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

The result was Delete Naconkantari 20:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pydance[edit]

No reliable sources listed or found. --SPUI (T - C) 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, just a DDR clone like the others listed on Dance Dance Revolution, nothing really demonstrates that this needs its own article. Ashibaka tock 01:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 03:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, non-notable software. SkierRMH,21:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- completely functional DDR simulator written in Python isn't quite 'non-notable' sendmoreinfo 21:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a DDR clone written in Python may be an interesting curiosity, and a testatement to the creativity and doggedness of programmers, but I don't see this as passing WP:SOFTWARE. -- Whpq 22:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no claim to notablity made in article - and I was unable to establish such via a quick search. No sourcing, only references the software project's own page. --Krich (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Stepmania and Flash Flash Revolution are the only two DDR clones anyone cares about these days. - Chardish 09:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No offense, but I think FFR is much more notable for its forums than the game itself, which is more of a sort of community activity than an earnest DDR simulator. — flamingspinach | (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. At any moment in the day there are about 1500 people on the site. vBulliten says there are "79,874 active members." Not too sure how vBulliten judges that, but I'd say about only 1,000 of those "active members" use the forums at all; maybe about 150 of them are long-time users. Just a rough guess. --68.192.68.55 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense taken, and the FFR game gets played 100,000+ times per day. That's far, far more than the number of daily forum posts. - Chardish 08:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into something, maybe Dance Dance Revolution or perhaps Stepmania. I doubt it deserves its own article, but I think it's worth a mention somewhere. — flamingspinach | (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, Popcon by-install rank of #11186 out of 61725 for package pydance. Not really all that impressive but far from abysmal. Might be merge material... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really have to have 15,000 articles for the top 15,000 Debian packages? Ashibaka tock 19:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Popcon is not exactly that straightforward to interpret, while it is simple in principle; think of it as a glorified Google test. You can set a rather vague limits and interpret accordingly. WP:SOFTWARE suggests as much about its use, only that it can and should be used to gauge software's notability. My interpretation is that software above 10,000 line is notable and anything below 15,000-20,000 is probably chaff, and there's a buffer zone that fluctuates depending on what time of the day it is and how much coffee I've had. (See also below for time of the day.) You can probably find some other AfD where I'm pulling different figures out of my sleeves - it's all based on a gut feeling. My current idea, solidly on this gut feeling, is that if we include 15%-20% of what Debian thinks is their most remarkable software, we're sailing smooth and not including utter garbage. Also note that this thing tracks packages, not software; Debian compiles one source tarball into one or more packages. (There (at least used to be, if not still) packages celestia, celestia-common and celestia-gtk, and it's not uncommon to see -common and -data packages, not to even mention -doc packages!) Different versions of software can get into separate packages, should the maintainers keep them around to ensure compatibility. (There's mediawiki1.6 and mediawiki1.7.) There's pseudopackages that just depend on other packages. In the upper end, there's Software You Can't Remove Lest Stuff Would Break. And libraries and -dev packages, well, it's better not get into them, or we'd be still talking about them tomorrow. My point is, popcon by_inst <10,000 is much less of work that it sounds. And remember that MediaWiki is pretty darn remarkable and popular and it's still in the 7000s, last I checked. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (The following is 60%-serious tomfoolery, not a point or anything.) I see the nom's "No reliable sources" and raise "Press mentions to save an article no one will likely ever care about" (I'm sorry it's past 01:30 here and I've never had any clue about this smooth poker lingo ever, and I've never even read the article on this fascinating card game. I'm just a poor geek kid that was raised with Mario instead of Proper Manly Games.) I was pretty sure my chiss-sweesed brains had actually remembered that there was a mention of Pydance in some Linux magazine. Looks like they have a list of press mentions, but this one lists somewhat trivial mentions from print side (I have no idea if Linux Format covered it aside of just shoveling it to CD) though some online mentions are nontrivial. However, the article I'm remembering isn't here. (I'm thinking of Linux Journal, probably Marcel Gagné's column, but my memory is probably completely messed up in this regard, and it is, as mentioned above, past 01:45). Therefore, I see no other resolution but change my recommendation above from solid Weak Keep to extremely firm Weak Keep. (You know, because that's still based on notability rather than verifiability.) It's not the most remarkable DDR simulator or even influential, even when it's pretty impressive someone pulls this off with just Python - and like other people said, Stepmania kind of stole the show on this genre of software on OSS side. I'm just saying Carthago must be deleted. I mean, "lack of sources" argument is a bit funny argument if I waltz to the home page and find press rave. Now go forth and do the right thing anyway. Oops, I shouldn't use logic. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC) ('round 02:40 here, unless this clock is lying)[reply]
• Delete. Not a notable DDR-clone. Like Chardish said, the only two DDR clones avaliable on the computer anyone cares for are Stepmania and FFR. --68.192.68.55 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not voting for obvious reasons, but I will mention this existed long before Stepmania went GPLd, and even longer before it worked on anything not Windows (you can verify that with the release dates of the programs; not sure what "no reliable source" means in reference to free software...). Certainly not a popular clone, but does Wikipedia want to have articles on popular software, or historically notable software? That being said, Wikipedia has too many stupid free software articles, including this one. piman 04:49, 26 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 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text Text Revolution[edit]

No reliable sources listed or found. --SPUI (T - C) 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is just another unimportant DDR clone which deserves mention only in the context of DDR clones in general. Ashibaka tock 01:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 03:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete Revolution - as per MER-C. --tgheretford (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. non-notable. SkierRMH 21:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not notable; see WP:NN. Bigtop 23:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete close. Just H 00:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article makes no claim to notability. Fails WP:RS --Krich (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's non-notable. - Chardish 09:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though Delete Delete Revolution gave me a hearty laugh. Perhaps it should be an article... Charlie 22:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete n-n DaveApter 15:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dance With Intensity[edit]

No reliable sources listed or found. --SPUI (T - C) 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 03:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MER-C. Sr13 07:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with Intensity - as per MER-C. --tgheretford (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have this game on my computer and as far as I know it used to be pretty popular and is possibly notable enough for an article. However, if reliable sources can't be found that is a problem. Abstain, if deleted we should allow recreation with relaible sources however. VegaDark 11:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - still can't find any sources, thus fails WP:SOFTWARE - but willing to reverse if someone can supply documentation. SkierRMH,21:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete close. Just H 00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there's no claim to notability in the article; fails WP:RS --Krich (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Stepmania - the original developer of this project has moved on to develop Stepmania, and most former DWI players use Stepmania instead. It's an interesting historical note. - Chardish 09:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible merge material. DWI is, as far as I've understood, an influential program in development of dance sims, and other programs use its song file format too. A lot of music is distributed in DWI format. But, I really don't know if it's used anywhere and to what extent... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, delete, delete! - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VeggieTales: Dance, Dance, Dance[edit]

