< December 2	December 4 >

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common room cricket[edit]

Common room cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

View single debate

Appears to fail WP:NFT. NMChico24 22:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment wat can i do to improve this and stop it from being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmanali786 (talk • contribs)
  • Please see WP:NFT. Thank you. --NMChico24 23:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete google results, WP:NFT.--aviper2k7 01:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Playing cricket (and other ball games) in Common Rooms of English Secondary Schools is fun and has no doubt been going on for many decades. It is regretfully not notable. Also, I see the article credits invention of the game to "Usman Ali", who is coincidentally the creator of this article. I would be intrigued to know how old Mr Ali is, as I suspect the game is far older than him... WJBscribe 01:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I didn't even have to read this article to know that NFT would apply. I did to make sure, of course, but I wasn't surprised. -- Kicking222 01:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Fred McGarry 02:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT. Why is it that when an article says that something "is sweeping the nation at an extremely quick pace", it never is? Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We have been deleting articles like this for yonks - Corridor Cricket, Common Room Cricket, you name it. They are not notable. --Bduke 08:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per all reasons above. ><RichardΩ612

^ER 09:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete of course. But these things are always rather fun to read before they inevitably get deleted. Johnlp 10:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFT. 0L1 Talk Contribs 11:09 3/12/2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TSO1D 14:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NFT. Terence Ong 15:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable sources means this article can not pass WP:NFT.-- danntm ^T _C 18:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources.--Meno25 20:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reason as the nomination. ArmAndLeg 21:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's fun, probably relatively common, but think that in this format NFT would still apply. SkierRMH,07:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per essentially all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator as a reference for the article has been found, and the notability of the subject explained. John254 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Coburn (criminal)[edit]

James Coburn (criminal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

View single debate

This is a biography which does not assert the notability of its subject; however, the speedy deletion tag was removed by an administrator. Since this page is comprised of entirely unreferenced negative information, it also constitutes an attack page, and could be speedily deleted on that basis as well. John254 00:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable executed criminal. I've tried to Google him, but the problem is that the actor of the same name seems to have appeared in a film set in Alabama (or been interviewed in Alabama or something), which throws up a lot of false positives. There's a vague hint of verifiability, but the links which would clinch the deal are 404'd. I'd be a little bit leery of calling it an attack page myself, although I can see the logic behind doing so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the new information, keep as a notable "last" case of an event occurring. I was trying to call up more recent James Coburns, which probably explains why nothing was coming up. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no cites to show such a person existed. Can be recreated if in the future someone cares to include enough reliable and verifiable cites to show it is not a hoax or an attack on someone with the same name. Edison 01:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The execution of this person is referenced at Capital punishment in the United States#Crimes subject to Capital punishment, which describes him as the last person in the US to be executed (in 1964) for a crime other than murder or conpiracy. Although this statement is unreferenced, it has been on that page unchallenged for over a year (and the page has frequent edits by a number of users). This would seem to make James Coburn notable. I will add what information there is to the page. The article obviously needs to be improved considerably and references found urgently. WJBscribe 01:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may have remained in the article simply because it sounds plausible and people were unwilling to remove what would be, if it were true, pertinent and interesting information. But even finely-tuned google search, search of FindLaw and the Lexis legal database of caselaw turn up no evidence of such an individual. Andrew Levine 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per what I wrote above, unless a really reliable source predating Wikipedia can be found, in which case keep. Andrew Levine 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I have just found a citation, the Espi file which lists all executions in U.S. history: [1] (PDF file). There is a James Coburn who was executed for robbery in 1964 Alabama. Sure enough, he is the last person in the file whose crime is not listed as murder. I will add the source to the article and sustain my keep, because I think being the last American to be executed for a crime less than murder makes him exceptional. Andrew Levine 02:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Openlancer[edit]

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

View single debate

The game is not yet complete, nor is it even properly under development at this state (merely in planning). The article reads like an advertisment, being heavily edited by a member of the development team. While I have nothing against small FOSS projects, letting articles persist when said small projects are only in planning stages opens the gates to a whole lot of vapourware. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball, game does not appear to be notable, has no notable third party links or sources. Perhaps once the game is released this article can be valid for recreation. -- wtfunkymonkey 01:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability, no sources, POV. -- Kicking222 01:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are several problems with the article; one, it is crystal-ballism, we don't even have definitive confirmation; two, there are POV qualms, because a member of the team was involved in its write-up, and three, there are no reliable sources to confirm it. When this satisfies these three criteria, then it can be re-created. --SunStar Net 01:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Crystalballism, WP:V, POV and so forth. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. ><RichardΩ612 ^ER 09:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nashville Monkey 11:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT, WP:V. Terence Ong 15:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Rewrite in progress to address WP:NOT crystalballism and POV. WP:NOTCVG is a proposal, not finalized, but notability is a problem for all small FOSS projects. Nothing wrong with an editor being involved with the subject, I'm the Lead Designer and an OL site admin. I was asked to update the article to conform with Wikipedia guidelines as I understood them at the time. Note: The project is an active community, the meat-puppet effect is likely but unintentional. --MegaBurn 17:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reason as the nomination. ArmAndLeg 21:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and close already. jeez. Just H 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 0 no rewrite is going to make it compliantSkierRMH,07:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NPOV Obvious. Charlie 13:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:V at the least, can't be bothered listing the numerous other failings of the article, besides they've been listed by just about every other person responding to this AfD, and they are right. Each and every one of them. The Kinslayer 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional - Since MegaBurn (the only person wishing to keep the article) is the lead designer on the Openlancer project, I also think it should be deleted on WP:NPOV grounds, especially seeing as how a good 75% of the edits to the page have been his. The Kinslayer 12:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Update, Rewrite complete, "core" article posted, waiting for feedback on talk before posting the rest. As I see it this satisfies all concerns list here. I haven't had a chance to join the WP:NOTCVG debate yet but there are plenty of other little known FOSS projects with articles on Wikipedia. --MegaBurn 05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Er, you've already stated you think the article should be kept earlier in the debate. The Kinslayer 12:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, changed "keep" to "update", I didn't think this was a flat vote, was just stating/maintaining a position as the situation changes. --MegaBurn 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, well now the article has been butchered down to a rather pathetic looking stub and still has the notability tag. I understand the need to maintain high quality standards in content but this is ridiculous. I think its about time I got involved in more of these AFD debates to counter balance this insanity and defend other FOSS projects - even if no one else is defending this one. --MegaBurn 20:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:V, no reliable sources given. QuagmireDog 04:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casalinhos de Alfaiata[edit]

Casalinhos de Alfaiata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

View single debate

This is an entirely unreferenced article describing an apparently non-notable location John254 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable place of local interest. -Nv8200p talk 01:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Towns and cities are always notable, and a famous professional cyclist lived there. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If this article does concern a city or town, it should state that fact. Currently, the article describes Casalinhos de Alfaiata as a "place (terra)". Also, the article should include references; an entirely unreferenced article is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Verifiability. John254 01:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that any town probably does warrant an article if someone's willing to write it and if it's verifiable. Of course, this at the moment is not verified and isn't really even about the town. Still, the article is only a couple of hours old; there's no reason to rush to delete it. Keep pending verification - Che Nuevara 06:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 05:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The place does exist. Westenra 06:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. Where's my article?--Dmz5 07:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's here. (Only kidding) ArmAndLeg 21:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The distinction terra/parish/municipality makes it seem like this "place" is really just a subdivision or at best a neighborhood....--Dmz5 07:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Looks like a large, separate urbanization. Whatever you call it, it's notable. --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The place is notable enough to have its name shown on the maps from MSN and Google. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems notable enough according to Google and the link from Joaquim Agostinho adds some degree of notability. 0L1 Talk Contribs 11:16 3/12/2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a city after all.
• Keep it's a real city. TSO1D 19:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because for whatever reason wikipedia has decided that all cities should be included. ArmAndLeg 21:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cities/towns/villages are all notable. --Oakshade 08:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tribe. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal[edit]

