< December 20	December 22 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was Redirect to Economic system; nom withdrawn. Agent 86 18:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Econmic systems[edit]

A valid topic, but a mis-spelling of Economic system, an article which already exists and is far superior. Walton monarchist89 16:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it would have been simpler to Wikipedia:Redirect this to the correct spelling.... NickelShoe (Talk) 16:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK will do that. Walton monarchist89 17:37, 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 Speedy Delete --light darkness^(talk) 02:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emo Bunni Inc.[edit]

This article seems to be nothing more than an advertisement. Is biased, and in severe need of cleanup Achilles2.0 00:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. Many and sundry other things that can qualify, but I can live with a db-group. --Dennisthe2 01:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete also for me. Big top 01:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete before the emo bunni cries. --Dhartung | Talk 01:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. So tagged. Sr13 01:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above responses. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 02:13, 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 bold merge and redirect to movie memorabilia. --- RockMFR 05:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Memorabilia[edit]

Redundant to Movie memorabilia. Note the capitalization of "memorabilia". -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Movie memorabilia-- wtfunkymonkey 01:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Movie memorabilia also. Big top 01:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Movie memorabilia. Sr13 01:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Movie memorabilia. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 02:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Just H 02:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've taken care of the merge but I seem to fail at redirects, which should probably wait until after the AfD anyway. -- wtfunkymonkey 03:52, 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 Redirect to Grease Trucks. The non-commercial content (e.g. ingredients) are already listed in the target article and mentions in media suggest sufficient notability to support a redirect. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Darrell[edit]

Is this a notable sandwich? Subwayguy 01:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7. Sr13 01:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only appears to refer to one sandwich at one university cafe. Not very notable, per nomination. Bob talk 01:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the Grease Trucks articleDelete and redirect per nom and Cattlegirl--M8v2 02:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no merge, as it already has a mention in Grease Trucks. This is also a bit of an advertisement- 'only $5 each'. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 02:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable - and reads to me as more than just a "bit" advertisement - as Cattle Girl points out, "only $5"? a great deal - what, no phone number for delivery? --Krich (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Five dollars? What a bargain! Danny Lilithborne 04:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Grease Trucks, assuming the Maxim statement about it being the #1 sandwich in the nation can be sourced. Barring that, delete, as WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate ingredients. No WP:RS indicating this sandwich is notable beyond, well, being eaten off a Grease Truck. Mmmm, sandwichcruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, there is no need to merge any information, the secret ingredients are already listed on that page. The marinara sauce always gives me indigestion, but I still eat them. The sandwich is notable but the whole story is already told in the other article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send Grease Trucks to AfD, which is the actual Rutgerscrufty article. Note that the sources at Grease Trucks are actually about the sandwich. ~ trialsanderrors 05:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per above. Just H 05:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grease Trucks. Google results indicate it's notable enough to warrant a redirect (USA Today and FOX News reported on its #1 sandwich status), but it doesn't need its own article. -SpuriousQ 06:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all delete comments. --teh tennis man 16:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem deleting this form of the article because it is pathetic. I've had nothing to do with this incarnation. But I do announce that I intend within a week or two to write a decent article about the sandwich which Maxim magazine states is the best in the country (See Grease Trucks article for articles to that effect) .—ExplorerCDT 16:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per above. - SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 16:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep or merge into a sandwich list if there is any --Slogankid 16:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect it's already mentioned in grease trucks - 'nuf said there. SkierRMH,19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
Delete and I'm not sure it could ever have its own article, even if Maxim bestows a title on it. It isn't The Whopper and never will be.--Dmz5 05:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing indicates its notability. Mukadderat 18:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be nonnotable and very little information provided. Davidpdx 07:21, 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 Speedy delete g10, attack page. NawlinWiki 01:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celina football[edit]

No real content, seems POV also. Navou ^talk 01:28, 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. Although this has already been redirected, the consensus here is to delete even the redirect.

Wedding Saga[edit]

AfD nominated by Tyar with reason: "DELETE. This saga is fake, false a sham!". This is a procedural nomination - my own opinion is Neutral. Note that the article has also been CSD'd as a hoax article - no specific CSD criterion mentioned. Tevildo 01:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 03:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Gvisp 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems legit, but not sure. Just H 05:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional merge and redirect, gotta find out if it is a hoax or not. Even if it isn't a hoax, present article is sub-stub and should be merged. - SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 16:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to merge - the little information here is already on other page. No redirect as this name is either hoax or non notable since we cant find it.Obina 17:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and What? smells hoaxaliscious to me. SkierRMH 19:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy close it's been redirected. If undone delete or redirect as duplicate content. --Kunzite 01:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as has already been done. It seems to take care of the issue sufficently enough to link it to the correct usaage. Davidpdx 07:23, 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 redirect to Heckler & Koch G36. Big top 02:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G36C[edit]

There is already an article for the G36 which includes all the info in this clone article.

Redirect to G36 per nom. Big top 02:03, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:39Z

ESlavery[edit]

Protologism. Google search yields only hits to this wiki page & the DRM page. Ripe 01:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--M8v2 02:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR Just H 02:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above responses. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 02:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, nn neologism. MER-C 03:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article admits it's a protologism. —ShadowHalo 05:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn notable neologism.--John Lake 06:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a protologism. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above responses. Tkenna 13:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above responses.--E va ^bd 15:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks the sources to satisfy WP:NEO. Not to mention that as evil as DRM is, it is inflammatory to compare DRM to one of the most evil institutions thought up of by humanity.-- danntm ^T _C 16:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... nn neologism. SkierRMH 19:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Hu12 22:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom - -- Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 11:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See WP:NOT. Davidpdx 07:26, 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 redirect to Googlebomb. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:40Z

French military victories (practical joke)[edit]

Delete an internet meme that I believe is not notable enough to have its own wikipedia article. Perhaps worthy of mention in the Google bomb article or Anti-French sentiment in the United States but not its own article. Jersey Devil 01:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Having studied googlebombs extensively, and I even created one myself (no further comment on that), I can tell you that no single google bomb is noteworthy in and of itself. The phenomenon as a whole is noteworthy, and is discussed properly in the article titled Googlebomb. The specific example of "French military victories" is not worthy of its own article. In addition, the article as written contains some factual errors and NPOV problems, but I won't fix them because it should just be deleted. 129.98.212.143 02:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Jersey Devil. Meme seems like it could possibly be notable, but not sure. Just H 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jersey Devil. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 02:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Bwithh 03:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 04:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable, but already mentioned in Googlebomb per anon user. Sr13 04:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.ER ^Talk 07:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I recall this one being more notable than most googlebombs, having been mentioned in quite a few newspapers. At 2003 it was topical, due to the Iraq war and France using their UN veto. Perhaps since it's been a long time since then it no longer meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines, and is deserving of a merge or deletion, but at the moment for me, it's still a weak keep. Tkenna 13:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can be covered by Googlebomb. Lord Gravitron ^{Message | Contrib} 14:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom--E va ^bd 15:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Information about this should be added to the Googlebomb article, as it's a well-known example, but a separate article is unnecessary. Pinball22 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. SupaStarGirl 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge A perfectly true article, and mildly amusing, but not individually notable.--Anthony.bradbury 19:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Googlebomb per Liberté, égalité, fraternité but never victoire. SkierRMH 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Googlebomb, where this can be readily covered.-- danntm ^T _C 21:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep indeed notable as stated with the First nomination RiseRobotRise 06:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense article. Daniel5127 <Talk> 07:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mergewith Googlebomb per above comments -- Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 11:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Googlebomb. --- RockMFR 20:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Anomo 21:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no merge. Ephemeral joke. Mukadderat 18:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, as per Tkenna. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iicatsii (talk • contribs) 18:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Kingjeff 20:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Delete Nonesense, low noteablity. Davidpdx 07:28, 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 all. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:44Z

Also deleted:

TNA weekly pay-per-view, weeks 1-10[edit]

Basically a weekly TV show. Not notable. Has just about as many as episodes of iMPACT!. Brief information already on main PPV page. Aaru Bui ^DII 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete all per nom. Big top 02:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. MER-C 03:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, little more than a TV show. TJ Spyke 04:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:TV, WP:TVE--Winypoter 08:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That would only apply to the entertainment side of the show, mainly the storylines and characters, which those articles have little of and are generally about the sporting side, the wrestling. --Aaru Bui ^DII 12:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. Normy132 09:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone's interested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TNA iMPACT! results, April 2006 --Aaru Bui ^DII 12:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom & precedent (Aaru Bui's link above). SkierRMH 20:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom & indiscriminate collection of information. It may also be speedy since it is essentially a recreation of previously deleted pages.--Nick Y. 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Two hour wrestling PPVs are notable enough for me (see In Your House. Mshake3 04:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well those weren't weekly and there weren't 110 of them. --Aaru Bui ^DII 04:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - 28 is still a lot, and there could have been several more if WWE wanted too. Weekly shouldn't make a difference. Mshake3 04:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Are we going to document every minute of TV ever broadcasted? We don't have articles describing every match of a certain week of the soccer season in some country, even though they all get long summaries in TV shows, and often are broadcasted completely and reported on in the mainstream media. I fail to see how this is any different, except that AFAIK it doesn't get much coverage in the mainstream press, making it even less notable. An article about the show, no problem, but not this week-after-week summary please. Fram 08:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Govvy 22:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. If people are going to get picky about PPV events, then the UK only WWE PPVs should go as well. Many are very non-notable, and seem to exist just because it's a PPV (which people always seem to assume makes it completely notable). Same goes for Heroes of Wrestling, a one time PPV event that was basically a "legends" show that flopped horribly. In my opinion, if weekly TNA PPV events go, many others need to as well. There is others I'm sure as well. RobJ1981 17:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Nonnotable and rediculous to be covered in Wikipedia. Davidpdx 07:29, 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 as a non-notable club/organisation, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's University Chess Club[edit]

First nomination was closed yesterday as keep, but is being brought here directly (rather than going through DRV after discussion with the closing administrator. The problem with the first AfD being closed as keep was that none of the editors who opined keep offered a valid rationale per WP policy or guidelines. In sort, having notable members, being involved in a notable game or competing in notable tournaments does not make an organization notable. The organization itself (not its tournaments, members or game) must have been the subject of multiple, independent coverage in reliable sources and this organization has not been. JChap2007 01:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, but I'm not sure. The vast majority of chess clubs are not notable. I would say that a chess club is notable if a historic chess event took place there, or if a world-class grandmaster played there for several years. On these criteria the Marshall Chess Club in New York City would qualify, but all we have about it in Wikipedia is this line in Frank Marshall: "In 1915 he opened the Marshall Chess Club in New York." Look at the pages in Category:Chess clubs, and you will see that the notability of most of them is highly questionable. A particular offender is SKSamobor. So I think the article under discussion should be deleted, and the other chess club articles should be reviewed, perhaps in CfD. 129.98.212.143 02:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. This Club is old and has been involved with various notable chess people and events. Comment on above - we do not decide whether to delete articles or even review articles by discussing whether to delete the category they are in. Note that this article is not even in the Category:Chess clubs, but it should be. --Bduke 02:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this reasoning isn't based on the applicable notability criteria. JChap2007 03:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which reasoning? The main keep recommendation or the comment? The problem with this article is that it needs cleanup. I came across it by chance. I am not a chess player and I am not from Canada. "the oldest traceable recorded Canadian correspondence chess game" seems to meet notability guidelines, except I can not find the reference on the URL given. Outside verification is likely for much of this article, but has not been found. Much of the article should be trimmed out. Instead of trying to delete interesting but unverified material, we should at this stage be trying to find verified sources. Maybe in the end this will have to go, but I do not see it has to go now. --Bduke 04:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The keep recommendation. Which notability guideline does "the oldest traceable recorded Canadian correspondence chess game" meet? It seems like another version of "This number is big." JChap2007 04:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm not sure where it is but something that goes back with a continuous history of 160 years is very frequently considered notable. Age for schools for example is used as a criteria. Both the Club and presumably corrspondence chess have such a continuous history. Stuff in my country that goes back to the 1840s is certainly considered notable. Remember we are using guidelines. If something is interested and can be verified we should ignore guidelines if we have to and keep. However I grant you that this article needs work, and I guess it will not happen over the Christmas holiday period. I'm going to leave to others now and sort out my holiday period. --Bduke 06:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability guidelines are guidelines. There is no need to cite one when recommending keep or delete. You are even free to say that you think the article should be kept, despite the guidelines. Your opinion is still valid. The guidelines are simply a refection on what the community tends to view as notable etc.: they are descriptive not proscriptive. Some of us think notability is pretty useless as a criterion anyway.--Doc^g 09:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per plenty of precedents of student societies being not notable by definition, or per WP:ORG. Quite frankly, this is not one of those exceptions which proves the rule. Don't be fooled by the smoke and mirrors, the article tries to give the impression of things which were not the case, by including some verbose POV text, tenuous links and assertions. It seems to be written in a specific attempt to avoid deletion, with too much padding not of direct relevance to the club. Some examples, the QUCC's origins within the Kingston Chess club are tenuous at best; QUCC was founded in the 1950s, not 1841!; Larry Melvyn Evans was already American champ when he played at the tournament at QU, and was not a member of the QUCC. A complete re-write will show this up clearly, but I don't see it worth the effort unless it's the only way to convince the community of the delete conclusion which is staring me in the face. I was equally surprised at the keep verdict, for the reasons given by the nom. In addition, this poorly written, excessively linked up article is a real turn-off. But then, I suspect that's also part of the smoke and mirrors. Ohconfucius 09:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ohconfucius who sums up the article well. Nuttah68 11:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. As the nominator of the first AfD, I based the original nomination on the precedent that university clubs are generally non-notable, with few exceptions. After re-reading the article based on Ohconfucius's statements, I must agree with his sentiments. The article reads to imply that the club was founded at the same time as the university; however, I'm about 99.44% certain that this is not the case. Andy Saund e rs 13:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - per above and vast community consensus on student clubs. Claim to notability is misleading, group is unencyclopedic. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 13:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete student club at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Reference to student clubs as an overall category is misleading. This is a club with international connections, mentioned in the article, and clearly a definite, if closely defined, notability. If it is thought that the clear and uncontested notability of some players who belong to the club does not confer notability to the club, then so be it; but in chess, the players ARE the club. Arguing admittedly by analogy and not by official policy, in WP:MUSIC a band is notable if it contains a notable member. Why should a chess club be different?--Anthony.bradbury 19:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True, a band is notable if it contains a notable member. But this argument by analogy turns, I think, on two different senses of the word "member." A "member" of a club is merely someone who has joined the club, whearas a band is defined as that particular group of musicians. To put it another way, if the most famous member of a chess club left it, the club would still continue. The same may not be true of the most famous member of a band. Charlie 20:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. - Aditya Kabir 20:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Ohconfucius, unless the article can be cleaned up.Charlie 20:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting and its a notable university and a search turns up a lot of hits. Not sure why we have to keep having AfD's until it is deleted. --64.230.127.234 21:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, google turns up 22 hits including wikipedia[1] Bwithh 20:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment It seems like Wikipedia's AfD system is badly flawed. If an AfD fails it comes here. If it fails here it way goes back and gets re-nominated, usually many times over until finally a minority get the verdict they want (delete). There is also POV with this delete from the original mover, he says no keep voters offered rational and that clearly wasn't the case. Anyway I vote for delete (not noteable) but can't login from here so its anon - --155.144.251.120 02:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plus a good cleanup. 03:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Without going into too much detail, I support the notion of keeping this article per the reasoning of the first AfD debate. However, the article needs improvement in terms of style, organization, citations, etc. --Jay(Reply) 19:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General question for the people commenting "keep and clean up": what would a cleaned-up article would look like? It would just be a shorter version of the current article: a disconnected list of tournaments and matches. This is because the club itself has not been the subject of multiple, independent reliable sources, which would enable us to write a good article on it. Also, does anybody dispute Ohconfucius's analysis of the true age of this club? "It's old" was a reason offered for keep in both AfDs. Also, WP:INTERESTING is not a valid rationale for keep, nor is the connection to something else (Queen's University) that is (definitely) notable. JChap2007 19:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing encyclopedic about this school club. Agent 86 21:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, there is nothing more notable in the chess club world than this club, read its history, amazing! if this is not notable, then 3/4 of the chess articles in general will have to go under the same criteria. really, go read the article, it's notable under wp:org. --Buridan 03:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buridan, please read Ohconfucius' comments above regarding the history of QUCC and get back to me. Andy Saund e rs 04:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buridan, your claim that "there is nothing more notable in the chess club world than this club, read its history, amazing!" is extraordinary - can you back it up with reliable evidence? Bwithh 20:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't need to, find a comparable chess club in wikipedia. the history in the article, if cited and verified makes this club notable. how so you ask? if i were on a high school chess team and looking to go to a college with a chess club, this is the sort of chess club that would strike me as having accomplished some things in the chess world.--Buridan 13:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buridan, the point we're trying to make here is that the history of the club as presented in the article is incredibly misleading to a reader. It needs to explicitly say when the club was founded, and provide a source saying that the club was founded in that year. Right now, it makes a misleading claim that implies that the club was founded in the same year as Queen's University itself, which I'm pretty sure is false. This goes nothing to say that the precedent set by other discussions around here that says that "student clubs are generally NOT notable", and I don't particularly see any internationally famous grandmasters that played chess at this club. Andy Saund e rs 15:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buridan, you may not need verifiable, reliable sources (not to mention straightforward claims) in order to believe this club is the greatest chess club ever, but Wikipedia does Bwithh 17:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That means it needs cleanup not deletion, if they do not have sources, which I bet they easily do given the documentation of chess history, that is a different story, but to me they meet the notable test, they just need cleanup to be verifiable. I agree, student clubs are generally not notable, that is why they put the word 'generally' in there. there are exceptions to the rule, this seems to be an easy one.--Buridan 05:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you think the reliable sources will be easy to find, perhaps you can come with some? All of the hits (which aren't solid hits anyway) in Google Books relate to the Irish, not Canadian, Queen's University[2], I notice. And there's no club website on the university domain[3]. And very few google hits generally[4]. Of course google is not everything, but where do you think you will find your reliable, verifiable sources? Bwithh 09:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History if more often found in books, and no, i'm not going to cleanup the article. what i suggest is that you tag it with cleanup, describe what needs to be cleaned up, and if no one cleans it up in a year, you put it up for afd after a year. --Buridan 22:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an club where some people or events are notable by association. Mukadderat 18:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Broad failure of core non-negotiable policy WP:V I second User:Ohconfucius and the nominator's arguments. Dubious, unreferenced notability at best, which still fails WP:V. The smoke and mirrors count against the article e.g. a lot of the names dropped seem to have no direct relationship with the club at all e.g. a player's father was professor at the university but it is not asserted that the player was a member of the club; some players were contestants at a tournament held at the university, which may have been their only contact with the university ever. There also seems to be an unspoken and unsubstantiated assumption that if a chess player attended the university, they must have been part of this club - but for all we know, there may be more than one chess club on campus and they preferred the other one or perhaps they preferred attending an off-campus chess club or perhaps they preferred playing outside of a chess club Bwithh 20:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke.It's notable but the article could use work.Akanksha 18:11, 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 14:45Z

Kersal Massive[edit]

From speedy. Appears to be a YouTube meme, but there is no verifiability with reliable sources. Since there is an assertion of notability, I've brought it to AFD. Given the nature of the subject, I've preemptively placed ((afdanons)) on this debate. Core desat 02:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable meme. No outside sources available.Only about 17000 google hits for the term Kersal Massive most pointing to a myspace page. The video itself is not even that popular on youtube--M8v2 02:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 04:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS indicating this meme meets WP:WEB. Seems like astroturfing to me, but I'm not about to click on that YouTube link. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just H 05:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Charlie 06:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable, plus much of the article is overblown lyrical analysis that can only be original research. --Tractorkingsfan 06:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Aldux 14:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn chav garbage--Slogankid 17:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources to pass WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 17:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cribcage 18:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - WP:V & Myspace≠notariety. SkierRMH 20:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Jhamez84 11:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Non-notable.Akanksha 18:13, 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 14:46Z

Limfjorden Overhead powerline crossing 1[edit]

When proposing the Radio and TV masts for deletion, I never imagined that I would find articles for electricity pylons in wikipedia. Now I have been proven wrong. Watch out now for telephone boxes and lampadaires next! ;-) I propose the above articles for deletion first and above all because I do not see there is a place for them here in wikipedia WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Furthermore, I would say these utilitarian structures are of even less interest to the public than radio masts, and the articles are almost certain to remain stubs forever. SO WTF cares if they are the tallest pylons in any given country? I beg to move: Strong delete. Ohconfucius 02:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Pyloncruft. --Sable232 02:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's more crap in here. MER-C 03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mein gott!, Trainspotters must be fun people after all... Ohconfucius 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bizarre in its obscurity. Chairman S. ^Talk _Contribs 04:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just H 05:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Dear God, is this what passes for notable information, worthy of encyclopedic preservation? Charlie 06:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate list of everything that exists or has existed. Demiurge 10:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent reliable published references to show the notability of these pylons. Wow! The mailbox on the corner and the telephone pole behind my house don't have articles yet. Edison 18:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both wow, just wow. Absent independent sources indicating why we these particular pylons are unique and worthy of note, this article really should not exist.-- danntm ^T _C 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and on my way to create an article about this really beat up old mailbox (probably the oldest in my city)... arrgh... SkierRMH 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Big top 23:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Oh, and speaking of trainspotters, there's this.... --Calton | Talk 06:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete on both. I agree WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Davidpdx 08:31, 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 Speedily deleted, author requests deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 09:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aja Watkins a.k.a "Beautiful"[edit]

Contested prod. Concern: "Does not meet WP:BIO criteria; only notable as a 3rd place runner-up in Miss Maryland Teen USA ([5]). Possible CSD A7." Muchness 02:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO; obvious COI; only 26 unique and 42 total Google hits for "Aja Watkins". -- Kicking222 03:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia ≠ Geocities. ~ trialsanderrors 03:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated, doesn't meet WP:BIO. --Krich (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete article was blanked by author. Danny Lilithborne 04:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, a.k.a "fails WP:BIO". Possibly a speedy candidate due to the repeated blanking by the author (although I've restored the article, with the AfD template, per procedure). --Kinu ^t/_c 04:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete close. Just H 05:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete if the article was blanked by the author. Otherwise Delete, since being on some state beauty pageant team is not sufficient notability (winning a state title might be). Basically seems like promotion. Hu 05:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, authors subsequent actions. Charlie 06:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. Note, author keeps blanking the article. --Dennisthe2 06:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article currently ends at "While attending college she expanded her modeling career, becoming a". I guess we'll never find out what she became. Not that I'm complaining. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a.k.a. "Vanity" Oh my god, I am so funny! Wavy G 08:17, 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 ~ trialsanderrors 05:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino American Identity Development[edit]

Article is a personal essay and intrinsically OR. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT original research. The model was published in the Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development in January 2004.