No reliable sources listed or found. --SPUI (T - C) 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Heh, I'd play it. But that doesn't make it notable. Heimstern Läufer 02:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. VeggieTales is cool! But the game isn't notable. Sr13 02:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Veggie TalesJust H 02:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes, talking vegetable are cool, but delete, as it is non-notable and possible original resarch. –The Great Llama^{sign here} 02:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 03:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Interesting. Merge into Veggie Tales. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per Sr13 and MER-C. --tgheretford (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Veggie Tales per above. SkierRMH,21:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sr13, MER-C and nom. Bigtop 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power of Santa[edit]

Power of Santa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Very small, non-notable part of Invader Zim American Patriot 1776 01:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable song. Heimstern Läufer 02:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. bibliomaniac15 03:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was actually tempted to speedy it as an attack page- it refers to the song and/or individuals as "evil" and "stupid." CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per non-notability. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and not worthy to redirect to The Most Horrible X-mas Ever, although it's a funny episode, the lyrics to this song aren't noteworthy. Piggies, I need piggies!! SkierRMH 21:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per unnotable song Natl1 22:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Naconkantari 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circle Square Ranch[edit]

Circle Square Ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article was speedily deleted as advertising and later restored in a less spam-y version. I'm listing this on behalf of the deleting admin since notability still has not been established. ~ trialsanderrors 01:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems to fail WP:CORP. Nothing on Google. MER-C 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with my page i will fix anything that you want. You have already deleted it once. I don't want you to delete my work again. I dont work for this company, i used to volunteer for them. I just want an entry for the ranch on wikipedia. -isoar4jc

• isoar4jc, if you want a wikipedia article that's kept, I'd suggest you look up the relevant policies at what wikipedia is not, verifiability requirements Notability guidelines, and Notability criteria for organizations and Notability requirements for corporations. I can appreciate your desire to have someplace important to you on wikipedia, and I think you could write a great article, but sometimes it's tough to sort the wheat from the chaff in Articles for Deletion. If you have any news articles, published material from a third party, or other references, it would be great to see them, otherwise the organization might not meet our requiremts as per wikipedia:notability of organizations. Remember that notability is not the same as importance, there are many things important to many people that, sadly, are not verifiable enough for wikipedia standards. If you need any help, just drop me a line. As it stands, I'd say weak keep contingent on the providing of sources. I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, if no sources exist, then delete. Wintermut3 06:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As of now, the article does not show that the topic is notable. Unless notability is established, this should go. And Isoar, I too understand the desire to have an article on something you've been involved in, but not all things are important enough for articles. The problem in this case is not the writing and such, but rather the topic of the article itself doesn't seem important enough. If you can provide links from third party sources that show that the topic of this article is notable then it is more likely to be kept than if it remains as is. --The Way 06:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CORP. Isoar4jc you should sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have been to a Circle Square Ranch myself, when I was little. However, I agree it is not notable. Even if it was notable, its parent company, Crossroads Ministries doesn't have a WP article yet. Entertheinferno 10:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Author First of all what do you call this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossroads_Christian_Communications and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Huntley_Street second CSR has been in the News, they are the SPCAs #1 coice for adoption of mistreated horses, they have a children's cancer recovery program(http://www.cancerrecovery.ca/project.php//), and many more for individual camps. Isoar4jc 19:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isoar, you'll need to supply links to the relevant news articles and those news articles must do more than merely mention the topic of this article; they'll need to discuss the topic enough so as to establish notability. These sources will also need to be cited in the article. If you can do this then I'm sure many of us who are voting for deletion would reconsider. --The Way 22:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fine delete it your minds are made up. It is covered extensively on 100 Huntley Street, but since that is owned by crossroads, then you wont accept that. and most other news articles arent online they'd just be on local cannels or newspapers. I know alot of campers and volunteer staff who are visiting this page and would be very unhappy if it got deleted. isoar4jc 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC) And stop call in me Isoar it's isoar4jc no capital and complete UID brainiacs.[reply]

• comment isoar4JC: please don't get frustrated, and abbreviations of usernames are common, though they can be annoying no harm was meant I assure you. This debate is far from over, please don't give up and just leave. There appear to be some sources, if you can supply links OR MLA-format citations (for things that do not exist online) to third-party materials I'd be more than happy to include them. Despite the implication, online sources are not the only valid ones. I'd love to help you keep this, but I need your help in doing so. the SPCA materials appear to provide notability in my mind as well. Also: wikipedia sources are not considered viable, but if you can track down the sources on those other articles they may provide notability for the ranches as well. Wintermut3 02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• isoar4jc My UID is already an abbreveation, an i'm just sick of peaple calling me isoar, sorry that you all caught the reaction to the same thing somewhere else. As to articles and news stuff, I am working on that, but its not as easy as you make it sound. I need to find stories aout specific camps which leads you on many wild goose chases. I'm currently on the trail of a huge news story about the rance in British Columbia being evacuated beacuse a forrest fire a couple years ago. (i was there when it happened, and the news crews were there to film the horses being evacuated) And have you ever heard of Shane Doan? He is the captain of the Phoenix Cyotes he was also the Captain of Team Canada in the last winter oylmpics. He is the son of Bernie and Bernise Doan who just happen to be the regional directors for the western camps, he was a camp kid. The stories exist but getting the specific articles is alot of work. Isoar4jc 03:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC) PS: Why are none of the other camps listed here under deletion review? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_summer_camps[reply]

Isoar4jc, please don't be mad at people for further abbreviating your name for the sake of brevity; editors often will refer to people by only the first few letters of their name and mean no disrespect. That aside, regarding your above comment: often times if its really hard to track down sources on a topic like this, that is a good indication that the topic itself isn't notable enough to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Stories about a camp having to be evacuated because of a forest fire, for example, tell us nothing about the importance of the camp itself. If there aren't sources that can explicitly tell us why this particular camp is notable (ie., why it is especially important, as 'average' camps, whether religious or secular, are typically not notable enough to warrant articles) then we will probably remove the article on the camp because we have to have third party sources. Also, having the son of someone important being involved in something in no way makes that thing particularly notable. Finally, in regards to other articles on camps, any of them which don't establish notability should be nominated for AfDs. --The Way 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Circle Square - There was a TV show back in the 70's/80's called Circle Square [6] and the locale for the show is the Circle Square Ranch. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 05:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comprimise with correct effort any organization could establish notability, thr only thing is that personaly don't have the resourses or contacts to to so on my own. merging the articles combines the notability of both, i think i could live with that. Isoar4jc 18:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Circle Square. Bearcat 10:43, 25 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. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig Straniak[edit]

