely that the person does not like the pricing of the products that are offered. Product pricing is not a relevant issue to article deletion. This company meets the WP:CORP requirements just at Pear Cable Audio Cables does due to the fact that it has been written about by independent people from various industry publications.Apblake 23:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — Apblake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment What I wrote in the summary is accurate. The cables (interconnects from $100 to over $4,000 per meter, Click here and and here for examples) are expensive. There are no assertions or references in the article to establish that this company passes the WP corporate notability guidelines, the article pretty much reads like a press release (except for one line) and contains linkspam. Whether I happen to like the product and its pricing or not is irrelevant. If you want to contest a deletion, there's a place to do that, WP:DRV.Tubezone 01:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whatchoo talkin' bout, Willis. Danny Lilithborne 23:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this company isn't even close to meeting WP:CORP. Absolutely no sign of any non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources, which is what WP:CORP explicitly demands. Xtifr _tälk 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it fails WP:CORP guidelines by having no non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 07:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multiple sources of non-trivial(important in the industy) independent coverage: HomeTheaterHiFi StereophileApblake 13:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mentions in publications that Nordost advertises in are trivial in my opinion, besides, both cater to the high-end vanity-stereo clique, which makes using them as examples similar to a webcomic using mentions in a 'zine about webcomics to establish notability. Neither mention is particularly pertinent to establishing notability in the wire and cable industry, either. JMHO. Tubezone 15:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable firm unless real non-trivial sources can be found. Montco 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stereophile Magazine is not a trivial source. It is probably the most important high-end audio magazine in the United States, if not the world. It even has a wikipedia page stereophile. If you feel that this magazine is trivial, then I suggest you nominate their page for deletion as well. In regards to the Tubezone comments on advertising, if you want to insinuate that the publications are publishing biased editorial based on their advertisers, then I would say that the burden of proof is on you. These are highly respected publications.Apblake 23:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re Stereophile, WP:INN. I think it's fair to say that nearly every company that advertises in Stereophile extensively, sooner or later gets an editorial mention or article, if for no other reason than because their readers buy the magazine to read about stereo components. In this context I do not think that Stereophile mentions are useful for establishing notability in the electronics or wire and cable industry. That's just my opinion. Tubezone 10:59, 4 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 06:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feed Me Bubbe[edit]

Non-notable podcast with 300 subscribers fails the WP:WEB notability guideline. Alphachimp 02:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 03:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:WEB. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable podcast. JIP | Talk 18:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. WP:WEB notability guideline.--Chalutz 02:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Montco 03:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. J M Rackowe 4 December 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.197.120 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Will userfy on request for those looking to put the articles listed here into a category (such a category is not specified by those arguing for categorisation). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of publications in law[edit]

This article could develop in one of two ways but in either case I do not believe it suitable for Wikipedia:

It could become a list of all publications in law. Its scope appears to be all legal writing in all countries at all points of time. Such a project is so vast as to be beyond a lifetime's work. In any event, this would seem to breach WP:NOT#DIR as it would simply be vast list of sub-divided publications.
Alternatively it might list only important publications in law. This raises an intrinsic POV element in determining what qualifies as an important publication.

If a legal publication is notable, an article about it should be created. A list of those notable publications and their articles would then seem an appropriate way to present this information.

In of itself, this list will either end up being a directory or a very subjective list of which publications that it occurs to users to include as being important. Given the underdeveloped nature of legal coverage on Wiki this would be far from encyclopedic. WJBscribe 03:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I should have addressed the fact the page offers some guidance as to inclusion. I don't think this helps with the NPOV problem above as the criteria are very subjective- especially Influence and Latest and greatest. WJBscribe 03:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article should be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls but it is not listed there. This is why the title was not changed like the others to be "List of important publications ..". See also the related debate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in computer science. --Bduke 03:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a separate point (if the article is kept) is whether it should be amongst the science lists in the first place.... WJBscribe 03:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is a clean list that, although it may need work, seems to be going well so far. Sharkface217 03:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These lists, while somewhat subjective, are good to have. Eventually the goal should be to include publications that already have articles on Wikipedia, or publications which should have articles here. --- RockMFR 05:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or else I'll add the textbook I co-authored and my published master's thesis and don't any of you dare remove them :-) WP:POINTs aside, this list has no workable scope, as pointed out by the nominator. WP:NOT a catalogue of books, and there are very many legal publications in the world, even notable ones. Such content is better placed in the "References" or "Further reading" sections of the articles about the area of law in question. Sandstein 05:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this seems like a misguided effort (best) or an attempt to inflate Google rank (worst). meshach 08:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT. notable publications would merit their own articles; maybe a category Law Publications or the like? /Blaxthos 15:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a job for a category. --humblefool® 19:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify. If the standard for inclusion in a list is the same as the standard for inclusion as an article, categories are much better. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Categorify There are just far too many items that could be included on this list - consider the number of titles in your average law school library. I've always believed that lists which are necessarily going to be wildly under-inclusive should instead be deleted. --TheOther Bob 06:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The term is important, not notable, as adopted in the science articles and successfully defended here quite a few times. There are many items that should be included in an article that do not merit their own article, and this is the place to put them. Many discussions here have ended with a consunsus or merge, and this is the sort of place they are intended to be merged to. We have argued this before, and I find it peculiar that we must reargue it every time. DGG 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or show us where it's referenced that such-and-such book meets the criteria set forth. This list and others like it are completely unsourced and amount to nothing more than personal opinion. Glendoremus 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Categorize per TheOtherBob. --Wizardman 02:07, 9 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stonebridge Estate[edit]

Housing subdivision with just 30 properties, lacks notability SimonLyall 03:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- SimonLyall 03:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 03:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 05:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Montco 05:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LastChanceToBe 06:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - It is a stub for a well known country estate by many in Hamilton City. I myself do not live there, it is not self-promotion. Estate is notable because of the way the major farming operation takes place around high-socioeconomic housing.jake971 12:59, 5 December 2006 (NZST)
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Jacob Andrew ^Talk? 16:23, 7 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 per withdrawn nomination, no other delete !votes. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Nikolić (commander)[edit]

This article was created by User:Ancient Land of Bosoni (AKA User:Bosoni AKA User:Ancient Bosoni) as part of a wider soapboxing and POV pushing campaign. There are many war criminals from the former Yugoslavia, and this man hasn't done anything to make himself more notable than hundreds of others from all sides of the conflict. - Ivan K 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - Ivan K 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (and preserve name Dragan Nikolić (war criminal) - see additional comment and link below) There could be thousands who did what this person did, but the BBC, The Independent and the New York Times times found him notable enough to make him the primary subject of their aritcles.[8][9][10]. I've been noticing other Serbian war criminals up for AfD recently. I really hope this is not part of some POV agenda. --Oakshade 10:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment I see that this is both a naming dispute and an AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragan Nikoli%u0107 (war criminal). --Oakshade 10:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Give the statement, "He was the Serb commander of the Susica detention camp near Vlasenica in south-east Bosnia. Following an ICTY trial, he was sentenced to 23 years in prison on 18 December 2003." is referenced, I think this article satisfies WP:N. War criminals are surely notable, even if regrettably numerous. WJBscribe 10:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but i'm not addressing naming convetion dispute. /Blaxthos 15:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like a notable war criminal. JIP | Talk 18:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename (war criminal) per linked AfD. Septentrionalis 21:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but AfD should not be doing anything about the name. Which is fine as it is, anyway. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I am sure that there are many war criminals from this conflict, some of whom may not be notable, being a commander of a camp certanly seems to make this one more notable than others. Montco 05:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The United Nations even has a webpage on their site regarding this man and his crimes. LastChanceToBe 06:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:V and WP:RS. POV disoutes are outside of AFD. -- Whpq 16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when I nominated this article, there were weren't a lot of references in the article, so I thought it was just part of User:Ancient Land of Bosoni's soapboxing, but now I think it should not be deleted. Four other articles created by him were nominated and subsequently deleted ([11], [12], [13], [14]) so I just thought this article was just like those four. So anyway, how do I withraw this nomination; or can't that be done? - Ivan K08:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- You just need to say that you no longer think it should be deleted, maybe striking the nomination out. I'm closing it, since you seem to want to withdraw it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. The two articles should be merged obviously but I very much object to the title Dragan Nikolić (war criminal) which is as point of view a title as one can imagine. Of course he is a war criminal but it's still a POV title. Pascal.Tesson 16:28, 5 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 06:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Rap / Rap Metal / Ghetto Metal[edit]

Proposed deletion contested by author. Was just a collection of external links. Those links have mostly been made into internal ones, but I'm concerned that this is redundant to existing categories and impossible to maintain (for example, I imagine many of the groups not wikilinked are non-notable). – Gurch 04:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page describing this genre exists at Rapcore Copysan 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even if the genre were not better defined elsewhere, the Original Research involved in this article (with the creator apparently trying to establish a number of genre terms) would be grounds for a massive rewrite. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this article is completely redundant.--Paul Carpenter 18:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Lijnema 19:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sharkface217 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. Nonsense name and OR. Danny Lilithborne 22:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the....? The article name says it all! Delete! And as per nom.Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 00:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:31, 3 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 06:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Pro Wrestling (USA)[edit]

Local pro wrestling league in Iowa. Does not appear to meet notability standards for organizations. Also, no reliable sources--sources are myspace pages and the like. Chick Bowen 04:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN wrestling fed. TJ Spyke 04:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable fedBooyakaDell 00:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 03:33, 3 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 based on WP:V, WP:NOR and does not establish notability separate from the movie. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Organisation[edit]

Unnecessary original research and pure speculation on an extremely minor plot detail from the movie Casino Royale (2006) Eqdoktor 07:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's already out in several countries according to Casino Royale (2006 film), so I wouldn't call it speculation. Perhaps one of you could see the movie? MER-C 09:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thats the whole point! The originator of the article sat down and watched the movie and dashed out an article on "The Organisation". There is NO independent verification of the facts (whatever little there is) in the article. No one is even sure if the "The Organisation" is a noun (collective) or a proper noun (real name). The only link cited in the article does not back up anything and in the typical hollywood style confirms nothing. The whole article violates Wikipedia:No original research policy - its based on just watching the movie with no verifiable facts to back it up. There is nothing holding this article up. --Eqdoktor 09:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having seen the movie, it's of some importance, but not really a major factor. There's no indication that "The Organisation" is its proper name; it was SMERSH (James Bond) in the novel, but since the film is set in the modern day, the Soviet counterintelligence organization was replaced by a terrorist organization. The article on Bond 22 suggests, though without confirmation, that this organization might be a revamped SPECTRE. I suspect that there will be little to say (and few reliable sources to use to say it) until that next film comes out in a year or two, or at least until it starts to be promoted, hence my !vote. Shimeru 09:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cited source does not support the article's claims. I have seen the movie but I haven't found any reviews or other published sources stating that James Bond's adversaries were part of an entity using the name "The Organisation". --Metropolitan90 22:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need pages on every single aspect of every single movie, especially where the movie provides no encyclopedic information about the aspect we can use. The article is mostly speculation and unnecessary. If the organization grows in importance in the next Bond or more encyclopedic information is provided about it, feel free. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Lack of any serious information, prone to speculation. Whatever is notable should be mentioned at Casino Royale. The idea of the organisation having an article should be reexamined come November 2008 when Bond 22 is released. K1Bond007 06:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient to warrant it's own articel. If something major comes of it in future films that *maybe*. Peregrine 07:13, 4 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 Note that article has been considerably rewritten since nomination. W.marsh 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geekbrief[edit]