del We don't have articles for adjectives. `'mikkanarxi 00:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems like a valid disambig page. Please see WP:MOSDAB --NMChico24 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, don't see anything wrong with this disambig page. Explain?--aviper2k7 01:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Merge, after an explanation.[reply]
• comment this is not a valid disambig case: Tribal chief is not called "tribal", The same for American Tribal Style Belly Dance etc. `'mikkanarxi 01:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bad_(disambiguation) -- wtfunkymonkey 01:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The question is not whether any particular thing is called such in a disambig, but whether there's any possibility of it, so that people may wish to look for it. In other words, is it useful index-wise? I believe there's some potential for that here. However, in this case, I suggest it be merged Tribe (disambiguation) as that page and this one seem redundant. FrozenPurpleCube 02:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: the problem with the disambig page is that it dabs to articles that all have Tribal as part, but not all of the article name. According to WP:D, these articles shouldn't be on the dab page at all. (We don't, for example, disambiguate Lost to Lost cause.) Suggest redirect to either Tribalism or Tribe. theProject 03:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is the word "Tribal" used as a valid slang or shorthand for the terms on this disambig page? Would anyone say "This is a tribal" and mean all of the things on this page? If so, I would vote "keep". If not, then it is just a common word, and there is no reason for anyone to look for an article named "Tribal" and thus, the disambig page is useless, and I thus vote delete. If anyone can provide evidence that this deserves to be here for the reasons I cite above, I would be willing to change my vote. --Jayron32 04:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tribalism per theProject - Che Nuevara 06:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tribe (disambiguation). Westenra 06:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: redirecting to Tribe/dab would be effectively redirecting to Tribe, because the word "tribal" is not relevant to any the other entries on Tribe/dab other than Tribe. - Che Nuevara 07:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tribe, as the other links should not be on the dab page (per TheProject). 0L1 Talk Contribs 11:18 3/12/2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tribe. Terence Ong 15:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Mikkalai; possibly Merge content with Tribe or Tribalism per theProject. Endless blue 15:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tribe; no need to have an article about an adjective TSO1D 19:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tribe. Unnecessary disambiguation. --Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tribe. Redirecting would most likely suffice better than deleting outright or merging information.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. Looking for the style of music, it would make sense to search for "tribal". However, it would make no sense to find tribal house at tribe. Articles like "tribe" shouldn't get cluttered up with stuff that ought to be on a disambiguation page. The stuff that's currently at "tribal" will show up at "tribe" and then have to be moved out to tribe disambiguation. We can save all that time by keeping as is. — coelacan talk — 04:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 09:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vacation School Lipnice Games[edit]

relisting...

• del / no merge an essay (or, rather a book summary, most probably by book's author) about approach to games in some czech school. `'mikkanarxi 01:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I'm still not sure what the heck this article is about, even after reading the first section. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of essays.+++aviper2k7 01:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur, but either way Wikipedia aint something thats made up in one day. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm. meshach 04:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. --Jayron32 04:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per A7 and per WP:SNOW. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Rays-Red Sox rivalry[edit]

Devil Rays-Red Sox rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

View single debate

No reason why this rivalry is notable comparing to any other rivalries like Red Sox-Yankees, in this rate every team playing each other will be considered a rivalry Delete -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable "rivalry". The article's content also constitutes original research. --Coredesat 01:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not assert Notablity, no sources or third party mentions. -- wtfunkymonkey 01:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A classic example of WP:OR -- Tawker 01:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No one in any press outlet has ever noted a red-sox/devil rays rivalry. If we can find references to prove otherwise, I will change my vote. Otherwise, this is Original Reasearch, and must be deleted. --Jayron32 04:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. There's nothing in that article that's out of the ordinary or even worth noting. Batters get hit all the time, and just because the Sox and the DRays have had some questionably aggressive pitching in the last few years doesn't mean there's an actual rivalry between them. I live in Mass. - there is no rivalry, because the DRays aren't even on the radar here. - Che Nuevara 06:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Coredesat --Phenz 08:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nashville Monkey 11:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Red Sox only have one rivalry that matters. Fan-1967 14:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly. Thethinredline 16:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another redsox fan weighing in: Tampa what? Devilwho? per Fan-1967 Dina 17:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original thought about a "rivarly" that no independent sources have verified .-- danntm ^T _C
• Delete: Not notable.--Meno25 20:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reason given in the nomination. ArmAndLeg 21:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lol, Must have been written by a Devil Rays fan, I don't think they have a true "rivalry" with anybody... Just H 23:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely original research. Does not seem like a noteworthy rivalry.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 18:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2407 Yateley & Eversley Squadron (ATC)[edit]

2407 Yateley & Eversley Squadron (ATC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

View single debate

Does not meet criteria for inclusion per WP:ORG -Nv8200p talk 01:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Cleanup - this article covers a specific division/unit/brigade. If we are going to apply locality as a benchmark as proposed by a previous comment, then what is stopping us from removing NYPD due to its regional importance (ie. in Boston, the NYPD doesn't effect me). This article needs a cleanup, but otherwise it does not warrant deletion. Jackhamm 19:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Air Training Corps, this is a local group and not appropriete for wiki. meshach 04:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Cleanup- there are other Air Cadet units that have articles; this one has merely been hit by an overzealous editor. --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mmmh. This is the second or third ATC unit I've seen listed for deletion; I'm really not sold that any of them are notable at all, and especially not the way this article's presented. Shimgray | talk | 11:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, local branch with nothing to distiguish itself or provide notability of its own. The listing of people and their ranks smacks of WP:VAIN. Nuttah68 13:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete for reasons stated. Half of article is about uniform, which is common to all ATC units anyway. Emeraude 15:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per meschach, although I'm not convinced that the individual squadrons couldn't be part of a list somewhere. Carom 16:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What use is a redirect? Does anyone seriously think that '2407 Yateley & Eversley Squadron (ATC)' is going to be typed in by a Wikipedia user? Emeraude 18:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I don't think it's out of the question, and I don't like to assume that I know the interests of all potential users - plus redirects aren't exactly huge consumers of space, and I don't see any reason not to redirect users interested in this particular fomation to the article on the overarching structure.Carom 22:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, do not redirect. This is an unnotable training squadron, not even an active-duty military unit, of which we have few on Wikipedia. Fails WP:ORG utterly. --Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for information of non-UK readers: No, it's not a training squadron and there is no way it can be an active-duty military unit - it's not a part of the RAF. The ATC is a youth organisation like the Scouts, but centred on the air force. Discussion should be be around whether branches of youth groups such as Scouts, Boys Brigade, Army Cadets etc should have articles and what qualifies or disqualifies each from an article. Emeraude 10:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not-notable and unverifiable. Energy put into this article should instead be redirected to Air Cadet Organisation, Combined Cadet Force and / or Air Training Corps who are large enough to be verifiable( I don't get the relationship between them ) Drunken Pirate 02:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redruth United Football Club (AfD subpage)[edit]

Redruth United Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This football club has never played at levels 1-10 of the English league system, which is the benchmark for notability, plus the article is written in a very non-encyclopedic tone and is mainly about the life and times of a player rather than the club itself..... ChrisTheDude 20:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 20:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm all in favour of improving the chronocling Cornish Football, but not like this. Well below the level of notability required, and well below the standard of article required as well. - fchd 20:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. The article is lifted straight off their website [2]. I can't see what league they actually play in.Daemonic Kangaroo 05:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They play in the level 14 Mining League Division Two.... ChrisTheDude 08:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, also copyvio. Qwghlm 10:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Vicard 12:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per A7 and copyvio issues. --Angelo 03:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying shoes[edit]