It is VERY important that this type of information is available for the general public and not just in academia, which is why it should be available on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotBachelor (talk • contribs)

In that case it is primary thought and original research, and on top of that probably copyrighted. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A summary of a not-especially-notable journal article isn't encyclopedic. Geoffrey Spear 16:27, 14 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, trialsanderrors 03:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research. I had a look at the paper in question, the article is not a copyvio. MER-C 03:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C and nom. Big top 04:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could't access the actual journal article this was based on, but on the talk page the article creator admits it's a paraphrase of the journal article only. WP:OR - you can use the article as a citation when writing another article about the topic (assuming the topic warrants an encyclopedia article, which is not readily evident) - but you can't just post the journal article itself or a paraphrase of it. --Krich (talk) 04:09, 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 ~ trialsanderrors 05:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Lake Greeley[edit]

Contested prod, moving to AfD instead. No opinion. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh gosh.. I went to this camp for a bunch of years of my youth. I dunno about notability, I'll see if I can come up with anything. --Howrealisreal 16:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not an encyclopedic camp. No more notable than the many other summer camp. Wikipedia is not a camp directory. Agent 86 19:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it can be proven through the use of externally verifiable, third party, reliable, factchecked sources that this camp has done something significantly above and beyond "We are a summer camp, at which kids come and do summer camp things", the article should be deleted. -- saberwyn 21:36, 14 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, trialsanderrors 03:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 03:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article makes no claims of notability for the camp at all. --Krich (talk) 04:11, 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 delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:48Z

Pxr[edit]

Article is a hoax, there is no such thing as "pXr". Treadmill running with obstacles? Jumping of 40ft high structures (and surviving)? It's obviously a joke from someone in the parkour community. David Scarlett^(Talk) 03:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DelXr. mXr roXr uXr soXr. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 03:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 04:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the French book listed as a reference doesn't seem to exist - I know, shXcking. --Krich (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I swear, that title looks exactly like someone badly trying to create French by tweaking English words and adding "L'". It isn't, but still... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not entirely convinced this is a joke, as much of the stupid stuff was added by anons. BJAODN if deleted. --- RockMFR 05:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but look at the original author's version. Catching a wall in your teeth is absurd. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heh. Yeah.... BJAODN. --- RockMFR 01:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN "Semi-condensed pXr involes pXring on a treadmill that has obstacles on it." I laughed so hard I cried. Ashibaka tock 05:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the picture alone makes it BJAODN-worthy, though. Danny Lilithborne 05:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Just H 05:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Charlie 06:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been ((db-nonsense)) tagged. Has anyone out there SEEN the distance between the first and second stages of the Eiffel Tower? Clearly the author has not.--Anthony.bradbury 19:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since they left out the most important thing they should be doing - attempting to stop trains by placing their genetalia on the tracks. SkierRMH 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree it violates WP:V. Davidpdx 07:31, 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 redirect to Watch Out! in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:49Z

Hey, It's Your Funeral Mama[edit]

Coming out on muchmusic does not make you notable. And if they're too tired to play, I'm too tired to vote to keep it. D enni ^talk 03:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 04:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that this subject meets WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Just H 05:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per common sense. Charlie 06:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of any assertion that the song passes WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 20:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC, WP:BAND and WP:GENERAL ANGST SkierRMH 20:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. TSO1D 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Common sense tells me to keep released singles. It's received airplay on a national station, worth keeping around. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The single has been mentioned in the article about the band on Wikipedia, I honestly don't think this single is noteable enough to warrent its own article. Davidpdx 07:34, 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 Speedy move Standing (law) to Standing, which is what User:64.20.163.2 tried to do on June 16, 2006. ~ trialsanderrors 04:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standing[edit]

Ugh. Okay, Standing is identical to Standing (law). There is no point in having two identical articles. "Merging" them would still be the same thing as deleting one, since they are the same article. This why I am proposing deletion. Please discuss. Look at the Talk:Standing page or my comment here for more info. Arnesh 04:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected. :) All that needs to be done, in that case, is to change one article to a redirect - no need to delete either. Tevildo 04:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Standing to sue" and keep. A notable legal concept that is a big part of supreme court proceedings, the first test for any appeal is whether A: the court has jurisdiction and B: the appelant has standing to sue. Enough importance and potential information for it's own article, and merging into lawsuit would be a bit ungainly. It is well sourced, encyclopedic and discusses importance and origin of the concept. Might use a bit of expansion (into EU law and the origins in common law) but I see no possible reason for deletion under WP:NOT. Wintermut3 04:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to existing article Standing (law) --Krich (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I rather imagine that the "Reason" mentioned above is that it's a duplicate of Standing (law). If so, my opinion would be Redirect, with locus standi as the article and the other two as redirects. Tevildo 04:30, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:49Z

New Hampshire Underground[edit]

Delete non-notable eminent domain protesters. Just H 04:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN-group. Also, are they trying to say that eminent domain goes against the constitution? Eminent domain is in the constitution IIRC. TJ Spyke 05:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable.DaveApter 10:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable group, amongst the many others that are protesting the abuse of eminent domain by local governments. SkierRMH 20:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability violation: non-notable group; see Wikipedia:Notability. Big top 23:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-noteable only 10,800 hits on Google. Davidpdx 08:35, 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 Speedy A7 by Chairboy. Tevildo 16:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Angus McLeod[edit]

Possible vanity page Chris 04:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN Just H 05:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7. No assertion of notability. Tagged accordingly. Tevildo 05:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no assertion of notability, doesn't look like WP:BIO would be met anyway due to the lack of any WP:RS found on this person. Suspected WP:COI as well. No BJAODN, since that usually implies "funny" in some way. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete On retrospect, you're right. It's more sad than funny to be honest, if it isn't a hoax. If it is a hoax, it's just kind of strange. Just H 05:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does appear to be a claim to notability - the claim that he is a board member of the CFOB organization, which appears to be confirmed on their webpage. However, a quick search on the org doesn't seem to justify their notability. A good portion of the article appears to be rather lame (and perhaps self-referential) jokes about the subject. --Krich (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or Speedy delete per db-attack. Kevin "has never actually held a real job." Ohconfucius 09:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete indeed. Charlie 10:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's tagged ((speedy)), so why does someone not close this AfD and go and Delete it?--Anthony.bradbury 20:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - yep, attack - please close this puppy! SkierRMH
Speedy delete per nom as an attack page. Big top 23:27, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:50Z

Jacques Legrand[edit]

Delete Founded a non-notable Judo club seems to be the only claim to fame here. It looks like one of his students put togeather a quick entry.Peter Rehse 05:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 05:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient assertion of notability. Caknuck 16:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO and the organization WP:CORP. SkierRMH 20:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails biography guidelines. Big top 23:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only fails WP:BIO also fails WP:V. Davidpdx 08:36, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:50Z

Red labor[edit]

From deletion review, this article was not considered spammy enough for a speedy deletion but questions about notability remain, which is why it is listed here now. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability criteria. Danny Lilithborne 05:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG. MER-C 05:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only claims to notability are implied from the references section - which comprise almost all of the article. Those implied claims appear to fail to establish notablity. --Krich (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Just H 06:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to establish notability. --Folantin 09:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete n-n. DaveApter 10:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, perilously close to spam. Robertissimo 12:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as low salt diet spam - verges on the real thing, but just different enough... SkierRMH 20:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails noteablity only 16,000 hits on Google. Davidpdx 08:38, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:51Z

List of seinen manga[edit]

Contested WP:PROD, the deletion rationale was: "Article that served as a stand-in article until category could be filled. Category has now been filled with all entries on this page (except red links)". No opinion. Sandstein 05:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sxwm 08:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the category wsa completed, this list is redundant. SkierRMH 20:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above--Nick Y. 21:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 15:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category dupe. Mve the reds to the Anime and Manga request page. --Kunzite 01:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per cat replacement. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, now that the category has been created, delete. Davidpdx 08:39, 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 No action. If you don't want to delete, just slap a ((merge-to)) tag on the article and discuss on the talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 20:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teleserye[edit]

Also added:

Filipinos have been basically local soap operas since time immemorial as "telenovelas" until ABS-CBN came up with "teleseryes" then GMA Network came up with "teledramas". Then Filipinos had "sineseryes", "telefantasyas (GMA's version)/fantaseryes (ABS-CBN's version), Asianovelas (Korean and Taiwanese dramas) etc. while the basic premise of a telenovela, even a soap opera wasn't changed (where the heroine is beat up all night then has revenge, etc., you know the drill.)

Now since these terms are all redundant, I won't suggest deletion, but a merge to telenovela or soap opera or a creation of Television in the Philippines for a more comprehensive look. Also, the articles in question do not cite references and are perhaps original research. --Howard the Duck 05:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. I think there's very little to salvage for a merge, as the whole thing is original research (or at the very least unsourced). In any case, this shouldn't stand on its own as an article. --Coffee 06:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This certainly doesn't read badly, and I'm inclined to assume good faith about the contents despite its current lack of references. (I will have to continue to assume good faith even if references are added, for they're likely to be hard to access and in a language I don't read.) If these series are in fact known as telenovelas in the Philippines, I'd support moving the article to Telenovelas in the Philippines, but there's too much information here to dump it straight into the telenovela article. Agree also that we should have a Television in the Philippines article, but it should be in addition to this one. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's not too much information to dump since teleserye and telenovela are the same. As I've said, it's a coined term. --Howard the Duck 15:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tend to identify telenovela with Spanish language programming; that's where the word originated, and it isn't surprising that they are called something slightly different in the Philippines. "Television in the Philippines" is a bit too broad for these; at least I hope there's something on TV in the Philippines besides these shows. Perhaps something like Serial dramas on Filipino television would be the best place to merge these several articles; it seems we may have articles about several of these coined terms. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's more to Philippine TV than telenovelas, that's why I said "for a broader look...". As for Serial dramas on Filipino television, I'd oppose to a creation since it is a telenovela, plain and simple. --Howard the Duck 01:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Big top 23:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I admit that I don't know a lot about this subject, a cursory glance at the article and the nomination seems to indicate that merging them all together wouldn't be a bad idea.-Dmz5 05:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep/rename Teleserye (no need in a foreign word in this case). keepList of actors. BAN bundled deletion nominations Mukadderat 18:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the rationale behind this? --Howard the Duck 01:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename and complete rewrite Monni 18:14, 27 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/speedy keep per WP:SK, as the nomination has been withdrawn at bottom and there are no other !votes for deletion.--Kchase T 23:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eggcorn[edit]

Neologism. Google scholar and JSTOR search show zero publications that even mention "eggcorns." What this article describes falls, more or less, more appropriately in the article about mondegreens. The claim that eggcorns "make sense" while mondegreens do not is not (and can not objectively be) borne out empirically and goes completely unmentioned in the links provided (three of which are blogs). The examples can be moved to the mondegreen article. It's possible that the term eggcorn can be mentioned, but a whole article is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Charlie 06:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be sufficient differences between the two to have two articles. It is a neologism and a well documented one with 76,000 Google hits. This is exactly the type of information that people come to Wikipedia for. The lack of scholarly articles makes the Wikipedia entry even more important. I have to admit the distinction appears arbitrary to me between a mondegreen and an eggcorn, but I lump them all together as malapropisms anyway, because of my ignorance. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on what your search criterion was? "eggcorn" gets 153,000 hits and "egg corn" gets 32,100 but those could include many actual mispellings of something as eggcorn or egg corn. Searching "eggcorn" and "acorn" together gets 1,000 (which includes many mirror sites for Wikipedia). Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a Language Log post of April 9, 2004, Mark Liberman noted that there were around 200 Google hits for "egg corn" and "eggcorn". I don't think thousands of people started misspelling something else as "eggcorn" in the last 2.5 years; the huge increase is due to the currency that the concept has achieved in that short period.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000734.html -- estmere 08:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three high quality references are all I need to be satisfied. The New York Times, New Scientist, and Psychology Today satisfy me.. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people are using the term "eggcorn" as a mistake for "acorn", they are talking about the concept. Here is an example for a one month increase for the phrase "contagious shooting" on Google:
December 22, 2006 26,900
November 27, 2006 27

On the day I first heard it there were 27 hits based on a New York Times article, a month later there are three orders of magnitude more. Neologisms travel fast on the Internet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Malapropism, not Mondegreen, as suggested. As discussed, Mondegreen refers to a misheard song or poem lyric, whereas eggcorn just refers to terminology. Deserves a mention, but perhaps not an entire article. Wavy G 08:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, Keep per the others. Wavy G 07:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These examples cannot be merged to the mondegreen article. According to Wikipedia's mondegreen article:

"A mondegreen...is the mishearing...of a phrase in such a way that it acquires a new meaning."^[1]

One of the ones that was brought up when discussing this point on the eggcorn talk page was "there's a bathroom on the right," a mondegreen for "there's a bad moon on the rise." Both phrases make sense, but the mondegreen doesn't make sense as a substitution for the actual line. "There's a bathroom on the right" means something considerably differnt than "there's a bad moon on the rise".

While eggcorns fit two out of three of distinguishing features of malapropisms, they don't fit all three. According to the wikipedia malapropism article, the first distinguishing feature of a malapropism is:

"The word used means something different from the word (as indicated by the context in which the word was used) the speaker or writer intended to use." ^[1]

What makes the eggcorn different, at least from my understanding, is that "the new phrase makes sense on some level". "old-timer's disease" for "Alzheimer's disease" is not a mondegreen. You can't really say that "old-timer's disease" has a different meaning than "Alzheimer's disease". These are phrases that could be substituted for each other in many places--unlike mondegreens where the substitutions don't make sense or people don't know that they don't make sense because song lyrics often never do. This can't be merged into the malapropism article--this phrase doesn't mean something different than the original phrase--not as indicated by the context--not in any context. In fact, "old-timer's disease" and most of the other eggcorn's are most similar to deliberate misnomers.

But let's take a harder one like eggcorn. Eggcorn is a misspelling for acorn and acorns are egg shaped. The "egg corn" example can't be merged into malapropism, "egg corn" does not "[have] a recognized meaning in the speaker's or writer's language." Nor can it be merged into mondegreen--there was no mishearing, this is a written example and there is no difference in meaning. Neither of these examples can be merged into either the malapropism or mondegreen article.

Oh, and in re references, LexisNexis totally kicks Google's butt. This is just a quick list of what I found by searching LexisNexis for eggcorn, but it should be more than sufficent to stop this deletion proposal. I provided links at the bottom, but they're lexis-nexis ones.

Analyzing Eggcorns and Snowclones, and Challenging Strunk and White

New York Times, June 20, 2006 Tuesday ^[2]

Eggcorns

New Scientist, August 26, 2006 ^[3]

Yours sins nearly

New Scientist, September 23, 2006 ^[4]

G2: Shortcuts: Tiny eggcorns, mighty gaffes

The Guardian, October 5, 2006 Thursday ^[5]

====Notes====

^ ^a ^b emphasis added
^ Erard, Michael (June 20, 2006). "Analyzing Eggcorns and Snowclones, and Challenging Strunk and White". New York Times. p. 4. Retrieved 2006-12-21.
^ Staff (August 26, 2006). "Eggcorns". New Scientist. p. 52. Retrieved 2006-12-21.
^ Macpherson, Duncan (September 23, 2006). "Yours sins nearly". New Scientist. p. 21. Retrieved 2006-12-21.
^ Saner, Emine (October 5, 2006). "G2: Shortcuts: Tiny eggcorns, mighty gaffes". The Guardian. p. 2. Retrieved 2006-12-21.

TStein 10:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I forgot to include a couple things in my previous comment.

Malapropisms just refer to words and not phrases--another reason the eggcorn article can't be merged into the malapropism article.

This isn't a neologism--there is no definition for this type of linguistic mistake. This isn't a type of mondegreen or malapropism--and it is only similar to them to "sounds like" rule of thumb that these definitions all follow. But mondegreens have to be mishearings and malapropisms have a number of limitations and this definition really fills in a missing space.

I don't know if this definition will stand up to the test of time--it is a very recent word and definition and while it has garnered some recognition, I have no idea whether or not it will be widly recognized or incorperated into speaking English. But, that's not the Wikipedia standard. If you feel that this is too new of a word for the article to not have mention of it, then mention it. We have lots of pop culture articles--the word has some recognition, this isn't a word used by one blogger, and it isn't replacing any other word so the wiki standard for article existence is much lower. TStein 11:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Verifiable cultural and linguistic ephemera have an important place in Wikipedia. Encyclopedias from 50 and 100 years ago tend to ignore them, making it difficult to decipher a phrase encountered during research.

When you use LexisNexis do you get to read the abstract of the article for free? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I have full access to lexisnexis...that's why I'm working on finding links to the articles at the source. It shouldn't take me long, and I'll add some of them as references for the eggcorn article. If there is something truely notable that I can only get links that you need to pay to access (archived NYT, or lexisnexis, I'll still include the reference and the pay to access links as a curtosy. We include references with no links. These references stand alone with no links--there's no reason not to add a link that some users will be able to access. TStein 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the references to the article--all as non-lexisnexis links. There was only one link outside of lexisnexis that you also had to pay to access the full article so I provided both links. All of the references are on the eggcorn article. Happy reading. TStein 03:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just get the login page for the URLs not an abstract. Can you add the first paragraph of each article like I do for the New York Times. Thats allowed under fair use. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, if this discussion continues, can we move it to the eggcorn talk page. I watch that to, so feel free to reply to me there. This doesn't really belong here. Also, I reverted that--that reference was already on there and you added it again. I think that putting a couple lines for each link is sorta unnecessary--I like a small description or something if it's an additional reference that doesn't have a specific point, but I think it's too much otherwise. Also, which pages asked you for login links. Everything is now non lexisnexis except for one case where lexisnexis is provided as an additional link. I wasn't logged into the New York Time or The Guardian or anywhere else and I wasn't asked to. The exceptions are the New Scientist article which asks you to subscribe in order to finish reading the article, and the News-Gazette article which is located at accessmylibrary. In order to finish reading articles you can provide them with your library card information or create an account for free. TStein 08:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - it is notable and unlike the ones it is suggested to be merged into. - Lord Gravitron ^{Message | Contrib} 14:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coined term for a linguisit phenomenon has multiple reliable independent refs. Edison 19:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep due to new information presented above. Charlie 22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The eggcorn article shouldn't be merged with the malapropism article because eggcorns make sense in context while malapropisms don't. And this distinction is indeed mentioned prominently on the "About" page of the Eggcorns Database -- the very first of the three links mentioned in Aeusoes1's original proposal for deletion. Here's the relevant excerpt from the Database page:

"The criteria of how to identify eggcorns have also been clarified. Not every homophone substitution is an eggcorn. The crucial element is that the new form makes sense: for anyone except lexicographers or other people trained in etymology, more sense than the original form in many cases." http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/about/ --estmere 07:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Eggcorns have already received strong support from linguists, in spite of the newness of the term. John M Baker 15:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a very useful term that has caught on very quickly among both linguists and hobbyists alike. I wouldn't mind merging the content into another article, but it would be completely out of place at the mondegreen article since typical usage of the terms is completely different (although it's true that at the fringes of either there are similarities). --Dlugar 01:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms merely says that articles shouldn't attempt to "track the emergence and use of the term", e.g. the article shouldn't try to be the equivalent of The Eggcorn Database. However, it doesn't seem to have any problems with articles on neologisms with verifiable/reliable secondary sources. --Dlugar 01:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sign of a useful neologism is its adoption by those discussing the phenomenon as a shorthand. Eggcorn qualifies splendidly, and the Eggcorn database is a fascinating resource Kevin Marks 09:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep - As a stubborn person and nominator of this page's deletion, even I am convinced by the new sources that this page is obviously worth keeping. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]}
Close Discussion? Since there are now no votes for no, can this discussion be closed and the deletion and contradiction tags be removed from the eggcorn article? TStein 11:20, 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 14:52Z

TNA Hardcore War[edit]

Non-notable event. Only 3,800 Google hits when you exclude wikipedia and its mirrors. Previous nomination wasn't mentioned at WP:PW either. TJ Spyke 06:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 06:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 09:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (and the relevent ghits appear to be even lower than cited). SkierRMH 20:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Nick Y. 21:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low noteablity, I got 3,800 hits per Google as well. Davidpdx 08:40, 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 14:54Z

Screeching Weasel[edit]

This article contains no third-party sources. I requested on December 8 that reliable third-party sources be added, but none have been forthcoming, let alone multiple non-trivial sources. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability (music). Simply, as Wikipedia:Verifiability says, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This AfD is a notice and opportunity to add such sources; without which the article must be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 06:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I hate to say it Centrx, but I happen to have three of their CD's bought from MEDIAPLAY back in 2002. Their song My Right was used in the DVD Slednecks 6 if that helps any.

They also published 8 Albums on the LOOKOUT! label, a major indy studio (which also publishes artists like Alkaline Trio, Green Day, Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, and Rancid).

Per WP:MUSIC 5 - Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

I believe Billboard Magazine is a Reliable Source on this so you can find that information here [6] for the band and here [7] to verify "the beat is on brat", "emo", "Teen Punks In Heat", "Kill the musicians", "How to Make Enemies & Irritate People", "Anthem for a New Tomorrow", "Wiggle", and "Boogada Boogadaboogada!" were published by LOOKOUT! Incidentally, "How to Make Enemies and Irritate People" was recorded with Green Day's Mike Dirnt sitting in on bass.