Non-notable podcast fails the WP:WEB notability guideline. Alphachimp 04:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable podcast. JIP | Talk 18:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I just came to wikipedia specifically to look up Geekbrief, to see a "deletion" notice. Mrjeff 12:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, ok.... How does that satisfy WP:WEB? Alphachimp 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I want to read about the item in question, and therefore am not an expert in it. I'm mearly pointing out I personally want to read the article. Perhaps WP:WEB is too strong?Mrjeff 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simply liking an article is not a legitimate argument for keeping an article, and WP:WEB is a generally accepted guideline for notability. If you'd like to read the article, feel free to save it to your hard drive or print it. Alphachimp 02:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a review in the paper copy of MicroMart? I'll add a reference later today. Mrjeff 08:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that that would be purely "trivial coverage", as is found in nearly all references to specific podcasts. Alphachimp 08:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean you expect that review is trivial coverage, or all reviews are trivial coverage? A copy can be found at [15] Mrjeff 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At a purely cursory glance, that website appears to be somewhat inconsequential. Alphachimp 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that website itself is inconsequential, sorry I should have explained better. The article given there is a copy of the review in Micromart, which I don't believe is "Trivial coverage" myself. Mrjeff 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly the review seems somewhat cavalier. Even if we do accept that as a legitimate published work, it's still only one published source, isn't it? Alphachimp 14:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of my readers, asked me to add my article to the GeekBrief.tv Wikipedia entry. I can see from the discussion here that printed copies apparently help lend some credibility. While it seems odd for Wikipedia to take that stance, and most likely it is me incorrectly reading a discussion list that is going to get me in trouble, I hope that is not the case. My syndicated column appears in a local Chicago area paper that reaches 200K readers. I added a link to the column's web home, and indicated that it is one of the most popular archived articles. Wikipedia has been mentioned in my column a few times, [here] and [here], both of which also appeared in print too.--24.15.79.244 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I looked up Geekbrief specifically, and it's one of the featured channels in the Democracy player. Tapo 13:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does that satisfy WP:WEB? Alphachimp 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NO reliable sources to base this on, most of the references are to the podcast's website. Fails WP:WEB by a fair amount. Inner Earth 21:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some more links have been added.. do these pass WP:WEB? Mrjeff 10:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that The MSNBC show that had Geekbrief on it is good enough. I feel that the several references and this apperance are enough. MrMacMan 23:58, 6 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle Foundation[edit]

There are several Google hits, and the article does allege notability, but there are no third party references. The article is also a WP:COI violation. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant WP:COI. MER-C 05:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak references, mostly to similarly oriented web sites. Endless blue 19:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notabilty asserted YamSan 00:08, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benson Street (Manhattan)[edit]

A 144.1 foot long culdesac is not notable. We're going to list every street in the world? User:Zoe|(talk) 05:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I had hoped for a situation where generic street name pages would be established, with specifc named streets getting space in alphabetical order. Thus, there would be one Benson Street, with sections for all of the individual Bensons Streets, instead of one for each community. Obviously, I lost out on that one, and had to make due with with what was available. -

'comment;But your original idea was perhaps a good one, but might take some thought about how to do it without getting all the little ones in as well. And it may be hard to think of a title.DGG 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 05:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope Wikipedia doesn't try and list every street in the world - but this is a good start. Delete. --humblefool® 19:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should and have articles on notable streets such as Broadway, Manhattan; Fleet Street, London; or Canal Street, New Orleans. There is no point is creating articles about every street in the world, if they are not otherwise notable. The author has at least cited sources: a 1978 big book of streets, and has apparently checked that the street has not been renamed via Google maps and satellite views. But such efforts should be reserved for streets which are not of trivial importance and which have been written about. What is the approximate number of streets in the world? Who will update these articles when names are changed or streets are abandoned? Edison 20:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think monopoly board streets are about the cutoff point as to how notable streets should be for inclusion, and this falls far, far below. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually found the article quite intresting since I go throught there all the time... but yeah, pretty pointless. I was leaning towards keep... but... eh... i don't know. MrMacMan 09:23, 6 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/redirect I am redirecting for now, anyone who wants to merge information can try. W.marsh 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locking high heels[edit]

While such footwear may exist, the contents of this article are pure original research. A couple of pornographic stories (NSFW) are not reliable sources. Maybe a brief mention in some fetishism-related article is in order if sources can be found. Sandstein 05:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing but shops and DeviantART on google. MER-C 06:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief mention into shoe fetishism if this is a common element of pornography. Otherwise delete for lack of references. Shimeru 06:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete As above. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 09:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete as above. JIP | Talk 18:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Shimeru. Danny Lilithborne 22:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Yet another Bizarre fetish... Grutness...wha? 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, sorry, but what sourced content exactly would all of you like to merge? And we still don't know if this is "a common element of pornography", as Shimeru stipulated. (I mean, this is the Internet. There's got to be some porn experts someplace... :-) Sandstein 23:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, as with all unsourced articles, google is your friend. Not that it's the part of the web that I';d normally go trampling though, but... they certainly exist, and I have heard the term before, so... [16], [17] [18]. Having said that, I can find very few references other than in sales outlets. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --MaNeMeBasat 16:45, 3 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 Danielle Foote, delete Underneath the Radar (Danielle Foote's Single). _JD^talk 20:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Foote[edit]

Non-notable reality TV contestant. Unreferenced. The only claims to notability were to release a single (also nominated) which barely made it on the charts at Australia (peaked at #41) and appearing on the cover of a relatively new men's magazine. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. MER-C 06:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neutral/delete - I don't see the Danielle Foote article to be a problem article which attracts vandalism or multiple fancruft ravings, so despite very slender claims to fame I see no strong reasons why it really needs to be deleted. Its reasonably well laid out. The single was released and performed on TV. I recall no other Aust BB contestant to launch a singing career from their appearance on the show. The second article Underneath the Radar (Danielle Foote's Single) is unneccesary, and if the first article survives, is completely redundant and should be deleted. Asa01 06:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep BB seems to be fairly notable. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, BB contestants are not (necessarily) notable, but a single on the Aussie charts (whether "barely" or not) is very definitely enough to qualify under WP:MUSIC, point #2, "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country". Normally, I'm all in favor of deleting reality-tv-cruft, but this seems to be a rare case where actual notability has been achieved. Xtifr _tälk 22:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum (doesn't necessarily apply to those who say "per Xtifr") Delete the single per Capitalistroadster, since there's already an article about the song which mentions this particular version, making the new article redundant. Xtifr _tälk 16:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xtifr. Appears quite Notable (and attractive).--aviper2k7 22:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep singer delete single. Danielle Foote made the Australian charts with "Underneath the Radar". The song is the titletrack of the first Underworld album. That song was a top ten hit for Underworld in Australia. The Underneath the Radar article already mentions Foote's version. If we have a article on the song "Underneath the Radar" it should be based on the Underworld version. Capitalistroadster 01:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment maybe the single should be redirected, then. (No strong feelings either way on my part.) Xtifr _tälk 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really that useful a search term, though. MER-C 13:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn game show contestant. Her single hasn't even broken the Top 40, so I'd hesitate to label it a "hit", and she didn't really win the game either. No real notability as far as I can see. Lankiveil 10:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Noted singer, on BB, charted single. --Oakshade 08:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bio, delete single - I don't care too much about the reality TV aspect, but I agree with Xtifr that she meets the WP:MUSIC standard. Not much point of the separate article regarding her single, though. Quack 688 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. She was notable before the single came out, and the single itself charted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article about her because she is becoming notable for things outseide of BB. Otherwise she would not deserve an article. Merge the single article because very little is being said about it to warrant it's own page. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- anything useful into Big_Brother_Australia#Notable_former_contestants. -- Longhair\^talk 11:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable as a pop star, and meets WP:MUSIC criteria. --SunStar Net^talk 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bio, delete single per Quack.--cj | talk 17:35, 7 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Arnold[edit]

Nom - Notability "asserted" but sources used are self-published; notability not demonstrated via awards, shows, etc., nor are general claims verified through sources other than those that were self-published. Rklawton 06:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO, ghits are irrelevant. MER-C 09:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom, no verifiable sources. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 09:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - CSD G12 - possible copyvio (with a few words added or changed here and there) from here: [19], otherwise delete as per nom. --tgheretford (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speed Delete per above. --Amanduhh 23:37, 2 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 outright. W.marsh 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brea Fire Services Department[edit]

Sigh. Fire department cruft. Do we want an article on every fire dcepartment in the world? User:Zoe|(talk) 06:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't really see a reason to delete this. It is not original research, clearly not spam and to the many people interested in or admiring America's firefighters this might be of interest. I see no difference in keeping this and keeping every article about high schools which we have already established are being kept per policy. Also, fire departments in California are of particular interest because of the number of forrest fires. I see no harm in keeping this. And this from a notorious deletionist! MartinDK 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no policy that schools may be kept, merely a cabal that votes in lock step. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I lean toward delete. As has been exhaustively pointed out in every school-related AfD, there is no policy in place for such things other than the usual notability and verifiability. Plus, users have a right to their "I see no harm in keeping this" opinions, but that is explicitly not a criteria for keeping an article. If there were assertions of notability in the article it would be one thing, but again, why should some things (schools, fire houses) be exempt from the explicit policy that an article must assert its subject's notability?--Dmz5 20:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom, or Merge (per WP:LOCAL), GAAAAH! Local-trivia-cruft is seriously getting out of hand! Xtifr _tälk 22:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously, I am biased because I created the article but I think there is enough information about this topic to make it worthwhile. Outside of the school argument mentioned above, there are many other areas of Wikipedia that have tons of "useless" articles. Examples: The Miami Dolphins starting quarterbacks; the ABC Barn Dance, the National Barn Dance, Howard E. Scott, The Rainmakers (KC band). I personally don't consider the Miami Dolphins all that important and I certainly don't care at all for country music radio shows or certain musicians, especially ones I have never heard of before. However, they are important to someone, so much so that they took the time to create the article and are valuable to someone else who will read the article. Epolk 18:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fact that we have "tons of useless articles" is not justification for keeping yet another useless article. My fundamental criterion for keeping an article is that multiple separate people, independent of the subject, have written and published works of their own about them, demonstrating that they find the subject notable enough that they have gone to the effort of creating and publishing works of their own about it. This subject fails on that account. D enni ^talk 19:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:ILIKEIT is not an inclusion (or exclusion) criterion—but it is an essay I think you should read. The most appropriate guideline here seems to be WP:LOCAL (which you should also read). Is this topic of more than local interest? I seriously doubt it. On the other hand, to pick one of your examples (which you obviously culled from our recent-edit lists), The Rainmakers (KC band) is a band I'd never heard of before stumbling across it at random. But they have charted albums and singles on two continents. Obviously a topic of interest to more than just one local community! And it needed a complete rewrite, which I provided, not because "I like it" (for all I know, I'd hate them), but because it was a topic of obvious international interest. Your local fire department, I'm afraid, is not a topic of international interest. Speaking as a fellow Californian, I don't think it's of statewide interest. And that means that WP:LOCAL is the guideline to follow. Xtifr _tälk 18:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I live in Southern California, and there is nothing notable about this fire department, believe me. As for the list of articles that Epolk thinks are non-notable, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the first few are articles I've recently worked on. I'm not even going to try to justify those articles here, as such a discussion is not germane to this discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The vote will come out however it comes out. If it goes down I guess I will have to recommend the other fire department pages for delete and start looking for other articles that have only been written or worked on by one person. Epolk 22:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nomination for deletion of articles solely because only one person has worked on them is not grounds for deletion, you would be violating WP:POINT if you did such a thing, and I warn you of a block if you do. If you want to delete articles which should be deleted, then by all means, do so, but bad faith nominations out of revenge will not be tolerated. I agree that most other fire department articles should be deleted, but if there is some notability which can be proven, then they might survive an AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment - Sorry about the snarky comments above. It appears that my teenage son got into my Wikipedia account this weekend and thought he was helping me out. I didn't see any of this till I got into work this morning. I am going to change my settings at home so that it doesn't remember my password and am going to change my password as well. I know that saying this now will seem like I am just trying to get out of the things posted above but if you check the IP addresses for the above postings you will find that they aren't from the IP that I do most of my editing from. Epolk 16:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either Merge with Brea, California (per WP:LOCAL) or keep as-is. Maybe we don't need articles on every fire service, but that doesn't mean we should nuke useful information. JYolkowski // talk 23:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I, too, live in SoCal and really don't think this is noteworthy. Heimstern Läufer 04:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would like to remind everyone that WP:LOCAL is proposed! It is not an actual policy. I see no harm is having tons of information of local interest only, because maybe someone local would like that information. Ariel. 06:46, 8 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. W.marsh 17:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QED International[edit]