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

View single debate

WP:OR; reads like the begining of a list, but has nothing. SeizureDog 01:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is nothing wrong with this article. It just needs expansion and cleanup. bibliomaniac15 02:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: But it's been this way for over a year, it's not going to get either of them. If somehow the article could be relevent, it can be remade.--SeizureDog 06:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand Could do with a few sources and/or external links as well. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete has no potential to be anything other than a stub. Wikipedia is not a place for finding paper-thin connections between cartoon humor, greek mythology and Star Trek science fiction technology. •Elomis• 02:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above Gretnagod 02:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Users should recreate if Flying shoes somehow become culturally significant as a symbol for something. Copysan 03:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is weird. This entry is explained in 53 words, but jumps from one topic to another. ??? What did I just say? I don't really understand. From Hermes to Star trek, to cartoon humor? This is silly. TO put it short, no explanatory whatsoever. Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 04:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. - Che Nuevara 06:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecesary generalisation and original research. Westenra 07:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. There seems to be a (bad) precedent that motifs (which itself needs improvement [3]) don't deserve articles, but there's no real content here and I can't find any sources to turn it into a real stub. Keep if someone finds a source. BCoates 08:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but only if the article is updated soon. Articles that are virtually empty are useless for research. If not, Delete. Ichbinbored ^talk 11:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nashville Monkey 12:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT, WP:OR, lame. Terence Ong 15:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Don't wait for updates. This article has been around since September 2005 and has not yet taken off. Nor will it. Emeraude 15:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possible place for a List of fictional means of flying that would include carpets, wings, etc. but this is pointless. --Dhartung | Talk 20:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reason given in the nomination. ArmAndLeg 21:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. Each of the named elements exist, but the gluing them together is original research. -- Whpq 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - there seems to be heavy consensus against deletion. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence (and series), Sex and intelligence, Sex and crime[edit]

This is going to be controversial... but here goes. These articles are extremely biased towards one side (research supporting the notion). They show several graphs that are dubiously straight-forward with no outliers or off-centre concentrations. They are unencyclopaedic and source scientists that are anything but notable or even respected in the community. The studies are not contemporarily recognized in any important source and are condemned by the overwhelming majority of today's scientists as well as the overwhelming majority of the world's community at large, while this is barely notioned. If the articles were made neutral they might be considered, however they would still be unencyclopaedic and non-notable (except for historical reasons perhaps). Reading over the Sex and intelligence article, I found it utterly unbelievable that craniometry is referenced without any mention of the fact it is no longer considered relevant in the fields of science. I quote from the "sex and crime" article:

"People have long recognized a relationship among humans between biological sex and tendency to commit crime. Generally, men are on average more aggressive and much more likely than women to commit violent crimes. Men are also far more likely than women to be the victims of such crimes. This relationship is generally not controversial."

Are you kidding me? So obvious and sexist stereotypes are "not controversial"? This notion is widely spread, however it is anything but "not controversial".

PS: I originally considered Race and crime to be included in the AfD, however article is valid as different ethnic groups find themselves in different circumstances, so I decided against it. The "sex and crime" article is insalvageable and unsupportable by respectable sources, however.

+Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Please don't consider the extensiveness of the articles as a measure of quality. Mein Kampf has 720 pages. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Discussion[edit]

• Delete per the reasons I outlined above. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose for bundled nomination. Every topic has its own merits. Just like you decided that Race and crime is OK, some other people may like some other article and dislike the third one. Since I see you are not a lazy person (writing such long nomination), go ahead and list each one separately, providing individual arguments for each article. `'mikkanarxi 01:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The main reason I bundled them together as these are the articles that in their current state are insalvagable and would have to be rewritten from scratch. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Bundling the nominations is inappropriate. Besides that, the subjects of these articles are notable and widely discussed in the many verifiable and reliable sources presented in the articles. This nomination states that one point of view is overrepresented in these articles. The solution is not to demand deletion of the articles, but instead to edit boldly and add reliable sources to better represent the other viewpoint. I see some cites to scientists who are indeed respected. Content disputes belong on the talk pages of the articlesn not at a deletion debate. A report from the U.S. Justice Department that says more men than women are in jail is prety non-controversial, as are many of the other disputed views. Edison 01:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. A lack of neutrality is insufficient for deletion and it is absurd to claim these issues are non-notable. --Davril2020 01:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  A NPOV notice has been on that page for ages, however I have yet to see any improvement. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you thought of addressing you problems with POV content yourself? WJBscribe 02:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Obviously does not meet criteria for deletion. In addition, your appraisal of the neutrality of these article is mistaken; however, this is not the correct space for a debate about neutrality. --Rikurzhen 01:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Important topics, extensively referenced. Definitely notable. Problems with neutrality etc. should be addressed by editing the page or discussing such changes on its talk page. WJBscribe 02:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Important and controversial subjects for which wikipedia needs to maintain articles. I feel the articles cite respected sources. alleged bias not grounds for deletion Romper 02:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)romperRomper 02:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - you decided to allow Race_and_crime because "different ethnic groups find themselves in different circumstances - so you are of the opinion that men and women do not find themselves in different circumstances as well? Extremely important, controversial, and notable subjects. The articles are well sourced and any WP:POV issues can be remedied with a POV-Check template. Please see Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute for the proper course of action. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stop mass AfD nominating. The one which should be deleted won't be because you decided to nominate 3 others along with it, and anyone starting a seperate AfD for it will get "Speedy close this, it just had a nomination!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sex and Intelligence I have no comment on the others. Generally I strongly oppose Wikipedia articles drawing conclusions, this article seems to consider and discuss several phenomenon and draw two possible (if diametrically opposed) conclusions. It is therefore an essay, not an encyclopedia article. If this article were to justifiably exist, it would need to take a completely different angle by explaining what the term 'sex and intelligence' refers to, some of the important people who have discussed the matter and some of the history around any affect it may have had on society, not provide information about brain size, IQ etc. and debate the validity of these arguments. As it stands it's a hopeless cause, it should be deleted and could be later recreated into an encyclopedia article. •Elomis• 02:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A historical account of "sex and intelligence" would be interesting, but the current article is written in terms of the science. This topic is notable and not simply OR -- it's been frequently in the news lately [4]. --Rikurzhen 02:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- the Race and Intelligence article was nominated for deletion a year ago and survived with overwhelming support. See [[5]] for last year's discussion.
  • whoops, forgot to identify self -Emiao
• Strong Keep. Numerous reasons to keep have already been given. I would agree that the articles all need substantial rewrites to address both POV and encyclopedic entry issues. POV should be addressed in a clear manner at the beginning of the articles. While I disagree with sexist or racist conclusions that these articles might imply, deletion is not a solution. These should be addressed by editing the page or discussing such changes on its talk page. MrLou 04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Anything with this much research deserves to be kept no matter how "sexist" one may believe it to be. If it's a proven point then it's valid. It doesn't mean that all of one group is like this, just that on average that's the fact. Bifgis 04:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep NPOV is a clean-up issue, not a delete issue. There is no reason why an article with these titles should not exist at Wikipedia. If the writing is bad, FIX IT. --Jayron32 04:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, many of the articles are "POV in emphasis", for example Race and intelligence (Accusations of bias) is a POV fork attacking the Pioneer fund. However, the subject is absolutely legitimate, many respectable scientists have lamented the fact that governments don't fund this research & leave all the funding up to people like the Pioneer fund instead, but that position isn't even mentioned. Where POV forks exist as subpages just merge teh content back into the main article and create a redirect. JeffBurdges 07:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cleanup sure, but delete? No.
• keep The only reason that you would need AfD for POV issues is if the topic is fundamentally POV. This isn't. You can stub it down to the NPOV facts and ruthlessly remove any problematic statements from the article without ever setting foot here. You say it needs to be rewritten from scrath: Ok, go ahead and do it. You don't need to take it to AfD first. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Strongly agree that the articles have a history of POV bias, but I believe we can work those out, and that we are moving in that direction. --JereKrischel 11:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Should be unbundled if deletion should be considered. I agree with the others who have said that editing the articles to create WP:NPOV would be the better choice. --Willscrlt 12:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Allegations of bias are not enough ground for deletion, especially in comprehensive articles such as these. TSO1D 14:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, needs cleanup, not deletion. This is an encyclopedic topic, it needs to NPOVised and the article will be fine. Terence Ong 15:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. THis is an NPOV issue, not a question of whether these topics merit encyclopedia articles. delldot | talk 21:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the articles as a concept. Comparisons of gender/race and crime have been long established and the topic is notable. I wont' speak to the actual quality of the articles. ArmAndLeg 21:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• AfD is not the means of curing even a likely WP:NPOV defect in an article, and bulk nominations can be especially ineffective. Keep by default, with considering the merits of the individual articles. -- danntm ^T _C 23:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I agree if the writing is bad, FIX-IT. The quantity and quality of the references is one of the strongest points of the article, and if the person wanting to put up on debate the quality of these sources can put up other qualifying data in opposition, that data (writing & references) can go in another section of the same article, under the same disputed name. --Randklevd 04:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Discussion of these topics should be out in the open, articles look even handed, what's the problem? Puppy Mill 03:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Workzone[edit]

del. No claims of notability for this piece of software. mikkanarxi 01:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, as it seems to fail the proposed WP:SOFTWARE guidelines. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just added a couple of sources in. Need conversion into wikitext syntax, however. Westenra 07:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nashville Monkey 12:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to WP:Software. TSO1D 14:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:SOFTWARE. Terence Ong 15:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reason given in the nomination. ArmAndLeg 21:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - rewrite still doesnt bring it above the WP:SOFTWARE level...SkierRMH,07:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfied and deleted as a personal essay of an individual who did not assert their importance as per WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 11:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Magnum Opus of a Proud Dyslexic[edit]