I found this[8] at MTV.com about the band. Rolling Stone magazine has a small listing for the band[9], as does VH1[10]. Amazon.com lists nearly all their albums.[11]

I think with this information, it passes WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Now while I support the idea of improving wikipedia, just a little effort to even verify your claims on WP:MUSIC here on wikipedia would have kept you from making this AFD, wasting our time in the process. A simple cleanup tag should have been used. With the effort you made in creating this AFD, the same could have been made doing the 4 minutes of websearch to find this information. Hell, looking on wikipedia, all you needed to do was look at their album list, note the lables, check the label's wikipedia article and notice that it was a notable indie lable with some very notable artists. I am a deletionist myself as you can see in my history of voting but sometimes people take things too far, often to prove a point. I like to assume good faith but It's hard to do when I see an AFD on a known artist.--Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 07:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appologize. I read your OP again and saw you were being fair and were making this afd to get help cleaning up the article. Now I understand your reasoning, the problem is, AFD is not the place to 'force the issue'. anyway, with the given information I think this is pretty much a closed case--Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 07:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to distinguish between a random band article that is unverifiable and one that is merely uncited. The one person interested in this article (who has added unsourced potentially libellous information to it) did not come up with any sources. —Centrx→talk • 08:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually only one source: an entry in the All Music Guide copied to Billboard, VH1, and presumably MTV. Even supposing that it be perfect reliable, it is not sufficient to support this article. There is no information at all on the Rolling Stones website, and Amazon and Billboard.com discographies have no information about the band, and albums for any band can be found there by the tens or hundreds of thousands. If I had spent the 4 minutes finding this, I would still have nominated it. When the Wikipedia article is 5 times longer than the whole body of independently published text in all the world on the subject, there is a problem. —Centrx→talk • 08:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Centrx's nom and subsequent well-reasoned argument. There is no demonstration of "multiple non-trivial reliable sources" covering the topic. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 09:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, the nomination is preposterous as this band meets WP:MUSIC, something which is easily verifiable. Whether the article contains unsourced information is not a case for AFD. See also Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. Punkmorten ~~16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)~~ 19:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Higher on the chain than WP:MUSIC is WP:V which states that "Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Centrx posted the request for sources on December the 8th, which has gone unanswered. In WP:DELETE, an article lacking sources is to be dealt with in the manner described in WP:V, and if that doesn't work, to come back to the deletion route. I believe that is what Centrx has done. Sancho McCann 19:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed, quote: "Can't verify information in article (...) If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted." Clearly, this refers to the unverifiable bits of information, not the whole article. Punkmorten 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong WTF Keep I never thought I'd see the day when Screeching Weasel was up for deletion. Notable band with a long history, lots of records, and tons of media attention. Want proof? Look no further than Google: mentioned in a number of books, such as Turn That Down!: A Hysterical History of Rock, Roll, Pop, Soul, International Who's Who in Popular Music, The New Rolling Stone Album Guide, Rock Music in American Popular Culture II, Milk It!: Collected Musings on the Alternative Explosion and the Music of the 90s, A History of Rock Music: 1951-2000, Sonic Cool: The Life & Death of Rock 'n' Roll, Punk e hardcore (in Spanish), Punk Rock: So What?, and others. Google News has 210 press articles on the band including Chicago Sun-Times, New York Times, and many others, using adjectives including "great", "influential", "legendary" and "iconic" to describe the band. There is no way any reasonable person can claim Screeching Weasel do not pass WP:MUSIC on a number of counts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather obvious keep I think, as per Punkmorten. This band sucks, but they quite easily fulfill WP:MUSIC. Ford MF 17:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Usually the thing to do when an article lacks sources is to go and get them rather than put the article up for deletion. Bschott got some vital links to sources in just about the amount of time it would have taken to put the article up for deletion! Best use that energy for things like Bob Cranford. V-Man737 21:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Although somewhat weak on sources, this is a definite keep. The sources above in this AfD should be added to the article.--Nick Y. 22:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious reasons that have been stated early as why this should not be deleted. I've added a few sources to things that wante citations and to some other facts that someone might question.68.114.92.56 22:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So why are the only references at the article now All Music Guide? —Centrx→talk • 22:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The ones I added just had the url between [] next to the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.114.92.56 (talk • contribs).
    - By the way it would be delightful if people added sources to the article, and not just mentioned them here. Punkmorten 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think some unnecessary incivility is being directed toward Centrx, he requested sources be added several weeks ago and none were forthcoming, but that doesn't mean the onus is on him to bring the article up to par. Perhaps an AfD was not the best way to go, but it got people's butts moving to improve the article.--Dmz5 05:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep This article is on my watchlist now, and I'll work on it after Christmas, but the holidays are a hard time to wiki, because of life getting in the way. Third party sources will be added soon.--Jude 14:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean Up I'm usually vote hard core delete, but if Jude and others are willing to put in some time cleaning it up, I think it's worthwhile. I also think someone might want to make sure there is no copyright violations in terms of the text just in case someone copy/pasted it from somewhere else. Davidpdx 08:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A notable and influential band. Meets WP:MUSIC, just need references that's all. Definitely not a case for deletion. - kollision 11:45, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:54Z

Karekin Yarian[edit]

Possible vanity page. Note: I'm new at this, so please forgive any mistakes. Charlie 06:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sourced, no assertion of notability, fails WP:BIO - wtfunkymonkey 06:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 09:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk _Contribs 13:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:NN --Anthony.bradbury 20:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while humming My favorite Carly Simon song. SkierRMH 20:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If we flashed up on the Jumbotron at Yankee Stadium "Does anyone know who Karekin Yarian is?" I doubt any of the 57,545 people sitting there would raise his/her hand.TruthGal 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:NN, WP:V. Davidpdx 08:49, 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 redirect to Burger_King#Advertising. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:56Z

Sith Sense[edit]

Delete: Wikipedia must not be a pawn in a non-notable alledged "viral" marketing campaign, otherwise every viral marketeer would simply create a "viral marketing campaign" article. No sources, no indication of notability. This should be speedily deleted as spam. Hu 07:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. Charlie 07:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Burger_King#Advertising, where BK's viral marketing is mentioned. There's certainly plenty of sources to verify this ("Sith sense" gets 32,700 ghits), and it was plenty popular and a notable advertising campaign, but there's not enough content for a separate article. Sithsense.com is no longer active, this isn't part of current spam or viral campaign. Tubezone 07:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I copied and rephrased the article text, and added to Burger_King#Current_advertising. Tubezone 10:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that was a bad idea as it ISN'T current. i kan reed 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's where the other references to the Star Wars tie-in and viral marketing are, if someone wishes to, they can edit the article... I think "current" was intended to mean "in the last few years". Tubezone 01:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hu 11:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 09:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Could someone indicate a policy this is breaking? Please? This isn't advertising, this is an article about advertising, it doesn't appear to violate WP:WEB. hey look washington post documentation. Forgive my sarcasm there, but no wikipedia policy has been cited here. Speedy deletion has already been xnayed by an admin because it simply does not fit CSD. Near as I can tell, it doesn't fail the criteria for deletion either. To those objecting to it being "supporting Burger King's viral campaign", the site isn't even up anymore, no is the product it was supporting sold anymore. What am I missing? i kan reed 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screw it speedy delete per csd-author. I'd rather not waste my time with one little page I'm not an expert on. I don't have time to defend this article. i kan reed 19:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - my WTF article of the day! SkierRMH 20:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to BK advertizing as previously suggested. --64.230.127.234 21:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Nick Y. 22:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this doesn't seem very important. Certainly this could be mentioned in an article directly about Burger King, but it doesn't merit its own article. Davidpdx 08:51, 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 redirect to Code Lyoko in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:57Z

Mirabelle Kirkland[edit]

Seems to fail WP:BIO Charlie 07:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep 791 ghits for "Mirabelle Kirkland", 15 credits on IMdb. Article needs expansion and references, though. Tubezone 08:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - credits appear to be minor roles viz: maid, Laurent's girlfriend, etc. Some of the films linked to don't even list her. The last one appears to be a main role but in a 12 minute film. Ohconfucius 08:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? Could this be merged with Code_Lyoko ? Charlie 09:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking, too, I wasn't familiar with the French films credited (thanks to Ohconfucius for the research), but it looks like that's the role she's best known for by far at this point. The article can of course be recreated if she attains more notability. Tubezone 10:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable, per Ohconfucius. Article to tiny for a merge (or equivalent: citing the name is already a merge). - Cate |_Talk 14:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the IMdb listings appear to be for bit parts, ergo fails WP:BIO. SkierRMH 20:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN and fails WP:BIO. Davidpdx 08:52, 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. Punkmorten 16:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locked On[edit]

This is a program broadcast on Bristol student radio. As student clubs, societies, and media are not generally considered notable per consensus, and this subset would be even less so. There is little assertion of notability, but I felt it preferable to bring to AfD rather than speedy as someone obviously put a lot of time creating this article. I also take the opportunity to propose two student DJs of the program. The articles are probable breaches of conflict of interest, the author is one Chiosso. Ohconfucius 05:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can we bring Tim Chiosso and Nick Box into the afd? They appear to be notable only for the radio show. -- Ben (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now Done Ohconfucius 05:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very weak assertion of notability and conflict of interest. In addition, the only reference is the program's website (and a link to the Urban Dictionary main site). —ShadowHalo 05:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 06:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no good assertion of notability. delldot | talk 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable here. Sorry, boys. A Train ^{take the} 18:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel that the allegations aimed at this article are somewhat unfair. 'Conflict of interest' - this article does not aim to promote anything whatsoever, least of all the show itself, or the University of Bristol. 'Notability' - Wikipedia seeks to style itself as something of a "People's Encyclopaedia" (please note correct spelling), and it is, without doubt, an addition to this, and certainly does not cheapen, nor detract from, this goal. Finally, as has been noted above, a great deal of time and effort has been put into this article, and to delete it reeks of real petty-mindedness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick boite (talk • contribs) — Nick boite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nick Box = Nick boite??? Nick:Please refer to conflict of interest. Ohconfucius 08:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak assertion of notability, also seems to be original research/info gleaned from group's homepage. Charlie 09:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I thought one of the main points of Wikipedia was that it didn't have to only contain articles concerning subjects that are large enough to warrant a professional author's research. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it can contain articles on any subject, no matter how obscure, so that the few people who do want to read it can find it. Obviously, poorly written, offensive, unreliable or untrue articles must be removed and so must any deemed advertisements or those which have ulterior motives. However, this article falls into none of those categories, and deleting it simply because it is "not notable enough" seems to completely undermine the philosophy of a free and user-edited encyclopaedia. Removing articles such as this just detract from Wikipedia's main competitive advantage over other encyclopaediae. ~~Chiosso 11:26, 21 December 2006 (GMT)~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.252.64.1 (talk • contribs).
- I would encourage you to read the notability and verifiability guidelines as well as WP:5P. The basic idea is if some kind of minimal standards aren't applied, the whole thing tends to break down into a disorganized pile of hoaxes, unmaintained vanity articles and unverified cruft, then WP itself isn't a reliable source of information. Tubezone 12:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the show and the presenters are not notable. Nuttah68 11:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why was this even relisted? I think there was a pretty clear consensus before. -- Kicking222 16:05, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:58Z

Jason Fisher[edit]

This fellow is a Tolkien scholar who has written a number of chapters in the Tolkien encyclopedia. My knowledge of Tolkien scholarship is weak, but I can't see this article as meeting the threshold of notability for an academic. I compare it to the professor test, where we have full professors that still don't meet notability standards. Samir धर्म 07:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems not enough notable. The Tolkien Encyclopedia is not cited in Tolkien research, maybe an error. Eventually can be merged to that article. Also the two dogs (Max and Leo) are non notable!!! Autobiography? - Cate |_Talk 15:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be better proved- the professor test comparison seems reasonable to me. --Scimitar 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's spam promotion, part of a hoax or just advertising: His buddy's article was deleted already, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Telner and then recreated: Paul Telner. The show is up for deletion also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APAULED. Delete them all and all links and all redirects and protect them from recreation. Hu 05:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's a hobbyist, not an academic. And he has written 42 book reviews for Amazon.com in the last 2 months, which I think counts against him.DGG 03:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Low noteablity. Davidpdx 08:56, 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 redirect to Chivington Drive. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:59Z

Longmont Citizens for Justice and Democracy[edit]

Local action group which fails WP:ORG. 75 unique Ghits. Ohconfucius 07:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 07:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BJ^Talk 07:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Chivington Drive. No need to delete anything. --Sandy Scott 10:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sandy Scott. If anyone provides additional information about this organization, it can easily be accommodated in the Chivington Drive article. JamesMLane t c 16:25, 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, Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Sandy Scott. It doesn't need to be deleted, as it can be incorporated into the Chivington Drive article. Chairman S. ^Talk _Contribs 11:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 18:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, - or Redirect to Chivington Drive - is much of this relevant there? SkierRMH 20:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low noteablity on both. In my opinion Sandy Scott should be axed as well, but since it's not part of this AFD. Davidpdx 08:58, 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. Majorly (Talk) 18:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Klein’s 2006 Islamophobia Radio Parody[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted: This article is not suitable for Wikipedia. It is a long description of a single politically motivated talk show segment. The decription combined with the reply from an advocacy organization turn Wikipedia into a soapbox. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.Elizmr 08:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Arguement for keeping: The title "parody" is probably a misnomer, he is not a comedian he acted like he was for forcing American-Muslims to have special identification marks to gauge his audience's reaction.

On charge of Soapbox: in accord with wiki-standards (WP:SOAP) the article is obviously not "advertising"; nor "writing in self-promotion", so that leaves "Propaganda or advocacy". Nowhere in the article are any views expressed that are not in referenced quotations. No action is advocated, all quotes are properly sourced and can not be described as propaganda. The claim of violation of these wiki-standards is at odds with the definitions those standards present.

Notability:The story has appeared on four continents. In North America by many papers printing the Reuters story, in Europe by the “BBC and Channel 4 in England” and the London newspaper “The Guardian”; in South Asia by the “The Brunei Times” of Darussalam, Brunei; and in Africa by the "Mail & Guardian" of South Africa, and the "Daily News" of South Africa.

Notability Update: It was most recently mentioned in a review of significant events for Muslims in 2006 by The Milli Gazette of India on Dec. 23rd.

Links to other wiki-pages: The topic was first brought up on the Islamophobia wiki-page in the post 06:56, 3 December 2006 Ibnraza (Talk | contribs) (→Efforts against Islamophobia - 630 WMAL talk show hoax) and the article now under consideration provides greater background to that information and is linked to from that page. The page is also linked from the Flying Imams controversy which was the reason behind the experiment. The article in question shows that the radio host received comments on both sides of the issue to gauge if Americans were willing to use force on American-Muslims to make them receive tattoos or wear arm-bands analogous to the activities of the Nazis during World War II. Some called for American-Muslims to be placed in internment camps. This information about how some Americans are turning on others during a war with terrorist Muslim theocrats seems historically notable. Especially in light of the Quran Oath Controversy of the 110th Untied States Congress where Rep. Goode has attacked Rep-elect Ellison for his desire to use the Quran during the swearing in ceremonies as a threat to "the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America” and saying “I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies”.--Wowaconia 22:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner above--Winypoter 08:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC) — Winypoter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keepThis article is well-sourced and describes a notable event. The fact that it reflects favorably on one political tendency isn't a reason to delete it. If you think it's one-sided, find some criticism and add it.P4k 08:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nom, I don't see how this article could be considered encyclopedic.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - creating a WP article about this non-notable event seems like an attempt to milk it. The NN explains the absence of criticism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Humus. yandman 10:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was just a single talk show segment performed by a host who doesn't have an article of his own in Wikipedia. The content would probably merit a slight merge to Jerry Klein if that article existed. --Metropolitan90 16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup/Keep This was a widely covered and discussed event in the media: Reuters (reproduced on CNN and AOL and many newspapers), The Guardian and it even has its own Wikinews article: [12]. The article should be cleaned up though. (If nothing else merge into "Jerry Klein.") --64.230.127.234 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This differs from the White House Correspondent's dinner incident in several important ways: 1) This did not occur at a high profile event, already warranting major media coverage by itself, and 2) It has not been hailed by third party credible media sources as "THE touchstone... event of the year." Charlie 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep response on notable event that the Guardian deemd notable [13], yahoo news and even incurred respons from CAIR, making it internationaly notable. --Striver 20:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Winypoter. I have heard of Steven Colbert, but not this guy. Just H 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable single event. Jerry who? Morton devonshire 23:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/Speedy Keep Notable because of all the calls and the considerable media coverage, and just because the subject is politically motivated doesn't mean that the article is. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 01:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also agree with the arguments made by Ibnraza and Wowaconia. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 16:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notable, current, expository, significant. The nom is taking the unique stand that WP:CURRENT and WP:NPOV are bad things. Even "a small talk radio segment" can have significant and noteworthy implications, especially sociological pranks. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also don't merge or rename to Jerry Klein. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I am based in England, so if this US-event made BBC, Channel 4 and the Guardian then it is certainly notable in my opinion (but also a depressing sign of the times). Recently over here MP Jack Straw started a huge controversy about Muslim women wearing veils - heard about this? anyway - this led to United Kingdom debate over veils, so I see the two controversies as equally deserving of separate articles. By all means create Jerry Klein, but this event merits it's own domain. Wikipidian 02:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article offers a number of reputable sources which deal exclusively with the article's topic which serves to meet verifiability and notability requirements. There doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason for deletion. The event seems to have gotten itself quite a bit of attention in more than one country. --The Way 07:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable single event. --Gabi S. 11:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability of host/radio station is of comparatively little importance compared with the fact of, and the nature of, the public response. As Keith D. Tyler correctly states, ...even "a small talk radio segment" can have significant and noteworthy implications... It received non-trivial media coverage and is an interesting perspective on the wider discussion on Islam's relations with the West.

Xdamr^talk 03:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dangerous-Boy (talk • contribs) 11:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep. Reuters and The Guardian would be enough to establish notability, and that's just the beginning here. Someone needs to lecture the nominator on what exactly WP:Notability means. — coelacan talk — 15:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above.Baka man 20:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. I heard about this from some news outlet long before I saw it on wikipedia article. It is clearly notable and verifiable. The article itself might be somewhat NPOV and need cleaning up in general. But neither of these problems merit deletion. Rdore 05:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's the notability of the issue that counts, not the notability of the radio programme; and any matter referenceable from several reliable sources qualifies for a Wikipedia article.qp10qp 16:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My first suggestion is to create Jerry Klein first and then mentioning the incident of this parody there. Surely he's notable himself? But even if this is not renamed, it should'nt be deleted. Look at the number of links in the References section. This incident is definitely notable and very famous. And now when I read this article, yes I've heard of this incident before. Notability is the principle of inclusion in Wikipedia and this incident qualifies for it without doubt.--Matt57 23:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to be notable for his notably disgusting attempt at a joke, but notability is notability. We faithfully document the prominent idiots.DGG 03:38, 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 Viruses of the Mind. Runcorn 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faith-sufferer[edit]

Fixing AfD entry only. Unclear who wants deletion. No vote on my part. --Metropolitan90 16:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created page. Jbhood 07:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content with Viruses of the Mind. It seems to exist only (or at least chiefly) as a phrase in that essay. Incorporated there, some of this text will do something to redress the balance in that article, which has been slanted at present so that the detractors have the final say! Snalwibma 08:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or Merge with Viruses of the Mind. This is a neologism for which there are many more notable, historical phrases. SkierRMH 20:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - what do you mean by "per nom"? The nomination was (as far as I can tell) anonymous, with no reason given. Snalwibma 11:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Viruses_of_the_Mind same reason as Snalwibma. Easier to manage one article than the two as they are so highly interrelated. Ttiotsw 03:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge There was discussion about this issue on the talk page prior to the nomination. As I have already made my position clear there, I will not repeat those arguments here. I don't think a full-on merge is warranted. Snalwibma seems to think that moving this biased content to Viruses of the Mind will somehow rectify some deficit in that article, but, in my view, two wrongs don't make a right. 209.30.90.117 04:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content only into Viruses of the Mind - "faith-sufferer" (or faith-suffering per WP:NAME) isn't a sufficiently well-developed concept for its own article. — mholland 12:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the useful content needed to go into Viruses of the Mind anyway, in order to give a reasonable account of the content of that essay. I've now done this. Metamagician3000 14:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can now delete. Metamagician has done a fantastic job of bringing the content into Viruses of the Mind. Snalwibma 20:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Just H 20:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is a neologism. Per WP:NEO, we need reliable secondary sources independent of the creation about the neologism as a term before we can have an article on a neologism. The essay where it was originally coined isn't independent; the other references either are broken, unavailable for me, or do not even use the term. This leads to deletion, however since Metamagician3000 has merged, redirecting is required. GRBerry 03:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect now that merge has taken place.--Kubigula (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viruses of the Mind. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:43, 27 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:00Z

Little Fighter 2 Reinforced[edit]

Non-notable modification of freeware game; written as game guide against WP:NOT policy Scottie theNerd 08:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE convincingly. MER-C 09:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable. yandman 10:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as game guide - nn software. SkierRMH 20:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, fails WP:SOFTWARE and WP:NOT. Davidpdx 09:03, 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 speedy delete on author request. Sandstein 11:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls' second studio album[edit]

not a crystal ball. Most of the article is uncited, there is an entire uncited section called rumors. Wikipedia is not a place for unreleased albums. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 09:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Wikipedia servers are not in Delphi. yandman 10:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not about the future.... Charlie 10:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia does not go at 88 mph. Danny Lilithborne 17:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Cheetah Girls have confirmed this album. This is not different when The Pussycat Dolls had a "Second studio album" page. I could move the album back to the rumored title, like The Pussycat Dolls' is, but I don't think that would be informational. Jtervin 19:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have removed the rumored tracks section and added citaions and more information about the album, and as I said above, i could move everything back to Cheetahs Gonna Get Down, which was once the title of the album, but since it is no longer that, I believe it would not be informational and confusing.
  - Comment - I merged the page information with The Cheetah Girls (girl group) so this page can be deleted for now. Jtervin 19:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Speedy Delete as the author has requested deletion. Charlie 20:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and urge to admin to close this discussion (see Jtervin above). SkierRMH 20:57, 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. Runcorn 20:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Mills[edit]

Only notable at the moment for participating in a reality show, no record deal or songs as yet. Similar articles have been deleted/redirected in the past. Recreate when he's confirmed as releasing a single or album. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per nom. May fail WP:BIO, certainly fails WP:SELF. Ohconfucius 09:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he finished a very credible 3rd place in this competition, it is felt that Ben has gained a certain amount of notability. It states in the criteria for musicians and ensembles that a muscian is notable if "Has won or placed in a major music competition." (Point 9). Benmillsonline 09:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Music" competition? Come on... Recreate if he sells any albums. yandman 10:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the scale and popularity of the X Factor, it should be classed as a major competition. Personal opinions as to the integrity of the show should not form part of this discussion. Benmillsonline 10:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:SELF, non-notable. Charlie 10:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please state while why you feel this article fails WP:SELF? Benmillsonline 10:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:AUTO or WP:COI may apply. As in a fair amount of the editing was done by Benmillsonline. Tubezone 10:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, Benmillsonline is a username used by a Ben Mills fansite. Whilst we are indeed supporters of Ben Mills, the article was written by us and not by Ben Mills himself, nor on his behalf. Benmillsonline 11:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies.. what I meant to say, is WP:BIO, but WP:MUSIC addresses the issue more succinctly. To be notable, "It[he/she] has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms... except...publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves." The only source listed is an interview, thus that criteria for inclusion is not met. The only other one within WP:MUSIC That has been brought up, is "Has won or placed in a major music competition," so it seems that this discussion ought to come down to either determining whether X-Factor is a "major" competition, and whether finishing third overall counts towards the intended spirit of "win or place." As for that, I must say I am now sitting on the fence. Charlie 10:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Journey South also finished the X Factor in 3rd place last year. The history shows their page was published long before the end result and certainly long before they released their first album. It was not deleted and redirected elsewhere at any time. Benmillsonline 10:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC) — Benmillsonline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