This article was speedied under WP:CSD#A7 (not notable biography) and ~~WP:CSD#G12~~ WP:CSD#G11 (blatant advertising) on 16 November. The article was re-created on 27 November.

I know that according the rules, re-creations can be speedied immediately. However, it's not clear to me that it should have been speedied in the first place; looking at the remarks on Talk:QED International, it was mentioned in NY Times, for instance. So I decided to bring it here for wider discussion (perhaps I should have brought it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review instead?).

No vote from me, since I'm not familiar with the film industry. Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC), amended 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM The evidence is here, The recreator of the article, besides promoting the company pretty blatantly on the talk page, openly admits that he represents the company. WP:COI. MartinDK 07:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant spam. It's not every day that you get a self-admitted corporate spa. So tagged. MER-C 09:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the CSD tag. It does not matter that it's written by somebody from the company; that is not a reason for deletion. What matters is whether it is an advertisement. In my opinion, it doesn't read as one. It may be that the company is not notable, and I'm fine if the article is deleted for that reason or for any other reason. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You may want to read G4, G11 and WP:COI again. MartinDK 09:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I read G4 and mentioned it in the nomination statement. G11 says "simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well." I'm not sure which part of WP:COI you want to refer to, but I note that it states "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies [WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:C] are closely adhered to." Please be more specific. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Being written by someone from the company makes it obvious corporate vanity, see WP:SPAM. We are being urged to take a zero tolerance approach to this stuff, see here. MER-C 10:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm, it appears I didn't read G4 that carefully: in fact, it doesn't apply to speedies ("This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions …"). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment First of all you should be aware that Wikipedia policies are not laws. It is not the exact wording of the policy that counts but the overall meaning of what is written. As mentioned above we are being asked to take a tough stand against any kind of WP:SPAM. What that means in Wiki language is that we should interpret the policy in such a way that any content potentially representing WP:COI should be deleted. The fact that this has been speedied once before means that an admin has already determined that this to be considered spam. If you believe there were any errors in how the article was being treated you should take the matter to deletion review. We only determine if the article fulfills our policies, deletion review determines if there were errors in the procedure. MartinDK 10:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I am well aware that it is about the overall meaning, but we seem to disagree what the overall meaning is. You're right that Brad Patrick said that we should take a tough stand. His opinion is worth taking into account as he works full time on Wikipedia, but in the end it's just his opinion. Except for legal matters, he does not decide our policies, nor how they are interpreted; that's up to the wider community. I think that "any content potentially representing WP:COI should be deleted" is not currently supported by our policies, neither in letter nor in spirit.
        I came across the article yesterday. What was I to do? I couldn't delete it because I think it does not satisfy WP:CSD. I concede I could have taken it to WP:DRV, but I chose to bring it here, mainly because AfD is a more light-weight process. If it is decided here that the article should be deleted (as seems very likely) then that's it. But I'll take it to DRV next time, especially since I'm getting curious how wide G11 is currently interpreted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and protect if necessary until notability satisfied -- we all hate spam. /Blaxthos 15:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Alkibeachkid Do you all watch movies? Obviously not, otherwise you would want to read about movies in production which is what this page does. I'm a huge fan of Richard Gere and Terrance Howard and if you all want to hold back popular information from Wikipedia, you're only limiting information.
- This is the first edit by this user. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM for a company that does not meet WP:CORP Chondrite 20:55, 7 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, but please improve referencing in the article. W.marsh 21:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Professional Wrestling Alliance[edit]

non notable group. formed in 2006. Rwqw9 06:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 38 non-wiki ghits, fails WP:CORP. MER-C 09:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ewxo 10:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 03:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --- Paulley 10:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason for deletion --Voievod 22:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable indyBooyakaDell 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Japan is a highly visible contributor to professional wrestling, and this alliance is Japan's version of the old NWA in America. For this reason it is notable, and further I would suggest this nomination has been made in bad faith. Curse of Fenric 09:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Far more notable organisation than 90% of American independent promotions. A proper Google search [20] returns 11,500 non-Wiki hits, and this does not even take into account that it is a Japanese organisation and therefore a large number of search results will not appear due to the search being in English. 81.151.42.96 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Indrian 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This does not fail WP:CORP, as alleged above. [21] and [22] clearly illustrate this point. Also professional wrestling is covered in newspaper and magazine articles in Japan on a daily basis. 81.151.42.96 17:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above comment shows without a doubt that those who have supported the deletion know very little about pro wrestling. Recommend an executive decision to retain the article (if I may!). Curse of Fenric 20:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would also be beneficial if people took time to familiarise themselves with the Afd procedures [23] specifically the point which states: The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. Notability has been proved, this article should be kept. 81.151.42.96 08:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see nothing wrong. Govvy 15:43, 8 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 07:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers & Professions[edit]

This article was submitted for proposed deletion, but the PROD tag was removed. The article, which is over a year and a half old, asserts a numerological relationship between the day of the month on which a person is born and the occupations for which the person is most suited. No sources are provided, making the article unverifiable. (Note that I do not expect the article's supporters to find verification in reliable sources that the numerological relationship is true, but they should at least be expected to provide verification that this is a well-known belief, as opposed to being either original research or the views of a single author not accepted in the larger occult community.) I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lengthy, unsourced, made-up nonsense; how did it last this long? Opabinia regalis 07:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:OR MartinDK 08:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as made-up nonsense per Opabinia . meshach 08:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, pseudoscientific original research. MER-C 09:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:OR, WP:V and WP:N. It is nonesense with no assertion of how widely held belief in this nonesense actually is... WJBscribe 11:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the present contents do not justify the existence of this page. There are many such nonsense in the wikipedia! --Bhadani 17:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Wikipedia has acquired the characteristics of an encyclopedia based on general consensus and the consensus would largely be limited to the basic knowledge base of our editors. As such, it is not strange that many nonsense (including the one like above) shall continue to remain a part of wikipedia, and many writers would have written many books on such nonsense! :) --Bhadani 18:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as either original research or unsourced and unverified. JIP | Talk 18:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV pushing veiled behind "Many claim", in addition to lack of sources.-Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 23:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Interesting. It says I should have been a writer or an artist. I am actually both of these by profession :)[reply]
Strong delete unsourced, patent nonsense and POV. But then again if we have an entire article devoted to the relationship between race and intelligence.... *cry* +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have many things which we do not require here including the Numbers & Professions crafted by me! But, based on what I have read in some books. However, Race and intelligence is still greater nonsense indeed. --Bhadani 11:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Nearly every psychological, astrological, and other -ogical system tends to offer insight (forecasting) into what careers are best in light of whatever makes that system unique (in this case numbers). I am guessing the information was culled from the further reading sources, possibly hedging to avoide copyright infringement by lumping it all together. If citations could be found and the overall length reduced, it would be nice to merge it with one of the Numerology articles. --Willscrlt 13:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nosense Banvasi 07:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm glad to see several references have been added since the nom - I'm not convinced this deserves its own article, but it might have a home in the main Numerology article. I'd like to see a summarised version like the "Number definitions" section that's already there (but don't just copy-paste the whole thing!). Quack 688 08:39, 4 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 CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 08:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZPointProducts[edit]

non notable company. formed in 2006. Rwqw9 06:55, 2 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 07:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viper Scorpions[edit]

non notable company. formed in 2006. Rwqw9 06:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP; 9 ghits, so fails WP:V too; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 09:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree fails WP:CORP, WP:N and WP:V! Clearly designed to promote the company e.g. sentences like, "ViperScorpions (employees of ViperScorpion) allow a relaxed work environment to allow the steady flow of open ideas and creativity". WJBscribe 11:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spammish, rewrite if company does something significant. Just H 21:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the humorous looking viper scorpion image and section on workers working in a relaxed environment. Too spammy and not notable.--aviper2k7 23:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article can be created again once there is a noted game from the company Alf photoman 13:05, 3 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. El_C 12:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never Dream of Dying (film)[edit]

This is a future film, supposedly written and produced by grammar school students. There are no sources. Either it's a hoax, or an attempt to promote the film. Also the article's creator is the writer mentioned in the article. Delete'TheRingess 07:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hope their project works out well but this is not for wilipedia per WP:CRYSTAL & WP:NOT#SOAP. meshach 08:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seeing as it hasn't been completed, shown at festivals or picked up a distribution deal then this article is speculation at best, which is unencyclopedic. The article is better off on the author's blog or Myspace. (aeropagitica) 09:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either crystal balling, hoax, or NN. Take your pick. Unless these kids have really deep pockets to pay off EON Productions the odds of this seeing the light of day are nil. 23skidoo 19:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as crystal balling.--Oneonex 22:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 23:02, 2 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 07:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa rothstein[edit]

Simply being the wife of someone famous is not enough criteria for her own page. Ocatecir 09:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. She's not even his wife yet, but the fact of marriage won't confer notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. WJBscribe 11:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. Shimeru 12:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, barely notable, I'm sure a few people have heard of her, but she hasn't even DONE anything. --Liface 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable--Paukrus 00:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. DrKiernan 08:22, 4 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, but will move. A merge/redirect could still happen but doesn't need AfD. W.marsh 03:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Sinclair (United States)[edit]