The Magnum Opus of a Proud Dyslexic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

View single debate

This article is massively inconsistent with WP:NPOV. John254 01:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user should be banned, All he does is make useless speech pages. Geobeedude 01:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Incredibly obvious delete Why was this not just prodded, or perhaps tagged for speedying as nonsense? -- Kicking222 01:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. This is more or less nonsense. --Wafulz 01:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN then speedy delete as nonsense. So tagged. MER-C 03:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Careful. While the article is not appropriate, it does not qualify as nonsense. Please review Wikipedia:Patent nonsense which explains things that, while inappropriate, do not qualify as patent nonsense. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the user's edit history, this is arguably nonsense. He/she has a habit of creating essays (or editing existing articles) with the most random topics. Anyway, userfication probably isn't appropriate here because Wikipedia is not a free webhost. --Wafulz 04:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. This is a personal essay, not an encyclopedia article, and it might be a copyright violation from [6]. The reason I say it "might" be is that the contributor claims to be "Mista Mo" himself, in which case the problem would not be copyright violation but personal opinion. --Metropolitan90 05:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh so very strong delete and let the user know that, since Latin uses inflective rather than syntactical word order, there is no meaningful difference between "magnum opus" and "opus magnum" - Che Nuevara 07:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Personal essay. Westenra 07:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speediest Delete Is this supposed to be a joke? Scratching my head! Bearly541 07:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete I see no possible way to butcher/carve/edit the article to make it notable. -WarthogDemon 07:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. WP:NOT a place for original research, nor for soapboxing. ><RichardΩ612 ^ER 09:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, essay, clear violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Animal within the Activist[edit]

The Animal within the Activist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. It's an essay, and when the contributor removed the notice, they also removed a large amount of the article. --SonicChao ^talk 01:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:OR / opinion essay --Alynna 01:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I was edit conflicted in creating this deletion discussion page, and again by Alynna! It's a personal essay, not an encyclopedia article. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 01:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense or WP:NOR, why is this even an afd? •Elomis• 02:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn by nominator; explanation of apparent contradiction provided. Opabinia regalis 00:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bessarabian Soviet Socialist Republic[edit]

Bessarabian Soviet Socialist Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

View single debate

I nominate this article for deletion as hoax or non-notability. In the article is claimed that a Bessarabian Soviet Socialist Republic was proclaimed in 1919 with capital in Odessa. However, Odessa is not and was never in Bessarabia, a republic with Odessa as capital is impossible to be named Bessarabian SSR, it could be named Odessa SSR, NovoRussia SSR or anything else. In 1919 Bessarabia was already under the control of Romania (Romanian Army entered Bessarabia in January 1918). In 13 November I asked from the creator of this article, User:Mikkalai, sources regarding this republic (see talk page of the article). Mikka answered that Bessarabian SSR was a "government to be" or a "planned government", giving only a vague refference. Also Mikka checked and confirmed that Soviet encyclopedias don't mention this Bessarabian SSR, fact that I consider as an indication that this Republic never existed. Maybe it was a wild dream of some Soviet activists from Odessa, but it didn't become true and even Soviet Encyclopedias considered this dream as non-notable. A Bessarabian Republic existed however, it was proclaimed in December 1917 and united with Romania in 1918, see Upson Clark - The creation of Bessarabian Republic, however, this was not a Soviet Republic, but an anti-Soviet Republic (and it was not in 1919, but in 1917-1918). We have in Wikipedia an article about this true Bessarabian Republic under the name Moldavian Democratic Republic - this Republic really controlled Bessarabia. Current article about possible (not proved and not notable) dreams of Soviet activists from Odessa is creating confusion with the real Bessarabian Republic - the Moldavian Democratic Republic. MariusM 01:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As a surprise for you, there indeed was Odessa SR in January-March 1918 ~! `'mikkanarxi 05:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I was already thinking about getting rid of these ephemeral republics replacing them with a single Short-lived governments in post-revolution Russia or something like this. As standalone, these microstubs like the discussed one are quite useless. `'mikkanarxi 05:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a good idea. However, in order to include Bessarabian SSR in the list, should be proven that it was really a republic, not a dream of some Soviet activists.--MariusM 13:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, everything historical and verifiable deserves mentioning, including "dreams of Soviet activists". We have way much wilder things in wikipedia, e.g., autocunnilingus, which survived two votes for deletion. `'mikkanarxi 02:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have many wild things in Wikipedia, it should be notable for inclusion. I will not be against this article if it would be clearly explained in it that Bessarabian SSR was not a real republic but a dream or desire of some Soviet activists in 1919 in Odesa and Tiraspol. I know that Odesa and Tiraspol are not situated in Bessarabia, you know it, Bakharev also knows that, but many Wikipedia readers don't know and will be confused.--MariusM 13:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as nominator.--MariusM 01:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  After last changes made in the article, which explains that this Bessarabian SSR was not a real republic but only a plan of Soviet authorities, I withdraw my proposal for deletion.--MariusM 07:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, I think if the republic was not hoax, it is notable. The republic is mentioned, e.g. on Hrono.ru that is a reasonably reliable source for the Russian history see Article Timeline of decay of Russian Empire. The site [7] may explain the Odessa thing. According to them:

5 May 1919 Provisional Workers' and Peasants' Government of Bessarabia founded in exile at Odessa.

11 May 1919 Bessarabian Socialist Soviet Republic proclaimed at Tiraspol as an autonomous part of the Russian S.F.S.R.

Thus, it seems that Odessa was not the capital but a seat of a "government" in exile Alex Bakharev 03:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 sources contradicts each other (capital Odesa or capital Tiraspol?), however should be mentioned that Tiraspol, like Odesa, is NOT part of Bessarabia. Soviet government didn't recognize the union of Bessarabia with Romania which took place in april 1918, this is why it organized propaganda and even some military provocations against Romania, however it didn't manage to take control in the province. No source explained which was the teritorry of Bessarabian SSR. I believe reason is that this self-proclaimed government in exile (at Odesa or Tiraspol, no matter) never managed to control any part of Basarabia. A google test with Bessarabian SSR gives many results, however the big majority of them are about Moldavian SSR created in 1940, from part of Bessarabia and part of Moldavian ASSR, a different story. This Bessarabian SSR is mentioned in google test only in Wikipedia and articles copied from Wikipedia (like answers.com, references.com) and only the 2 sources mentioned by Bakharev are independent sources. It seems for me that there were plans of Soviet government in 1919 to occupy Bessarabia, however only in 1940 Soviet Union managed to fulfill this goal (when was founded Moldavian SSR, which is a different story). I believe article need to be either deleted, either rewriten to explain that Bessarabian SSR was not a republic, but a dream of some soviet activists in 1919.--MariusM 13:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Article is well sourced but unlikely to expand much more. Bulk of its content is mentioned in Bessarabia article already, but the nominated article's mention of Russian SFSR means that there should also be a mention of it in the latter article as well. Redirect to Bessarabia after adding info to Russian SFSR. B.Wind 03:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the Bessarabia article today and it include same data as the stub we are talking about, without refferences, and same issue remains: Bessarabian SSR from 1919 was proclaimed outside Bessarabia, it was a dream or desire of soviet activists, not a real Republic. Be aware of possible confusions with Moldavian Democratic Republic, which really existed in Bessarabia in 1917-1918, but was not a Soviet Republic (see refference given above - Upson Clark), Moldavian SSR which really existed as a Soviet Republic, and included the major part of Bessarabia, but was founded only in 1940 and Moldavian ASSR, which also was a real Soviet Republic but founded only in 1924 and which didn't include any part of Bessarabia.--MariusM 13:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep notable and fine historical article. afd nominators should be more familiar with what they are nominating.--Buridan
• Weak keep it appears to have been a real historical entity, although some of the facts are foggy. TSO1D 15:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep seems to be historical fact. It's also relevant in showing the imperialistic plans of the Soviets (creating a phony entity with the same name as the neighboring territory in another country). -- AdrianTM 17:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge probably with [[]]Bessarabia, ensuring that the citations are transferred. The discussion above makes it clear that there is something to write about. The question is whether it was too ephemeral to deserve an articel of its own. Peterkingiron 23:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there seems to be little evidence that such a thing really existed. Dapiks 01:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I do dimly recall reading something about this about 20 years ago, which was well before the Internet and when we had to make do with real references. DrKiernan 15:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alex Bakharev. — coelacan talk — 05:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete with no bias against recreation of a disambig should one be necessary. Opabinia regalis 00:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sumit[edit]