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

I think this fails WP:BIO. There are references included, but the only claim to notability seems to be an association with the Nazis. Although important details that would establish notability are left out. For example, how often did the Nazis employ him? When did they employ him? I think without those details, we cannot establish a context for determining his notability. Delete unless cleaned up to address the above. I did prod this, but the prod was contested.TheRingess 23:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I suggest people contribute to articles with important information rather than nominate them for deletion. Class it as a stub maybe? I have added references for further reseach on the person and he is known for far much more than the Nazi's as the references show. I will dig out decent biographical information and hope others do also. FK0071a 08:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless someone can prove this passes WP:BIO, as I am getting under 100 ghits: [7]. Ghits might not prove notability, but under 100 is pretty bad. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:59, 20 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, Patstuart^talk|edits 01:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We know that the article is way below par, but you are ignoring the man himself and his wok on pendulum mumbo-jumbo like: STRANIAK, LUDWIG Die achte Gross-Kraft der Natur und ihre physikalischen Gesetze,

• Delete - I concur with Patstuart, but the ghit count is 55. Verifiability concerns. MER-C 03:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ghits that low does not augur well, but I think the article's got legs. It's unreasonable to expect foursquare articles right out of the gate, particularly when the subject is as obscure as this one. It may take a while, but I see room to grow. Ford MF 09:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 09:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, I agree that the article is a mess and bizarre but there is room for development.--Dmz5 10:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article is worse than a mess but it's well referenced which appears to establish notability. Someone who died 50 years ago but who was once notable is still notable per WP:N and even though there's little or no evidence on the 'net there does appear to be evidence in books and such, so it really has to stay. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable enough Nazi mumbo-jumbo witchdoctor, deleting them will just make them pop up again. The net is not the place to ascertain notability for something that happened 50 years before it ... this is a typical GO TO THE LIBRARY case Alf photoman 14:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can understand all your points, but all I've heard so far is "he's notable and you can't pay attention to google". No explanation of how he's notable, or why he passes WP:BIO. Could you elaborate? -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is that there seems to be a lot of room for research and expansion. It seems to me that the article asserts its subject's notability, and beyond that this is a cleanup/expand job and doesn't warrant deletion.--Dmz5 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is that this guy actually was reading cards, runes and whatever mumbo-jumbo for the notables of the Third Reich, who at the same time based some of their decisions on whatever he augured. Serves well to explain some of the inexplicable decision that can of loons took Alf photoman 22:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well-referenced, asserts notability. --- RockMFR 19:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google test is completely inaccurate for persons who lived before the internet age.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to keep an article Bwithh 03:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but some editors here use the Google test even if clearly inappropriate (Patstuart, MER-C, Split_Infinity).--Ioannes Pragensis 09:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I changed my mind after reading your well-researched vote. Delete.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete due to question marks over sources Just because there are books listed as references, does not make them reliable - or appropriate - sources. There are 5 books mentioned in the references section of the article. 3 of these have indexes which are searchable online. The indexes of two books by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke are available on Google Books[[8][9]. "Ludwig Straniak" or "Straniak" does not appear in their indexes or from the internal google search of their text. (There is only 1 passing, very brief hit for "Ludwig Straniak" in Google Books[10] and none for a mixed search term for Straniak and Nazi[11]. Also nothing on Google Scholar[12]) . As for the third book (by Peter Levenda), the index to is available on Amazon.com through the "Look Inside" function [13]. This does have a mention of Straniak in its index (p230-232). However, Peter Levenda appears to be a professional occult conspiracy theorist[14]. Yes, the latest version of his book has a foreword by Norman Mailer, but Mailer is a something of a fan of Levenda's conspiracy theories. For instance, see Mailer's review (front page of Levenda's site) about Levenda's first volume in his "Sinister Forces" trilogy about the "Satanic undercurrent" of American history (which Mailer still admits has little in the way of "hard evidence"). While there are two other books (one by a self-proclaimed mystic) on the list unavailable through google/amazon, what I've seen from the other three as well as other searches does not make me confident about this article. Bwithh 04:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup I found a text copy of the fourth book (the one by Baker) on this admittedly apparently unreliable website[15]. However, the pdf downloads as a full 168 pages of text with full bibliographical notes at the end and seems to be coherent and in good order. The pdf text search function works fine. There are zero hits for "Straniak". So that's 3 out of five books references coming up blank and a fourth one by a professional conspiracy theorist and the last (which I have not been able to check) by a "mysticist"/"magician" Karl_Spiesberger who was a proponent of runic magic[16]. Failure of WP:V/WP:RS. Oh, and there's the amateur "ghost research" website linked in the article as well[17] (written by a "ghost hunter"[18]) which is totally inadmissible as a reference. Bwithh 04:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are basing your opinion to much on a defective article and too little on the bloke himself. He was on of the leading figures in trying to bring about a pseudo-scientific acceptance of the pendulum mumbo-jumbo, see : STRANIAK, LUDWIG Die achte Gross-Kraft der Natur und ihre physikalischen Gesetze (Diessen vor München, J. C. Hubers Verlag. 1936) which is quoted by almost every pendulum augur Alf photoman 15:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bwithh's WP:V concerns. Kusma (討論) 08:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bwithh, plus the supposed "Institute for Occult Warfare" would be "Institut für okkulte Kriegsführung" (and hence IOK and not IOW) in German and I can find no evidence for its existence. This is fringe occultism with fringe sources. ~ trialsanderrors 01:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

I want to clear this up. The references that are now in the article and listed below mention Straniak. I will scan the pages of all of these if it help you. Also, I will make youtude entries for the documentary references ot him if you like? Again I state that I suggest people contribute to articles with important information rather than nominate them for deletion. Class it as a stub maybe? I have added references for further reseach on the person and he is known for far much more than the Nazi's as the references show. I will dig out decent biographical information and hope others do also. Wiki is about supplying information for further research! FK0071a 16:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Books

• Reveal the Power of the Pendulum: Secrets of the Sidereal Pendulum, A Complete Survey of Pendulum Dowsing, by Karl Spiesberger - ISBN 0-572-01419--8 ((Please check ISBN|0-572-01419--8)) (Der erfolgreiche Pendel-Praktiker) - 1962 [19],English translation, pp. 13, 15, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78-82, 82, 83.

• Unholy Alliance: History of the Nazi Involvement With the Occult by Peter Levenda, (May 1, 2002, ISBN 0-8264-1409-5). pp. 230-232.

• Occult Reich by J.H. Brennen, pp. 111 and 112.

Documentaries

• Nazis: The Occult Conspiracy (1998), directed by Tracy Atkinson and Joan Baran, narrated by Malcolm McDowell.