She lost...in 2004. Notable? Not so. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 19:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the election, per WP:C&E
- Not plausible: this is not a likely search term. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Suzanne Sinclair (politician). Major party candidate for Congressional election. Owen 06:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, not worth keeping as a distinct article. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect (not sure there is anything worth merging) to the main election article. JoshuaZ 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't find out how to remove this AfD from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 23: it does not appear to be transcluded there but shows up nonetheless. Any more experienced admins care to help? Thanks. Sandstein 09:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC) -- Problem resolved thanks to Amarkov. Sandstein 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, nothing worth merging and not a worthwile search term, too. MER-C 10:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability beyond the fact she sought nomination, won and contested the seat (the usual process). Is there anything distinctive about her or her policies? Is she or her campaign remembered in US political circles? WJBscribe 10:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sarge Baldy. The year is irrelevant. Just H 23:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Just wondering, do those who support keeping the article feel that everyone who stands for election to any country's legislature (though maybe only for a 'major party') is automatically sufficiently notable for Wikipedia? This would seem the logical outcome to avoid a US-centric bias to the encyclopedia... WJBscribe 23:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. And the title is awful too - if this ends up as keep then it really should be moved! Inner Earth 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per people that chose redirect. Delete's a bit harsh, but certainly not uncalled for. --Wizardman 02:09, 9 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. Existance of reliable sources or of otherwise meeting WP:MUSIC was never established. W.marsh 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Dastardly[edit]

This poorly written and completely unsourced article about a band whose notability is marginal (at best) fails to meet any of the 12 criteria listed in WP:MUSIC. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The movie for which they contributed music is itself not notable, and their record releases are not with major labels. Fails WP:MUSIC--Anthony.bradbury 22:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable, notable. Tulkolahten 22:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the sources. Doc Tropics 19:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; see nomination. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only is the information verifiable, the band is notable. I have heard their music in several different forms of media and they have a cult following. In addition to this, the user, Doc Tropics states, "This poorly written and completely unsourced article about a band whose notability is marginal (at best)..." This is an OBVIOUSLY biased statement that seems like he has an axe to grind. Don't delete the article because there is an audience for it and it's problems are fixable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.193.7 (talk • contribs)

Comment Yes, I have an axe to grind - against poorly written, unsourced articles on non-notable subjects. Call it a character flaw. Simply saying "this band is notable" does not actually establish its notability, it simply asserts your opinion. Can you back up your claim with a verifiable source? If so, why not put it in the article? Doc Tropics 07:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simply saying that the band's "notability is marginal (at best)" does not establish that the band isn't notable, it simply asserts your opinion, which in this case happens to be wrong. And yes, I have something that will establish notability and it wouldn't be hard for you to except you know that youi might prove yourself wrong and that is scary, isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.181.193.7 (talk • contribs).

This article is completely unsourced! Please post this alleged proof of notability here; there is none in the article. Doc Tropics 19:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, closing admin please discount WP:ISAYITSNOTABLETHEREFOREITIS !votes. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - google seems to turn up quite a few results, including some results on lyrics sites that prob wouldn't publish without notability. I think WP:BAND is out to get the I created the band with my high school friends and we played at the talent show kind of thing, not the kind of group that appears to have a following and has several thousand ghits. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)}
Weak Delete All Music Guide only lists one self-published album, which fails WP:MUSIC two ways. (Although it does confirm that this is probably not a hoax.) Change to keep if (and only if) verifiable evidence from reliable sources is provided to show that they meet some of the other criteria of WP:MUSIC. Otherwise, well, guys, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, and if you just want free web space, MySpace is thataway! Xtifr _tälk 23:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though, I agree that the article needs improvement and may not be written in a perfect way, this is a notable band! They have been featured in major television shows quite regularly and they were in a few major Hollywood movie. In addition to this, their following isn't regional, they have followings all throughout the country. In addition to this, if you google this band you find that every bit of this information is in some sort of verifiable source. There seems to be some contention between the Doc Tropics guy and this article, because if he really wanted to simply make the articles better he could easily do this himself since he is obviously aware of how to source the articles. I did read all of this information in some form or fasion in other sources before I tried to find them on Wikipedia. Do a google, they are nationwide notable and are consistently involved at least minimally in major projects that give them a following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanish angel987 (talk • contribs) — Spanish angel987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you could provide some of those notable television shows, it would be quite helpful. Especially if you gave the source, so we didn't have to look it up. -Patstuart^talk|edits 10:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band is notable and the article fixable and not much worse than many of the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenlittlegirl (talk • contribs)

Comment I know a few of them, and it shouldn't be hard to find. However I am not aware how to source so I will have to wait untill I have a significant amount of freetime so that I could read about all of that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenlittlegirl (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kynoid[edit]

This neologism, referring to sentient dog-like creatures, has only 249 Google hits, most of which are wiki mirrors or forums, and does not appear to be in widespread use. It's unverifiable, non-notable, and probably original research. Nydas 10:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to an aspect featured in the Noon Universe series of novels, most of which were not translated into English. Those that were have long since gone out of print, and thus hard to track down. The authors of this article had no recourse but to rely on the original Russian texts in order to create this article. The existance of the said texts can be verified through Arkady Strugasky's official homepage. As for claims of being non-notable, it may not be not notable in English-speaking countries, but in Russia, the work of Strugasky brothers remains fairly popular, which, in my eyes, is enough to warrent an inclusion. --Strannik 20:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NEO fancruft, with a tedious and uninformative list to boot. Pete Fenelon 02:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- May I notice that per definition "Neologism is a word, term, or phrase which has been recently created"? "27 years ago" hardly qualifies as "recently" IMHO. :) --Koveras ^☭ 10:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And second thought, after looking at the article again, I am sorely tempted to change my mind. The article is kind of iffy when it comes that parts that don't have to do with Headies. And since there already is a Headies article, well... --Strannik 07:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- but the question remains, how to call a god-shaped sentinent race? Werewolf is a more particular case. If you suggest a better word, let's move the article there. ellol 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this fancruft. WMMartin 17:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything verifiable is already in Headies; the rest of the article is probably OR. Searching google, there does seem to be some evidence of use of the term outside of the Noon Universe works, although a lot of confusion seems to have been caused by an unrelated use of the same name for a Doctor Who alien race. But there's nothing that I'd class as verifiable, or even important. JulesH 11:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Ellol. It's clearly verifiable by google [24]. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which site from that listing are you saying classifies as a reliable source to verify the article? JulesH 17:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JulesH. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:13, 6 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psytexx[edit]

Non-notable open source software Memmke 09:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 111,000 ghits. Seems notable to me. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 10:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most of the google hits seem to be software directories, not an indicator of notability IMO. Memmke 10:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; notability is at least asserted as the first Amiga MOD tracker for Palm OS. -Toptomcat 23:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 02:12, 2 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, Sandstein 10:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is asserted. utcursch | talk 11:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability is established. -- Chondrite 20:25, 6 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. I have no doubt that I'm asking for an ass-kicking here, but this entire article reeks of self-promotional material if it actually exists, or a hoax if it doesn't (which... makes a lot of sense). There's absolutely no reason to let this farce of an AfD continue; a handful of people (possibly even one) are the ones campaigning for its continued existence, and the strongest piece of evidence (the scanned newspaper article) is one of the most heavily photoshopped images I've ever seen. Between suspect sockpuppets, a dubious level of notability, and an unreliable primary source, I don't feel that this article should be on Wikipedia. If this is a real religion (seems to be a bit of a debate about that, but that's neither here nor there), an article can be written at a later date at such a time as the movement is actually notable. That time is not now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janicism[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Looks like pure original research and possibly something made up in a library. Also NN, "Janicism religion" garners 11 ghits. Speedied as nonsense, recreated, contested Tubezone 10:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janicism is a factual article. All things start off small, and Janicism wont expand suddenly overnight. The fact is, Janicism is a real religion. There are people who follow it, and therefore I maintain they have a right to have it documented on Wikipedia, which is why I wrote the article (which has since been expanded by a fellow practicing Janicist, showing it is not false.) I strongly believe that this article should be upheld in the public view.Mlc409 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — Mlc409 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete This is clearly a hoax. Google can find nothing at all to verify this. Not even a single blog, nothing. IrishGuy ^talk 10:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, speedy if possible. MER-C 10:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janicism is a real religion, but these things cannot simply turn up overnight. We have slowly been expanding our religion over many months, and have decided to write an article to try to reach out to more people. Janicism is definitely not made up, as some of its views are documented in books - see "Mort" by Terry Pratchett, as seen in the article. Do not delete. Ichbinbored 10:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — Ichbinbored (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually, the article doesn't state that "Mort" documents this religion. When refering to books being written about people after their deaths: This is documented in the book "Mort", by Terry Pratchett, however the fundamental beliefs surrounding this are different to those of Janicists (who follow the Parable of Reed). All that means is that "Mort" mentioned the idea of people having books written about their life activities, it doesn't mean that "Mort" in any way referenced "Janicism". IrishGuy ^talk 10:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think this is real, i've heard about it before. 80.47.56.21 10:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — 80.47.56.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The founder may be a budding L Ron Hubbard for all I know, but you have to have some verifiable outside notability to get into WP, please read WP:NOTE. There's plenty of other places on the internet to document your beliefs, and, no, you don't have a right to do it here. ~~Delete~~ (vote redone, see below) Tubezone 10:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have articles on Christianity. You have articles on Islam. You have articles on Hinduism. I fail to see why an article on Janicism, a religion in it's own right is objectable. I do apologise if my comments come across as arrogant but I can't understand why some religions receive documentation on Wikipedia, but others do not? mlc409 10:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's real simple: those are notable religions by WP standards, Janicism isn't. Tubezone 10:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dudes chill out janicism is real mannnn ive heard bout it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.105.204 (talk • contribs)

— 82.43.105.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: 82.43.105.204 is Mlc409 (talk · contribs), per [25]

Delete. I agree, this is a hoax. Quite funny but shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Not a single ref to confirm this 'religion' exists. WJBscribe 10:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as any of the following: A non-notable religion, which may or may not attract coverage at some indeterminate point in the future, thus becoming notable; a hoax, although possibly one based on the works of a notable author; a group of Terry Pratchett fans trying to do for his works what the religion of the Jedi Knights has done for George Lucas (as distinct from a straight-out hoax). In the first and third cases, we've got the cart (a Wikipedia entry) before the horse (the inconvenient acquisition of notability). In the second case, we've just got a hoax. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janicism is slowly gaining popularity, and its beliefs can be seen in everyday life - just look around you. Now is it undocumented? I think not. Ichbinbored 10:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it shouldn't pose a problem for you to provide this documentation with verifiable sources. IrishGuy ^talk 10:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per num. utcursch | talk 11:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE There is proof. There are verifiable sources. I have found this link here [26]. I am also in the process of scanning a NEWSPAPER ARTICLE documenting janicism. Please be patient. mlc409