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

View single debate

Does not give any useful information. Seems like someone created this out of vanity. Truetyper 02:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's fourth edit.

• Weak delete. I don't think you could make a bigger article here. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikify Transwiki - Google hits verify that it is a given first name in Africa; so this is a definition that belongs in Wikidictionary. For precedent, see listing for Dan. B.Wind 04:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's called Transwikification. Wikification is adjustment for Manual of Style concerns. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sit corrected. That's what I get for editing with a divided mind. Thanks. B.Wind 04:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nashville Monkey 12:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can it be cleaned up to look like Amit? Gzkn 12:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, if there were famous, notable, important people with the surname of Sumit, it would probably work. Nashville Monkey 12:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Indian name vanity (there's a lot of it around). Recreate in a useful state later if that is possible. Punkmorten 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I am not automatically opposed to name articles, but this one is too insignificant. Perhaps move it to Wiktionary? TSO1D 15:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:COI. Terence Ong 15:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reason given in the nomination. ArmAndLeg 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It used to be consensus that articles about given names were vanity articles and to be deleted as such. In fact, my deletion log shows:

16:12, 4 September 2005 SWAdair (Talk | contribs) deleted "Stacey" (content was: '((db|No conceivable hope of becoming an article.))A female name, sometimes used as a male name. sometimes also used as a surname. never in recorded ...')

Now not only do we have all sorts of given-name articles, but look at the current state of Stacey, which was deleted because it had "No conceivable hope of becoming an article" -- basically the reason proposed for deletion of this article. Using Google to search Wikipedia only, I found Sumit Sarkar and plenty of Wikipedia articles that mention other notable people named Sumit, although they don't have articles written about them yet. sumit site:en.wikipedia.org This article is as valid as Stacey, Adam (name), Brian and a host of other given-name articles. Give it time and it will grow. SWAdair 03:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SWAdair. — coelacan talk — 05:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN. And we're not a baby-name directory. WMMartin 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete copyvio of [8]. I shouldn't have been the first to realize this... tsk tsk. W.marsh 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virato[edit]

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

View single debate

Seems to me like a non-notable radio host. He also helps write a small magazine. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 02:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete, seems like a knock-off of George Noory. Google results turned him somewhat notable. On the other hand, the article is poorly written, is not linked from anywhere, and reads like an advert for his program--aviper2k7 02:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author of this article (Virato) has posted this message on the article's talk page:

New Frontier Magazine in print for 26 years is known by millions of people. I am its founder, editor and publisher. Over 300,000 people listen to the VIRATO LIVE! radio program weekly, and a glance at Coast-to-Coast AM programming and the likes of those I have interviewed are quite different. Also, I was on the air in the 80s and 60s, well before Art Bell began talking about this stuff. The radio show and Asheville Magazine are an outgrowth of my spiritual work. As for the writing, oh well...

-- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per nom, reads like an advert AND a vanity article especially as it's being written by the person in question. Maybe a serious rewrite? Nashville Monkey 12:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider changing my vote if someone other than the Article subject himself edited the article and rewrote it, it is highly innappropriate for him to have done so. Nashville Monkey 01:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Definitely needs to be rewritten, but I think the number of ghits and the fact that he published a magazine for over 20 years (which I'm pretty sure I've seen - I think it was pretty widely distributed at one time) make him notable. --Brianyoumans 17:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since radio show hosts can tend to have large fan groups. That would make them notable... at-least in their area of influence. ArmAndLeg 21:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the article needs serious Wikification and re-writing, Clearchannel radio host. --Oakshade 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inadequately referenced, and originally created by a user called "Virato", which suggests a fairly clear conflict of interest. Vanity is a terrible thing; vanity without supporting references is even worse. WMMartin 16:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore trance[edit]

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

View single debate

Lacking citations and term considered to be incorrect by peers Alan.ca 18:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC) In the talk page for hardcore trance a discussion was initiated to debate the merits of merging the article with two other articles. I arrived at this page as I was processing backlogged merge requests and found that the merge discussion had actually favored deletion of the article Hardcore Trance. Many different users stated the term is incorrect and the possibly of merging it with other articles was therefore opposed. I examined the article to see if any cited sources were included to suggest the term had an established history, but I was able to find none. The discussion on talk:hardcore trance has more details in support of this motion. Alan.ca 18:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note: AfD was transcluded improperly on yesterday's AfD discussions; moved to today's. theProject 02:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete a google search turns up very few uses of this term as a distinct genre of music, the way that the article claims. There appears to MAYBE be a band with this name, but that band is of questionable notability, with only self-promoted sales of its only CD. As the article is written, it is unverifiable, and thus non notable, and thus deletable. There is not evidence that this genre of music actually is noted in the music press. --Jayron32 05:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 07:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nashville Monkey 12:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a notable genre. This is a made up genre and unverifiable genre. Terence Ong 15:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I have heard bands self-identify as 'hard trance' but never as 'hardcore' trance. IF they can supply more assertions of important and uniqueness, maybe, as for now, I don't know enough to make an informed decision. Wintermut3 06:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've heard the phrase used before, but there are so many subdivisions of music that it's hard to know what they all mean. Although, in my opinion, the phrase is contradictory. So, I'm kind of indifferent here. I'd like to see it clarified and kept, but the odds that someone here knows what it means and can write a good article about it are rather slim. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete: After further research, I think you hit it on the head Disavan. The problems with musical hairsplitting within the electronica genre make it really hard to take anything resembling an encyclopedic approach to classification. As near as I can tell the onlyreal difference in bands self-identifying as 'hard trance' (which we have an aticle on)are in the band's self-identification. 'Hard' trance usually has higher BPM than the standard 140, 4/4 trance formula; greater use of distortion and and 'fuzzed out' bass such as a TR-303 and a generally more 'agressive' sound. Hardcore trance appears to be identical. Further muddying the issue is the overuse of 'hardcore' to describe rock-related genres marked for their agressive sound and high tempo, making a precise definition impossible and potentilly confusing. Wintermut3 21:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't believe the article. — coelacan talk — 05:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jaded[edit]

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

View single debate

Comic's sole claim to notability is inclusion in Comic Genesis and Graphic Smash, which as far as I'm aware doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. A google search for "The Jaded" webcomic results in 538 results. Article was previously nominated, which resulted in a no consensus keep. Brad Beattie (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:WEB. MER-C 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nashville Monkey 12:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reason given in the nomination. ArmAndLeg 21:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:WEB requirements.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources, let alone any suggesting any importance, WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 04:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:WEB. SkierRMH,07:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The Fox Man of Fire 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect is best, I think. W.marsh 00:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vantage guitars[edit]