• "Decoding the Past" Episode: The Nazi Prophecies" by the History Channel [20] [21]

• Hitler and the Occult by the History Channel [22]
• Keep In view of the evidence just listed above. DGG 01:52, 25 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 no consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:56Z

Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto[edit]

Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nothing here asserts notability above any other law firm; reads like an advert. Akihabara 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very notable "whistleblower" D.C. law firm. Even repped Linda Tripp. --Oakshade 05:59, 17 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, Cbrown1023 02:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not convinced that this firm passes WP:CORP. Nothing but trivial mentions on Google. MER-C 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:CORP. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Extremely notable. RTFA. --- RockMFR 19:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't feel that the article makes it clear that this law firm played an important role in the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal (which would certainly make it notable), so for now I support deletion. Heimstern Läufer 19:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands. The article itself doesn't clarify the notariety of this firm. SkierRMH 07:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article asserts numerous claims of notability - involvement in the Linda Tripp and related Clinton scandals, involvement in a major case against the IRS, media coverage... --- RockMFR 18:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on Tripp case and IRS issue. JamesMLane t c 14:37, 25 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:55Z

Aaron Marrs[edit]

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

Article does not make clear the "notability" of this person. This appears to be a tribute launched after the person's death, and I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the place for that. Moreover, other website tributes have already been established: here and here. Radar1 02:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I did some searching and can find nothing on the news wires that says this is anything besides a sad story. --jaydj 04:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. also. feydey 08:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia isn't a memorial site per WP:NOT --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article appears to make a claim of notability due to subject's image on a music album cover - while the cover exists, I can't find anything that supports it as especially notable. It's nice to have friends that remember you fondly - a better memorial than a Wikipedia article. --Krich (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sad, but non-notable. SkierRMH 07:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:55Z

Meinhard E. Mayer[edit]

Meinhard E. Mayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found tagged db-bio, but he's more than that - he's done some solid if very specialized work in theoretical physics, and has authored a textbook that I, at least, would consider notable. Opabinia regalis 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory for every University professor who published something minorly significant. My professor from college published four popular books in historical subjects, but then again so did nearly every other professor in the department! Wikipedia loses its legitimacy if we let this go on. The article creation also smells a little of vanity, especially since the user who created it is named User:Memayer. LeszekB 02:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The book which he co-wrote seems well regarded and has had classes designed around it. I think more citations could be added to increase verifiability. --jaydj 04:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable as a researcher and as co-author of a significant and notable textbook. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• k- fairly notable as textbook author and researcher; however, the article itself needs work. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of references proving notability, fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. The references provided are works that he has written, not "multiple third-party reliable sources" about the man himself or his works, thus there is no evidence showing that anything he has done is more significant than any other post-doctoral researcher. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 07:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as author of significant academic work. Ford MF 09:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, text books still used after emeritus status of the author are notable in themselves and therefore the authors Alf photoman 14:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - developer of a quite notable textbook.Bakaman 19:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep from a cursory search, the subject appears to be notable within his field. Not much sourcing in the article itself, but there appears to be sources available that support a suitable level of notability. --Krich (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but it does need a bit of a cleanup. SkierRMH 07:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep more than enough to prove notability. But there is surely more to be added, although we do not need the complete list of publications. DGG 01:59, 25 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 redirect to TIBCO Software. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:51Z

Smartsockets[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Somewhat spammish, but doesn't fit my criteria for being blatant spam. Contested prod. MER-C 02:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to TIBCO#Products. --jaydj 04:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect per jaydj. Josh Parris#: 23:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:50Z

Axel Scherer[edit]

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

Looks like a CV, has no content, no references, no citations, nothing! We can't have an article about some one only because he works in a university. I can't see a reason for notability here Meno25 02:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Someone who holds a named professorship is very likely to be notable. In this case, Axel Scherer is doing some particularly significant research. I added some references. -TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above; meets WP:V fairly well. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. However, the only verifiable claim to notability is that he is a founding member of a manufacturing company. The page can add verifiability by citing sources for the other claims. Sancho McCann 07:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, borderline speedy A7. No notability is actually asserted in the article at all. He is a researcher at a university who presented some technology at a conference, and heads up a manufacturing company? Nothing in the article indicates why any of these three things is notable. MOST professors present papers or technological innovations (and nothing in the article indicates that it is an innovation), and there are LOTS of professors who are involved in private companies on the side to make extra income. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 07:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As with most every article that appears on the AfD pages, this one needs serious work, but with that in mind, Keep, so the work can be done. Ford MF 09:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable enough but horrible article... if it does not improve we will be back here next month Alf photoman 14:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - does seem to be notable.Bakaman 19:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see where it's asserting his notability. —ShadowHalo 05:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Named chair at major research university (CalTech) is more than sufficient for notability. The article could use a lot of work, in particular explaining his past contributions better rather than mentioning one recent result, but that's not the same as deserving deletion. —David Eppstein 22:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep He seems to be notable enough. The article needs work and some more cites though. ← ANAS ^Talk? 11:55, 26 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:48Z

Adventure Gamers[edit]

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

Non-notable fansite -- does not meet WP:WEB (which is not a proposal but an official guideline). Andre (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt The Earth, nn fansite; there have been plenty of those showing up lately. --Mhking 03:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to pass criteria #3, if the following is correct:
  