Blogspot != reliable source. MER-C 11:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially a blog that was created today with multiple entries all minutes apart to make it appear to be an older blog. IrishGuy ^talk 11:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and 1 newspaper article != notable... and why not tell us the name of the newspaper and its date of publication? That way someone can look it up. Tubezone 11:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A blog that was created today? ROFL. This "coordinated defence" is starting to become too silly. MER-C 12:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "source" blog is a complete hoax. It is made up of entries from three other blogs: http://coppersblog.blogspot.com/ [27] [28] [29], http://bluesandtwos.blogspot.com/ [30] [31], and http://jes.blogs.shellprompt.net/ [32]. The only original entry is your "source" on this hoax religion. Frankly, at this point you are guilty of plageurism for stealing other people's content and passing it off as someone else's in your attempt to create false sources. IrishGuy ^talk 18:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is just a blog entry about one of our festivals, its an example. So what if its not reliable, its a source. And someone set up a page ages ago here that was supposed to talk about the religion, but I think she gave it up a bit later. Ichbinbored 11:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That, too, is a hoax as it links to this article which didn't exist a month ago. IrishGuy ^talk 11:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By 'ages ago' you seem to mean less than a month ago?!? And it speculatively (and prophetically!) links to this very article on Wikipedia before it was created. Wow, make up your sources before you start this article- I'm impressed... WJBscribe 11:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the page, it says "An article about Our fundamental beliefs is being compiled, and should be completed towards the end of 2006." Being compiled means it is being made. It was posted today when we completed it. Obviously, so she wouldn't have to update the page later, she put a link there so it would be ready when it was completed. Ichbinbored 11:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if I write a webpage saying, "I am going to write an article about X and put it on Wikipedia", that blog is not external evidence of the existence of X when I come to justify the Wikipedia article. WJBscribe 11:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, but it surely must help. Ichbinbored 11:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way must it help? In order to show notability, you'll need reliable independent sources. Currently, the two sources cited are a blog with some funny entry timestamps and a website which says (as WJBscribe so aptly puts it), "I'm going to write an article about X and put it on Wikipedia". Leaving aside the blog, in what way is the website independent of the religion? That's the crux of the matter for me at the moment - when independent and reliable sources start talking about this religion, it becomes notable. It doesn't turn up here in order for independent and reliable sources to start talking about it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot make your own sources nor can you act as a reliable source yourself. How hard is that to understand? We keep seeing these far out articles with people so desperate to keep their article they will do anything to make us believe that this isn't just something they made up in school one day. MartinDK 12:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. MartinDK 12:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to publish the scanned newspaper article shortly. Also,I'm in the process of uploading a Janicist book burning video on to youtube. This certainly is not a wind up, and it's slightly offensive that our beliefs are seemingly being belittled and ridiculed. mlc409 — user:mlc409 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Youtube != reliable source. Please read the guideline before trying to verify this article. MER-C 12:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a video? This should be fun! MartinDK 12:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So will the article no doubt be. Its amazing what some people can achieve with Photoshop! WJBscribe 12:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want a scanned article. Just tell us in which newspaper the article is in, and what date, there's ways to look it up. It'll take you a couple of seconds to add this info to the bottom of the article. Tubezone 20:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, mlc409 claims that he is going to put up a newspaper scan...then a newspaper scan does show up.[33] Unfortunately, it was Ichbinbored who put it up. Sockpuppetry? Second, I have contacted the editor of the newspaper and will shortly receive a reply to concretely clarify whether or not an article as this was ever published in the Oldham Evening Chronicle. IrishGuy ^talk 20:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what you would consider to be proof? Every source we find you manage to establish a way of making it illegitimate. Even if it's not. Annoying. If we didn't feel so strongly about our beliefs then we would probably give up as we feel very much ganged up against. The fact is this: JANICISM EXISTS. Regardless of how many people follow it. We follow it. We believe in it. Therefore it should be documented on Wikipedia. This is how I see it.mlc409 — user:mlc409 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The sort of proof we are looking for is explained at WP:RS. It might have been an idea if Ichbinbored (which is a poor attempt at translating 'I am bored' into German if further evidence of this user's intentions were needed) had read them before creating the article... PS. I worship my cat- can he have a page on Wikipedia? WJBscribe 12:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have better chances of making into Wikipedia for worshipping your cat than these kids. Tell me, what do you do in this video? MartinDK 12:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid not, worshipping your cat is quite different from an article on a religion. I should clarify that the ichbinbored name is one used by the user generically. It really has no relevance to this discussion over the Janicism article. Discussing/attacking the character of the editor is not really acceptable. It is the suitability of the Janicism article for wikipedia in discussion here. mlc409 — user:mlc409 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No what is being discussed here is your home made sources and pathetic attempts at either canvassing or sockpuppetry. Now, back to the video. What do you do? Dance around Stonehenge in togas? MartinDK 13:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD (WP:HOAX). --Brad Beattie (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete They worship someone called "Janice" (surname probably "Reed"), they have sacred vegetables (including "Carrots, Aubergines, Apples [sic] and Pumpkins") and they believe that broccoli and sweetcorn are "satanic". All the blog entries, poorly photoshopped local newspaper articles and sockpuppet accounts in the world won't convince me this isn't a hoax. Demiurge 13:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, Buddha, and Adonai, delete this as rapidly as possible. I don't care if the religion actually exists or not, it's very obviously non-notable, and attempts by its "followers" to falsify sources (and non-relable sources, at that!) mean that the page should also probably be salted. -- Kicking222 13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how many people worship it, it matters how many reliable sources there are. 0 means Delete. Also: WP:CSD says hoaxes shouldn't be speeded. BCoates 13:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as WP:HOAX. Valrith 15:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is off the subject a bit, but I find it quite offensive that you can insult my name like this. Try searching for "ichbinbored" on Google and you will see that I receive 9 out of the 10 results on the first page. Ichbinbored is simply a slogan, it is in no way supposed to be a literal translation. NOT DELETE. Ichbinbored 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are not here to debate your name. Second, could you explain to me why the blog you created is full of stuff from other blogs created before it? I am curious because Google seems to be defying your amazing line of logic. Third, what is the update on the video? MartinDK 16:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well if you read up a bit, WJBscribe said "Ichbinbored (which is a poor attempt at translating 'I am bored' into German if further evidence of this user's intentions were needed)", so it was not me who brought the subject up. Perhaps you could mention this to him/her. And I actually am bored by your constant abuse of our religion. It is recognised in the UK, and is soon gaining international status. DO NOT DELETE Ichbinbored 16:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this clearly goes against the beliefs of my religion, Floydism. And for those of you who may doubt this, I will be writing a blog entry, creating a youtube video, and then uploading a photoshopped news article as "proof." Wavy G 16:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A.S.A.P. - As per WP:HOAX. Also delete Image:Janicism article.jpg as per WP:HOAX too. --tgheretford (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quickly per WP:HOAX. Creating content for an article is bad form. meshach 17:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the name space. Non-notable hoax, supposed followers are not helping by making up sources that make it appear notable. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 19:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Do not delete'. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. 80.43.107.228 19:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — 80.43.107.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Same editor also vandalized the AfD summary[reply]

Indeed everyone is entitled to an opinion. What matters here is the consensus of opinions to which everyone is entitled, which appears to be overwhelmingly against the article. If by "everybody is entitled to an opinion", you mean that everyone's allowed to write what they want on Wikipedia, well that's a different story - making up religions is something you can do in the privacy of your own home, but posting them on Wikipedia is bad and naughty. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. I can't find anything on Google except blogs and MySpace pages, which hardly confer notability. Hut 8.5 19:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I worship Snowball II, and Snowball says this article says this article should be speedily deleted as it's obvious this article will not have verifiable, reliable sources before this AfD is over. Tubezone 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there's not a chance in hell it'll be kept and the people behind it are disrupting wikipedia by altering votes [34] [35] and vandalising userpages. Let's not waste any more time on this. Demiurge 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The admins can call a halt to this per WP:SNOW. Note the anon IP's all come from England, where have we seen that before? Maybe here? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fosh (game) Tubezone 20:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball it please -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stick a fork in it, Salt, Ban one of the users as a sockpuppet (if not both)- only ghits for Janicism turn up some pseudo-pornographic Chinese blog: [36]. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If Janicism is real, Wikipedia can wait until some verifiable reliable sources are found before including it in the encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 22:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete: this is actully really rather intersting to me, having read the artical, and read the discustion so far, I do not have any connections myself with Janicism, but you are asking for evidence of its existance, and you are expecting that a small manority religon (if it exists or not, I am not here to debate) will be able to come up with links from places like the bbc or something, but it isn't really going to happen is it? interstingly you have not found any infomation to prove that janicism does not exist, maybe you should try and do that, although I do understand that acording to wikipedia you don't have to, but it would be nice to see some evidence against it. also a while ago, i alerted an Admin about a poor quality artical and he E-mailed me back saying "as long as infomation is factul and is not biased, it is allowed on wikipedia" there can be no question that it is not biased, and as for whether or not it is factul, does remain to be seen, but wikipedia is meant to be a place to share infomation, and fit more infomation than you could on paper, so I say keep it, and spread the infomation about this religion, and its time for a lot of you to grow up, stop empowering yourselfs from your keyboard, and get off your high horses, and just accept it as infomation and move on. --GDMCR — GDMCR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).