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

View single debate

Verifiability concerns, as admitted by the deprodder in the page history: "Info on the series(past present) is rare". Unreferenced. Not much on Google, except for the usual forums and blogs. MER-C 03:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nashville Monkey 12:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete # of ghits of substance is just too low.SkierRMH,07:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The photos prove it existed. Keep the article around and it will probably grow when the guitar enthusiasts crawl over it. — coelacan talk — 05:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Matsumoku. WMMartin 16:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep, sourced, notable, this seems to be a BF nom. Tawker 04:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doll Graveyard[edit]

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

View single debate

completely insignificant, fails inclusion standards. Poorly written amatuerish fluff about a non-notable story. Rubbish article about a rubbish film. Mr Bullockx 03:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems notable enough. May not be a blockbuster, but it's not a student film, either. Sounds like nom's issues are more about content than about inclusion. -- Vary | Talk 04:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Its a B-grade film, sure, but that the article can be cleaned up. Viridae^Talk 04:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (conflict of interest note: I am currently trying to sort out a dispute between the nominator and the articles creator - possible bad faith nom.) Viridae^Talk 04:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that would explain why the editor nominated this article for deletion on his fourth edit. I was wondering. -- Vary | Talk 04:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close and keep Bad faith nom aside, notability claims are horse proverbial. Google 14,000 for "doll graveyard" movie, reviews at msn.com[9], yahoo.com[10], rottontomatoes.com[11], cduniverse[12], NY Times[13] plus 13,990 or so others. Crazy nom  Glen  04:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*Keep and expand, while movie has a whopping 4 reviews on www.rottentomatoes.com, it does have a New York Times review [14].B.Wind 04:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: destined to be the next cult classic Bastiq▼e ^demandez 04:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as nonsense and/or vandalism. --Coredesat 07:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Jimbo Wales[edit]

Fictional Jimbo Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

View single debate

Entirely "fictional". I say, move to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 03:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... This is a character in Dinosaur Comics, though the article does not make that clear. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 03:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• BJAODN per nom. It seems someone just did a copy, paste, find and replace on the article on the real Jimbo Wales article. Also, it then should be deleted as a non-notable minor comic character (as it appears in only two comics). MER-C 03:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Vary | Talk 04:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Lame joke article, not funny at all. --- RockMFR 04:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Obvious vandal that I support the block of. semper fi — Moe 04:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Obvious nonsense. King Toadsworth "The Princess is in Another Castle (Again)" 04:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought people look through an encyclopedia to find real facts? Yawn....and this wasn't even funny at all. Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 04:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete created as a joke by a follower of the increadibly funny Dinosaur Comics, the original joke was funny, but the people that seem to think that actually running with the gag this far need to take a lesson in maturity. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ha, ha, ha. Speedy Delete (G1). --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 05:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, nonsense. hateless 06:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. I have redirected, anyone interested can merge whatever content is worth it. W.marsh 00:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search engine prominence[edit]

Search engine prominence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

View single debate

Not a commonly used phrase, and is redundant with the search engine optimization article. Previous nomination was closed early by an anon. --- RockMFR 03:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge anything worth keeping per nom and redirect. MER-C 04:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Bearly541 07:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HyM, HyM (2007 Film)[edit]

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

HyM (2007 Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

View single debate

Contested proposed deletion. Original prod reason: Advertising, importance or significance not asserted. – Gurch 04:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertisement. meshach 04:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable film too. All the cast and crew have been speedy deleted Slp1 05:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and WP:CRYSTAL. MER-C 06:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertisment. Bearly541 07:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nashville Monkey 12:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TSO1D 15:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete passes the Fails everything testSkierRMH,07:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failure. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete garbage. Article author created a new page HyM (2007 Film) and blanked the old one with nonsense. Also repeatedly removes afd notice. --NMChico24 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete anything to do with this. NN, and crystal-balling. WMMartin 16:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Haha, very funny, CSD G3 - crz crztalk 04:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edaevich (Hasidic dynasty)[edit]

Edaevich (Hasidic dynasty) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

View single debate

Hoax, 0 google hits and no sources PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence that an Edaevich Hasidic dynasty exists. Fails WP:V. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalduny[edit]

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

View single debate

Poorly written article with no references and containing lots of NPOV opinions. Parts of it read like a how-to. I tried to verify some statements with a search engine, but got only Wikipedia mirrors. Johntex\^talk 04:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a recipe book. MER-C 07:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Am willing to change once the how-to stuff gets removed. MER-C 03:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above and sounds like it is copied from a website. Bearly541 07:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nashville Monkey 11:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced about the article, still not written in an encyclopedic tone (needs How-to and weasles removed), however, if someone is working on the article to improve it I am willing to change my vote to Keep for the time being. If it doesn't improve to encyclopedic levels in the near future it can always be brought back to Afd. Nashville Monkey 20:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the article, maybe this will be ok. Nashville Monkey 10:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the keep for the article but was it closed properly? Nashville Monkey 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Author is professional writer for Belarusian encyclopedia (participated Энцыклапедыя ВКЛ, and other related books). Article is not completely receipt, but a history too. If dish is not well known in the West, it doesn't mean that article doesn't have right to exists. May be you should try to search information on Belarusian/Russian. --EugeneZelenko 15:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information on the English wikipedia has to be in English and verifiable with English sources. If the cookbook portion is removed in favor and of the history/cultural aspects of the dish and if these are backed up with some in-line citations to English languagh references are provided, then I would change my opinion to "keep". Johntex\^talk 17:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect: information has to be verifiable, but not necessary with English sources: sources in any language are acceptable, but of course English sources, when available, are preferable. WP:V: "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." Notice the whenever possible part... Fram 08:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting me on this point. At this time, the article now has two references. It still has problems such as weasel words (E.g. "Some people maintain it came from...") but those are really problems for clean-up, not deletion. Therefore, I am prepared to switch my vote to keep. My thanks to EugeneZelenko for adding the references. Johntex\^talk 15:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had added references (from User:Alies' Biely e-mail). It's books published in Poland. You could also Google: Калдуны (Belarusian), Колдуны (Russian), Kołduny (Polish). Sorry, I don't know Lithuanian name for dish. You could ask help of users who know these languages and whom you trust to verify dish existence. --EugeneZelenko 15:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. per Eugene Zelenko. When proposing deletion for an article, please go to the respective portal ¹ and announce it there, so that other Belarusian Wikipedia users may know that the article is posted for deletion. Even if the article is unreferenced and may not be in the encyclopedic tone, that doesn't mean that you need to delete it... With some work, the article will turn out great. Why attack innocent articles like this, when there are lots more nn and "vandal" created articles lurking around here? —dmytro/s-ko/ 17:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an attack, it's an effort to ensure we comply with our policy on verifiability. The article has been around since January 2006 and no one has added a single reference. If it is an important article, then please improve it so it is worth keeping. Thanks! Johntex\^talk 17:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the discussion page for the article is completely blank. If there is a WikiPortal or WikiProject that has an interest in the article, then you need to say so on the discussion page. We are not mind readers. Please improve and add references to the article and I will gladly switch to "keep", but as it is now, it does not meet Wikipedia policy for verifiability, tone, or content. Johntex\^talk 18:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Wikipedia needs references to comply with WP:V policy, but for some things, the references will be hard to find, unless someone has a book about tradtional Belarusian dishes. Not all things can be found on the web, and I presume that not every person in Belarus has access to internet (the way it is in Ukraine) so the references for the article can probably be found in a book. Perhaps we should contact the creator of the article (he has his e-mail address posted on his userpage) and ask him to provide us with references... —dmytro/s-ko/ 18:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good idea. Since you are more familiar with the topic than I am, can you please send the e-mail? Certainly, books can be used as sources, but books do get tricky because our sources are supposed to be accessible "to any wikipedian". It would be great if we could find at least one web link, but let's see what the author may be able to provdie for us. Thanks for your help, Johntex\^talk 18:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, I am not familiar with the topic, and barely know anything about it. Perhaps some kindly soul who knows smthing about the topic from P:BEL would want to contact the author of the article... I might have a chance to e-mail the author, but cannot promise anything, and byt the time I recieve an answer, this AfD may already be closed... —dmytro/s-ko/ 18:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reason given in the nomination. Furthermore, I don't see any requirement in the deleation policy that requires portal notification. ArmAndLeg 21:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eugene.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Culturally notable and verifiable. `'mikkanarxi 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although the article could use some trimming and "compressing" (e.g., two leading paragraphs bar one phrase, like 3/4 of "recipe section"). Yury Tarasievich 07:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the whole Wikipedia. I thought the problem of Wikipedia is that anyone from the street can contribute, now I see, that another big problem is that the editors are idiots, imagining that "if I dont know the matter, I should delete it".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.206.67.242 (talk • contribs)