The site's reviews have been quoted on many adventure game box covers

Very few websites can make this claim. Throw on an ((unreferenced)) tag and give the editors some time to get some shots of the game boxes. --- RockMFR 06:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Criteria #3 is truly satisfied in this sense, "distributed via a medium" is specifically described as being via an online magazine or newspaper. I don't think that reviews on game boxes cut the mustard. Reading the footnote, it notes that sites satisfying Criteria 3 will invariably satisfy Criteria 1, however this does not seem to be the case. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 12:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem with WP:WEB. If you take it at face value, we could reasonably delete an article about a web subject which has content published in Time or Newsweek or something like that. WP:WEB is shitty in regard to offline publications. --- RockMFR 18:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Print and other offline media are hardly likely to republish web content. The Time and Newsweek examples are a misnomer; more likely they would publish an article about the website, thus satisfying Criterion 1. Even so, republishing in an offline magazine would meet the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:WEB so would be accepted by any reasonable editor. Mentions on game boxes does not meet the spirit of #3. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 07:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The metacritic and gamerankings distribution of their reviews surely makes them meet "3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." from WP:WEB --Amaccormack 06:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metacritic and Game Rankings accept reviews from any website or magazine that is professional, regardless of notability. However, it does seem to be a well organized site with well written reviews, so Keep. TJ Spyke 06:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does professional mean in this case? Anyway, that they're used by third parties shows that they're notable, regardless if "notability" were a criteria for Metacritic and Game Rankings to include their rankings. Delta Tango • Talk 07:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Professional" as in not looking like user-submitted reviews. Also, yes it would have to be used by a notable website. I could start a crappy site and mention other crappy sites reviews, would that mean those sites deserve articles because they were mentioned? Besides, listing the score from this site is not distributing its content. TJ Spyke 07:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I of course agree with you about the third-party site having to be notable in itself, as per WP:WEB, I was just not as specific as I could be in my comment. Thanks for your informative comments and your prompt reply. Delta Tango • Talk 07:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that is not entirely correct. Game Rankings say "Only Sites in Bold are used to calculate the Average Score used in the Rankings." and Emboldened sites are ones that have been assessed as notable by CNet. AdventureGamers are a site that appears in bold (see the referenced link for gamerankings). Game rankings criteria for emboldening can be seen at http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/help.asp --Amaccormack 09:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Delta Tango • Talk 07:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Neutral for now. Delta Tango • Talk 08:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The article fails to cite "multiple third-party reliable sources" for its info, the only reference provided being the website itself. If the website itself is demonstrated to be the subject of multiple non-trivial citations, or indeed can demonstrate that its reviews are in fact listed in game box covers, then ignore my !vote. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 08:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zunaid, mobygames have this box picture with an adventuregamers quote and another one another and another yet another one more for luck --Amaccormack 11:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not entirely sure if I did it correctly, but I added the box-art links to the page as notes - AGA 11:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've carefully re-read WP:WEB again (and I apologise for simply accepting RockMFR's statement at face value the first time), and as I've mentioned above, I don't think that Criterion #3 is satisfied by "reviews on game-boxes", except perhaps on a technicality. #3 specifically mentions online newspapers and magazines when describing what it means by "distributed via a medium", thus I still feel the article fails WP:WEB per the #1 criterion. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 12:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Some more notability. Ragnar Tornquist says about AG (amongst others) "the reviews from established adventure gaming sites like Adventure Gamers, Just Adventure, and Quandary - to mention a couple - were very important to me"[23] (my bold). --Amaccormack 11:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article on Ragnar Tornquist seems to be AfD material itself for not asserting notability (unless being a game designer is inherently notable?), and the source you cite is his personal blog. I would hesitate to count it towards asserting the notability of this website. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 12:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blogs are allowed as references if they are made by an established expert. Since Ragnar has made a number of very popular (The Longest Journey had sold 450,000 copies at full price in July 2002[24], couldn't find info on sales since then) adventure games, he is perhaps an expert on adventure game sites. If Peter Jackson said that a particular Film Review website was important in his blog, would that count? --Amaccormack 13:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: More notability: --Amaccormack 13:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1. Article on adventuregamers in PC Master, a Greek gaming magazine. (August 2002)
   2. Featured in the TV program GameQuest on the Dutch channel Veronica. (December 2000)
   3. Featured in "Webtips: De 1019 Beste Websites Verzameld" (2000, Issue #1) among large commercial sites such as GameCenter and PC Gameworld.
   4. Screenshot of Adventure Gamer featured in "English Quest 2", an Australian secondary school textbook. The site is used as an example to encourage students to think about the construction of effective web pages. (September 2000, John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd., tentative print run 20000 copies)
   5. Listed in the bibliography of "Ecrire Pour Le Jeu: Techniques Scenaristiques Du Jeu Informatique Et Vidéo" by Emmanuel Gardiola, (June 2000, Editions DIXIT)

• Comment: More notability: -- Technitai 14:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Cited in academic article, "Virtual Recentering: Computer Games and Possible Worlds Theory" by Jan Van Looy http://www.imageandnarrative.be/tulseluper/vanlooy.htm
2. Article reprinted on the website of Ernest Adams, a recognized game design consultant, teacher and author http://www.designersnotebook.com/Scrapbook/AdventureGamers/adventuregamers.htm

• • I've checked out the two links provided and am making a best guess at the content of the non-links. The first link (citation in the academic article) is for the definition of an adventure game and does not exactly contribute to the meat of the article as it were, i.e. the coverage of AdventureGamers in the context of the article is trivial. People cite Wikipedia all the time for definitions and such-like; it doesn't make Wikipedia content any more reliable or notable. The second link is an interview with Ernest Adams conducted by Adventure Gamers. Of course it's going to be published on AdventureGamers and of course Ernest Adams would see fit to republish an interview with himself on his own website. This doesn't lend any more notability to AdventureGamers per se. The magazines and TV programs cited don't seem notable in and of themselves. In summary, what we have is some notable coverage in non-notable media, as well as non-notable coverage in notable media, none of which satisfy WP:WEB. Does the collective power of so many references establish notability? IMHO, no. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 07:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where does it say in WP:WEB that the "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" ought to be notable in themselves? Wouldn't such an additional constraint lead to a circulus vitiosus when trying to establish anything's notability? I believe that if you agree the coverage itself is notable, it should suffice. 87.206.136.183 10:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Notability now appears firmly established. -Toptomcat 18:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the site may have started as a fan page, in the years since its inception it has become the defacto news and editorial source for a sizable pocket of the game community, not just for fans of adventure games and storytelling in games, but for developers of those games, and even other members of the press who cover such games. This has been covered pretty well by the increasing pile of links about the site being posted above. The site's notability and credibility have been well established by others in this thread. Ja2ke 19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Also it's worth noting that this AfD proposal seems to at least partially be a result of an only tangentially-related spat between a member of Adventure Gamers' staff and a Wikipedia mod over whether or not certain Wikipedia articles covering small independently developed freeware adventure games should or shouldn't be deleted. Ja2ke 19:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you be a little more specific? I was not aware of such a spat. Andre (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Amaccormack, especially his comment on the WP:WEB talk page: who reviews review sites? The current rules effectively ban a review site from ever being mentioned in Wikipedia. This is clearly counterproductive. Furthermore, WP:WEB is explicitly descriptive, not perscriptive, and I'm amazed that it's used as a demand. --Kizor 12:56, 24 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:47Z

Christmas Down Under[edit]

Christmas Down Under (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Minor Australian children's book. Doesn't appear on Google, and it's apparently only in two Australian libraries. Nothing from Amazon either. I found no information using our Booksource either (except the two libraries it was in). Doesn't meet verifiability. Wafulz 03:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It does show up on google with a tweak to the search terms[25], but only as a book and CD available[26] through the selfpublishing site Lulu.com Bwithh 06:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:BK Chovain 06:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails WP:BK criteria. feydey 08:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree.--Hu12 13:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination; sounds like "Christmas Down Under" is also a more generic term to describe Christmas in Australia. JRHorse 19:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Couldn't find anything on Google News Archive. Doesn't seem to be notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- self-published books via lulu.com don't qualify for inclusion IMHO. -- Longhair\^talk 11:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- useless article about an obscure kid's book. -- Dasnedius 17:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remain civil.--Wafulz 19:07, 24 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:47Z

New Destiny Church[edit]