However, I don't believe that past articles not being deleted provides any reason not to delete this one. Charlie 10:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ unless other sources of notability turn up... like, say, references to the sordid tabloid revelations mentioned in Digital Spy. Keep provided references are added to article. There certainly seems to be enough sources. Tubezone 10:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Journey South can provide a good basis for comparison for the kinds of changes the article needs to avoid deletion. Its focus is on biographical information, and it cites third-party sources. If some of the non-biographical information was removed, and a third party source produced, I will gladly change my opinion. Charlie 11:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to make suggestions for changes? Which content would you see removed or replaced? Benmillsonline 11:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example: "He states his musical influences as Joe Cocker, Tom Waits, Rod Stewart and David Bowie and some of his favourite artists are Elvis Costello, Bruce Springsteen, Dire Straits, and James Brown. He classes Jim Morrison as a legend." This information is unsourced, and does not seem particularly pertinent, unless a third party source has expressed that these statements are notable in some way. This is also a particularly tricky issue, as we are now talking about the opinions of a living person in an article. That had *better be sourced, or we face potential libel. Charlie 11:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This can be sourced and will be if I'm permitted the time to find the relevant links and edit accordingly. Benmillsonline 11:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom, with no predjudice against re-creating the article if he achieves commercial success. Tevildo 15:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsigned artist with no published albums and no AMG profile. Fails WP:MUSIC. Caknuck 16:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above does not necessarily denote Fails WP:MUSIC. Wikipedia states notable if meets any one of the criteria listed. See no. 9 in Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Benmillsonline 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just H 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy is famous in the UK, so should have his moment of fame, if you look on google etc. you can find him, so why not on here?!?! If he does not get a record deal, by the next XFactor, then it should be deleted, as weveryone will hav forgotten him, but at the moment everyone knows of him, so may wish to find out more about him. His is equally if not more famous than some of the soap actors, who have there own pages. Asics 20:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - nn person, fails WP:MUSIC and smacks of my favorite Carly Simon song. SkierRMH 21:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already shown that Ben Mills doesn't fail WP:MUSIC. Also, your personal opinion of him has no bearing on whether or not he is notable enough to have a page here. Benmillsonline 21:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Caknuck. If the creator truly thinks he's famous, just think how famous he'll be 12 months from now! Have the creator of the entry recreate it in December 2007.TruthGal 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is personal opinion and an assumption that he will fail in his bid to gain a recording contract. You cannot possibly know that. Benmillsonline 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again, there's no guarantee that he will be a successful recording artist. To base notability on an assumption that the subject will be more successful once they release an album violates WP:CRYSTAL. Sorry, mate. Caknuck 04:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not basing notability on the fact that he may become a successful recording artist, and there is nothing in the article that suggests he will, only that he is planning to gather material together should the opportunity arise, so how can it fail WP:CRYSTAL? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benmillsonline (talk • contribs) 08:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, regardless of fulfilling the letter of WP:MUSIC, and I'm not sure he meets WP:V. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP is not the place for people who may be famous someday. The article can be recreated if he releases an album.--Dmz5 05:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Third place in a TV music competition does not, especially on its own, confer notability. We can't speculate about whether or not he'll have a recording contract in the future as that would fail WP:Crystal. Recreate once he gets an album out. --The Way 08:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly satisfies the major music competition clause of WP:MUSIC - The X Factor attracts 9 million UK viewers, and is amongst the ten most-viewed shows. Existing sources appear to satisfy the multiple references clause - there are also six non-trivial articles in The Sun relating to subject - issue date 11, 18, 27, 30 November, 2 and 11 December. Work with LA Doors may also be notable. Eludium-q36 14:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Satisfies major music competition clause (as per above), precedent established by entries from previous series of the competition - eg Journey South - as well as entries from other similarly sized competitions - eg American Idol - see Chris Daughtry entry (4th place). Concerns noted by some discussants regarding citations/references easily rectifiable, traceable to notable and credible sources (as demonstrated by copious editing post-submission for deletion by entry convenors). As noted by previous discussant, artist currently popular in the UK and more notable than a number of soap celebrities which have their own entries and many people are interested in finding out more about him. Advocate strongly for retention as not only is entry justified by satisfaction of Wiki policy but also that precedents have been established for entries of this nature. Guptatiggs 09:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User Guptatiggs has no other edits besides thos emade within this discussion, possible single-use account. Caknuck 00:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See reasons made above. DavidJJJ 13:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, I agree Wikipedia is not the place for an article about someone who may or may not become famous. The appearance on the reality show alone is not enough. Davidpdx 09:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An album is currently in the pipeline and Ben is sufficiently famous in the UK. He recently performed with a line-up of the best British comedians and had a rousing response. If there is no record by the time the next season of the X Factor comes along, then the entry can always be removed but as stated earlier, precedents have been estbalished for this sort of entry. Journey South's entry was up long before their debut album was released in March this year for eg. Guptatiggs 09:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article has a fair assertion of notability, is moderately well written, and very well-referenced. It'd be nice if he continues to be written about, that the article could be expanded. But as it stands, the entry fulfils all policy requirements. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now) His fan forum is stating he just signed a record deal with Sony[14]. Obviously, this can still be classified as a rumor, but since this news is just a few days old it would be worth waiting for verification. If it turns out to be false then can be nominated again. (Also, the size of the forum - 252 members - might be a measuring stick). Citicat 17:24, 27 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 15:00Z

Fly like a Raven[edit]

First line says it all "the RUMORED fourth studio...", the entire thing is one giant uncited, rumored, crystal ball, complete with fan art album covers. WP:NOT crystal ball, WP:V, WP:OR, etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Total crystal ball, topped off by the addition of the fan art album cover. Viridae ^Talk 09:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I still have moments of vertigo trying to imagine articles like this in a print encyclopedia. Charlie 09:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arrgh! delete delete delete. yandman 09:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ridiculous article: complete fancruft and OR. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it's going to be released it will be out well before our publication deadline, so we can afford to wait. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystalbollocks. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 12:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete well intentioned but mind boggling article. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, along with the obviously hackjobbed album cover. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and not-a-crystal-ball-R-us. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is no crystal ball. TSO1D 23:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not place for Crystal Ball. Daniel5127 <Talk> 08:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced crystal balling. —ShadowHalo 22:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Senseless and unverifiable. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 23:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, PLEASE! This has gone on far enough. A few eleven-year-olds got together and came up with this one. Rhythmnation2004 19:28, 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 15:01Z

Napa Chic[edit]

Phrase used by wine writer Robert Parker. Not the slightest sign this phrase with this meaning is used by anyone else anywhere. Article appears to be mostly an excuse to reproduce a long Parker quote, and PROD tag and multiple requests for proof of this use elsewhere have been removed without comment. Calton | Talk 10:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not cite sources, appears to be original research. Charlie 10:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR. yandman 10:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Article has been edited further. I am in the fashion business and this term is used with great frequency.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.9.250.6 (talk • contribs).

Delete. When it comes to GHits, at least, let's just say that "Napa Chic" doesn't appear to have the cultural impact that, for example, "Paris Chic" does. Fairly random phrase into which virtually any affluent community could be substituted. Robertissimo 12:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. This is a term that does have relevance in both the wine and fashion worlds. Marylandwizard 15:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been modified to include sources, kind of, but it just links to the main page of the magazines, not to the relevant articles. This term may have a great deal of relevance in both the wine and fashion "worlds," whatever that means, but it is not the place of an encylopedia to make a judgement on the truth of that, but rather to appeal to third party sources. Charlie 20:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Charlie. Marylandwizard 20:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a member of WikiProject Wine, I have to agree that this article is unencyclopedic and the topic non-notable. The "fashion sense" of one wine region has little, if any relevance in the wine world. Agne 10:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Charlie said. Unless proper references (i.e. not just links to the homepages) are added, then delete. the wub "?!" 20:09, 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 No consensus. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silvercrest SL65[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. Contested prod. MER-C 04:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite and Rename - the parent company has several products, this one has 20,000 ghits in multiple languages. I would suggest this be re-written as the parent company, with the products given their own sections. Also, this reads too much like an ad. SkierRMH,07:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Silvercrest (in the home technology context) appears to be a brand name of Lidl, so if necessary, deal with it as a subsection of that.Ace of Risk 16:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - But why does anyone wants an article with the details and functions of an unknown product? Maybe it looks like an ad but without mentioning the brand (silvercrest) of the receiver this is of no use to anyone. This shouldn't be deleted because there's no other article of wikipedia regarding this FTA receiver and it is very difficult for people to find a good structured information on google about this. AR PcPro • contribs) 18:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This article is about a product range from a single retail chain. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a catalogue. Under no circumstances should this article be merged with that of the retail chain: we don't detail products carried by other stores, nor should we here. To suggest, as an earlier participant in this discussion has, that this article shouldn't be deleted because there's no other article about this product in Wikipedia is to entirely misunderstand what encyclopedias are for. My own view is that this is an obvious "speedy". WMMartin 20:57, 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, Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this appears to be advertising. Charlie 10:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Cleanup useful product information, I doubt its advertising since real advertisers would do a better job with the article. --64.230.127.234 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree that the encyclopaedia is not a catalog. But when I search for something on an encyclopaedia I expect to find information about it, whatever the matter.

I haven’t understood yet why you want to delete this. If it’s because it could be advertising in that case let’s also delete all articles with individual products of several brands. For example when I search for Nokia 6630 it’s advertising to Nokia isn’t it???? Or if I search for Sony VAIO…But let’s suppose it is advertising and I’m here promoting this item. If someone specifically searches for it, then it is because it wants to know information about it, either with the intention of buying it or not. And my view is that the role of an encyclopaedia is to provide information to people. Plus this receiver is not sold exclusively on that particular chain. It’s a Comag receiver sold on many satellite stores around.

AR PcPro 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep I think, the matter is if this article must be deleted or not. But not rewritten (perhaps made more accurate, or little changes)... If we look for what means Encyclopedia I find the following:

-An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia,[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.

In this case, I find that this article gives knowledge about a specific product, quite popular in the Satellite receivers world, and whose info available in the net, is spread and confuse. I found this article in the net, and was very useful for me... OK... I can accept an "traditional" encyclopedia is not a catalogue, but Wikipedia is not a traditional one. It has pages with thousands of "devices", like cameras : Canon_XL-2, computers : Icube, Mobile phones Nokia_6230, cars Seat_Ibiza.... And so on.... is TRULY easy to find popular brand+model items on wikipedia, and they offer knowledge about popular devices, products, items of our life.... When a item is not popular enough to appear on wikipedia? I don't know ... It its because lack of popularity.... Someone can explain me why those products mobile phones/cars can be on wikipedia, and this not?? .... Nevertheless... I think is OBVIOUSLY not an ADVERTISEMENT, even is difficult to find/buy itself because their marketing techniques... and it uses a very objective language --

pismak 02:01, 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 15:01Z

List of Tickle's Teasers (Brainiac: Science Abuse)[edit]

Cruft, unencyclopaedic, and possible copyvio (see discussion on the article's talk page.) "Prod" template was removed so sending to AFD. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, especially the unencyclopaedic comment. Charlie 10:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely an indiscriminate collection of information. MER-C 13:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the bits that are accurate are probably copyvio (in a large collection) and the ones that aren't don't belong here. In any case there's the link to the official site. Pseudomonas 13:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable ExcellentShowCruft. -- Kicking222 20:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Copyvio. Daniel5127 <Talk> 07:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, unencylopaedic and has copyright issues. Davidpdx 10:32, 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 Speedy Delete per A7. Cbrown1023 22:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dick van damme[edit]

None of the Google hits for "Dick van damme" seem to relate to this alleged phenomenon. All very vague: "The popularity of Dick Van Damme has been seen to be increasing exponentially in recent times, and this looks set to continue into the future." Nothing to suggest that this is indeed particularly notable. CLW 10:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be shown that reliable third-party sources are writing about this phenomenom. Charlie 10:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the WP notability standard for how many MySpace friends one needs to have a cyclerpedja article? Oh yeah, ain't any 'cause MySpace ain't a reliable source. Even if there was, 82 friends ain't enough. Speedy delete this photoshopped prank job as WP:CSD A7 or G3. Tubezone 10:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:HOLE/WP:NFT. MER-C 13:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per above. Also wrong case. Cate |_Talk 15:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, CSD A7. I mean, come on. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-bio. Danny Lilithborne 17:37, 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. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Bitch Mafia[edit]

Bump from speedy. Suggest merge to Playa Fly —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-15 10:27Z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that this song had any independent notability, merge and redirect to Playa Fly. Demiurge 10:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but perhaps merge. Does not deserve to be its own article, but could be merged. The article, though, is unsourced. SupaStarGirl 17:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If not because the first sentence of the article states that "Triple Bitch Mafia is a diss to the Three 6 Mafia from former member Playa Fly," then because it is non-notable and unverified. --The Way 08:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect low noteablity. Davidpdx 10:34, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:02Z

Live Under The Northern Lights[edit]

Bootleg. Not notable - gets 4 Google hits, one of which is from Wikipedia and one of which doesn't relate to this bootleg. CLW 10:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V. MER-C 13:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C. Secateur 14:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V and nn. Davidpdx 10:35, 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 speedied, spam. Opabinia regalis 03:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katabami Ryu[edit]

deleteNon-notable club with a whole lot of hyperbole (screaming advertisment).Peter Rehse 11:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, potentially failing WP:COI. Charlie 11:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - first person spam. So tagged. MER-C 13:31, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:02Z

Football ticket prices[edit]

Just a list of football (soccer) ticket prices. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previously prodded but was contested Qwghlm 11:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, especially a collection that is inaccurate and gives no context. Nuttah68 11:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. This is definitely shaping up to be an indiscriminate collection of numbers. - fchd 12:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 13:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT (indiscriminate) and WP:That'sNice.., this belongs on a football website, not an encyclopedia. QuagmireDog 14:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Potentially the title can be expanded to an encyclopedic article, with history, economic, social etc. researches. But I strongly doubt that from the actual list we can improve the article. Cate |_Talk 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same, I'd be delighted to see an article on this subject with sources etc. Problem is, once someone's latched onto something and has started list-list-listing, making an article from it would mean pulling the plug and starting afresh anyways :/ QuagmireDog 17:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think a general article on the economics of football would be a good thing - but it definitely wouldn't be this. So I would go along with starting afresh as well. Qwghlm 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT and unencylopedic. Davidpdx 10:36, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:02Z

DJ Doughboy[edit]

Non-notable musician. GHits on name + supposed charted song Aftermath Bounce = 0; Ghits on name + pseudonym = WP only; no apparent reliable sources linking him to supposed mentor Dr. Dre. Robertissimo 11:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable. Chairman S. ^Talk _Contribs 11:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 13:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete NN only 1500 hits on Google..also fails WP:V. Davidpdx 10:38, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:03Z

Need for Madness[edit]

The page is about a game unheard of by most people. Similar games do not have pages - so why does this one? The page is not written in an enclclopedic style - this content belongs elsewhere on the web. Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 12:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to nom, given the content of the article, worth noting that WP is not a how-to manual. Robertissimo 12:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 13:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable and a game guide. Koweja 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bag it and bin it. Game guide and non-notable. The Kinslayer 16:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clean-up The "tips" section is a clear game guide and does not belong there. It isn't written very well and needs some editing. I don't see any evidence of it being notable or non-notable, so I vote to clean it up rather then delete it. --Pinkkeith 16:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources to provide notability, fails WP:V. The game guide material could be cut out in 5 seconds flat, but when the game is non-notable there's no point. QuagmireDog 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the developer's website (Alexa rank 29,701 [15]) has a stub here, as do some other games from RadicalPlay (all listed in its article) which are the in the same state as this one - no assertion of notability and no sources. QuagmireDog 20:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cruft, non-notable, no reliable sources, little if any assertion of notability, no sources at all, no sources to support notability, game guide, non-real-world perspective. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, non-notable and written as a gameguide, complete with a long section on 'tips'. Also seems to be a bit of an advertisement, with a link to the developer's website in the introduction. --The Way 08:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable game guide. --Folantin 11:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Remake Game guide but sometimes useful, re-make it!

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:03Z

Symmi Lillington[edit]

This seems to be an unpublished book, neither the library of congress nor amazon knows about it Aleph-4 12:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nom says it all, NN. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 13:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT and WP:BK. Wikipedia doesn't need to have an article about a character from the book when it doesn't even have an article about the book. --Metropolitan90 16:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN and fails WP:V. Davidpdx 10:40, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:03Z

Defibtech[edit]

Reads as spam--Alex 10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as thinly disguised WP:SPAM. MER-C 13:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not so thinly!--Dmz5 05:41, 22 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 15:04Z

Free Geek[edit]

Although it looks good this article appears not to show notability --Alex 10:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep because there seems to be sources out there, just not in the article. Secateur 15:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Man, I hate to vote weak delete,~~ because I think it's a cool concept, and I followed the link and I'll probably get a free 'pooter from them (well, in exchange for some work), but it looks like this article exists more for publicity rather than due to the organization being particularly notable at this point, I'd probably switch the vote if I saw third-party press references, not just links to their web sites. Keep looks like citations have been added. Tubezone 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comments of Tubezone above. Delete--Alex 15:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the http://www.freegeek.org/media.php page shows loads of media references going back more than 6 years. Sourcing should be no problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provided that media references are added. Otherwise, Delete. Charlie 21:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Media references and a personal sourcing added. --K7aay 09:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At least 8 other non-profits across the country base their operations on the Free Geek non-profit/GPL/OpenSource model. I think it's a great thing to have an entry in Wikipedia! They typically run barely day-to-day able to pay non-profit part-time wages to a handful of 3/4 time staff. 200+ monthly volunteers. I don't see how a little more information about them hurts. I heard today, that they have been prodded to update the entry with more background material. And several people have stepped up to update it in the next few days. --Iain 09:10, 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 speedy delete; the article itself does not contain any assertion of notability. Tizio 13:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gigoit[edit]

The article appears to be spam. It was previously nominated for prod however the creator deleted the tag unilaterally. --Alex 10:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion, non-notable. yandman 10:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:05, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:06Z

Professional wrestling tours of Australia[edit]

I've nominated this article for deletion for a second time as a believe their is no need to have a page on results for every professional wrestling tour in Australia - they are not notable enough to deserve their own page. Davnel03 19:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first AfD debate is here. It was closed as "no consensus". --Bduke 20:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Putting a ton of non-notable wrestling events together does not make them notable. TJ Spyke 02:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 03:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is certainly a lot of information on that page. But it's useless to me! Govvy 11:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To the closing admin: if/when this is deleted, make sure to delete the re-direct pages as well (like "WWE Global Warning"). TJ Spyke 06:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 13:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Professional wrestling is not my thing. However, this is information that would be of interest to people and isn't a list of indiscriminate information. It does require further context and sourcing. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Put this type of thing (in a cleaned up form) on a wrestling wiki, not here. RobJ1981 17:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with User:MER-C...WP:NOT this is an indiscriminate list of stuff. Davidpdx 10:42, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:06Z

Shelectronica[edit]

Contested prod. Concern: "nn neologism, 33 ghits". Article's author notes on talk page that she coined the term: "This is a term that existed nowhere until I started using it to fill a gap in expression regarding new musical forms." Delete per WP:NOT#OR/WP:NEO. Muchness 14:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blogger neologism. I noticed on the talk page: "I have verified this by phone with Oxford Dictionary's publisher who quoted that for a fee I can have it entered as Neologism with my name attached in the next dictionary edition" — if true, this is something to be taken into account in future AfDs. Demiurge 14:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As for the dictionary business, I would say that if what the editor is speaking of is the Oxford English Dictionary, the tale sounds, to be kind, implausible. On the other hand, just as there are countless fee-based directories along the lines of Who's Who, I suppose it's not impossible that there's a vanity dictionary, too. Robertissimo 14:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It would be nice if the people who prod pages would explain why to the author, especially with new contributors. This is the second time the page was prodded, the first time it was deleted. The author's comment when removing the prod "I removed this as there is nothing wrong with a neologism, I thought this was a progessive site? You only need google the word to see what I have said is true!" shows that they didn't understand why the prod was placed on their page. ~ BigrTex 16:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete protologism. Danny Lilithborne 17:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder per above. MER-C 01:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Admitted neologism. —ShadowHalo 03:35, 22 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 15:07Z

Workic[edit]

As I already wrote in May 2006: It still seems like a neologism to me. When I search Google for "workic", I get mainly pages that *mention* (rather than *use*) the word, as in "Workic" is not in the dictionary. Aleph4 14:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Workoholic. Robertissimo 14:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems an original research (the name). Content copied from Workoholic (see page history). Non notable word (very few ghits), so no redirect. Cate |_Talk 15:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per reasons stated by Cate. Hatch68 18:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, Wikipedia is not a place for nonsense jargon. Davidpdx 10:45, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:07Z

GamAnon[edit]

Contested speedy. Local organisation offering no notability. Speedy contested with the suggestion the article is a merge candidate to Gamblers Anonymous. However, this appears to be a separate organisation with no links to GA Nuttah68 14:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, Wikipedia is not a place for nonsense jargon. Davidpdx 10:46, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:07Z

Internet Plasticity Nodes[edit]

Protologism. Gets zero google hits[16]. Deprodded by original author. Weregerbil 14:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; wholly non-notable protologism. Robertissimo 14:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lord Gravitron ^{Message | Contrib} 15:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable unreferenced protologism. —ShadowHalo 09:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok, who the hell is Bran Taylor? NN, violates WP:N and WP:V.

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

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

The result was DELETE. Sarah 11:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Clarke[edit]

Procedural nomination of previously-speedied article Phil | Talk 14:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article appears to present multiple justifications for notability, and furthermore has four inward links from other articles. I cannot understand why this was a valid speedy candidate. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Inbound links are not a justification in any way. If they were, then our vandals would simply crosslink their names from all the "bands" they formed. There are no actual claims in the article of notability, as each of the listed accomplishments is certainly admirable but not actually a position of leadership, public fame, or superior placement in the field. However, if you have a question, you are supposed to use DRV, instead of simply undeleting. HTH Geogre 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he has certainly had a busy career but as far as I can see he is not notable for the purposes of WP:BIO. The Royal Society of Arts has 24,999 other fellows, and Google results are mostly Wikipedia mirrors. Demiurge 15:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, it's 6000 [17]DGG 03:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment this seems a gray area to me. Several companies started, some authorship, inward links, all together suggest notability. I would tend to favour shading toward delete if the subject is a longstanding contributor who wants not to have it (that's not an open and shut reason, but a shading). But I'm seeing enough notability to build a case for keep barring that. Note that a speedy was in my view, not warranted. This is an area where some discussion would be of benefit. withhold opinion barring more information. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i'm gonna have to say while at first glance this guy has done alot... none of these honors/accomplishments are sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO guidelines. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject of the article tagged this for speedy deletion, as he recognized, as others did, that the article fails WP:BIO, and he didn't write it or want it. The article was speedy deleted because it literally makes no claim to notability, which is a perfectly valid A7. Undeletion should not have taken place without the use of WP:DRV, which is a place that all users must employ, not just non-administrators, as there the validity of the A7 deletion could have been assessed. So, we have another week for outside sites to gather up personal details about a Wikipedian, another week of potential abuse. I'm not sure "HTH" or how this will allow anyone to "HAND." The article is a delete and was a delete. Geogre 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George, I think anyone may remove a speedy tag without going to deletion review. Contested speedys come here. DGG or at least ask that it be done. 03:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone wanna source it - thats really what notability is about, the ability to source it -- Tawker 00:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Geogre. Theo Clarke (the wikipedian) is entitled to his privacy. If he wanted it kept he would add further information to display his notability, he has not. He has expressed surprise that he is considered notable (not false modesty but genuine surprise) he has asserted the wish this page be deleted, and in this case his wishes should be respected. .Giano 07:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I'm fairly sympathetic to Giano's statement above. However, it would be a major change of policy to decide (a) that bio subjects are entitled to their privacy, and (b) the wishes of the subject are to be a consideration. As it stands, Wikipedia has rejected both those principles. (See Daniel Brandt and Angela Beesley). As I say, I somewhat warm to these ideas in cases of marginal notability. However, I reject the idea of special treatment for our Wikipedian friends. Either this bio stands (or is deleted), like others, on its notability/verifiability, or we make a major change policy for all bios.--Doc^g 09:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Doc is right, of course, and I did not mean to imply that this was a "Right to vanish" case that was up against demonstrated notability. Rather, I felt that the article's contents indicated a very successful career, but not one that had achieved break out "note," and that this combined with the subject not wanting the article to remain (or get userfied) made this a clearer speedy delete. (I.e. something on the fence like this should generally never be a speedy delete, as the authors and subjects are almost surely going to protest, and reasonably, but, here, we had no one stepping up on behalf of the article, except Phil Bosworth, and his actions were irregular.) Geogre 12:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I think that AfD was the right route here. Previous precedent is that the subject's request is NOT a valid consideration. I think we're reaching a fairly ground-breaking agreement that it is (if not a major one). I welcome that. But when something is as debatable as this, an open discussion is probably better than a quiet speedy (although I understand the motives of the speedy). However, Phil's actions were perfectly valid - speedies are really for open and shut cases; any admin should feel free to undelete any speedy and send to afd. I suppose he could have taken it to DRV instead - but then we'd just be having this same discussion in another forum. (And a forum which might well, in turn, have sent it back here).--Doc^g 13:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Doc, I'm not just speaking as one of Theo's friends, I'm also saying "As the page stands it is non notable and even what little is there is unreffed", and from the google hits available, unless Theo himself chooses to expand the page (he has indicated that he won't) the page fails WP:BIO. Giano 09:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a quick bit of google research on the name and some of the terms in the article provides quite a bit of verifiable info. So, I don't think we're dependent on the subject, actually. Someone could easily reference this, and probably expand it too. However, as to whether we'd want to keep it if they did, I really don't know.--Doc^g 09:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article at the time of the speedy made no serious claim to notability. That being said, I actually looked at this when it was so tagged and, purely on the face of the multiple but individually non-notable claims, chickened out and went to softer targets. So Endorse balls-y deletion since that should be the venue that this is being discussed in. The article as it stands still makes no cited claim to notability, and as such should be deleted unless more evidence is introduced. Nothing to do with "niceness" or "mateship" here, but in the event that it was a line ball, we should be nice to everyone as long as we retain our integrity. - brenneman 10:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline notability, as admitted by the subject. Angela and Daniel B (no, not me, the other one) were, in my opinion, substantially more notable than this. I would have probably not been inclined to give my opinion if the subject wasn't requesting deletion - just another AfD bio - and if I had of, it probably would have been a weak delete. However, the borderline notability coupled with the expressed wish of the subject, who is acting in a decent way, has swung my !vote. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIT, I'm comfortable with deletion in this case. But I give notice that I will cite this debate as evidence of a consensus that the subject's request is a relevant factor in deletion decisions, although not necessarily the decisive one. This precedent must apply equally to non-Wikipedians. On that basis, delete. --Doc^g 11:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An important distinction to make, and well-stated. We consider the request of the subject, but it isn't the be-all-and-end-all, nor the Chop (reference to the card game Thirteen, no article sadly), nor a veto, or any other word you wish to use in this context. Probably equally-important is the way the subject goes about stating their intention - Wikipedians much prefer it when somebody rationally states their feelings rather than lawyering and being generally disrespectful. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline notability case which the subject's request pushes over the edge. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 15:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline at best. [ælfəks] 00:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I flagged this as a speedy because I do not think that I am sufficiently notable to merit an entry here. I am not concerned about its effect upon my privacy because everything cited here is already in the public domain and I think that it is all on the internet. I have not touched the article because I believe that this contravenes WP:AUTO. I am both warmed and touched that at least three people have considered it worthwhile to write about me (even if one of them did immediately delete his/her own factually correct addition). As a matter of principle, however, I think it irrelevant that I am an established wikipedian. —Theo (Talk) 20:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with delete, disagree with speedy tagging, because the article subject is borderline enough notable (there doesn't need to be a literal statement "This subject is notable" for the article to assert notability, you know) that this was NOT a clear cut speedy. Disagree that there is any significant difference in privacy impact from it being on DRV or AfD after it was incorrectly speedied. In future, article subjects ought not to speedy tag their own articles. Perhaps WP:AUTO ought to speak to that more clearly. Am also OK with "subject's request is a relevant factor although not decisive" principle. ++Lar: t/c 09:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline notable. Request by subject is something to consider; not the dominant factor here. +sj + 04:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bastique, Giano, Daniel Bryant, Doc G, not someone we need an article on, probably not notable on the merits, and subject's wishes as the tiebreaker if it's considered a borderline case. However, subject is cautioned to avoid any more achievements and accomplishments or they may tip the balance and we may be back here. :) Newyorkbrad 04:06, 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 15:08Z