How does one go about proving a negative? How do you prove something doesn't exist? Can you provide irrefutable evidence that I don't harbor an invisible elephant on my roof? IrishGuy ^talk 22:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has your roof fallen in for some unknown reason? No? Then there is no invisible elephant on your roof. Irrefutable proof. 80.47.11.236 09:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — 80.47.11.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That is far from irrefutable proof. Much as this article is far from true. IrishGuy ^talk 13:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, isn't that the essence of faith? And isn't faith the basis of any religion? So, what you're saying is, we need to have faith in Janicism? Ahh, it all makes sense now. I "see the light." Wavy G 23:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We're glad to have you. However, perhaps you would like to familiarize yourself with part of the rules, as per WP:V. As a matter of fact, several of us did do a google search, and were unable to come up with anything. Another rule is WP:NOTE, and (I'm sorry to say), in this case, WP:NFT. Just because something is made up by a small group of people does not make it notable enough for inclusion. If it had a following of even a thousand followers worldwide, it would probably be notable for inclusion. But as it stands, there's no sources for the information, and it looks fairly non-notable and unverifiable. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather hard to believe the above user's comments given that this post is the very first action s/he has ever taken on wikipedia...--Dmz5 23:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete mind-bogglingly stupid religioncruft. I also find it hilarious how the proponents are making a great case for deletion without any help from us. Danny Lilithborne 23:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Danny, what about the rule that Wikipedia publishes all information that exists, even information that isn't verifiable or notable? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say gaze into the hypnotic power of my evil eye! Danny Lilithborne 23:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the reasons listed above (WP:RS and self promotion), although this article for deletion is the funniest I've ever seen.--aviper2k7 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do I Delete thee? Let me count the ways: WP:NFT. WP:OR (this and this link back to Wikipedia!). WP:RS. WP:WEB. WP:HOAX. And finally...WP:BOLLOCKS. But hey, it was amusing, so that's something. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as "pure bollocks." No reliable cites, some likely hoax cites. Edison 01:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think salting will do any good, they'll probably just make up another hoax (like, say Sir Charles Broccoli??) to disrupt Wikipedia, then use socks and vandalism to troll yet another AfD with silly arguments. An admin with checkuser privileges needs to check the edit history of the IP addresses of the contributors and lay some blocks on the sources of this and other joke articles. I do want to see the YouTube video, though, I wonder if they'll baptize a kid by whacking him on the noggin with an eggplant. (I don't want to see a Janicist bris) Also, how can they call a mushroom non-kosher for being "low", but a root vegetable is sacred? Tubezone 05:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually find it really abusive, and I think that others will do so too, that you are calling this religion "bollocks". Would you like to go on to the Islam and Christianity pages and tell them that their religion is "bollocks"? Even if Janicism is a minority religion, it still exists, and we should not have to put up with this level of abuse. 80.47.11.236 09:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — 80.47.11.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- With respect, that's a false argument. Islam and Christianity (and a myriad of other religions, denominations, sects and cults) have attracted newspaper and/or scholarly coverage. Therefore, not only do we know that they exist, they're eminently notable. Janicism, on the other hand, has a dicey-looking blog, a website which says nothing more than "we exist", an apparently photoshopped newspaper article and an alleged YouTube video. The best that collection proves is that there is a relatively coherent group of people who call what they do by that name (and even then I have my doubts). There's no notability there, and there's precious little verifiability. If that were all we could find on an established world religion, I'd have no hesitation in deleting the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And also I thought there were no votes. It says at the top that the editors decide not through counting heads. So why are you saying that they have been changed if they don't mean anything? A religion doesn't have to be internationally recognised to exist. Ichbinbored ^talk 10:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as the international recognition point goes, that's true enough. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a website about everything which exists. To use the hoary old chestnut, I exist (and in a nicely verifiable manner), but I don't get an article just because of winning the genetic lottery. If I want an article, I need to do something significant first. Likewise, were I to found a Satanic cult (an example plucked at random, although there are a lot of AfDs on these), said cult would also exist but remain obstinately non-notable until it had burned a church or two down or done something equally newsworthy. I'm willing to assume good faith and say that the religion exists, but it hasn't achieved noteworthiness yet. In terms of the "changing votes" thing, what was being referred to then was that certain accounts had actually altered what other people had said - changing a phrase such as "Delete this page, it is as noteworthy as the religion I've founded" to read "Keep this page, it is related to the religion I've founded" and so on. Pretending that people have said things that they hadn't is very bad form. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those such accounts/IPs should be banned, but there is a newspaper article about one of the festivals. How large does such an event have to be before it is considered noteworthy? Ichbinbored ^talk 10:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, would like there to be at least two newspaper articles to start with - regardless of the size of the festivals they're talking about. Further, there is a considerable belief that the article was created with Photoshop. IrishGuy was in the process of checking its bona fides last I heard, so it may ultimately prove unhelpful in this cause. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I can't afford Photoshop, and I don't think that Mlc409 could either. All I know is that he found that article in the Oldham Evening Chronicle, scanned it and uploaded it. Ichbinbored ^talk 11:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget which account you were logged into yesterday? Mlc409 didn't upload the article, you did. How does one forget scanning and uploading an article? IrishGuy ^talk 13:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't actually said it before, but regardless of that, we only have your word that neither of you could afford it. I'm not saying that it has been photoshopped, although other users are saying that. I've sent a message to IrishGuy to see if he's heard back from the Chronicle's editor, which would clinch the matter of the veracity of the newspaper article once and for all. It still remains to be seen, however, whether that's enough to move this into notable territory. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there seems to be no way of proving that we can't afford it, but Mlc409 usually tells the truth and so I'd be surprised if it was fake. Ichbinbored ^talk 11:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly sit there and say, "Mlc409 usually tells the truth," when it is quite clear (you've already slipped up at least twice in this Afd when recalling which one of your accounts did what) that you are' Mlc409, automatically making him and yourself a liar? Wavy G 22:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Affordability is a non-argument anyway. The term "Photoshopped" tends to get used as an umbrella term for all digital image manipulation, regardless of what software was actually used. There are plenty of cheap and even free image manipulation applications out there, and numerous other ways to achieve the same results. Saying "Photoshop is too expensive" doesn't eliminate any suspicion of fakery. 81.178.72.113 14:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)— 81.178.72.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Janicism is definately a real religion. Many of my friends have recently joined the religion and have tried to persuade me to join aswell but i am a strong christian so i declined their offers. 82.26.33.76 11:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — 82.26.33.76 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

^^The above comment^^ was left on the actual article itself, so I cut + pasted it here. Ichbinbored ^talk 11:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can guarantee you that no photoshopped articles appear on the Janicism page. Mlc409 12:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can guarantee you this won't fly, either. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/mlc409

How can you "guarantee" this? I can "guarantee" that mlc409 has as muchof a chance of becoming an admin as anybody else does. Do you call this an article that is not worthy of a nomination? Ichbinbored ^talk 16:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mlc409 didn't create the speedycuffs article...an editor named Mawich did. In fact, his only edits to that article were to revert vandalism by the same IP that keeps showing up here...ten minutes after it happened so it's pretty clear he wasn't simply patrolling the recent changes. How oddly convenient that he just knew to pop over to that article and find some vandalism. IrishGuy ^talk 17:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a probable hoax, and almost as bad as Briefsism for being a hoax -ism. If Janicism is real, Wikipedia can wait until some verifiable reliable sources are found before including it here. But it's a probable WP:HOAX. --SunStar Net^talk 15:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How "reliable" does a source have to be before it can be counted? I bet that there are thousands of articles that don't quote sources, and they still exist. Ichbinbored ^talk 16:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can and are deleted for want of references. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's probably been mentioned already, but the newspaper scan is a Photochop, the typeface is totally wrong for the Oldham Evening Chronicle (A Google Image search will show genuine articles and the typeface used). Unreliable sources per WP:EL and WP:V. Also I'm from the UK and I've certainly never heard of this religion, oh and it's not recognised by the British government. Could be an attempt to create something similar to the Jedi census phenomenon. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When will you people learn to READ??? PHOTOSHOP WAS NOT USED TO CREATE A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE. I can't think of a more simple way to put it. mlc409

Interesting. An IP which previously acted like a different person is signed as mlc409. There would no chance possibility of Sockpuppetry, would there? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mlc409 - I actually agree with you, looking at the quality of the image, the text and what not, I'd say your newspaper article was created using MS Paint. You still have not explained why your scan from the Oldham Evening Chronicle has a totally different typeface (Verdana if I'm not mistaken) to any other extract or scan on the internet. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous Patstuart. All this means is that I wasn't signed in at the time. My computer signs me out sometimes automatically. It happens, and it doesn't mean I am attempting to deceive people. What I WILL say though, is that I don't have a second username. So lets leave of the detective work and just discuss the actual article shall we? That's what this page is for mlc409 19:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not allowed to edit on someone else's account (friend's, brother's, imaginary friend's)++aviper2k7++ 20:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out - I already knew that, which is one of the reasons I haven't being engaging in such actions. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, SHALL WE CONCENTRATE ON DISCUSSING THE ARTICLE INSTEAD OF PERSONALLY ATTACKING ME?? Mlc409 20:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was informing you of Wikipedia policy, which is something you ignore when your article has one source, which is a poor quality scan of a newspaper article. It's not about whether the religion exists, it's if it's notable, and it obviously isn't. I think an article on myself has more notability than Janicism. Google turns no results that Janicism is a legit religion. This debate doesn't have legs.++aviper2k7++ 20:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what is Google? Is it the be all and end all of the WORLD? I know it's offensive for Wikipedia to have original content but I guess it happens Mlc409 21:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't happen, and that's why this page is being deleted.++aviper2k7++ 21:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched over 14 academic databases, and did not get a single hit. Keesiewonder 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously a hoax. --Das0408 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparent hoax, no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:40, 4 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. See for ex. Chaim Zimmerman's "The Prohibition of Abandoning Land in Eretz-Yisrael", Nativ, Vol. 7, March 2005. El_C 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milhemet Mitzvah[edit]

~~Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Stebbins 08:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-technical, rarely used term. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest this was added because the term might reasonably be expected to find use in the near future, the way things unfortunately seem to be going. But it needs more support than this. There is surely a significant rabbinical literature which could be sourced an summarized. DGG 05:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, but provide reliable sources. Specifically, the references to the original Jewish text. Otherwise, people will use this to make statements that are outright false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzmonty (talk • contribs)
Rewrite. The article as it stands is not acceptable, does not cite sources and it's not written in prose but it's a collection of lists. -- dockingman^talk 06:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Zzmonty has completely rewritten the article. Although my initial reason for AfDing this article is no longer true, I agree with Dockingman that it is still unacceptable. Almost none of the information is cited or given context, and the opening paragraph is an obvious WP:NPOV violation. Stebbins 08:01, 2 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, Sandstein 10:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if reliable sources provided YamSan 23:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. ⇒ bsnowball 13:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for sources identifying notability. Also, if kept, the article needs to be accurate. While Judaism has nothing like the Islamic concept of Jihad and the original article engaged in POV original research by claiming this, the current edition is also inaccurate by claiming that all the wars referred to in Rambam's Mishneh Torah under this category were purely defensive. It is not clear to me the concept is as unnotable as claimed, although the burden is and should be on the editors writing the article. For example, the Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin article notes that the current Sanhedrin-revival-attempt has claimed expansive powers for itself including a claim that historically only a Sanhedrin had power to declare war in a Jewish state and that it and not the Israeli civil government is the sole legitimate successor to those powers. It has issued a series of "rulings" on contemporary circumstances, developing a variety of interpretations of the Jewish law of war, including an attempt to develop an interplay between classical Jewish law and modern concepts such as international treaties. In doing so, it has opined extensively on the concept of milchemet mitzvah, for which it has developed a particularly expansionist interpretation. Here are just a couple of examples from a large and emerging body of recent work. It states in its "Declaration Concerning the Disengagement from Gaza" that "The commandment to 'inherit and dwell' (Deut. 12:29) in the Land of Israel is obligatory upon every Israeli government. In this regard Israel is commanded by G-d to conquer the entire expanse of the Land of Israel within its Biblical boundaries, including the Gaza strip." See e.g.[37]. It provides another interpretation of Maimonides' Milchemet Mitzvah ("obligatory war") concept here: [38] ~--Shirahadasha 18:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to Keep. When I nominated this article for AfD, it contained two sentences and had no evidence of notability. Now I think it is clear that the article ought to be kept, although it is still in need of drastic cleanup. Stebbins 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands now (a list of quotes) it shouldn't be in wikipedia, but wikisource etc. but also is there a problem with lack of context, these injunctions don't apply to the current era do they? (not rhetorical q) ⇒ bsnowball 16:23, 5 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 06:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fifi (masturbation aid)[edit]

Contested WP:PROD. The term "fifi bag" seems to exist, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary of sexual slang. - Mike Rosoft 10:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a neologism, and fails WP:NOT as a result. --Brad Beattie (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have fond memories of my first Fifi that I made while in prison. I'm sure lots of wikipedians have similar feelings. --Amanduhh 23:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brad Beattie +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. I was really hoping there would be an image in the article :P --- RockMFR 05:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Alf photoman 13:22, 3 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. W.marsh 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kafenio[edit]

This page still doesn't really assert any notability. Its full of 'sources' but these are all blogs, newsletters, search engines or broken links. I believe that, unless some of the claims are substantiated, it fails WP:WEB.