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

Contested prod, prod read "Unverifiable, fails WP:V (no Google hits for "New Destiny Church" plus Proost, 3 weak hits (own website plus two uninformative ones) for "destiny church" plus proost) If it is notable but has another name, then please create an article with the correct name." There are a few "new destiny churches"[27], but they seem unrelated (and pretty unremarkable as well). New destiny chruch plus proost gives nothing[28]. None of the three links given in the article seems to work (one "not found", one "under construction", and one "domainname not used". Fram 06:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unverifiable. (Also, just a comment: the creator of the article is Newdestinychurch). Sancho McCann 06:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and prod reasoning. Unverifiable. Delta Tango • Talk 07:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:V. feydey 08:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:COI, WP:V failure, and above all, religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 10:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CHURCH. Lacks independent sources to show notability. One would think a genuine Apostle would get some newspaper coverage. Edison 15:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons stated above--SUIT 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as verifiability violation; see WP:V. Bigtop 23:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:46Z

Curious George 2[edit]

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

This is a complete hoax. It is, according to the article, being released in 2009, and of course all the values in the infobox are set as TBA. Hoax. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Sancho McCann 06:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Note that a google search for "Curious George 2" gets a Malware warning from Google. Not sure it's related, but interesting to note. Chovain 06:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, by the way, I checked the cache, and the flash movie was titled "Curious George Discovers Alcohol". Just proves that it is a definite hoax. Sr13 06:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unsourced crystal balling. MER-C 06:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What is this? WP:CRYSTAL! Sr13 06:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete IMDB doesn't have anything on a sequel. See search results from IMDB. Delta Tango • Talk 07:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax, WP:CRYSTAL applies. feydey 08:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes it is unsourced and crystal balling and should be deleted but I think we're being a little to quick to throw around the word "hoax." It could have been created by someone who read about it or heard about it somewhere and decided to create a stub.--Dmz5 08:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dmz5. Danny Lilithborne 10:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as crystal balling, when it's got some sources to hammer an article from then please reinstate it. Create Curious George 3: George Goes to Hartlepool instead. QuagmireDog 14:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per Sr13. -Toptomcat 18:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Hut 8.5 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as crystal-ball ruling; see WP:NOT. Bigtop 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Curious George (film). Unreferenced crystal balling. —ShadowHalo 22:50, 24 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:46Z

Monkey Alan[edit]

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

This article is about a non existent character in a TV show. Thus the subject cannot be notable because the subject does not exist, except in occasional scripted references to it. Prodded and author removed prod. Fiddle Faddle 07:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 11:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as currently unverifiable, non-notable and painfully trivial. "This is yet to be confirmed and, from the actual shows alone, is impossible to confirm." - which renders one half of this stub as pure speculation. QuagmireDog 14:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Josh Parris#: 23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:46Z

Color or Country[edit]

Color or Country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article was nominated once, and the discussion focused almost entirely on one group of editors trying to convince another incredulous group of editors that the game actually exists. Nominated again, attracted almost no attention. I would like to renominate the article on the grounds that it is unverifiable. There are no third party sources that discuss this in any non-trivial way. Only a few hundred google hits, most irrelevant, many mirroring wikipedia. I do not doubt this game exists but if the only sources we can find are mentions in posts to a math camp message board, it does not warrant an article. Dmz5 07:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I might add that the unverifiable nature of the article is the root of all its other problems, namely a lot of original research, complete lack of sources that might confirm notability (which I am for the moment not going to challenge), and a general air of WP:NFT which may or may not be the case.--Dmz5 07:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find any reliable secondary sources dealing with this game. --Metropolitan90 07:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After reading the 2 previous Afd's - it could be a game. Still after all that to have 0 sources says something (unverifiable). feydey 08:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dmz5's well-reasoned nomination. Danny Lilithborne 10:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Smells of WP:NFT. MER-C 11:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mornington Crescent (game). CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Are you advocating it be merged into the "similar games" part at the bottom? That section seems to be getting long enough to split into a list article, but I am still concerned about notability. --Dmz5 19:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Its unverifiable and, even if it could be verified it doesn't seem notable. Also, as a side note and not as a reason for deletion; if this game is, in fact, real, it has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of. --The Way 22:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral -- ah heck, Delete. AfD has come a long way in a year. On this article's first nomination for deletion, there were large numbers of people around who thought "delete because it's stupid" was a valid reason, and I voted keep largely to counter that. (I also cared because I had edited the article.) AfD now is much more focused on well-defined standards of verifiability, which I must admit that Color or Country doesn't meet. I'll be sad to see it go, but it makes sense. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Echo Rspeer, basically - while I oppose a "delete because I don't know what it is," which was a large part of the previous AfD, I agree with and support a "delete because it can't be verified to Wikipedia standards." Sho Uemura 05:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:42Z

Saga Communications Tower Alleman[edit]

Saga Communications Tower Alleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gray TV Tower Beaver Crossing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Media General Tower Bloomingdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lewis JR Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

KQID TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pinnacle Towers Tower Santa Maria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Panhandle Telecasting Tower Amarillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

State of Wisconsin Tower Park Falls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kimtron Tower Loretto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SpectraSite Tower Bandera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cox Radio Tower Eutis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Capstar Radio Tower Alexis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

KLST TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Elsanor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mercury Broadcasting Tower Cool Springs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Gannett Pacific Tower Knoxville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gray TV Tower Beech Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iowa Public TV Tower Hancock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Post Newsweek Stations San Antonio Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Emmis TV Tower Rural (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As cleanup following successful batch deletions of unremarkable masts, I'm nominating another 21 radio and TV towers on mainland USA which are below 460 meters tall (there are still 21% of all the masts listed which are 460m tall or more). None of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Most of these have been stubs for over a year, none have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 07:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all unless there is demonstrable proof of some sort of notability besides their mere existence. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 08:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Absolutely devoid of notability and all articles repeat information included in List of masts except that they're used for TV (which could so easily be added to that article if anybody was interested). I'm sorry that someone put all that work into creating all of these articles, and that someone else has to put all the work into deleting them. Neil916 (Talk) 08:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge and redirect Why the campaign to remove information from Wikipedia? What harm is this doing? And can we stop these nominations until we see what the consensus is with the previous ones (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wand TV Tower)? --Sandy Scott 09:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please refer to links above piped in "successful batch deletions of unremarkable masts" for history of consensus deletions. Barring any last minute rush, KDEN TV Tower is headed for a near unanimous 'delete'; There are 2 merges and you're the only vote for 'Keep' in Wand TV Tower and KSAX. There are apparently no issues with the principle of deleting these stubs. The only misgivings are the size of AfD nominations. Ohconfucius 10:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing... please refer to the first mass mast-deletion debate, and note that nobody wanted to do the work to create redirects to another article. As action speaks louder than words, surely that speaks volumes? Ohconfucius 11:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per above unless the articles have some source of notability.--Meno25 09:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt every single non-notable tower/mast article on Wikipedia. (as I have said in all previous mast/tower AfD nominations) I think it is the only way that this problem of non-notable masts will be resolved. I would also request a review of these mast articles with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio. Wikipedia is not the MB21 transmission gallery of TV/Radio towers/masts. Any UK based mast information that isn't there should be given to the aforementioned website, and removed from Wikipedia. They won't grow beyond a stub and fail WP:NN miserably as well as WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. --tgheretford (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no non-US masts are being proposed for deletion here. Ohconfucius 10:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am aware of that, but there are a good number of non-notable masts outside of the US which need to be reviewed as with the US masts up for AfD as I stated above. --tgheretford (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. MER-C 11:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all These articles do great harm by filling Wikipedia with stale copies of non-notable info from a database. The huge number of articles were createdd in April 2005, and add nothing to the database from which they were copied. As that database changes over time, there is no automatic process to move changes into this one. TV stations buy taller masts, or the old one blows down and gets replaced, and we take up server space with stale data. Instead, just include a link to the external database in the master article on masts. Edison 15:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Bigtop 23:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all non-notable —EdGl 00:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:41Z