Laurence Belfiore[edit]

Some random post-doctorant reasearcher, which hasn't made any notable discoveries rather than a student textbook. With 313 Google hits, it's clear to me that this doesn't meet WP:BIO. I've made a lot of NPOV work on this article in my first few days on Wikipedia to remove information added by his students, but I don't see any reason for this to stay any much longer. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article offers no notabilty. Nuttah68 20:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, violates WP:V. The only thing this might be good for is a cure for insomnia. Davidpdx 10:50, 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 wasSpeedy delete - WP:CSD#G12 - Copyright infringement. -- Donald Albury 16:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chin National Front[edit]

Clearly written as a propaganda text and not neutral ArchStanton 15:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, copyvio from [18]. Tagged as such. Demiurge 15:31, 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 Speedy Delete --Tone 22:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random evolution[edit]

What??? Apparently this is about an utterly non-notable band. Plus, I could not find any actual information in the article. Aleph-4 15:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This pretty well perfects the technique of "a large wall of text makes people with no attention span believe you have lots to say, so you can put in absolutely no information". Please no meatpuppets saying "I love this band, they deserve a Wikipedia article!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, makes no attempt to pass WP:MUSIC, borderline speedy. Demiurge 15:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC -- Whpq 16:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Vanity page, merely attempts to boost traffic to their geocities website. Charlie 20:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and possible conflict of interests (the contributors are "Random evolution" and "fugiscool"). —ShadowHalo 03:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This page is an absolute waste of space. It would take forever to wikify it, and there's no point in that because it's really irrelevant, non-NPOV, original research stuff. What more do you want? -Zepheriah 00:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, WP:CSD#A7. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:15, 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 Speedy delete. — ERcheck (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wotton[edit]

Page reads like pure vanity, and the links don't appear to be relevant to the text. Is this speediable or afd? Must admit to being a bit new to this. -- Roleplayer 16:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as attack page (so tagged). Whatever it is, it's hardly vanity. Demiurge 16:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment might be worth salting too, see Michael Wotton. Demiurge 16:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete some kind of attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-attack. Danny Lilithborne 17:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Please... quickly... Charlie 20:10, 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 15:08Z

Filmography of Joan Crawford[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Pinkkeith 16:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's hardly indiscriminate information, it's a filmography of a very famous actress with a significant career. Her main article is also too large to merge it into comfortably. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tidy up for reasons given by Andrew Lenahan Yorkshiresky 17:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind. Danny Lilithborne 17:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tidy up. It contains, for example, no citations whatsoever. Charlie 20:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep normally I would want to see it merged but the main article is too long, and this is exactly what we should do when the main article is too long!--Dmz5 05:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs citations and a little cleanup. ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. —ShadowHalo 22:43, 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 15:09Z

KoL Mafia[edit]

This piece of software fails WP:RS, and WP:SOFTWARE. Googling shows blog links but no independent reliable sources. The software itself is a bot client that is of interest only to Kingdom of Loathing players. Whpq 16:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability. --InShaneee 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best it would be a mention in the main KoL article, but as written I can't see any reason to even justify that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not big enough to get its own article. Greyhead 05:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, put a nod to it on Kingdom of Loathing. -Ryanbomber 17:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make it as it was, mentioned in a short, concise fashion on the main KoL article. Crazysunshine 02:53, 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 Speedy delete A7, no credible claim of notability ~ trialsanderrors 20:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kylo[edit]

I prodded this page yesterday and left an explanatory note to the creator, User:Drummerboykyle. He then modified the article to make the subject ten years older and added a ref to a ten year old magazine that is itself difficult to verify, plus some additional claims of notability. It appears to be a fanciful autobiography. I can find no evidence of the claims he makes to fame--particularly that he is an international music star involved with bands that also appear to be unnotable or that he has written scholarly articles. As such, I would urge a delete for unverifiability unless I've missed something. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V with no google results for "Mark Francis Kyle", or any relevant results for "Mark Kyle", or "Kylo". -- Whpq 16:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if true, this is fails notability criteria.Obina 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 17:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Author removed most of the more extreme claims, so there's no real assertion of notability left, thus it qualifies for speedy delete WP:CSD A7. So tagged. Tubezone 20:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... mmm, hoaxalicious. Speedy if possible, if nothing else, per WP:SNOW. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:02, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:09Z

Cacoethes[edit]

Simple dictionary definition. transwiki if a reference is available. Obina 16:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del dicdef. Mukadderat 18:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. Davidpdx 10:51, 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 Speedily deleted as vandalism. (aeropagitica) 17:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about sucking poop[edit]

Well, this page does remind me of Kittyslasher in some extent.

Keep; what if there really are some songs about that topic? --White Taurus 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC) — White Taurus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Some songs may reference "sucking poop"; so it may be worth keeping. --Horny Henry 16:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC) — Horny Henry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Not sure if it is a keeper or to be deleted. Because I am vaguely familiar with the subject of "sucking poop" as a song topic. --Brolsma 16:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if the topic of "sucking poop" is rare for a song. It may be interesting to look at a list dedicated to the topic. --Oscar the rabid dog 16:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC) — Oscar the rabid dog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: 2 user names on this ballot remind me of Dawn Nelson from Livonia, MI. Isn't that disturbing for Wikipedia? --Jay the evil Mexican 16:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC) — Jay the evil Mexican (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Demiurge 16:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a hoax, and a pretty bad one at that. (Read the list). Sam Blacketer 17:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, for reasons given above Yorkshiresky 17:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G5 and G3. Come on. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete patent nonsense. And ignore the sockpuppets. Danny Lilithborne 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, cool, an indiscriminate list about sucking poop! Even if it was kept, the more encyclopedic term would be "feces". SupaStarGirl 17:39, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:10Z

The thox[edit]

Claimed to be a comedy project started in 2004. However, my search for information failed to turn up anything outside the website mentioned. This website crashed my browser. I do not think this is notable enough for inclusion. Sam Blacketer 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete db-group. Danny Lilithborne 17:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Please - not notable. --JudahBlaze 00:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not a whisper of a wisp of an assertion of notability. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, WP:V. Davidpdx 10:53, 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 redirect to RuneScape combat. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:11Z

Blurite[edit]

Nn metal in MMORPG. If it is really that important it could be redirected to List of fantasy metals (or an article of similar name) but Looking at it, I can mkae a clear evaluation it is not important but nn J.J.Sagnella 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the RuneScape article or affiliated Runescape article. Hatch68 18:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no way does this require a separate article. All that needs to be said about it is over at RuneScape combat: "Blurite (fictional magical alloy)", with a link to the kbase page. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JJ and the captain. The metal is used once in one of the smallest and least interesting quests in RS' catalogue of 100+, and to make one of many variants of crossbow and ammunition, neither of which are tradeable between players and both of which are less effective than some of the most commonly and cheaply available materials in RS, hence it's seldom used. What little to say on this has been said where it should be, this article is surplus to requirements. QuagmireDog 20:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Mukadderat 18:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete nn, fails WP:V. Davidpdx 10:54, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:11Z

Cuts and stars[edit]

A band with nothing particularly WP:MUSIC-ish, no sources. Deprodded. Weregerbil 17:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 03:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mukadderat 18:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, fails WP:V. Davidpdx 10:56, 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 :–( Speedy delete, incoherent, plus we also already have an article on Smiley. ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley Faces![edit]

Fairly incoherent, but I didn't want to speedy-delete it in case there was something relevant/useful that I hadn't understood. Walton monarchist89 16:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, unverifiable and frankly dubious. Fan-1967 16:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything retrievable (which won't be much) to Smiley. Tevildo 17:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete looks like patent nonsense to me. Danny Lilithborne 17:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Also, there is no town in Massachusetts called "Woster". Perhaps they were thinking of Worcester. SupaStarGirl 17:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not sure that this even qualifies for the SandBox... Lmcelhiney 18:22, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:12Z

Powerspace[edit]

The article was previously marked for deletion but template removed by author. Band fails WP:Music with nothing in current article that meets criteria. Article states album will be released in Summer of 2007, which could lead to criteria being met at that time. Hatch68 17:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per signing from record label that has other notable bands. Just H 17:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being signed is not one of the criteria listed in WP:Music. See Item #5 specifically. Hatch68 17:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoping to be famous is not notable. Nuttah68 20:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 03:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Kalani ^[talk] 18:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also delete their albums Album 0 - Rare Demo Tracks and Houston, We Have a Party for having no notability whatsoever. -- Kicking222 15:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Non-noteable, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BAND, WP:V. Davidpdx 10:57, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:13Z

Sabrina Morris[edit]

An actress whose actual credits seem to be two walk-ons: "Surgical nurse" on a soap, and "Model" on Entourage. Author removed ((Notability)) tag with the comment This actress is notible as she was cast on the hit show "Entourage," which is a topic that is notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated... I don't see that a bit part on a notable show makes you notable. Fan-1967 17:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I rewrote the thing into a stub after coming across it randomly- I didn't even notice it had been put up for deletion earlier, or I would have re-listed it myself. Sorry! She just plain fails WP:BIO. And from the ridiculous gushing tone of the article before I edited it, I have a feeling it's a vanity page too. Get rid of it. -IceCreamAntisocial 19:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that subject meets WP:BIO for actors. So what if she was an extra on Entourage? There's no notability by association here. Being cast in two bit parts, likely non-speaking roles, does not make you an actor by the notability guideline's definition... you're called an extra. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a step above extra, though not a big one. Extras don't get screen credits. Fan-1967 20:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:Bio. Hatch68 21:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like everyone who's ever had any kind of walk-on on a TV show wants a Wikipedia page. This gal doesn't clear the notability bar. (I've resolved to spend some time over X-mas rooting out a few more of these folks, so take a look at my edits next week if you want to help flush these non-notable actors out of Wikipedia.)TruthGal 22:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe recreate when she wins the Emmy for Best Walk-On.--Dmz5 05:47, 22 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 15:13Z

Keith Pyle[edit]

Non-notable musician. Cribcage 18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. --JudahBlaze 19:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has two albums, but they were released under Pyle's own independent label, Running With Scissors Music. WP:MUSIC not met, no evidence from WP:RS indicating otherwise. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 03:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low noteablity only 3,500 Google hits. Davidpdx 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 delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:13Z

Body Fetish[edit]

This is an unverified, neologism, and is wholly original research. Furthermore it appears to be WP:SPAM created to push an external link per this version (I removed the link per WP:EL) and the fact that the originator added this link to many other articles. WP:AGF, but this appears to be an attempt to sell products. Delete.--Isotope23 18:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del per nom. `'mikkanarxi 18:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete — I believe it fits the criteria. Robotman1974 18:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I just checked one of the references cited (Gates, Katharine. Deviant Desires: Incredibly Strange Sex. Juno Books. ISBN 1-890451-03-7) and I found nothing about this supposed fetish in that book. Robotman1974 18:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which criteria? I was going to CSD it but I didn't see one that fit... I may have missed something though.--Isotope23 18:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria I was citing is "Blatant advertising"; considering the link that had been included, and also considering the same link was added to many articles by the same user. [19] I don't see how the remaining content of the article can stand on its own. Robotman1974 18:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... G11... Like I said, I may have missed something.--Isotope23 19:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems a WP:N subject matter, may be it should re writen with WP:RS or a clean up tag is what is needed ?RaveenS 19:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it may seen notable but the problem is that there is no evidence at all that the various fetishes listed in the article have ever been referred to as "Body Fetishes". It could be rewritten, but the fact of the matter is that the fetishes listed in the article are somehow a gestalt under this term is wholly original research... that is why they each have their own articles (well the ones that are verifiable anyway).--Isotope23 20:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sounds very made-up and I can't find any reliable sources to backup the information in this article. Jayden54 21:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mukadderat 18:27, 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. Runcorn 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Beeding F.C.[edit]

non-notable team in the 12 level of English football Geoffrey Spear 18:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A google search shows up about 300 unique hits. Thus, this article has the potential to be substantally verified. This article is also part of the non-league football project, which is a sub-project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. If this article is deleted, it will most likely be re-created in the future when the non-league football project grows more substantially. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 19:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Up until this year, the club played in a league in which clubs are considered notable, the Sussex County League.--Balerion 20:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article asserts that they played in Division 3 of that League, which is at Level 11, below the guideline in WP:CORP. Geoffrey Spear 20:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are several leagues which seem to be exceptions to this rule, including the SCL Div 3, Wessex League Div 2, South Western League, Devon County League, and Central Midlands League. --Balerion 20:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then the clubs in those divisions should also be deletable. Delete this club. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even at this level, the clubs are worthy of an article especially as they can move up the football structure. Daemonic Kangaroo 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Utterly non notable club with no important history, not even meeting the already low standard for English football clubs (level 10 is fairly low). It has no permanent field, and an average league attendance of 30 persons... (this was probably a wee bit higher when they played a division higher, but still...). Of the 30 distinct Google hits[20], this[21] and this[22] are the most relevant ones, and neither is very convincing. Fram 09:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Fails WP:CORP which states that only participating in levels 1-10 make a club inherently notable. Qwghlm 14:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never played at level 10 or higher. As for the theory that this should be kept because there is the theoretical chance for them to move up, that applies to virtually any club/team in England. - fchd 17:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mukadderat 18:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP. HornetMike 01:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP. Also, not a crystal ball. No significant sourcing provided that might allow an exemption. TerriersFan 19:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete below the bar for notability. Oldelpaso 14:29, 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 keep. Runcorn 20:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of breast reduction recipients[edit]

Has been sitting without any references since July. List definition of notable women is pretty vague. Pleclech 18:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, turn into a category. Just H 18:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a noteworthy subject and is easy to provide references for (which has been done). "Notable" means they're notable enough to have wikipedia articles. --David Hain 09:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good work with the referencing - its complete non-existence was my main concern with this article Pleclech 06:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. verifiable & peculiar, cerftainly more notable than List of people with breast implants Mukadderat 18:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Can't say i agree, This should only apply to public figures whose breasts are in some way notable, and I suspect that's more likely with implants. DGG 03:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Everything's backed by citations. Quite studiously done, actually. A remarkable and strange little list. And they are women who already have WP articles so how can one claim they're non-notable? Shawn in Montreal 17:39, 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Heiman[edit]

I don't know arts, but this seems not notable and like an ad. Xiner (talk, email) 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable per WP:BIO, and I can't find anything really noteworthy through Google or Google News. Jayden54 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not everyone in the world is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, and certainly not this gal.TruthGal 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just H 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well known israli photographer. Everyone in the art scene knows her. 1300 google Shmila 08:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Hard to imagine everyone in the art scene has even had a chance to know her, since her first and only New York solo art exhibition took place... this week.[23]. Say... this Wiki entry was created just a week or so before that... What a delightful coincidence! Here's a test I use to see if a person is notable - rather than just Google the name, I do a Google search to try to find a basic biography to see where or when the subject was born (it's often the first line of a bio) "Ansel Adams was born in"[24] gets 88 hits. "Michal Heiman was born in"[25] gets zero hits. TruthGal 16:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She Was the most known photographer in Israel while the 80s, before the internet. Shmila 18:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, had only 1,300 Google hits. Davidpdx 11:05, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Heiman[edit]

this article uses self refs, and although it is not a speedy candidate, it does not seem notable enough and thus i send it to Afd. It is, I believe contested by the creator, and may have been created before, as the editor says "notable again, check HE wikipedia" in the edit summary. Phgao 22:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I'm not sure now, as although it does have a HE article, that article seems short to me, and I could not find any newspaper articles through a Google News search, but of course that only searches English news; and therefore can not be representative of all news on her. I add that I just checked and the article was deleted in 2006, but that does not set a precedent for this Afd. Phgao 23:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the last revision before my nom. [26] Phgao 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this woman is a renowned artist, her Hebrew and English wiki articles are verified and notable, she presented in Galleries all over the world, much more unlikely persons have articles in this encyclopedia. Marina T. 22:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A quick google search shows plenty of sites and articles to prove notabilty.Ridernyc 22:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep one of the more famous artists in Israel. Took part in the "documenta". It's crazy to delete her. Shmila 22:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Definitely meets WP:BIO, just needs sources. I'll tag it. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 07:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. "one of the more famous artists in Israel" -name another... "It's crazy to delete her" --Call me crazy. "just needs sources" ---Meaningless comment which could be made for any nn subject. Tiptopper 11:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Official participation in Documenta is, I think, sufficient to establish notability. The article now has references to books discussing her work.--Ethicoaestheticist 11:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs to be heavily edited for formatting, POV and WP:PEACOCK, but a Documenta showing satisfies notability. Freshacconci | Talk 19:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable fictional holiday, WP:NOT refers. (aeropagitica) 21:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chrischanukkahwanzaamas[edit]

Not a notable holiday. Google returns 37 hits. JudahBlaze 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sounds like a neologism to me, and probably something made-up, so delete per WP:NEO Jayden54 19:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- it is made-up, as are all holidays. I'd like to see a second source for the article, though. OscarTheCat3 20:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have a few of these articles. It would be a slippery slope to let every 'made-up' holiday have it's own article. --JudahBlaze 20:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the first source? The game company's home page doesn't count. -- Kicking222 20:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Of the 37 google hits, 16 were unique, no reliable sources. Not notable fictional holiday. Secateur 20:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Completely and utterly non-notable. 16 unique and 37 total Google hits (unsurprisingly). No referencing. -- Kicking222 20:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry guys NegroSuave 21:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with JudahBlaze. Giving every made-up holiday an entry would result in far too many crap articles. A page listing them maybe, but I'd say delete it unless it can get some excellent cleanup work.ManiacClown 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 21:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Rename The term that I've seen and heard is "christmakwanzakuh." 149 hits on Google (78 are unique). Additionally "christmakkuh" has 6,130 Google hits (driven primarily from the usage on the television program "The OC"). "Made-up" or not if it has reached popular usage then it belongs in an encyclopedia. An article that encompasses all of these variations would be appropriate. CuriousGiselle 18:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are incorrect. WP:NEO is our guideline for neologisms, and it says that we need reliable secondary sources about the term before we create articles on the term. GRBerry 03:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made several statements so I have no idea which of them you claim to be incorrect. Please state clearly what is incorrect so that I can either understand your point or explain how you are incorrect. CuriousGiselle 20:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a particularly popular holiday, but notable for it being referenced in many 9th Level Games. Needs sources/references? 87.254.69.18 20:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google fails to return many hits, and besides, we already have Chrismahanukwanzakah, which is similar, but much more well-known. Kalani ^[talk] 18:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism that fails to meet the standards at WP:NEO. GRBerry 03:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. WODUP (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 01:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I've heard this phrase before. I believe it was part of a Virgin Mobile advertising campaign. A whole internet thing was spawned from this, or did, as it seems it's no longer there. Eridani 1648, 25 December 2006 (EST)
Delete fails WP:NEO and nn. Davidpdx 11:06, 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 speedy closure, with no prejudice against an immediate trip back to AfD with a nomination by someone who actually wants the article deleted. I'm not going to comment on the bad faith, meatpuppet, and other accusations, but it's generally best to leave an AfD nomination to whoever does want an article deleted. In this case, Pan Dan indicates that he's giving the page creator(s) an opportunity to find sources, so no one seems to want the page deleted, just yet. As such, it is closed per WP:SK.--Kchase T 06:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Americans for Religious Liberty[edit]