You are wrong on both counts. The problem with Wikipedia is that there are people like you who spout off without reading our policies. Information has to be verifiable by reliable sources. Otherwise, when a reader encounters a topic with which they are unfamiliar, they are unable to judge the accuracy of our information. To turn your statement around, "If I know the matter, then it should be easy to write the article in such a way that it is referenced. Then it will be worth keeping and there will be no question of deleting it." If we were to do things your way and not question the veracity of our articles, we'd have to leave every unreferenced hoax or bit of originial reserach in Wikipedia. Thank you, but no. Johntex\^talk 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

Okay people, since everyone was a lot of people were in agreement that the article needed a rewrite but noone started, I re wrote the article, I have no knowledge (at all) of the subject matter but do know how things should be arranged. I took out parts that just didn't belong such as the country is dominated by Russian pelmeni and, partly, by the Ukrainian vareniki. This just didn't belong in an article about a food item, I rearranged paragraphs and took out any hint of how-to (which also doesn't belong). If I was mistaken the original is stored here so nothing was lost. So if you would all take a look, I would certainly appreciate it. Nashville Monkey 09:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks about right. Possibly the Dumpling page should be amended, too. Yury Tarasievich 14:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added an "unreferenced" tag to the Dumpling article. It suffers from a couple of the same problems (Eg "...filling meal in winter-time" as if they aren't filling in summer-time?) but not nearly as bad as the Kalduny page did. I also left a note at Talk:Dumpling pointing out some issues with that article. Johntex\^talk 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looks like a good start to a useful article, though better references are needed. WMMartin 16:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TCM Underground[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOT#DIR criteria, page is simply a broadcast guide for a specific cable operator program. This page has no encyclopedic interest, even as part of Turner Classic Movies main article. It might also be considered promotional in the sense that we're mirroring content from the broadcast schedule of TCM which is easily available on their site. David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs 14:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Turner Classic Movies. I don't know what "this page has no encyclopedic interest" means, but the program merits a mention in the main TCM article, with a list of the movies it'll be showing (although we could lose the dates/times). | Mr. Darcy talk 15:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (It does, BTW. :-) ) David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs

In October 2006 the network premiered a new late-night series hosted by rocker/filmmaker Rob Zombie called "TCM Underground," which features a number of cult films personally selected by Zombie. Films in the series include Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959), Night of the Living Dead (1968), and Electra Glide in Blue (1973).

— Turner Classic Movies, (as of 2006-11-25)

*Delete Wikipedia is not a TV guide. A simular article containing a Friends TV schedule was recently deleted. MartinDK 15:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the introduction into the Turner Classic Movies article but remove the schedule, it probably may not break copyright (as a number of TV/radio schedules I have seen have done), but then again, Wikipedia is not a TV Guide as per WP:NOT#DIR. --tgheretford (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When I embarked upon creating an article thereon wearily after seeing Ray Dennis Steckler's Wild Guitar, I knew somebody would eventually mark it with AfD since I'm more used to creating articles on Sci Fi's programming blocks as S.C.I.F.I. World, The Animation Station or their staff in charge of programming and this, seemingly, didn't make the cut as an article on Sci Fi Channel's marathons did. Quite frankly, this TCM Underground is something new and has definitely garnered a considerable degree of attention from such peoples as Variety *, horror/cult film aficionados and TCM fans (with whom purists seem to object to this paradigm shift to broadening its audience/appealing). Not only is it new, but certainly shall be continuing as provided through the TCM '06-'07 programming slate and has received a listing on the IMDb, so thus I myself would withdraw from deleting since similar articles can be created on TCM: The Essentials or their Guest Programming specials: if they happen to have enough information to make them noteworthy and my article for TCM Underground thus must be half-baked. DrWho42 18:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your paragraph on the main page (I quoted it above for easy comparison) does it justice. I encourage you to keep it up to date. ~Dbs

• Strong delete per nom. Wiki is not a TV Guide ! Tulkolahten 17:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. While on the cusp of sufficient notability, it is a real television series and has received at least some coverage in the mainstream press. -- Satori Son 14:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 01:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Initially I'm inclined to think that it may have been created a bit early, though it does warrant mention in both the TCM and Rob Zombie articles. However with nearly 40,000 [[15]] this seems to be genrating a lot of buzz considering that it hasn't even been out for a month yet. I may be persuaded to change my vote, but right now I don't see any reason not to have an article. wtfunkymonkey 05:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 05:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per Tulkolahten. Nashville Monkey 11:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Turner Classic Movies. Gzkn 12:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a nationally broadcast television program with a very large audience. No particular need to merge, so why duplicate the content across two articles? ArmAndLeg 21:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Now that the schedule has been removed, it's just a paragraph ... and almost the exact same paragraph exists in the Turner Classic Movies page (see my qoute above). My point being, it's already been merged. I also question "very large audience," has this been documented by a third party (not TCM)? — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 23:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per arguments already mentioned. WMMartin 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Femicidal Mania Syndrome[edit]

Femicidal Mania Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

View single debate

No references in the article, and (more importantly!) I couldn't find a single usage of the term on the Web. Probable hoax, particularly as a lot of the science is nonsense. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google turns five results, seems like a made up syndrome which violates the Wikipedia is not something you made up in class one day rule ++aviper2k7++ 04:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That's five results for the words, but none at all for the phrase. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, possible hoax, mayby BJAODN worthy. --Jayron32 05:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - zero ghits. Blatant hoax. May be speedily deletable. MER-C 06:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Delete as a possible hoax. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 08:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nashville Monkey 11:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 21:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, No evidence of it existing per google or journal searching through Lexis/Nexis and others, the basic error in nomenclature (A real syndrome would likely be "gynocidal") further leads me to believe it's a hoax as well. Wintermut3 06:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, hoax, and if anyone doubts this they're probably suffering from Femicidal Mania Syndrome. SkierRMH,07:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• point of order Just so you know skier, hoaxes are regretably not speediable, we just have to lodge our complaints here in AfD... Wintermut3 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. OR. WMMartin 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Design[edit]

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

A horribly spammy article on what may or may not be a notable subject, it needs to be either drastically improved or deleted. Has been deleted by WP:PROD but contested, so here it is at AfD. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For now, speedy delete as db-spam. It may or may not be notable for the awards it won, but given the advert-style tone and the possible WP:COI problems of the author (judging from his contribs), let someone else write a more neutral article. Sandstein 22:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The author submitted an article that conforms substantially with standards for other company stubs. This was acknowledge the first time the article was proposed for speedy deletion, at which point it was accepted by TruthbringerToronto and modified by that user as well at which point much of the text in this "spammy" article was added. The article was deleted a month later without deletion review by without comment, however, by another user, UtherSRG. I may be new to Wikipedia, but I do not see how these actions conform with the community's own standards for the following reasons:

1. An article should afforded sufficient time for review.
2. As the author, I take issue with the questionable judgements of "spammy" articles, which border line on ad-hominem (what "behavior" is being referred to I don't know - I simply argued for keeping an article on "Modifiable Multimedia" which I hardly considered to be disruptive. I made my comments and then let it go.
3. The commentators above should specify what is spammy? Where has the article mentioned that Polar Design is significantly better than other agencies? The article simply states what this company does.
4. Examples of several other company stubs follow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plank_Multimedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPN_WEB_DESIGN_INC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeweavers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itnti

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_Design

I think that the company stub conforms substantially to the standards employed in reviewing and approving other company stubs. There are many less notable companies that have been accepted into Wikipedia. As editors, we should clarify whether company stubs are limited to notable companies or, as the current standards indicate, to a wider cross section. If the reasons for deletion is that the article is spammy, it seems more appropriate to propose improvements to what was written to remove any bias rather than to initiate wholesale deletion. I do not think that proposed deletion is appropriate given the examples above, Wikipedia standards on company stubs, the discription of the company. I would like to remind anyone reading this that the article was already approved by another editor and existed in the database for sometime until a stealth deletion, so the argument that this article should be deleted merely because it already was is fallacious, in this case. Endless blue 00:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a few things to clear up. Just because TruthbringerToronto removed your speedy deletion tag several months ago doesn't mean you're golden from there on out. He removed it because someone tagged it for deletion as spam. Back in August, that wasn't a reason for deletion. Now? It is. Also, when you say it was deleted without time for review...WP:PROD puts an article up for deletion for 5 days. At anytime anyone can remove the prod template to "save" the article. No one did for this article. So that's just some clarifications for you since you seem more than a little confused about this whole process. Metros232 00:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the comments, but, first of all, as I recall, the prod template was removed by Truthbringer. The article was left unmolested until sometime in late September or early October, whenever it was deleted.