Serenity (spirituality)[edit]

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

Dictionary definition not likely to expand beyond a stub. Wiktionary already has an entry for serenity, so it's not a candidate for transwiki. –  Anþony  talk  08:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MER-C 11:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. There isn't any reason that we couldn't have an article on this topic. Surely, there's been enough philosophical, religious, and spiritual writings on the topic to allow an encyclopedic article. That said, deleting this stubby dicdef (per WP:WINAD) won't make that article harder to write in any way. Serpent's Choice 13:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I added there a link to the Niebuhr's prayer and an external link for it; but serenity is a theme not only in the Christian mystics. Amazon.com has e.g. "The Path to Serenity: The Book of Spiritual Growth and Personal Change Through Twelve-Step Recovery" (Minirth-Meier Clinic Series) by Robert Hemfelt, Frank Minirth, Richard Fowler, Paul Meier - so it is a generally important theme. - The sad fact that something is a short stub does not mean that it should be deleted.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The prayer already has its own article. Even if there is an article to be written about the concept of serenity, deleting this article won't make writing that article any harder. –  Anþony  talk  00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but if we delete it now, it will be very hard to re-create it, because it will be speedy deleted as re-creation of deleted material. It is extremely hard to revert the AfD decisions here. Regarding the prayer's article, it should link just here, because the prayer is only one instance of the concept's presence in the history of spirituality.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, authors are going to link that word when they want that term, and disambiguating will be a nightmare without it. Josh Parris#: 23:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is a lot to be written about serenity: the extent to which it is emphasized or ignored in various religions/spiritualities, recommended paths to serenity by various spiritualities/religions, debate about the extent to which serenity is an attainable goal, etc. Agree w/ Ioannes: "The sad fact that something is a short stub does not mean that it should be deleted." Dave Runger^(t)⁄_(c) 12:42, 25 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. Conscious 15:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacHeist[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion by 72.240.153.72. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 08:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have nominated for afd, a related article My Dream App. Bwithh 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many people seem to not know what it is, and an article like this explaining it is essential. --Biiaru 12:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, assuming nobody finds reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I refer you the extensive news coverage including:

• the homepage of Wired News: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/software/0,72333-0.html?tw=wn_index_1
• Slashdot: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/17/2022219
• theappleblog: http://theappleblog.com/2006/12/14/macheist-hits-50k-mark/
• macslash: http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/15/154251
• macrumors: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/12/20061215115832.shtml
• oreillynet: http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2006/12/oh_what_a_world.html
• lifehacker: http://www.lifehacker.com/software/downloads/download-of-the-day-macheist-bundle-mac-221833.php

Was top of the "most popular" lists on del.icio.us and digg, returns 1,140,000 google articals, and not only that it was included in the weekly News Summaries for sendittopress.com: http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2006-12-1216-001.shtml

All in all this site in such a short period of time became on of the most significant events in the Apple Mac indie software movement. --86.15.162.159 20:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Um... what? Wired, maybe. But you included Slashdot as "news coverage"? Under what definition is mention on Slashdot "news coverage"? The others are no better. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim to encyclopedic notability. A contest like this needs publicity otherwise it can't operate. So it gets computer press coverage. But wikipedia is not a magazine/news archive Bwithh 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually I disagree, I have removed the "mac-fanboy" section that was un-encyclopedic, and have spoken to the guy who wrote it. However, it did raise some interesting points, the major being that as a new style of marketing an otherwise niche software market it succeeded. Moreover, this was an unprecedented event within the macintosh community which has, (by initial estimates), boosted the mac shareware economy considerably and is already considered a landmark event in the history of the macintosh community's close relationship between software makers and users. Personally I question the necessity to have articles on Wikipedia about individual episodes of south park, and yet they remain unchallenged. This event actually meant something to the mac community, and is worthy of inclusion in Wikipeida. 86.15.162.159 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's nice that it meant something to the Mac community. Meaning something does not override WP:V. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a participant in this site, as well as being an admin at Wikipedia, I don't like the position I'm in. However, since this was a big event for the Apple rumors community I would say that this would be a keep because of the scale of the event. (However, I would not say the same for My Dream App). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event has turned out to be important to the Mac community. And I don't know if this counts as a reliable resource, but here's one more article:

• Macworld: http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/11/20/macheist/index.php

Sorry if I did this wrong, first time using Wikipedia as a voice instead of a viewer. --adamdash

• Weak Delete. I'm not sure about WP:V (although if it passes, it is by a very, very thing margin), but considering the debate that the event caused, I think the article also needs to be considered with WP:NPOV in mind. --67.37.110.70 13:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely doesn't have WP:V. --69.23.80.84 17:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This was a fairly well-known project, has some reasonably big names, and was quite conterversial to some people. —JeremyBanks Talk 07:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Of course this is going to be in all the computer media, that's natural. Still not worthy for an encyclopedia, in my opinion. — Wackymacs 13:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Shouldn;t be in an encyclopedia
• Keep. People around the net have been hearing about this and don't know what Macheist is about, this page clearly explains its content, purpose and mechanics. --R031E5 21:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Tens of thousands of members, hundreds of thousands of dollars raised in charity, and contributions from many major developers should definitely signify some notability. --YesIAmAnIdiot 00:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I visited this page for the very reason of finding out more about Macheist!
  • The MacHesit website and official wiki take care of that for people. --69.23.80.84 19:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a rather prominent event in the Mac community. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's great, but as discussed above, this does make it WP:V --69.23.80.84 19:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Does someone have a reference which is not wired.com or slashdot? -Amarkov

^blah_edits 17:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This has been one of the most important (IMO) sites in the Mac community this year. It has helped unknown developers become famous, and should be here so people of future generations can look back on it. Maxinater 21:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well I have found two references in the computer magazine macworld: http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/11/20/macheist/index.php http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/mwpodcast/2006/11/mwpodcast58/index.php plus it can be found http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36418 and on the O'Reilly Media website, http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2006/12/taking_the_heist.html I have to say this event is worth of being here, for the sheer scale of interest it caused both inside and outside of the mac community. --Adamwilcox 21:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No print references? — Wackymacs 21:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I believe macworld are including it in their next issue, but you know the delay between online and print. always amazes me how tech magazines stay in print, they can never compete with the online counterparts.