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of for Pan Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his meatpuppet Weirdoactor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't know why he wants it deleted -- neither of them will say. Instead he just plasters a blue tag all over it and by being rude. The King of Spain's beard 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the exchange between His Majesty's beard and me on my talk page. I recommend speedy close of this silly nom. Pan Dan 19:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- is that a keep vote? The King of Spain's beard 19:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dude. Seriously. Decaf. I am no one's meat puppet; and if I were, I can guaran-damn-tee that I wouldn’t be Pan Dan’s. If you knew just how funny that accusation is to me (and would be to Pan Dan as well, I’ll wager), you’d be laughing now. Out loud. Wow. I’m honored to be part of your crazy crusade though. Incidentally; I don’t think the article should be deleted, just properly sourced. Hi! -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 19:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because I'm enjoying the show. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 19:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe down, meatpuppet. You'll speak up when I say so. (oops) Pan Dan 19:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BABY WANTS CANDY NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW!!! And some beer. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 19:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source. Group looks notable enough. --JudahBlaze 19:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTFKEEP and source. Oh wait...was I supposed to talk? Not sure being a meatpuppet and all ;) --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KoS's Beard, just to make clear and expand on what I said on my talk page: I don't know whether this article should be deleted. The reason is, I don't know whether there are good sources out there. I did a cursory look, found none, and that's why I put the tags on the article. It is reasonable to think that the regular contributor/s to the article (in this case, you) are more likely to know where to find good sources than anyone else (including me). The point of the tags is not to be rude or to defile the article but to alert the contributors that they need to find sources. If you understand what I'm saying, please withdraw this nomination, because it is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Pan Dan 20:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems clearly to be a bad-faith nomination, although the article might be a candidate for AfD. Is there an admin around? Can this get closed?--Dmz5 05:49, 22 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. Runcorn 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wipipedia[edit]

Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia

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

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

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

del, nonnotabke wiki. Since its first momination the article failed to addresss the concerns of notability and verifiability. `'mikkanarxi 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the first debate, I'm leaning towards delete. The concerns were not addressed. Some had an WP:ILIKEIT stance, some wanted to keep the article because "WP:WEB is not policy, so it has no relevance". You'll have to do better than that. Also, whether the "specialist wikis" thrive is not really our business. Punkmorten 19:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that this site meets WP:WEB. Yes, it's not policy, but there's a reason it's around, and it's not to be contravened by a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT-based votes. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB since I can't find any coverage by reliable sources, awards won or anything else notable. Jayden54 19:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I believe that the previous AfD was completely unfair, and people were !voting keep because of the matter of the subject itself, while completely ignoring WP:WEB. This isn't notable, period. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, WP:Web is not policy. It is inadmissible to delete something because of guidelines. What policy does it fail to meet? Secondly, this is not a vote; it is a debate. The closing admin looked at the debate and decided not to delete, so the stuff about "a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT-based votes" is irrelevant.--Brownlee 13:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which WP:WEB criteria it doesn't meet?
- The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. - All I could find through Google is two short summaries of the website from two other websites: podcastdirectory.com and the-iron-gate.com. These are not, however, published works or media re-prints.
- The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization. - Nope.
- 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. - There is informedconsent.co.uk, but again, it is not a well-known newspaper, publisher or broadcaster.
- The WP:ILIKEIT-based votes don't show notability, but rather disturb Wikipedia's deletion process. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People keep citing WP:WEB, but this was rejected as policy. Nobody can produce any policy reason for deleting this article, and therefore the clear decision taken recently to keep must stand.--Taxwoman 15:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to confuse it with some other page, WP:WEB is a confirmed ~~policy~~ guideline. I believe I provided enough reasons for this to fail that certain criteria, and therefore it should not be kept. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know what page you're looking at, but WP:WEB clearly says "This page is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia".--Taxwoman 16:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rejected? Can you provide a link to the discussion where it was rejected? It says the following at the top of WP:WEB: This page is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia, reflecting how authors of this encyclopedia address certain issues so I don't see how it can be rejected. Jayden54 16:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here [27] it was downgraded from a proposed policy to a guideline.--Taxwoman 16:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's still an official guideline that carries weight in these discussions. If there was no such guideline a lot of confusion would exist whether a website is notable or not. This guideline makes it possible to say "XXX is not notable", and applies in this case. This website is not notable. Jayden54 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, you haven't stated any arguments for your vote either, except the claim that WP:WEB is not an official policy. Care to explain your vote? As it stands this website isn't notable enough to be included. Also, you should mention that you are an administrator at that website, since there's some conflict of interest. Thanks! Jayden54 16:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that the article was kept after the last AfD, and there is no policy reason whatsoever to delete it, the onus is on the proposers to find a valid reason for deletion. I have no more conflict of interest than any other editor trying to ensure that Wikipedia is not damaged by deletion of a good article. Please note WP:NPA.--Taxwoman 17:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, no personal attack meant, although in retrospect, my message is a bit harsh. My argument still stands though. This website fails WP:WEB (which has not been rejected as far as I know) so not notable enough to be included. Jayden54 18:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. AnonMoos seems to advertise this process in Wipipedia. I've added a template on the top of this page of those who come following the notice. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever, dude -- I informed the two most active Wipipedia administrators (both of whom also participate in Wikipedia, and one of whom, BalzacLFS, was very active in the last AFD, before I had ever even heard of Wipipedia). AnonMoos 22:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The theory that something must go against the letter of a policy to be deleted is absurd. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What are the grounds for deleting an article that does not violate any policy, in lettoer or spirit?--Holdenhurst 23:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The spirit of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is that we don't include information on every random thing someone feels like writing about. Thus, notability. And the spirit of WP:V is that things be verified by sources people have reason to trust. Thus, WP:RS. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those recommending to keep are correct in stating WP:WEB is not a policy. However, it is still a guideline, which does carry more weight in an AfD discussion than a generalized statement calling for its ignoring. To quote WP:N, the main notability guideline: It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Likewise, One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Look at other AfDs: a majority of the decision to keep and delete is based on such notability guidelines; while not policy, they provide an accepted barometer for whether a site is reasonably covered in third-party sources to be included herein. Any reasonable administrator will ignore, rightfully so, recommendations which simply state WP:WEB is not policy, so it doesn't matter, as they come off as well, the guideline doesn't work for us, so let's give ourselves a free pass here. Rather than simply stating that obvious truth, those recommending to keep are advised to find reliable sources indicating if and how the notability guidelines are met. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments were laid out at length last time and there was a clear decision to keep. Obviously the closing admin thought that whatever the status of WP:WEB, the arguments amounted to a case to keep. Nothing has changed since then. Incidentally, I hope that Michaelas10 will withdraw his claim that WP:WEB is policy.--Holdenhurst 23:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the above explanation by Kinu. Even if WP:WEB is not a policy (a guideline but still), it is often used to show notability or non-notability on Wikipedia's deletion process, and saying that this article should be kept because it isn't a policy is not a valid arguement. Instead, try to find something to help you prove that this website might pass one of WP:WEB's criteria, but until then there is no reason for this to be kept. Michaelas10 (Talk) 23:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keepish Comment. I don't have a passionate interest in this in any direction. But it seems to me that two things have happened: one is that, the first time this article was nominated for deletion, the final decision was to keep the article in Wikipedia; the other, which Taxwoman has pointed out, is that WP:WEB has been specifically demoted from policy to a guideline. I don't track the Wipipedia website; but it seems to me that such a website, in the half year or so that has passed since this article first survived a deletion nomination, would have grown, not shrunk, in whatever worthiness it had to be mentioned in its own Wikipedia article. I'm too busy right now to keep on following this discussion in detail; but I offer these points for consideration. Also, maybe Wikipedia should have a double-jeopardy policy or guideline about AfD. — President Lethe 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes well the closing admin might have done a mistake last time when this was kept, therefore it was nominated again. I don't see how it grown, it still has a low Alexa rank, and it still fails to meet any criteria whatsoever. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can we ask him/her if it was a mistake? BalzacLFS 10:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ did we not have this same argument six months ago and the result was a keep? The wipipedia is a serious attempt at a BDSM wiki, content sourced from it is now being used in wikipedia articles it and is linked to by many more, is now in the ALexa top 100,000 websites. I think that commonsense would indicate that it has an entry on the wikpieda. BalzacLFS 10:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not keep articles because they are a "serious attempt at a BDSM wiki", this is still not a valid arguement. 81,198 Alexa rank is quite low, and notice that it includes both londonfetishscene and this. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And common sense doesn't provide reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not verifiable. Mukadderat 18:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many articles are listed, relisted, and listed again at AfD; most of these are good-faith attempts to benefit the project, and this appears to be one of those cases. To say that it was kept once already, so it should be kept again is circular logic: if indeed the article should be kept this time as well, there should be valid arguments to that point, rather than the simple fact that it did survive a previous attempt for x reason. Establishing a consensus, and reaffirming that consensus, hardly constitutes double jeopardy; the quality of the article can change over time, facts about the subject of the article can change over time, and so on, and comparing the article then to the article now may ultimately be comparing apples and oranges, rather than (to continue the example) "trying the same article twice". Regardless, bear in mind that double jeopardy or anything to that effect is not a policy, nor is it a guideline. Notability, however, is a guideline, and regardless of the outcome of the first AfD and/or the reason the original administrator closed it as a keep, the article should be able to (but as far as I can see, does not) stand on its own merits... and I will repeat myself: those recommending to keep are advised to find reliable sources indicating if and how the notability guidelines are met. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the test for notability is that the contenst should be republished. The wipipedia is republished in its entirity on Informed Consent. Informed Consent (according to Alexa) is the UKs largest (non porn) BDSM website. Informed Consent is a non trivial website dealing with issues relevent to the subject of BDSM. Within the world of alternative sexuality Informed Consent is as serious as it gets (BTW this is kinky sex we are talking about, the wipipedia is never going to be repubished in Nature!). BalzacLFS 21:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You provided the same arguement in the last debate. Again, it is not an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster nor it is very popular (its Alexa rank is 14,686). Besides, the most of the content there is taken from Wikipedia, rather than Wipipedia. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is wrong with that. In my opinion IC is a notable site, for a webbsite to be in the top 15,000 worldwide would give it the same reach as a regional newapaper's website. That is a popular site by any definition. Again, this is a specialist field, many specialist scientific sites would not get into the top 250,000 that does not make them not notable. You have also not given any specific reasons why you think it is not notable nor have you offered examples of what you would consider notable sites in the field of BDSM. BalzacLFS 22:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This still does not make it an "online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster", which means it has no content that would be labeled as official by any means. I believe I provided enough examples above to why it doesn't pass WP:WEB, and I consider any website that doesn't that doesn't meet it as a non-notable website. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am still not sure why you consider that IC is not an online magazine, it published articles and listings, it provides a non trivial forum (yes, there are also trivial posts as well!) for discussion of the subject matter of BDSM. This meets my definition of a magazine. I am not sure what do you mean by labeled as official. Within the BDSM community IC is highly regarded. BalzacLFS 23:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are two issues. One is the notability of the site. This was established in the last AfD, and nobody has provided any evidence that it has become less notable since. The other is the overall good of Wikipedia. Even if a case could be made for deleting the article, this would damage Wipipedia, and therefore Wikipedia which increasingly is getting content from Wipipedia rather than vice versa. And if the zealous application of the letter of the law would damage Wikipedia, then it is our duty to apply WP:IAR and keep the article.--Osidge 21:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No notabillity was established in the last AfD, and all keep !votes were either based on WP:ILIKEIT or did not provide an reasonable arguement rather than "WP:WEB is not a policy so it should be ignored". We don't keep it articles because deleting them might damage their subject, and the fact that Wikipedia takes content from Wipipedia is ridiculous and has nothing to do with this AfD. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree, notability was established, hence the keep result. No arguments were given as to why IC (the basis for passing the test) was not notable apart from unsupported assertions that it was not. The people making the assertions appeared to have little knowledge of the BDSM scene (correct me if I am wrong)and therefore are not best placed to give an informed opinion on the subject. BalzacLFS 11:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you please explain were the notability was established? I didn't find arguements that indicate this. All who commented to delete this provided WP:WEB, which you seemed to be ignoring. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can't help but feel that we are going around in circles with this argument. I maintain that the site is notable for reasons already stated and you maintain that for reasons already stated it is not :-). The problem I feel is due in a large part to the subject matter, BDSM is never going to have sources of sufficient gravitas to satisfy the purists. This is because it is a sexual activity that many people feel is wrong and whose practices would fall foul of every health and safety code going. Personally I think that many of the current articles about BDSM should not be on the Wikipedia as the website is used by minors (but this is a separate argument). Within the BDSM community the Wipipedia is published on two of the largest UK BDSM websites and has supplied content for the Wikipedia. The article on the Wipipedia is not very good but I am sure it will be improved. In the end someone will have to make a call as to if the article is adding value to the Wikipedia or not. P.S. Happy Christmas BalzacLFS 10:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem is that Informed Consent isn't very popular nor is an official organization/magazine so it might be close, but it still fails WP:WEB. I don't feel that any of the "reasons already stated" were valid reasons for keeping this article, but rather done per conflict of interest by the site's members or frequent visitors. Besides, this AfD was submitted due to notability concerns and not quality concerns. Sorry if my comments might have seemed a bit offensive. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article is notable, as nearly as I can make out. It is, apparently, referenced by several sites devoted to the same subject matter, albeit one with a minority following. Although with the number of politiicans and public figures who keep getting exposed as having related interests, perhaps the minority is larger than many think. Anyway, there deserves to be an article on this wiki. As for whether this article is good enough to keep, that's another thing altogehter. It's certainly not distinguished, but that's not a reason to delete the article. Improve it perhaps -- no certainly improve it -- but not delete it. ww 01:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide the websites which referenced to this? Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep not that WP use is definitive but it is widely used as a see also on WP articles within its general scope.DGG 03:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- If an article is used as a "see also" on Wikipedia articles that doesn't mean the subject is notable or helps pass WP:WEB, so it isn't relevant to this discussion. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not just being a "see also" -- several Wikipedia articles have their origin in source material transferred over from Wipipedia to Wikipedia. That's what Template:Wipipedia is for... AnonMoos 08:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't matter if Wikipedia articles incorporate text from it, they might as well incorporate text from some private publishing, but that doesn't make it notable. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I don't know (or really care) that much about all the fine intricacies of the distinctions between "guideline" and "policy, but the fact that this is the biggest effort of its kind in the English language (http://www.smiki.de/ is probably bigger in German) should count for something... AnonMoos 08:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Big efforts" aren't necessarily notable. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I just started the biggest English language effort to put on my socks. Does that make it notable? Hardly. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and NOTABILITY IS NOT A FREE PASS ON VERIFIABILITY. ARGH. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks sources. Notability is not subjective, etc. Guidelines and essays may not be written on stone tablets, but they certainly beat WP:ILIKEIT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Balzac and AnonMoos. WP:WEB isn't policy, and notability guidelines and inclusion criteria are subjective. Those who disagree should attempt to make those guidelines into firm policy and see what the response would be. metaspheres 00:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ugh. Would you care to actually provide sources? Nobody seems to be able to find any good ones, and WP:V is not only policy, it's non-negotiable policy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could you please tone down the attitude? Keep it friendly, this is a discussion, not a vicious circle. metaspheres 04:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    - I'll try, but it gets reeealy annoying when people repeatedly come and say "Keep, WP:WEB isn't policy!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it's so infuriating when peoiple point out inconvenient facts - and Michaelas10 has yet to apologise for claiming that WP:WEB is policy and ticking me off for pointing out that it isn't. Even more annoying, of course, is the constant reference to WP:ILIKEIT, which is completely irrelevant to the present discussion.--Taxwoman 10:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:ILIKEIT votes are votes without a justified reason or those who are based purely on conflict of interest because of personal relation to the website. Please read the above comment by Kinu, whether WP:WEB is a policy or a guideline, it still can't be ignored. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:22, 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. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Gray[edit]

Claims of professionality notwithstanding, these footballers has never played in a professional league and thus fail WP:BIO. Punkmorten 19:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. HornetMike 19:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both fully professional players for a professional team in an almost all professional league. - fchd 19:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both as per fchd Daemonic Kangaroo 21:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. The Conference is not fully professional. Oldelpaso 21:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't clear the bar of WP:BIO.TruthGal 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:BIO and Oldelpaso. Qwghlm 14:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly reluctant delete. They do fail a strict interpretation of WP:BIO, but that's a guideline, not a cast-iron policy, and there's a case for professional Conference players to be considered notable. Having said that, a cut-off point of "league footballers" is easily understandable and also fits the guideline, so I reckon these two can go. Loganberry (Talk) 16:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - we have a clear standard. If we are to drop to Conference players it would open the door for minor league baseball players and thousands of other footballers around the globe. TerriersFan 19:36, 27 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 15:15Z

Camp Mosey Wood[edit]

Non-notable, fairly obvious nonsense Walton monarchist89 12:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem notable, only 139 Google hits, and no mentions in any reliable sources. Jayden54 15:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notablity no asserted. Agathoclea 10:14, 20 December 2006

(UTC)

Delete same reasons as above, no reat notability seen, SGGH 16:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:27, 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 by Piotrus. Tevildo 23:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waterley bottom mummers[edit]

Not sure it meets notability guidelines, but I could be wrong as I'm not an expert in entertainment Walton monarchist89 16:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy not notable. Just H 16:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 19:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7. No assertion of notability. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 19:37, 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 Nomination withdrawn. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:16Z

Necro Butcher[edit]

Article on a professional wrestler that does not illustrate the subject's notability or reason for inclusion in Wikipedia. It appears that he has never wrestled on national television or for a major promotion. As it stands now, it seems that he is a non-notable indy wrestler waiting for his big break. Until said break comes, he does not merit an article. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. This AfD has spurred enough improvements to illustrate the subject's worthiness of inclusion in Wikipedia, if just barely. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found some press mentions through Google News and according to the article he has won several championships, so he seems notable enough to be included. Jayden54 19:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've seen that he has won some indy titles, but is that alone enough to make someone notable enough for the 'pedia? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "independent wrestler". I also speedied the image as a total G12. - crz crztalk 19:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest of the keeps Three IWA King of the Deathmatch tournaments basically revolved around him, and he has a significant cult following. Mytildebang 21:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really he is a notable wrestler who has wrestled for several major promotions among those IWA, JAPW, and others. He has wrestled wrestling legends such as Gypsy Joe, as well as wreslted some of today's stars such a Samoa Joe. He was most recently involved in a high profile RoH feaud between Ring of Honor and Combat Zone Wrestling Indy wrestler have been credited as notable in many cases depending on where they work and independent of national television appearances NegroSuave 21:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claims of notability in article or anything to seperate him from the countless other indy wrestlers. Wrestling a famous wrestler doesn't mean squat since many older wrestlers work the indy circuit when they can't get work with with a major promotion like WWE (Abdullah the Butcher was still wrestling in his 70s). TJ Spyke 00:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His feuds are just one aspect of his character indeed, however being in a notable fed with a notable feud establishes notability. He is not a brand new wrestler he has been wrestlign for several years at this point and has recently begun to establish his notability. For the most part people who have been in a notable fed in a notable feud have articles about them. The information is verifiable. And he isn't wretling washed up superstars, he is wrestling the top stars in the industry today, Samoa Joe, Homicide (wrestler) just to name a scant few. He is in firmly in the upper echelon of indy wrestlers which is why he has an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NegroSuave (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Just being an indy wrestler should not automatically make a subject non-notable. As far as indy wrestlers go, my impression is that he is notorious, if nothing else, and that places him above the undistinguished masses of people just "waiting for a break", even if he's not at the highest level of indy notability. If his article lacks mention of his notability, it should be added rather than deleting the article. Geoffg 03:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This AFD gives it that chance. The article has to proove it's notable, if no notability is established before 5 days then it should be deleted. TJ Spyke 04:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added a couple of statements to the article that I think summarize his notability, and a couple of citations. Geoffg 05:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Combat Zone Wrestling has been on TV, I have seen him in RoH on TV. That is noticeable to me And he has more accomplishments than most other wrestlers around. I would say that this is worth keeping. I don't understand why this is nominated for deletion in the first place. Govvy 23:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "notable" or "noticable?" Also, remember that a characters "accomplishments" are the work of scriptwriters. We also try to avoid writing and including articles on pro wrestlers for markish reason. (I've gotten pwned for that myself, when I tried to insert the section heading "The Big Red Machine" in the Glen Jacobs article :) ). youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes accomplishments are the work of writers and bookers, but if the wrestler isn't either talented enough, or popular enough, those bookers and writers wouldn't put him in that spot to begin with. Stephen Day 15:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a pretty well known independent wrestler. HorseApples 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it's not WWE doesn't mean he isn't important. Butcher is a pretty huge name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.85.30 (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, very well known and famous in deathmatch wrestling as well as the indies. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Combat Zone Wrestling, Chikara, Ring of Honour in the States; Frontier Wrestling Alliance in the UK; Big Japan Pro Wrestling in Japan. The thing that all these companies have in common is that they are among the premier independant promotions from around the world. I fail to see how a wrestler can wrestle for the top independant promotions on a monthly basis and not be considered notable. Stephen Day 15:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can see where you are coming from, but playing AAA baseball, D-I college sports, or being in an indy flick do not inherently impart notability. While all of those feds notable themselves, many of their wrestlers do not quite reach that level. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd argue that the comparison between AAA baseball and pro wrestling independants isn't an accurate one. A fairer comparison would be to idependant movies as the structures of the movie industry and pro wrestling have more similarities. A major idependant movie actor is notable enough for inclusion just as a major idependant wrestler is. Stephen Day 03:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. By the time that you made the comment, the nomination had been withdrawn. The best place to further the discussion would be the article talk page. Thanks. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WVhybrid 16:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is among the bigger names in independent wrestling. If this was some guy who had wrestled in minor independent promotions, I could see the page being deleted, but it isn't. He's a major name and I question why anyone would vote to delete it, as they're clearly not familiar with the subject. No offense to the deletionists doing so. Calaschysm 15:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, but the nomination has already been withdrawn. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 21:59, 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 no consensus. Conscious 17:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Blobs[edit]

Does not meet notability requirements. A-Thousand-Lies 19:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless it can be expanded and additional evidence of notability provided. Charlie 20:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - they almost pass WP:MUSIC (two albums or more) but it really depends on the notability of their record label, so I'll go with weak delete for now, until someone shows that either the band or their record label have some notability. Jayden54 21:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 01:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two albums on a record label of very questionable importance. —ShadowHalo 03:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well according to their website (which seems to have not been updated in a while), they have toured the US, UK and Europe (including playing at All Tomorrow's Parties. Their website also says "The track "If I Could Kill" has been added to Triple J's playlist." And it also shows some press written by Mojo and London Times. So I guess their notable enough. I've added the information to the article. - kollision 10:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per kollision. Seems to meet notability requirements... just. The Triple J playlist is independently verifiable here. --Canley 03:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Triple J is an Australian nation wide radio broadcaster, the source meets WP:V and WP:RS standards. They also just meet WP:MUSIC requirements. Gnangarra 14:18, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:17Z

Galleria Supermarket[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. Was previously deleted yesterday (see previous AFD) but has been recreated by a contributor to the old article. Content is not the same as the old article, so I'm unwilling to speedy it. TomTheHand 20:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't mention anything that would make me suspect it's any more notable than it was yesterday. Geoffrey Spear 20:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article offers no notability although it tries too, but I doubt this was the 'first large scale retailer in the Toronto area'. Nuttah68 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eaton's, The Bay, Loblaws, Canadian Tire, Simpson-Sears (remember when it was called that?), etc. would all doubt this claim as well. --Charlene 22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Charlie 20:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article still does not proove its notability and fails WP:CORP.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:CORP and there's nothing really notable about this supermarket. Jayden54 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and for the exact same reasons in the previous AfD. In fact, I'd have little hesitation considering this for speedy under CSD G4 as the "new" article is substantially the same as the old article. Agent 86 22:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One out of 500 Toronto supermarkets. Not notable. --Charlene 22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again Consider salting if re-recreated. Edison 00:48, 22 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 15:17Z