Its previous listing can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kafenio. Its a recent one with no non-keep votes and one which I closed. However, see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com. At least two of the voters in the Kafenio discussion had both contributed to the ezine and were together on the same Greek island when 'voting'. Though there is no reason to suspect that they delibetatly tried to manipulate the system, their votes nonetheless gave a false impression of a consensus: take them away and there were just 3 votes, all keep but two from users for whom it was their first contribution... anyway, I think its worth a relisting. --Robdurbar 11:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, evidently written by blunderer but Kafenio was even mentioned at a UN conference, see United Nations Conference on Trade and Development The Book of Aspirations page 38 YamSan 00:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still don't see the controversy. The article does not demonstrate notability sufficient to satisfy the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (web). The whole thing reads like someone is trying to puff up the claims and use Wikipedia to establish their fame. In fact, most of the article was written by a former writer for the site. Moreover, I can find no independent verification of the site's contributions to the web community or its claims as a major innovator. The site was never highly ranked by any independent source such as Alexa and went defunct after a few years of publication. Even the former publisher has made a request that the article be deleted. Yes, the former employees remember it fondly, but that doesn't make it notable for an encyclopedia entry. SteveHopson 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been annoyed before by your soap-boxing antics in AfDs, but linking a user‘s talk page, that evidently has been blanked by mutual consent of both writer and receiver really takes the biscuit around here.

But let‘s not talk about rude manners and rather about your scientific way to establish notability. Let‘s take your favorite, ALEXA statistic‘s. If you had bothered checking the methodology, you would have discovered that these statistics are based on users who use the ALEXA Toolbar. And investigating the history of that bar makes it evident that it did not exist before 2003 in a notable fashion. Kafenio did not exist anymore at that time so there cannot be a useful ALEXA statistic. In fact, having a million downloads (which does not imply a million users) of the aforesaid toolbar still means that only a fraction of a percent of all Internet users surfing habits are recorded, whose statistical relevance is questionable at best. Besides that, on many sites there are instructions on how to write a simple Basic program to improve the ALEXA statistics on a site. That may be the explanation of why obscure publications, that never get quoted and never are noted by anyone, rank so high on ALEXA statistics.

The only way to establish notability in this case is solid library work and in doing that you might learn a thing or two about notability.

YamSan 12:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where the user talk page was blanked and still consider Kafenio's editor's comments about this article to be relevant. I am aware of the limitations of Alexa, but know of no other source for this type of information. I choose to ignore your personal comments against me, but would ask you to review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. SteveHopson 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Calm down you guys... its a poorly cited entry about a site that was good back in the day. It died tho. Sorry man. MrMacMan 09:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is poorly sourced and, after going through the sources and references provided, the subject's verifiable claim to fame seems to be that it was listed as 12th of 25 and 25th of 50 best places to get published online. --Chondrite 20:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chondrite. The only verifiable claim to fame does not merit it an article. Thryduulf 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chondrite. The references given look pretty trivial. I don't see anything that would indicate verifiable notability. ScottW 01:21, 7 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 no substantial case for notability - i.e. one showing at the very least non-trivial coverage by multiple third-party reliable sources - has been made to counter the nomination for deletion. AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Irascible Professor[edit]

This page does not assert its notability as per WP:WEB. There are no sources to back up its claims and suggest that it has had any impact outside of its own world.

The previous listing was recent and 'no consensus': see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irascible Professor. However, following discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com, I feel that Youtrue/Rough's votes should be considered as unintentional meatpuppeteering. Adding that one of the other 'keep' voters has only two wikipedia contributions, and we have a case of a clear need for relisting. --Robdurbar 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is notable in academic spheres and page should not make a case for its own notability. it just needs cites and cleanup. This is not a vote, this is a discussion. The case was that you had no consensus before, and you relisted? bad mojo dude. --Buridan 16:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note, my keep vote is on its notability, not in regards to former constitution of consensus, the consensus was a critique of the relisting, which it should not have been.--Buridan 13:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has 54,100 Ghits, so I doubt the claim that no sources exist. The article may not cite any sources, but that is only grouds for improvement, not deletion. I also agree that it is bad form to relist for deletion, especially after such a short time. dryguy 19:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just want to make sure that you guys had read Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com and the concerns brought up there? That notes some serious flaws in the original AfD for this which could have lead to a far different conclusion for the closing admin. --Robdurbar 10:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read that, it seems moot to the question of notability. --Buridan 13:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I belive the deletion review process can be used for articles that are thought to have been inappropriately kept. I think that is the the right way to handle a situation like this. Otherwise, we wind up with people periodically re-nominating any result they don't like until the article finally gets deleted. dryguy 14:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete Most of these ghits appear to be the magazine itself and its astroturfing. Doubtless many more are uses of the phrase, like half of these seven scholar.google.com hits. (If the article is edited before closure to demonstrate mentions per WP:WEB, make this abstain) Septentrionalis 21:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I run your wikipedia-free search, I get 59,000 ghits today. When I run your google.scholar search, the second hit appears to be a published work independent of the The Irascible Professor. Browsing for a few seconds through the 59,000 ghits I also found another independent cite. I'd say WP:WEB is easily satisfiable. dryguy 14:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is obvious from the list of articles and their authors that the publication is notable.DGG 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems to be notable enough. --Wizardman 02:11, 9 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. Proto::► 00:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Beach Jacobson[edit]

Notability is at best borderline. The sentence of Wikipedia:Notability (people) which concerns authors reads: Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. The page certailny proves that she is published, but the only two reviews it refers to are for Lonely Planet books to which she was one contributor. Thus, for now, I think she fails the guidelines.

The other reason for relisting is due to some of the problems with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta Beach Jacobson, the first nomination. As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com, Rough/Youtrue's votes validity are debateable given that they have both contributed to the same ezines as Jacobson and were together when voting. Though there's no reason to claim that this was a deliberate attempt to subvert the system, it certainly calls into question the validity of a the debate as a whole. --Robdurbar 11:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she's contributed to a lot of stuff, and many of them have independent reviews. I agree that her notability is marginal, but personally I'm in favour of keeping marginal cases, particularly of people who are still working, as their notability is only likely to increase. JulesH 12:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup and format --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've reviewed Ms. Jacobson's bio and Wiki's standards for inclusion and I still don't see this article's merit. WP:Bio suggests that a person should have "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." In addition, an author should have, "received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." How does Jacobson stack up against these standards? She edited her husband's failed ezine, Kafenio, for a couple of years before it went under. This publication was never ranked in Alexa's top 100,000 sites and its notability is also disputed. She also contributed short articles to Lonely Planet and Chicken Soup for the Dieter's Soul. (For her discussion of this experience see YouTrue's Blog). All this put together does not merit notability. As far as JulesH's comments above about keeping marginal cases, if this lower standard is applied broadly then Wikipedia becomes a phonebook for this human race. Why not let Jacobson reapply if she achieves notability in the future? SteveHopson 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major contributor to travel guides like the highly popular Lonely Planet. --Oakshade 22:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this highlights the verifiability problem with the article. How do we know that she is a "Major contributor to travel guides like the highly popular Lonely Planet"? LonelyPlanet's website does not list Jacobson under their authors' list. The article references only a single contribution to one LonelyPlanet guide. SteveHopson 23:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Lonely Planet book, I find that Lonely Planet website not as good of resource on their own books as it should be (I've had this issue before with them). With about 10 seconds of serching, found a couple of verifications [39][40] --Oakshade 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I found those references, but its only to a single book. Meeting WP:Bio would require more than one article in one book. SteveHopson 00:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they're major sections, not just articles. --Oakshade 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that you are using a different LP catalog than the rest of us because in most European ones it reads Author: David-Matthew Barnes; Roberta Beach Jacobson; Lisa Beatman et al as well as in the Japanese one imcbook.net VaclavHav 00:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for reasons explained above VaclavHav 00:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ditto. DGG 03:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please does not seem borderline notable to me and should meet bio guideline Yuckfoo 04:55, 7 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 redirected. MER-C 14:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon robyns[edit]

I accidentally created the page without the correct captialisation IE Jon robyns instead of Jon Robyns. I have created the proper page now, but this one needs to be deleted Marcosscriven 12:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you could change it to a redirect to the correct article instead... But are you sure the subject is sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia in the first place? (see WP:BIO) WJBscribe 13:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly redirected. Close? MER-C 13:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yeah, let's just close this one. Whether or not the Jon Robyns article is notable or not isn't the subject of this AFD. If needs be, we can start another AFD for it. --Brad Beattie (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. MER-C 14:09, 2 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 ♪. El_C 12:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nostradamus ni Kiite Miro♪[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, WP:OR, WP:SPAM, WP:NCVG. Ruiewql 13:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible single-purpose account: Ruiewql has made no edits to Wikipedia other than the three required to nominate this article for deletion. — Haeleth Talk 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and unverifiable crystal balling. MER-C 13:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Qvng 13:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Are you people even actually looking at the article? The game has both an official website and has been the cover story for a magazine, I haven't speculated about this game at all and made no original research. Crystal balling refers to making articles on games without official annoucements that they will be released, such as a Metroid Prime 5. Metroid Prime 3 however, is annouced and in development as is Nostradamus ni Kiite Miro♪. Furthermore, it is being produced by one of the most respectable publishers of visual novels, and is a notable game in Japan (as evident of it having an article on the Japanese Wikipedia). And I don't see how it falls under WP:SPAM at all.--SeizureDog 13:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since no valid reason has been given why this should be deleted. As SeizureDog points out, despite the claims of the nominator and the first voter it does not in fact fail WP:V or WP:NOR (it is acceptable to use a primary source, such as a game website, for basic factual plot and character information); it does not fail WP:SPAM (since it is not advertising), and nor does it fail WP:CRYSTAL (since it contains no information that has not been publicly announced). It would also appear to meet the standards tentatively proposed by WP:NCVG (having apparently been featured prominently in the relevant sector of the gaming press). In short, a perfectly reasonable stub. — Haeleth Talk 21:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as crystal balling.--Oneonex 22:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Read crystal balling: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." The development of this notable (in Japan, but still notable; must avoid being bias for this reason alone) game is clearly in progress.--SeizureDog 22:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this is one of only two edits by Oneonex; the other was also a "delete" vote. — Haeleth Talk 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced and in development +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We're getting to the point were noms are throwing up every WP guildline ever written. Pretty soon no article would be suitable for inclusion. Has been announced and by major game developer. --Oakshade 22:49, 4 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. W.marsh 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic autonomous regions[edit]

Accuracy and neutrality disputes because definition is too broad, would include tens of thousands of entries, unverifiable because no objective criteria for inclusion, see articles talk page— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul111 (talk • contribs)

I have to agree. Support. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "list" part could simply be removed. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Inner Earth 21:45, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sordid City Blues[edit]