Macworld don't always put everything in their magazine (since there are too many news stories), so we can't count on that happening. I haven't seen much mention of MacHeist outside of Mac/Tech sites. I still don't think this even meets the Wikipedia:Notability (web) criteria (since there hasn't been mention in any print publications, it hasn't won any awards, etc). The web notability criteria does not allow Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. - so Slashdot, Macworld, Wired don't exactly count. — Wackymacs 21:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete self promoting garbage
• Keep This artlice accuratley describes a website for a business organization, if you will, that offers games to its consumers, no different than say Yahoo or Google —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.132.24.116 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Except that Google and Yahoo are global brands and multi-billion dollar businesses, both listed on the stock exchange? — Wackymacs 10:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's a reason we got rid of Phill's page, and there's a reason we should get rid of this one. MacHeist is way overblown, handled on controversial terms by a boy known for his underhanded ways. He doesn't deserve a fraction of the attention he's getting, and there's no reason he should be on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.140.223.210 (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Naconkantari 20:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Monarch[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-20 09:24Z

• Delete Concerns about WP:RS. A load of allegations, nothing solid. Tinfoilhatcruft. --Folantin 09:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Folantin. If its existence is open to doubt, then you can almost guarantee that Wikipedia should not have an article on it - here WP:V, WP:RS. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Project Monarch or Operation Monarch is reputedly a subsection of the Central Intelligence Agency's mind control research" (emphasis mine). Well, we can't write an article about rumours, can we? MER-C 11:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cleanup, and watch. Moreschi's reasoning is understandable, but it's actually incorrect. Wikipedia has, and should have, articles on many things whose existence is open to doubt, or has even been completely disproven: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; the Hitler Diaries; the Cottingley Fairies... This article should not be kept because any of the bizarre and outlandish claims made about Project Monarch are believable; far from it. It should be kept because those bizarre and outlandish claims have received a measure of attention in and of themselves. In fact, since probably the most exposure the Project Monarch 'theories' got was with the publication of Brice Taylor's "Thanks For The Memories ... The Truth Has Set Me Free! The Memoirs of Bob Hope's and Henry Kissinger's Mind-Controlled Slave" and the ensuing media attention, the article really needs to be revised to include information about Taylor's book. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fine. But look. At the moment this article contains no reliable sources and notability is not asserted, much less backed up by more reliable sources. Under those circumstances, it should go. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Pretty major conspiracy theory. A need for improvement is not an argument for deletion. Ford MF 19:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete tinfoilhatcruft - I like that. How do we measure the significance of a conspiracy theory? Obviously Kennedy conspiracy theorys need articles in the context of the main article but this? .... I think not. Spartaz 20:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The CIA is good, The CIA is great, I say DELETE as of this date. Oh, where was I. Anyway, there really is not significant material about this conspiracy theory presented to write a decent NPOV article on it, and I would like to see that the conspiracy theory was notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danntm (talk • contribs)
• Do Not Delete There is ample evidence out there that this is no conspiracy theory. It is Conspiracy Fact. Read The Franklin Coverup, Trance-Formation of America, The Montauk Project books. It should not be deleted and/or censored from this site. Why are the Wikipedia pages dealing with Government Conspiracy's being negatively modified and /or deleted from this site. Someone is going to great lengths to conceal this information. LEAVE IT ALONE!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.58.177.202 (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but your claims are incorrect. You'll notice that there has never been any attempt to delete the article on Project MKULTRA from Wikipedia. This is because there is actual evidence indicating the existence of Project MKULTRA. Contrary to your claim that there is "ample evidence" on there really being a Project Monarch, all we have ever gotten on the subject are ample claims. Merely repeating and amplifying the same claims over and over does not make them "evidence" instead of claims. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep This afd is about the rumors of the project rather than the project it seems. The project probably wouldn't be able to meet WP:V due to its nature. Just H 01:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:39Z

Brewerfan.net[edit]

Brewerfan.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable fancruft, fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Alexa rank of 1,985,328, media mentions are either trivial or unverifiable. Article should be deleted. RWR8189 09:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment looking at the page's log, it seems like this article was twice subject to speedy deletion.--RWR8189 09:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete db-web. Danny Lilithborne 10:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 11:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Hu12 13:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'll resist the temptation to label this "sausagecruft", but a few passing mentions from reputable sources isn't enough to satisfy WP:WEB. Caknuck 21:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as web and verifiability violations. Bigtop 23:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This fails WP:WEB. Daniel5127 <Talk> 08:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article lists references below and we have many other articles where BF.net was mentioned if we can only look for them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adamb10 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete A trivial mention on an ESPN show does not equal notability. One Night In Hackney 23:28, 25 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:39Z

Anti-Mac[edit]

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

Notable author, but the paper seems to be NN, as it hasn't really had an impact on UI design. Twinxor t 10:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a 1996 Communications of the ACM essay based upon a CHI'95 panel discussion. While some of the points may appear very new and controversial, it has had no impact in ui design or thought (not that any of the points were original). --Ronz 16:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comment. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 20:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The above comments, plus the fact that the subject is not really developped in the article, since it is 6 lines long. Dravick 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN proposal per above. At best smerge a line into History of the graphical user interface. --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable as written above. – Mipadi 01:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; mention it in the Jakob Nielsen article as part of his ongoing work, if anything. -/- Warren 10:59, 26 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:38Z

Karni Singh Rathore[edit]

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

It is not a famous person, that I know of. AxG (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unsourced. Found zero sources to back up assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO. MER-C 11:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per ((db-bio))--RWR8189 11:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 13:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now The article is sourced with a Indian medal citation from the 1980s, though I don't personally know how to verify that! Taking its content in good faith, this subject was involved in a newsworthy event (as WP:BIO) when the leader of an insurgent group was killed in combat. Maybe the original editor can help identify verifiable sources. --Mereda 14:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sources seem to attest notability. Also "not a famous peron that I know of" != "nonnotable".Bakaman 19:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced. Bigtop 23:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Definately notable .Recepient of highest peacetime militray award of India .Citation by Indian army is RS . Also "not a famous peron that I know of" is not a ground to delete .Shyamsunder 16:04 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be notable. Lots of English-language bias in this nom... --- RockMFR 04:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I strongly support to keep the article. He has done meritorious service to the Indian Army and is winner of Kirti Chakra. burdak 17:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above.--D-Boy 11:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep' . Comment: the definition of natable is not the absurd "not a famous person, that I know of" DGG

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