Movie Maestro[edit]

Edit history of the creator shows strong ties with the product described. Actually it's not even the best known software with that name. See [28] vs. [29]. Pascal.Tesson 20:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. Charlie 20:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough to pass WP:SOFTWARE Jayden54 21:52, 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 no consensus. Conscious 17:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arian Catholicism[edit]

This appears to be an advertisment for a very small minority interest group. Slackbuie 20:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, so long as the article can be spruced up a bit. Charlie 20:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Arianism is better described in that article. If you remove the theological argument you're left with a description of a single Arian sect (in the non-pejorative sense). There may be enough to keep an article, but I don't really see enough here at the moment. I'm perfectly willing to look at a rewritten article. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep or merge into Arianism. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Arianism. This page looks more like a fork of Arianism than anything else. From googling, it looks like the church linked in the external links section - [30] is the one and only Arian Catholic church that there is ... so it's not a denomination that needs its own article. BigDT 00:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Clean Up It appears to be a sect of Catholicism per http://www.holy-catholic.org/arian/arian-home.html. Since Arianism focuses mainly on the historical doctrine and not on the specifics of this sect, it seems ok to keep. However, the article seems to need cleaning --Blue Tie 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment if kept, article should make quite clear this has nothing to do with catholicism (these beliefs, esp. the non-divinity of jesus, are officially 'heretical' according to rome, this is not a 'sect' of catholicism) as it stands it's potentially misleading. probably not notable anyway, & per mullins above, most of those refs refer to the original (4th c.) 'heresy', or to subsequent holders of similar views, nothing to do with this particular contemporary group. ⇒ bsnowball 10:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments for deletion seem to be mainly "they're small" and "they're heretics", both essentially arguments from religious bigotry. Bigotry is POV and not an acceptable argument for anything in Wikipedia. -- Davidkevin 14:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Sorry, no bigotry intended. Of course there should be information about Arianism on Wikipedia, which was an important movement in the early church. But this article is really here to draw attention to the 'Arian Catholic Church', which as far as I can see is a modern, Internet phenomenon. I'm not making any judgements about Arianism as a theological belief by proposing that this article ought to be deleted. Slackbuie 21:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect"" to Arianism, sure they're heretics... but they are Catholic heretics....--Buridan 03:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This should not be merged to Arianism. This is quite distinct from the historical Arians. These "Arian Catholics" are separated from the historical Arians by a sesquimillenium, use a significantly different Bible, are heavily influenced by English traditions (including the legend that Jesus visited England), and in sum are entirely different. I doubt the historical record is even enough to allow a truly authentic revival of Arianism at this date. If this new religion is sufficiently notable (and it looks like it is), it must have its own article. OinkOink 00:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I can't find any evidence that convinces me that they are a denomination. They claim to have a "Diocese of UK and Overseas", which translates to being just a single group. I find no indepndent reliable sources on google web [31], and no results on google scholar [32], google book [33], or google news [34]. The article also uses no independent sources that are relevant. They also have no entry in the world christian database [35]. Thus I don't believe they are a denomination. (If they were, they should be kept.) GRBerry 03:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
borderline We do not judge whether a group is a valid denomination or not, as long as the outside world refers to it in a verifiable way. In this case I can find nothing but a few blog entries to show that the outside world refers to it at all, and some of them seem confused. There are 25 members identifiable from their forums, from Finland to the Philippines. , and they do refer to themselves by this name. I see no true connection between them and the Arian heretics of the early church. This is the firsttime in a qy of this sort I have not said keep--because though our article does not actually legitimatize them, it seems to be used that way.DGG 04:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear KHM03, I speak as a queer [intergendered/khoti] black [practising and rather religious] RC and I have to disagree with the assertion that Arianism was incompatible with the early Church [which would be properly called Orthodox rather than Catholic/Orthodox or Church of the East and the West as it is now by (presumably) polite convention]; in fact St. Jerome's famous quote bears witness to the appeal of Arianism in the early Church, "The world awoke and groaned to find itself Arian!" That the tide eventually turned in favour of the Trinity had as much [if not more] to do with Roman imperial pressure [which in itself would render episcopal conformity suspect if not invalid] as with the moving of the Holy Spirit...one cannot but notice that the Christian Trinity is at least a partial [if not radical] departure from the strict monotheism of the Abrahamic tradition represented by the Samaritan, Jewish, Sabian, Islamic and Baha'i faiths. [Christian] Scripture itself, is remarkably silent with respect to a doctrine of such importance and if we believe it as Roman Catholics and apostolic Christians, we do so inspite of logic, scriptural witness and ourselves. Jesus [or Yeshua bin Yusuf as He was known in His own language] made very few [if any] recognisable claims with respect to His own divinity and seems to have been more concerned with the good news and meek simplicity of Love than with complicated doctrines of three persons [or Persons] in one God with the Second Person having two natures - divine and human and hypostatically united - AND the Third Person proceeding BOTH from the Father and the Son [and not only from the Father like the Orthodox and our common scriptures maintain]...matter-of-fact, He goes far enough in the canonical gospels to rebuke one of his disciples saying, 'Why do you call me good for only God is good'...additionally, according to my own RC faith, the test of a doctrine is ecclesial reception which means that the central magisterium [id est, Rome] can propound doctrines till kingdom come but the test of its validity is its reception by the whole church [id est, all Christians of all times] and some of our theologians would argue that it would need reception by the triumphant [or resurrected] church at the end of time to truly meet the criterion of full ecclesial reception. One must also note with respect to the parallel discussion on RC 'idolatry' that our veneration of images not only sets us apart from nearly all other Abrahamic monotheistic faiths but also from our own RC iconoclastic forbears and popes who would have destroyed all of our sacred images if they hadn't been hidden and guarded by Franciscan and Carmelite monks [and cloistered nuns]; loyalty to my own tradition does not prevent me from seeing how Catholic crucifixes and Ezidi images could give offence to other children of Abraham [and perhaps to the Gnostics]. Having said that, there is a remarkable consensus among the Apostolic Churches with respect to the Trinity inspite of the mathematical impossibility of 1=3 equations; also, for a Church to call itself Catholic or Orthodox, demonstrable apostolic succession would perhaps be at least as important as considerations of ecclesial reception of [Arian/Trinitarian/Nestorian/Monophysite] theological doctrines. The Holy Qu'ran clearly says that Jesus was the Messiah but not God and there are more than a billion Muslims who would [with good reason] dispute the accuracy of ALL the Christian pages in Wikipedia...it would be a pity if they were deleted on those grounds. The Hindus have a Sanskrit saying about God: Neti, neti [not this and not that: which corresponds more or less to the Augustinian Catholic position on our God]. Although it is rather late in the day now to cut a long story short, I would like to apologise for dragging this out [and for any hurt I may have caused] and request KHM03 not to delete, move or mark the Arian Catholic page [for deletion]. My given name is Pratap Patrick Paikaray altho' my queer pseudonym is Pratibha Rani Sixer but that's quite enough of my rambling already. Casimir Declan O'Conchobhar 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Churches connected to historical arianism would be notable (as WP:CHURCH #3 or #4). However, it seems to be a recent creation unconnected with historical arianism, with no third-party reference aside from some forums and a geocities page. (Further, I cannot find where this organization has actual meetings, and if it exists solely on the web, it fails WP:WEB.) Gimmetrow 17:35, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:18Z

Shark Tale 2[edit]

It is only speculation and crystal ballery.

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Charlie 21:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything. Random speculation and OR like this is bad. Voretus/talk 21:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If there was anything concrete in this article, I'd say keep it, but there's absolutely no reliable information. Jayden54 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Voretus. Danny Lilithborne 21:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jauden54 -- Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 11:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is just speculation ("possible", "assume"), and, as said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Kalani ^[talk] 18:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Shark Tale. Mostly original research and unreferenced crystal balling. —ShadowHalo 22:31, 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 15:18Z

Lindsay Elizabeth Wolff[edit]

Non-notable artist, no reliable sources, sources don't confirm statements, possible conflict of interest. Mytildebang 20:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Mytildebang 21:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For all the reasons listed above, especially the fact that the two sources don't even confirm statements. Meghann 01:51, 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 15:19Z

Juicy fruit 2[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, not notable, fancruft. ju66l3r 21:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fan forum for Hilary Duff. -- Fan-1967 21:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely fails WP:WEB (it doesn't even have its own domain) Jayden54 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ludicrously non-notable. Only barely avoids ((db-web)) by having slight (and poor) claims of notability. -- Kicking222 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , completely non-notable. Most of the Google results are about Juicy Fruit. Kalani ^[talk] 18:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DELETE it isnt hurting anybody

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:19Z

Don't pet the sheep[edit]

Claims controversy, so AFD rather than speedy just to be safe; otherwise non-notable indy band. Mytildebang 21:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC. Mytildebang 21:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable per WP:MUSIC (no albums or any reliable coverage as far as I can see) Jayden54 21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, probable conflict of interest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShadowHalo (talk • contribs) 03:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. From the article: They are not signed onto any record labels. The lead singer sells the CDs to his friends out of his backpack. That doesn't exactly merit notability. Kalani ^[talk] 19:02, 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 as a non-notable drinking establishment, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bedshed[edit]

Seems to fail notability requirements, appears to be just advertisement for non-notable establishment. Charlie 21:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP as I can't find any reliable coverage or anything notable. Jayden54 21:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be an in-joke rather than an advert, but taking it at face value it certainly doesn't demonstrate objective notability, i.e. no coverage. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:16, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:20Z

List of Teams from King of Fighters[edit]

Listcruft. Additionally, it is redundant since the characters for each game in the King of Fighters series are already organized by their teams in the individual games' articles. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article specifies that this information is available, more or less in its entirety, elsewhere. That merits an external link from the main King of Fighters, but not a separate article. Charlie 21:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If we where to follow that way of thinking, we could just close down Wikipedia all together. Deleting something because the information can be found elsewhere is not good deletion reason. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that's true. My argument is that redundant information ought not be included, especially when that information is not really important enough to merit its own article. Charlie 23:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the redundancy is explained in the nomination: the team lists are already displayed on the respective articles. --Scottie theNerd 05:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Scottie theNerd 01:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Kinslayer 10:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nominator. Combination 13:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. AfD is not the Wikipedia Cleanup Dept. Kimchi.sg 02:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MapleStory[edit]

Non-notable free MMORPG. The entire article seems to be original research; there are no reliable sources (every source is either a personal blog or from the creators of the game). No notability is established by any of the sources. In addition, the article is poorly written, overly long (50 kb), filled with unencyclopedic content (lists of game content, etc), and appears to be full of fancruft. All in all, a pretty bad article that I think needs to go. Moogy^(talk) 21:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Moogy^(talk) 21:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, but only with the expectation that excessive fancruft and poorly sourced material should be removed with prejudice. Charlie 21:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tend to be wary of freeware. Most of the article is, as Moogy said, original research. None of the sources are reliable as far as I can tell, and none of them explain why the game might be notable. For the fancruft I would normally recommend cleanup, but it makes up almost the entire article. In short, unreliably unverifiably sourced original research fan garbage. Voretus/talk 21:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Are you joking me? This is one of the MOST notable MMORPGs. --- RockMFR 21:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a good keep reason. Please give something based in policy. Voretus/talk 21:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The game has over 50 million users [36] . I could Google all day and find tons of reliable sources. --- RockMFR 21:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do so then. That's what the article needs. Voretus/talk 21:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then add them to the article and maybe it will no longer be worthy of a deletion. Having sources doesn't mean anything if they're not used. Moogy^(talk) 21:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This nom will end in a trainwreck of GNAA proportions. --- RockMFR 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --- RockMFR 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No verifiable third-party sources to reference its notability. Fails WP:WEB. Tevildo 21:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A reference of its notability (from IGN) has been added. --- RockMFR 21:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: The nominator is trying to claim the article's condition is a reason to delete it. Notability? The game has 50 million users (referenced twice in the article, find it yourself), has almost 2 million Google hits, and is supported by MTV [37]. There are nine reliable sources here, and there are obviously many more. Because of this, it is unable to fail WP:V and WP:NOR, policies of Wikipedia. It doesn't fail WP:NOTABILITY (quite clearly) and WP:WEB which hardly applies at all. The deletion of articles based on WP:NOR (and other rules) is not judged from the sources on the article, rather, the sources available - I've clearly supplied these. The ease and accessibility of these sources leads me to think this was a bad-faith nom.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEmulatorGuy (talk • contribs)
Comment The WP:V states: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." This seems relevant to the discussion. Charlie 22:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It's verified in multiple reliable sources, which are already included in the article (e.g. the IGN link), that the game has 50 million users. That is absolutely, unquestionably notable. -- Kicking222 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until sources found... oh wait, there are already sources. Strong keep. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepI think just because that this article has grown this big, it shows the popularity of this MMORPG. If you deleted all articles that fit this criteria, there won't be any video game articles anymore. ALso, please don't be biased just because you hate ALL freeware. If you rid yourself of all freeware, then you wouldn't have Internet Explorer, Firefox, or any other web browser to even view this page. Davud363000 23:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: As per above notability. The article should be cleaned up majorly, but it is nonetheless notable. --Scottie theNerd 01:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, This has got to be a joke. This MMORPG is more notable than some of the worthless ones listed that aren't nominated. ~HJ ^[talk]@½HurricaneJeanne 02:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Clearly notable and verifiable. — brighterorange (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep

One of the things that distinguishes Wikipedia from other encyclopedias (like Britannica) is that Wikipedia has articles on nearly everything, not just things editors find important. Therefore, we shouldn't delete it just because it is a "Non-notable free MMORPG."

The second argument is that the article is mostly first-hand opinion. This is easy to fix: There have been plenty of online reviews of MapleStory which can validate or refute those authors' claims.

The final argument for deletion is that the article doesn't cite sources. Instead of outright deleting articles written by careless authors, we could easily find sources and add them to the article (similar to problem two). This would help further show the world the value of a free, user-edited encyclopedia.SteveSims 03:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Amarkov. Danny Lilithborne 03:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it very sad that it took an AfD for the article to get its first decent reliable source. Nifboy 07:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is generally because no experienced editors (OK, wrong word, but "editors who use references for their edits" is too long) have wanted to edit the article. It's extremely easy to find sources - Google News has 9 sources, then you have sites like GameSpot and IGN. I'm not surprised this article was nominated (it's not in the BEST condition, albeit a lot better than other), but the nominator could've done a small search on Google and would've realized the possibilities are endless. Yay I'm babbling. --TheEmulatorGuy 08:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the articles on Wikipedia are not cited at all. Lack of citations is not a reason to bring an article to Afd. Editors should first actually try to find sources rather than nom every article they see that has not been sourced yet. It is a waste of everyone's time when notable subjects are brought to Afd because editors are lazy and/or want to prove a point. If subjects such as Flag of Jamaica, Education in Australia, or Cross country running were brought here (all articles with no sources, although with some external links), the same discussion would occur. Sadly, some editors might even see such noms as being in good faith. --- RockMFR 16:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep very notable game. VegaDark 09:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's obviously notable, verifiable, etc. But the article itself needs some serious work - as an example, the supposed "Criticisms" section is almost unintelligible to someone (like me) who hasn't played the game, which gives me the impression that the article is not written in an encyclopedic fashion (in an proper encyclopedia article, a "criticism" section would address third-party criticism, not just petty complaints by fans. Maybe the majority of the article should be moved to a gaming wiki where people would actually care. I must say that I'm surprised that Moogy tried to AfD this, though - I'm sure he could have realized how much resistance there would be. — flamingspinach | (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Some Fifty Million people play this game internationally, it has it's own food, it's own clothing, and it's own gift cards among many other things, though in other countries, and generates hundreds of millions in revenue. There's no fathomable way that this game is not notable, none. Sources are needed however, desperately, unfortunately the game is almost entirely ignored in North America and thus sources(Korean, Japanese, Chinese) are not in English.Revrant 13:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep this game is very well known. It is definitely notable (has been featured on sites like IGN). ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Keep bordering on WP:SNOW. While the article could use more citations, that's nothing to delete the entire thing over. Just plop the tag on the top. Trimming wouldn't hurt either. Yeah, the article needs a LOT of work, but there are better ways to get your point across then putting it up for deletion. -Ryanbomber 17:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but need a major rewrite IMO. anyway come vote on another afd on MapleStory Game issues KaiFei 18:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep. Bad article, worse game, but its definitely notable due to its massive userbase and press coverage. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 19:37, 22 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. Conscious 17:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myth II: Soulblighter Tournaments[edit]

Jointly nominating this page as well as the arguably not quite as bad Myth World Cup. This is a perfect example of Wikipedia being used as a free webspace provider. As far as I know these tournaments are not getting any third-party coverage. This is content suited for Myth fanpages and not an encyclopedia. The whole treatment is not encyclopedic, no critical commentary, no sources independent of the subject, original research, unwieldly long lists of tournaments and winners. Pascal.Tesson 20:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

object. Neither the article creator nor the other main contributors were notified. Would suggest userfy to User:The Elfoid so a miniwiki can use the content. Gimmetrow 18:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, so I've notified the creator. But objecting on procedural reasons is not really helpful to the debate. If you agree that this should be userfied then you are in essence agreeing that such content does not respect the core policies of Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 20:03, 21 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, Pascal.Tesson 21:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles have a fair amount of unencyclopedic content - I noted this on the talk page months ago. On the other hand, some of these events have third-party coverage - especially the World Cup events,[38] [39] [40] but also others.[41] Pruning them will be a large project. I would userfy them so the article creator can either have the time to clean them up (within some reasonable time limit), or move them to a miniwiki. Gimmetrow 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. There's simply not enough interesting things to be said about these tournaments; if there is, it can easily be summarised in the Myth (computer game) article, with the external references. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Myth World Cup - the topic is notable and the content is verifiable, though it needs some more cleanup. The Tournaments article likewise has some encyclopedic content, but would need a lot of pruning. As I recall, these articles were created as subarticles when the main Myth article became too large. Myth (computer game) article is currently 31k. If merging is to be done, it would be better to take the usable content of Myth II: Soulblighter Tournaments and merge with the World Cup article rather than put anything more in the main Myth article . Gimmetrow 20:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

debatable I can see why the main tournaments page is open to question. The comment on third party support...there was a lot of sponsors out there but details are just too hazy, especially on who actually paid up with prizes at the end. I worked hard on that page so I'm biased, but I think that it should stay, or be adapted into a form we can hang on to. In the main Myth page we can't ignore tournaments altogether but the instant you mentioned a little it seemed impossible to fully describe without going into depth.

MWC on the other hand, I feel absolutely should stay. Whatever happens to the other page, this series had a lot of competitors and is noteworthy because annual events that have so many different organisers are rare. Its one of the oldest surviving on-line gaming tournament series. (The Elfoid 03:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Further note: I feel the MWC page has been vastly improved by clean-ups. Particularly what was done with images. I feel credits for the tournaments should be more extensive as before, but my word is not the final one here I suppose and I have to admit to being a fanboy who would take everything a step further than most others. Definitely keep it in some shape or form though. How many online gaming tournaments in 1999 had 96 teams of average 10 - 16 players in them? And how many games released in 1999 that had no official support after 2001 could organise a 32 man tournament come 2006? Its happened elsewhere I'm sure but is rare enough to be noteworthy.(The Elfoid 03:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment with all due respect to The Elfoid (talk · contribs) and Gimmetrow (talk · contribs), it's worth pointing out that they are the main contributors to these pages and WP:ILIKEIT seems to be relevant to the discussion. I think that there's also a big misconception about the term "third-party". I don't really care whether or not the tournaments had sponsors, I'm worried about the apparent absence of significant reliable coverage of these event. That makes most of the content of these pages hard to verify. Pascal.Tesson 03:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assuming it's not a "big misconception" to consider magazines on gaming and Macintosh as "third-party", the Myth World Cup event has verifiable third party coverage. Whether I've edited that article or not is irrelevant. (In fact, I've edited the World Cup article a total of twice, including once during this AfD.) As for the Tournaments article, yes I've edited it before, the last time being in May. I doubt many of these other tournaments have third party coverage, but I think the article's creator would be in a better position to know. Gimmetrow 04:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Websites like atomicgamer have done some coverage. Inside Mac Games advertises just about any tournament. There's the bungie community at large, including Bungie itself. A lot of information is out there. And while some tournament websites yes - info is hard to find...MWCs all have their official websites. MWC98, 99, 00, 01, 04, 06 all do. MWC05 just went down but existed at time of writing and may well return. MWC03's the only site not around, and when writing things I managed to access it in Archive.org. (The Elfoid 19:15, 27 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 and replace with disambiguation page. Conscious 18:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad[edit]

It is an adjective that seems appropriate only for a dictionary. Also, the subject is so broad, just doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia. Je pense donc je suis 21:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not really sure what to do with this. I know there are guidelines (and maybe policy) against redirecting to dab pages, but it really seems like the best idea here. Danny Lilithborne 21:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the Nietzsche material suggests a philosophical discussion beyond a dicdef. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Couldn't that discussion be merged into Nietzsche?Charlie 21:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except "bad" is a significant enough concept that that would be like merging Christianity into a section on Jesus. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I would agree, but Christianity is not really a "concept." However, if bad is significant enough of a concept and encyclopedic, then good should have its own article as well. If someone writes one, then the basis for my compaint is gone, and I retract it. Charlie 22:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. Uncle G 10:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Nietzsche the only one defining "bad" philosophically? The article only mentions him. If this were an article discussing the concept of bad in philosophy then maybe it would work, but the short thing about Nietzsche doesn't fit with the rest of the article and isn't enough to save it. Je pense donc je suis 22:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per caesar. Just H 21:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Good doesn't have a unique article, why should bad?Charlie 21:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Charlie. Bad is a part of speech and belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.TruthGal 22:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any relevence with Nietzsche should simply be moved over on his page. -WarthogDemon 22:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the philosophical content is too insignificant to warrant keeping the page. Chairman S. ^Talk _Contribs 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete as a dicdef and move Bad (disambiguation) to Bad. -- Kicking222 22:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CanadianCaesar. --- RockMFR 01:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a dicdef. The Nietzsche sentence can be merged into Evil or Nietsche or nowhere. Note that if some form of the Nietsche thing is kept as its own article, it should be renamed to "badness" anyway per our article naming guidelines and the disambiguation page would go here anyway. Recury 01:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So what is your opinion, merge or delete? They're incompatible. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you can just copy the sentence into another article and then delete this one. I'm just offering that as an option. I'd rather just see it deleted. Recury 16:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, actually, we can't. Edit history must be preserved when merging any content. --- RockMFR 16:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite Make into a disambig page. Anomo 21:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have a disambig that is linked from the article.--Kchase T 23:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separately. I don't know of specific sources, but it seems exceedingly unlikely that Nietzsche was the only person who wrote about this. Second choice is to merge into his article, but I find that unfavorable because of the reasonable section on street usage. Frankly, merge seems to be the emerging consensus, even if some of the folks above are expressing that with bolded deletes, which we can't do for reasons already mentioned.--Kchase T 23:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article implies that he was the only one who made that specific distinction between the German words for "bad" and "evil." Recury 02:04, 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. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Joffrin (Paris Métro)[edit]