Article's assertion of the comic's notability is a nomination for an award, which previous consensus in the Webcomics project would say that it fails WP:WEB. Article was previously deleted in a nomination a year ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sordid City Blues). Contested prod. Brad Beattie (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely nothing has changed since the last AFD nomination. A WCCA nomination is about as notable as being a finalist of the Miss East Yorkshire pageant. It's on "hiatus" until the January so its Alexa rank has slipped into the millions. We need to watch webcomic nominations more closely, or we'll end up with incredible results like the Keep at Dresden Codak because it was mentioned in passing, in blogs, and once on a daily link zeitgeist. What crap. - hahnch e n 16:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can this not be speedy deleted as previously deleted material?--Dmz5 00:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I tried to prod it earlier based on the precedent that we've established in previous AFDs, but the prod was removed. Instead of starting a mini-war, I figured it would be best to bring here. There's no harm in the process taking a few days longer if it establishes a clear consensus. --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Speaking as the author, I neither wrote this wiki not moved it from Comixpedia to Wikipedia. I would be slightly sad if it were deleted, but I'm very annoyed that someone deleted my deletion notice - it makes me look pathetic. I'd just as soon you axe the thing so I can stop thinking about it. Seriously, I think my web comic is fabulous (of course I do), but it had about 500 readers when I was updating it regularly. I haven't even read the deletion guidelines, but it notability is at issue, I don't think I have it.--User:MisterWolf
- Comment: I was the user who copied over the content from Comixpedia. Original motivation was noticing a red link to it somewhere (can't find any notable ones any more). Heck, if this was going on my opinion of the comic there wouldn't be a question here, but yeah it currently fails the notability guidelines. I'll be sorry to see it go, but can't currently see any good enough reasons for it to be kept here. I'll copy over all the recent changes back to Comixpedia so we've at least gained a few improvements over there for future reference if it achieves the notability guidelines at a later date. Palfrey 19:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:RS and thus fails WP:WEB. --Quirex 02:28, 7 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 06:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Wargaming and the Influence of J.R.R. Tolkien[edit]

The article has been moved to Wikisource, and may be a copyright violation anyway. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki'd or not, copyvio or not, it's still non-notable- it's just a single article (by an extremely notable author in a seemingly non-notable magazine). We don't have pages for individual articles Hunter S. Thompson wrote for Rolling Stone, much less pages for individual issues (or even years, or even decades) of that magazine. Delete. -- Kicking222 23:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a catalogue. Belongs on WikiSource, or not at all if it's not GFDL. Jivlain 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there's any useful information at all, merging into an article on the history of wargaming might be useful. Iceberg3k 20:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the single most important thing Gary Gygax ever wrote about D&D. Furthermore, there is no copyright issue here. Generalklagg 06:35, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Lidströmer and STUDIO L2[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Google finds exactly zero nontrivial hits outside of www.lidstromer.com. Prod removed by article creator. —Cryptic 11:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with Cryptic. Can the article creator identify other references for the impact of various pieces of art referenced in the article? -- Samir धर्म 11:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above and there also seems to be some WP:COI involved from this comment. The potential is there for verifiability/notability so I'll change my vote to keep if the required two non-trivial external sources can be found. Demiurge 11:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Giving the article creator the benefit of the doubt, I've undeleted STUDIO L2 (which I speedied twice earlier (once at STUDIO L²) and am listing it here as well. —Cryptic 11:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above - also agree with Demiurge on conditions for changing my vote to Keep. Perel 11:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in addition to above, links and articles should not be created or posted by someone affiliated with the site. If it is notable, it will eventually be included in Wikipedia. -THB 19:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have now tried to delete and change as much as possible ASAP, and I hope the changes are satisfactoruy - if I make more mistakes keep me informed, new member.NGL 17:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Just adding, for those who wonder, that there are a lot of nontrivial facts on the net, though mostly in Swedish. I could though find even in English a lot of info. Just now working on foot notes, that I haven't really learned yet how to do, need some help here.18:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)NGL

True, I can find a lot of info in Swedish but unfortunately it might become hard to classify it... Any way to ask for help of Swedish users here? -- dockingman^talk 06:38, 2 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, Sandstein 13:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- Sandstein 13:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe the relisting will allow for some Swedish speakers to evaluate this issue. Sandstein 13:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not quite sure what is required here -- I can verify that there are at least half a dozen Swedish-language, nontrivial sources for this artist's existence and several different exhibitions she's had over the last few years. http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/kultur/did_11974843.asp (one of the major Swedish daily papers) is an interview with her about an exhibition, http://www.karlskrona.se/templates/Page____30133.aspx is information about another exhibition, from the official site of the city of Karlskrona, http://www.vidamuseum.com/konstnarer-lidstromer.htm is a page from a pretty important art museum, about her upcoming exhibition there. I am not personally familiar with the artist's name -- I know very little about visual arts -- though I have heard the expression "femmage" (just didn't know who had coined it). Bonadea 14:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creator of these pages, Nike George, must be (a) Lidströmer, as that user has only contributed to pages about Lidströmers and L2 - contravenes Wikipedia:Autobiography. DrKiernan 13:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no i am not writing an autobigraphy, I am just thoroughly interested in art and architechture + technical innivations and I have chosen to complete what is written about Swedish artists, architects and inventors so far, and I will proceed with more entries ASAP - I haven't saved these yet since I'd like present a more complete picture directly. I hope we can reach concensus as soon as possible. Regarding L. Lidströmer she is absolutely a well known artist name, and I think any Swedish speaking user can confirm that after having seen net links in Swedish and paper articles. The artist's museum in the Old town is a little institution. I can add a list of articles to this talk.

Sincerely Dr Nike GeorgeNGL 10:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kings (drinking game)[edit]

NN drinking game without citations, references, links. No proof it exists. Also, it's more of a Wikibook, in its instructional listing format. -- Zanimum 18:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally Unverified/original research. Wikipedia is not a game guide. -- IslaySolomon | talk 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I take a drink. -Markeer 21:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Kings"+"drinking game" gets over 76,000 Google hits, with 438 uniques out of the first 1,000. Also, it's the only drinking game that I've ever seen played at my college. Thus, I'm not necessarily arguing for keeping the article, but I am saying that it's possible this game has some notability (or has, at least, achieved widespread play). -- Kicking222 00:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citations available in The Best Drinking Game Book Ever and The Complete Book of Beer Drinking Games. Remove the instructions and you have a perfectly viable stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then please, go ahead an cite them. -- Zanimum 17:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh my gosh, this is a real game. I played this approximately every weekend in college and at many other colleges as well and many many people under age 30 who have gone to college in the US will at least be aware of it. I know that's not a reason in and of itself to keep the article but it says to me that there have got to be sources out there to use.--Dmz5 06:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but please make appropriate citations. StayinAnon 17:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup because sources were presented. Remove anything related on "how to play" since Wikipedia is not a game guide. --Wafulz 16:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs sources and major cleanup, (mainly, the game guide removed), but otherwise, yes, this is a quite popular college drinking game. Wavy G 16:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well known game, which has many related offshoots, that go by slightly different names. Nlsanand 20:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why are so many users insisting that the rules be removed? I mean, it seems to me that an article about a game (which is notable and verifiable in its own right) is incomplete unless there is at least a cursory description of how you play it.--Dmz5 00:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a difference between describing the rules of a game and instructing people how to play it. --Wafulz 04:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clean up Okay, I believe this is a real game (no I don't play it, I'm underage!) because of others who say it is real. This should be cleaned up, remove "how-to" stuff, and etc. Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 00:32, 3 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 07:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Adept Class (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion on Notability grounds. Also, all of its text is duplicated on its parent page, Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords, so it is completely superfluous. Iceberg3k 14:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability aside, it is redundant. Edward Wakelin 16:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Wikipedia is not a Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual. --tgheretford (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perfectly happy to lose this. There is a slow rewrite process underway for D&D articles to cut down on cruft and copyvio and make better articles that are sources and meet WP:FICTION (and so forth, as appropriate). This does not fit in the proposed article structure, and is largely redundant besides. What of this needs said, is said elsewhere. Serpent's Choice 06:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for duplication. Quack 688 08:45, 4 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. W.marsh 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Society in Dedham for Apprehending Horse Thieves[edit]

Runescape discontinued items[edit]

Srul Bronshtein[edit]

Saif Energy Ltd[edit]

Muhammed Taib[edit]

United States Space Transport Company[edit]

Charles L. Sullivan[edit]

International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences[edit]

Sara roybal[edit]

Jakob P. Steinbach[edit]

Depolarization radiation force theory[edit]

Duncan Jones[edit]

Rolan Bolan[edit]

William torrillo[edit]

News embargo[edit]

Nordost[edit]

Feed Me Bubbe[edit]

List of publications in law[edit]

Stonebridge Estate[edit]

Dragan Nikolić (commander)[edit]

Metal Rap / Rap Metal / Ghetto Metal[edit]

Impact Pro Wrestling (USA)[edit]

The Organisation[edit]

Geekbrief[edit]

Triangle Foundation[edit]

Benson Street (Manhattan)[edit]

Locking high heels[edit]

Danielle Foote[edit]

Christopher Arnold[edit]

Brea Fire Services Department[edit]

QED International[edit]

Global Professional Wrestling Alliance[edit]

Numbers & Professions[edit]

ZPointProducts[edit]

Viper Scorpions[edit]

Never Dream of Dying (film)[edit]

Melissa rothstein[edit]

Suzanne Sinclair (United States)[edit]

Nick Dastardly[edit]

Kynoid[edit]

Psytexx[edit]

Janicism[edit]

Milhemet Mitzvah[edit]

Fifi (masturbation aid)[edit]

Kafenio[edit]

The Irascible Professor[edit]

Roberta Beach Jacobson[edit]

Jon robyns[edit]

Nostradamus ni Kiite Miro♪[edit]

Ethnic autonomous regions[edit]

Sordid City Blues[edit]

Fantasy Wargaming and the Influence of J.R.R. Tolkien[edit]

Louise Lidströmer and STUDIO L2[edit]

Kings (drinking game)[edit]

Martial Adept Class (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

The Society in Dedham for Apprehending Horse Thieves[edit]

David Graham (philosopher)[edit]

List of words frequently used in North American crossword puzzles[edit]

Douglas Rasmussen[edit]

Douglas J. Den Uyl[edit]

Thames Valley College[edit]

The Original Hot Dog Shop[edit]

Adobe DNG Converter[edit]

Current issues in teaching[edit]

Collier High School[edit]

List of short stories about video games[edit]

The creation of Nazo and Silver the hedgehog[edit]

Yeouinaru Station[edit]

Scottish Atheist Council[edit]

Sporting Life (US sports journal)[edit]

George Huszar[edit]

Transgredience[edit]

Félicité Jandia[edit]

Rodrigo Ferreira de Souza[edit]

Alexander Zaitchik[edit]

Smoke Radio, Chris Chilvers[edit]

Adams-Wilson[edit]

Gordon Franz[edit]

Ashley Juggs[edit]

Giovanni DonCara[edit]

Brent Wilson[edit]