Unsourced article of a subway station named after a person who doesn't have a wikipedia article. Doesn't meet Verifiability and falls in line with what wikipedia is not sections 1.7, 1.8. Alan.ca 22:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some things may be inherently notable. Subway stations are not one of them. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Charlie 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jules François Alexandre Joffrin has an article, by the way; he appears notable. --Charlene 22:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subway stations are notable. Wikipedia has many good articles on individual subway stations in New York, Paris and elsewhere. The existence of the station is adequately demonstrated by the map, which also confirms that the town hall and a local church are nearby. You don't need to footnote something that can be found on a map. There is even an article on this station in the Norwegian Wikipedia at no:Jules Joffrin (Paris Metro). As for Jules François Alexandre Joffrin, he not only has an article in the English-language Wikipedia, he has an article in the 1911 Britannica as well. And even if he didn't, he would be notable for a number of reasons, including having served as a member of France's national parliament. --Eastmain 00:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a policy that states the notability requirements for a subway station? Alan.ca 02:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate passage in WP:AFDP just says it's under discussion, and the discussion seems unlikely to result in "all subway stations are inherently notable". So establishing notability is probably going to be needed. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. Well done to the nominator for actually citing their specific concerns, but I think that WP:NOT 1.7 and 1.8 are more targetted at list articles, and there is considerable precedent for station articles in major cities like Paris, London and New York. --Canley 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. – Ch acor 01:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chacor, an AfD is not a vote, but a debate, please see Wp:afd#How to discuss an AfD.2FWikietiquette Alan.ca 02:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I see two "delete per above" votes. Your point? – Ch acor 02:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a former administrator and recent candidate for Adminship, I would hope that you would seek to adhere to policy and guidelines of wikipedia. Alan.ca 02:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Nobody actually pays attention to that part, nor does anyone care outside of the particular AfD... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something you want to tell Chacor, please don't do it in this AfD debate. - SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 02:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair remark as I agree with the importance of keeping a debate to the point. Keep in mind I was answering his response to my statement about AfD etiquette. I posted the remark not only for Chacor's benefit but for the reading pleasure of anyone else voting in the debate. Alan.ca 06:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into an article on the Paris Metro. I don't have a problem with this having an article on its own, Paris is notable as a city, thus many things in the city will be notable, including its metro system. Any article on its metro system should describe the stations, so the only question is, is it better to have that in one page, or several? I sort of prefer the latter, but I can live with either. FrozenPurpleCube 02:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good suggestion MM, I concur, merging the page into the subway system article would work well. Alternatively maybe one article could be created that contained all of the stops? Alan.ca 02:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a stub, but a discussion of the engineering, architecture and history of this station, particularly if someone can provide one or more photographs, could get fairly large. The advantage of having articles on each station is to allow better indexing and categorization, so that a link from another article would point directly to the station's article, not to a lengthy combined article on the entire subway line (this one is on Line 12) which many used would find difficult to navigate. This is why when an article gets longer than about 30 k, editors should try to split it up into several useful sub-articles. Given the precedent that exists for other subway stations, in Paris and elsewhere, I would invite the nominator to withdraw his nomination. --Eastmain 04:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may find it useful to learn that you can wikilink directly to a section of an article with [[article#section]] Alan.ca 06:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it may be true that subway stations can, generally speaking, be considered notable, this article contains, in addition to no sources or references other than a map which does not contain the facts cited in the article, no assertion whatsoever of this particular subway station's notability. Being named after a notable person is NOT enough to assert notability. Somewhat trivially, but relevantly, I could name my house after Martin Luther King. Houses, especially historical ones, can be notable, as can places named after notable people, but my house, even if it was so named, would nonetheless fail to be notable in any way. Even if my house was in New York City, for example, or another notable city, even that additional fact would fail to make the house itself notable. So it is, I think, with subway stations. If the information in this article is to be merged with an article about the various stations in the Paris subway system, I would have no problem with its inclusion in WP. However, no sourced statements have shown any assertion of enough notability to stand as an article alone, and I continue to argue for Deletion. Charlie 06:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there even a notability guideline for this kind of thing? Alan.ca 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A proposed guideline can be found here. However, and perhaps more significantly, the article cites no sources whatsoever to assert its notability. Note that this also means that the article, as it stands, fails WP:V, because it should, under the policy, "contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Note also that "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Charlie 11:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think part of the problem is that most of the information on this subway station is likely to be in French, not that there are no sources whatsoever. So as far as it goes, I don't consider the lack of sources to be an unsurmountable problem, so I'm not too immediately concerned about WP:V in this case. FrozenPurpleCube 15:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a lack of sources is not a problem, then please provide some. Charlie 23:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I did not say that there were no problems getting sources, since I did clearly say that the problem would be that those sources are French, but I believe it's obviously not an unsurmountable problem. All it will take is finding someone who reads both French and English. Since I'm not one of them, I don't feel I'll try to do it myself. But that doesn't change the fact that there are likely to be sources. It is a subway station, they are hardly undocumented. I don't know why that's so hard to realize, and that instead of calling for deletion, you would be better off calling for sourcing. Then, for example, someone who owns [42] might be inclined to look it up, and report its contents for us. Since I don't own the book though, and the relevant section is protected, I can't cite it myself. FrozenPurpleCube 01:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone is interested, there is a draft guidline for places of local interest WP:LOCAL#Creating_articles_about_places_of_local_interest with a section that discussed article creation criteria. Please remember, this is a proposed guideline. Alan.ca 07:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stations notable per WP:AFDP. Discussion of inherent station inslusion is at User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable, but untill policy is set we'll go by precendent that all stations are included. --Oakshade 17:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Teeny little problem... WP:AFDP doesn't say that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:AFDP says "Subway and railway stations are allowed, but notability is currently under discussion." --Oakshade 18:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - And since notability is currently under discussion in WP:AFDP, it is not helpful to use it to assert that stations are "notable" .Charlie 23:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think they are inherently notable and so far WP:AFDP has agreed. Everyone might not agree and they are free and encouraged to be part of the discussion as Mangoe's page on this issue. --Oakshade 23:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Ugh. An ongoing discussion on notability is not a reason to keep every article under the scope of the discussion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to an article such as "Paris Métro Stations" - but should definitely not be merged to Paris Métro, which would ruin the article, and see the individuality of each station being lost. Merging to a new article with other stations either by Line or by Arrondissement would be my preference, after keeping — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 23:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: If stations are to be merged, then I suggest they should be aggregated to something like Paris Métro stations in 18e Arrondissement &c., except those stations which merit a full article entry. However, this is still, for me, a second best to keeping the articles as separate entities which is a much more intuitive format — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Eastmain -- Samir धर्म 23:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can argue about notability until we are blue in the face, and probably get nowhere. However, none of those above arguing for "keep" seem to take seriously the first, and probably stronger, claim of the nominator: that the article is completely unsourced, and so fails WP:V! Take, for example, this, from the article: "The station opened in 1912." Suppose someone came along, and edited this to read "The station opened in 1913." Not being knowlegable about the topic myself, I cannot honestly decide which is correct. And without any sources cited, on what grounds could one argue that it must be changed back to 1912? Additionally, it has been suggested that the problem is that the sources are in french, not that they do not exist. This is a fine point: but the article still needs to cite existant sources, and no one has provided any, in french or otherwise. I do not claim that it is impossible to find sources for the article, and so it must be deleted. I claim that it is against policy that the article remain on WP without sources, and so far, none are forthcoming. If this changes, so will my delete opinion. Charlie 00:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it easily passes Wikipedia:Verifiability. (I was puzzled that the nominator chose that is the crux of their argument to delete). The first sentence of WP:V states "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." The source currently cited is a map provided by the actual Chemin de Fer Métropolitain de Paris [43] (for the Paris Metro challenged, that's the government body that operates the Metro - I consider that a very reliable source on their own stations). There are many other sources that verify the station is part of the Paris Metro. Here's just one [44]. Googleimages has lots of photos of the place [45] --Oakshade 00:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You misundestand me. I do not argue that it is not verifiable that the station exists, but merely that the information in the article (such as that it opened in 1912) is not verified in the article. Charlie 00:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not really a reason to delete the article, but rather should spur an attempt to find sources with the caveat that unsourced material may be deleted from the text. Oakshade's argument on the relevance of verifiability is spot on. The salient criterion should be whether this metro station is notable. -- Samir धर्म 00:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ugh. Look. If there aren't any reliable sources, there is no reason to believe they exist. And it is your responsibility to prove that they do, it is not ours to prove that they don't. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Ugh? You're muddling the concepts of deletion here. The station is inherently verifiable from the fact that it is on the RATP map. Sure, delete any unsourced material from the article you want, but the bottom line is that the station is verifiable. This is essentially a notability discussion -- Samir धर्म 08:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you are determined to have this discussion center around the notability of the station, then so be it. The only arguments that have been presented for this stations notability are: 1) it is named after a notable person, 2) other subway stations have been determined notable, and 3) It is in a notable city. As I have argued above, none of these arguments successfully establishes the notability of the subject, and WP guidelines call for independent sources to verify notability. Charlie 01:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's yet another ref satisfying WP:V, this one showing it was built in 1912. [46]. Source is the MuséedesTransportsUrbains (Museum of Uban Transport). This has just been added to the article. --Oakshade 01:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, I'm satisfied. We can go back to notability now. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. I don't have much to say here, but NYC Subway, London Underground, Singapore MRT, Hong Kong's MTR and KCR have all articles on individual stations. Why can't Paris Metro be the same. Terence Ong 06:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not a question of whether Paris Metro can have individual station articles: It's a question of why this particular station must have its own article. Does Every station in NYC, for example, have a unique article? Charlie 07:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, they do. See List of New York City Subway stations. I leave the question of the quality of any of the articles to another discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 16:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... wow. I stand corrected. Well, if it helps anything, I don't think most of the NYC stations are notable either... Charlie 19:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On their own? Probably not. As an aspect of a larger system? Different story.FrozenPurpleCube 01:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. I don't think they should each have their own article. Charlie 07:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you misunderstood me. While a given station may not be much, I do think that Wikipedia, in order to be complete, should have information on them, since we are clearly going to have information on the New York City subway system. While I might have chosen to present the information in a list for each subway line, it seems that some people have already done a fairly extensive job of presenting them with their own individual articles. Since I don't think these articles shouldn't have their own article, I do not disagree with this choice. It seems well-done and informative, and you'd actually have to work to convince me otherwise, not just assert it. If anything, I'd like these articles expanded, including things like VR pictures of each station. That would be very interesting. So really, I don't think you agree with me at all. FrozenPurpleCube 15:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment "to be complete, must have information on..." Certainly--absolutely right. But that does not translate as "needs an article on each". I'm not voting here as I disagree with the principle on which such articles were ever accepted. & on which this one need be judged. DGG 05:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Paris Métro Line 12 -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's sourced, the article seems as notable as an article on a musical album, and deleting it would ruin the completion in that section. Using the succession box, I just "rode" from terminus to terminus on Line 12 (more enjoyable than you'd think, but perhaps I'm terribly bored). Messing up that completion, especially considering that this is a good article in the hierarchy of the Paris Metro articles, is just silly. DamionOWA 08:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DamionOWA and others. Singling out smaller stations for redirecting to main lines will only result in confusion as larger stations would have their own articles, and smaller stations would redirect back to the line article. Continually arguing over where to draw the line, or if a line should be drawn, is a waste of time for many reasons. Neier 23:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has sources, seems notable. Dont see why it should not be here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:29, 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. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the petroleum industry[edit]

'Criticism' of a particular person or organization as a standalone article without context is not a viable standalone wikipedia article, and may be slanderous/libelous. Taking criticism out of context of the larger discussion is misleading, and at any rate is a reproduction of the criticism section already included the articles of the respective underlying people/groups. This article in particular is an exact copy of the text from the ExxonMobil and Chevron entries, encapsulating all the negative complaints about these companies without capturing any of the balanced discussion of the essence of the larger articles. Strong delete. Elambeth 22:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Badly fails WP:NPOV. Charlie 22:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the possibility of slander or libel really applies, but nonetheless I have to agree with the issue of WP:NPOV. I say Merge and Delete to ExxonMobil and Chevron, on the grounds that there may be enough data to save and merge. --Dennisthe2 00:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are lots of "Criticism of ..." articles in wikipedia, I don't see how this is any different. For instance Criticism of Tony Blair, Criticisms of socialism, Criticism of Microsoft and even Criticism of Wikipedia. Improve, link content with Petroleum industry, but no need to delete. Wikipidian 02:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem isn't so much precedent to keep versus wish to delete, it's a question of neutral point of view. The article itself is just direct copy, and may be a nebulous attempt to separate the criticism into its own article. The largest problem I see, however, is that the article itself only criticizes two petroleum companies; more specifically, ExxonMobil (which basically uses direct copy from the article's own Criticism header, in which the neutrality is still disputed), and Chevron (which itself has a smaller criticism article that points back), again questioning their ethics. We need to keep it neutral, and this simply is not. --Dennisthe2 03:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Petroleum politics, ExxonMobil and Chevron. --Gabi S. 11:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge into articles for the twop companies, or even articles about criticism of the two companies if there is too much to organize. But there is no reason to have the two together here--especially when there are so many others to include.DGG 05:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, article is POV. Yuser31415 05:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see that an article of this title might be useful if it discussed the reasons and type of criticisms but this article which is a complaint log has nothing in it to merit being kept. --BozMo talk 13:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not WP style article, no context and low quality. Pavel Vozenilek 18:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or Merge into petrolium industry article) per Wikipidian. The fact that it is incomplete, focusing on two of the largest companies only, is not a case for deletion. I've never understood why there are Criticism of... articles in WP. I've come across them myself. But the fact that there are such articles suggests, to me, that this one should be allowed to grow and improve over time, as it surely will. Or, as I say, merge. God knows, there is criticism of the oil industry! Tag it as incomplete and in need of improvement, but don't kill it.Shawn in Montreal 05:44, 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 No Consensus. Runcorn 20:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ZX Spectrum clones[edit]

2 years and nothing more than a Mere collections of internal links, Fails;Wikipedia is not a repository of links' Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Hu12 22:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Charlie 22:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk _Contribs 22:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a list of red links is useful for the creation of future articles. --- RockMFR 01:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per my comment on Talk:List of ZX Spectrum clones#Cleanup needed. I've put a concrete suggestion for how to turn this list into a reasonable article there, and am vaguely disappointed the nominator hasn't even replied to that. As noted there, I don't have time to do anything with this before this AfD will close, so can I request a copy placed in my userspace if it is deleted. --Pak21 08:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am also disappointed the nominator removed the ((cleanup)) tag I placed on the article. --Pak21 08:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to the history, A year has already past since your first edit [47] to this "list" and no "concrete" changes or attempts have been made by you in that time to make this encyclopedic in any way. Why should we expect any different in the future. It still remains a Mere collections of internal links. This topic already has a (self-maintaining) category "ZX Spectrum clones", and serves the existing articles better being listed there. Replacing a prod tag with a cleanup tag without any corrective actions to the article and claiming you'll get around to next year does not change the fact this article fails inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. --Hu12 10:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has no basis. This article is a structured list, and structured lists are specifically noted as an exception to the "Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of internal links." policy. The article is clearly not a directory of businesses or people; it is a list of personal computer models that satisfy a specific criterion, namely that they were clones of one specific type of personal computer. And that criterion is why the list is not indiscriminate, too. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion. It is not a cosy catch-all shorthand for "I think that this article should be deleted.".
The only real problem with the article is that the red-links provide temptation to create perpetual stubs. The proper way to develop this list is to add the descriptions to this list, and only give break-out articles to those computer models that actually have enough source material to warrant them. That is, however, a simple matter of cleanup (de-linking the redlinked names), and is not solved by deleting the article. Uncle G 10:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The List guideline requires that lists be a valuable information source and specifically notes "This is particularly the case for a structured list", List of ZX Spectrum clones does not meet this requirement and is in fact a duplicate (in article form) of a catagory with the same information. see: Category:ZX Spectrum clones. FWIW, in order to be exempt from "Mere collections of internal links" it would need to "assist with the organisation of articles" it clearly does not because Category:ZX Spectrum clones satisfies that Purpose. Aside from the numerous problems such as red-link, perpetual stubs, spam attraction, maintenance and cleanups List of ZX Spectrum clones creates, Category:ZX Spectrum clones is self-maintaining and ensures articles listed have enough source material to warrant their inclusion.--Hu12 13:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Hu12 10:37, 22 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 15:21Z

Hansung Machinery Co.[edit]

Delete as the article contains precisely no assertions of notability. Charlie 22:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:CORP. Meant to bring this here myself, but lost track of it. Note that many of the creator's other (machine-translated) corporation articles have already been deleted on the same grounds. -- Visviva 10:27, 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 15:21Z

Panda craze[edit]

A non-notable computer game with notability not asserted. A disputed prod. Akihabara 23:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing suggests this game is notable. Heimstern Läufer 23:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the fact that the article states the game is "popular" (no source to back up that peacock term), nothing makes it seems even remotely notable. Delete Picaroon 02:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk _Contribs 02:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are hundreds of similar games on the internet which don't have an article. This one is no more notable than the others. -- Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 11:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. —ShadowHalo 03:57, 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 15:22Z

Madoshi[edit]

Non-notable internet forum. 300* members isn't that impressive. Chairman S. ^Talk _Contribs 23:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* It's actually over nine thousand --Vegeta 12:48, 22 December 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.244.182 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 22 December, 2006 (UTC)
- From the site: Threads: 34,246, Posts: 476,651, Members: 375 -- Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 18:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-web. Danny Lilithborne 00:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedily. The page history shows this to be already a vandal-magnet. The opening edit suggests that it may have been intended as an attack page. Rossami (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom -- Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 11:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly is the "policy" for a wikipedia entry? I thought this was a community-based encyclopedia, not a special club. There are far more useless entries on Wikipedia, I don't see how 50k of text is going to take up that much space on Wikipedia. Also, it isn't an attack page. The people being "attacked" are perfectly fine with the entry, and from now on I guess we'll stop purging unused accounts every 6 months in an effort to be "popular" enough for your blessed wikipedia. Praise be to Chairman S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.208.149 (talk)

UPDATE: I have had a cigarette since posting this, so I'm a wee bit calmer. I'm going to register and see about making a REAL madoshi wiki article thats locked, if thats possible. Sorry for the above statement, I'm not a morning person (or afternoon or evening). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.208.149 (talk)

For a forum such as yours to be eligible for a Wikipedia article, it must fit the criteria for notability set at WP:WEB - which it clearly does not. Wikipedia is not a special club - however, it is also not an indiscriminate source of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web directory, and as such, subjects contained within it must have a certain level of notability, relevance, and resonance amongst the wider community. The fact that your forum has been proposed (by me) for deletion is not a personal attack, nor is it a judgement on the quality of your web-site. It is simply done in order to keep Wikipedia running as a useful, intelligent, scholarly, and unbloated encyclopedia. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 14:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an additional note, I would prefer it if I was not attacked personally by Madoshi members. I have no more authority over this issue than anyone else on Wikipedia, I simply marked the article for potential deletion. If I hadn't done this, someone else would have. Deletions of this kind are decided by consensus. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 14:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vandal magnet with no encyclopedic content. Desdinova 19:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Pilotguy: "Article about a non-notable individual, band, service, website or other entity". Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderkids[edit]

Inherently POV, unless multiple sources can be provided labeling each member of the list as a "Wonderkid". User:Zoe|(talk) 23:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism (the term itself) plus original research (the list of names). Demiurge 00:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. An amateur sports team is not inherently notable. --Dennisthe2 00:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just took a re-read. My comment about sports team is rescinded, but it's my opinion that db-group still applies, if not just so. I'll defer to admins here, at any rate. --Dennisthe2 00:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A commonly used term to describe young sporting stars. Ryannus 17:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not widely used in published sources. Google hits confuse this particular usage with cartoon shows and daycare centers. Subjective determination of who qualifies. Zero independent reliable sources. Edison 17:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as of this moment, the article is gone; can we close this? --Dennisthe2 00:00, 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. (aeropagitica) 13:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Central High School (Washington)[edit]

Non-notable school. Chairman S. ^Talk _Contribs 00:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete We usually keep articles for high schools, but this one is unreferenced and written in a chatty and unencyclopedic style, and borders on an attack page. Delete it and perhaps someday someone will write an appropriate article. Edison 00:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not convinced this article would be worth keeping even if cleaned up. I don't see anything to make this high school notable (a Google search for the athletes mentioned provides nothing very useful). Heimstern Läufer 00:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some interesting historical information about the school can be found at http://www.spokaneschools.org/NorthCentral/history/NC_history.htm --Eastmain 01:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable high school (and a poorly written article, although that's not why i'm voting to delete). TJ Spyke 07:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this without prejudice against a better article. Once all the unencyclopedic chatter of the second paragraph is removed we are left with little more than that North Central High is a high school in Spokane, insufficient to support an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 22 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.

Econmic systems[edit]

Emo Bunni Inc.[edit]

Movie Memorabilia[edit]

Fat Darrell[edit]

Celina football[edit]

Wedding Saga[edit]

G36C[edit]

ESlavery[edit]

French military victories (practical joke)[edit]

TNA weekly pay-per-view, weeks 1-10[edit]

Queen's University Chess Club[edit]

Kersal Massive[edit]

Limfjorden Overhead powerline crossing 1[edit]

Aja Watkins a.k.a "Beautiful"[edit]

Filipino American Identity Development[edit]

Camp Lake Greeley[edit]

Pxr[edit]

Hey, It's Your Funeral Mama[edit]

Standing[edit]

New Hampshire Underground[edit]

Kevin Angus McLeod[edit]

Jacques Legrand[edit]

Red labor[edit]

List of seinen manga[edit]

Teleserye[edit]

Eggcorn[edit]

TNA Hardcore War[edit]

Screeching Weasel[edit]

Karekin Yarian[edit]

Sith Sense[edit]

Mirabelle Kirkland[edit]

Locked On[edit]

Jason Fisher[edit]

Longmont Citizens for Justice and Democracy[edit]

Jerry Klein’s 2006 Islamophobia Radio Parody[edit]

Faith-sufferer[edit]

Little Fighter 2 Reinforced[edit]

The Cheetah Girls' second studio album[edit]

Ben Mills[edit]

Fly like a Raven[edit]

Napa Chic[edit]

Silvercrest SL65[edit]

List of Tickle's Teasers (Brainiac: Science Abuse)[edit]

Dick van damme[edit]

Triple Bitch Mafia[edit]

Live Under The Northern Lights[edit]

Katabami Ryu[edit]

Football ticket prices[edit]

DJ Doughboy[edit]

Need for Madness[edit]

Symmi Lillington[edit]

Defibtech[edit]

Free Geek[edit]

Gigoit[edit]

Professional wrestling tours of Australia[edit]

Shelectronica[edit]

Workic[edit]

GamAnon[edit]

Internet Plasticity Nodes[edit]

Theo Clarke[edit]

Laurence Belfiore[edit]

Chin National Front[edit]

Random evolution[edit]

Mike Wotton[edit]

Filmography of Joan Crawford[edit]

KoL Mafia[edit]

Kylo[edit]

Cacoethes[edit]

List of songs about sucking poop[edit]

The thox[edit]

Blurite[edit]

Cuts and stars[edit]

*Smiley Faces!*[edit]

Powerspace[edit]

Sabrina Morris[edit]

Keith Pyle[edit]

Body Fetish[edit]

Upper Beeding F.C.[edit]

List of breast reduction recipients[edit]

Michal Heiman[edit]

Smiley Faces![edit]