Second, your comment suggests that the article may not have been spam in August but is now. For that to be true, the article would have to change substantially. When the article was posted in August, it was edited by Truthbringer and the last version of those edits is what stood. When I restored the article, at UtherSRG's instructions (to place in deletion review), I at first could not find the original text. I requested assistance from other editors on this, but no one gave me that help. I wrote something temporarily, and then I found an archived version of the article on this web site that syndicate Wikipedia content:

http://www.answers.com/topic/polar-design

Today, before submitting the article for the undeletion review, I merged that content with what already existed. As I hope you can see, that text that was added by Truthbringer (the text in the link) is pretty close to what is in the article now. Given that the text was originally added by someone other than myself with whom I have no connection other than Wikipedia, I would hope you would consider this evidence that nothing about this article has changed since late August / early September when it was NOT considered spam.

Regarding your point about the 5 day review, I had a watch set on the article but did not receive any notification by e-mail which I thought would be standard. Perhaps that was my fault, I will check my settings to be sure. Endless blue 02:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see where you're getting confused. There's no "process" to "approve" articles. Anything may be removed from the encyclopedia at any time if it does not conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In this case, the first 5 companies can probably be speedy deleted for lack of context/no assertion of notability (indeed one has already been deleted), and the last has no sources, so there's a good chance that it would be deleted as well. But the fact that they haven't gone through that process doesn't mean that it's approved by anyone, it just means that nobody has taken a look at it yet. Unfortunately, though you have given sources, they're either directory entries (violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory), or press releases (which are primary sources, ie the company's). You need a third-party reliable source to write an article about the company to pass muster. ColourBurst 14:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, as far as I understand, company stubs have different standards than research. At least I have seen this in other editors' edits to save stubs from deletion. You are suggesting that the article on Polar would need to meet the same standards as an article on Charlamagne, which does not appear to be the case.

Second, would you agree that its reasonable to read all the materials before passing judgment? There isn't a Polar Design - issued "company" press release linked from the article, so that assertion is not totally accurate. There is a press release link that was added by another editor - it was issued by a third party and mentions us. Yes, there are a lot of directory entries - again, I did not add those, another editor did (please see the original version of the article). However, one of the links that I did add is a primary source, the 2006 Web Award. Regarding other articles, I have added two links below the web award link to an article in CNN and Insight magazine about the company. I hope this satisfies your concerns. Endless blue 14:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize - I seemed to have missed a few of them. [16] is the press release I was talking about - "Polar Design... announced today the public release..." is very press-release like. Regarding the moneyCNN article, it mentions Polar Design - but it only says it's a small business and who its owner is, and gives the owner's opinions on two weeks notice. It doesn't even mention what Polar Design does, so it doesn't support the article in any way - the article is about quitting your job, not Polar Design. The last one (CPA society article) does have in-depth coverage of the subject in question - we just need more articles like this. ColourBurst 15:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the feedback and no apologies needed - as noted, I just added the CNN and Insight article, so you hadn't missed those. I'll look for more. Endless blue 16:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a failure of WP:CORP. Of all the references listed, only one is a non-trivial article. The CNN item is not about the company. The others are either directory listings or a newsrelease. I am not convinced (though I could be) that the web award is notable enough.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, almost as an aside, according to WP:CORP itself, it is a set of "rough guidelines" not a hard and fast bench mark. Wikipedia:Notability is clear that the guidelines are not set in stone and common sense should apply. With companies, the guidelines are too heavily biased toward public companies that automatically get coverage because of the legions of stock analysts that must cover them and generate press interest as a result. Private companies often do not attract a lot of press, but are notable nonetheless based on the calibre of clients that they serve, and the awards that they garner. In Polar Design's case, the winning of awards is one sign that this is a "notable" company in this specific category of multimedia design. A look at the web site, its portfolio, projects and clients should indicate that the company does "notable" work and is this a "notable" company. I don't dispute that the WP:CORP guidelines aren't a good starting point, because they are, but there should be other less narrow guides that we as editors use to determine notability, or else we are merely reprinting a very narrow set of commonly considered authoritative sources and not creating a truly independent source of knowledge at all (which I imagine is part of the mission, no?).

More pertinent to your vote/view, according to WP:CORP a company can satisfy notability with either multiple non-trivial articles, or third party consumer reviews. Therefore, I have just added two consumer reviews from third parties that are not reprints of press releases or anything else, as well as a third article that was posted in an online resource about internet marketing but is not a directory (i.e., the company did not have control over the content). With four non-trivial sources, I hope I don't have to go back and find more or the resource list will become too long, and I hope I have convinced you to change your view. Endless blue 02:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as insufficiently notable. Subject has not been the primary subject of multiple, third-party published sources. The only cite to a reliable source, CNN, does not even mention the company. -- Satori Son 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The company's HR challenges are mentioned and its policy can be infered in the CNN article, and its explicitly named therein: "...that's not a job easily transferred to someone else since a lot of sales is based on personal relationships, said small-business owner Mark Jaklovsky of Polar Design."

Additionally, there are three sources listed there, including the CNN one. Its just your opinion that ZDNet and Insight are "unreliable", but they are considered major sources of information for technology professionals and accountants, respectively. Endless blue 17:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One article, even in passing mentioning Polar Design, is enough -- nay much more to warrant enough notability for Wikipedia. In fact, if this were merely a passing mention in CNN, I would say to delete the PD article, but there is simply too much presence on the internet. SoreThumb 3:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep due to sufficient internet-presence coupled with sufficient published presence. There are multiple companies that are currently supplying a small market, but this does not mean that they are negligible. Furthermore, the presence of multiple online articles about Polar Design ceritfy that this is not just a small case here: this company has had international impact. I can't read Slovakian. Has anybody found any Slovakian articles about PD as well? I doubt that any other English-speaking contributors here could vouch for the impact in Slovakia as well. SoreThumb 3:05, 1 December 2006

Suggest An additional Slovakian translation/sub-text page with Slovakian sources, if applicable, as well. SoreThumb 3:05, 1 December 2006

— SoreThumb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Gay Cdn 21:34, 1 December 2006

Comment Wikipedia:Don't_bite_the_newbies. Just because I have recently created this account doesn't mean I haven't been learning about Wikipedia constantly through reading articles, or even making a rare or outdated edit.... I have also done articles on other Wikis. I'm not going to go claim WP:NPA, because it's not like my constant review of WP is implicit. SoreThumb 23:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Revised Thanks to the additional reference from SoreThumb, namely Create Magazine. I just added an additional reference to one of the company's projects, AmericanPresident.org, that the NEA and the American Library Association recognized (see Polar_Design for more info). When considering notability, I contend that reliable reference to the company's projects are nearly as important as references discussing the company directly and should be taken into account as well when considering WP:CORP or WP:N generally. Finally, I just cleaned up the article as well for grammar, style and advert tone concerns. Endless blue 01:46, 3 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, W.marsh 04:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Relisting as article was greatly expanded late in the AfD. --W.marsh 04:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Latest version is well referenced, and plainly notable. --Jayron32 05:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The current version seems acceptable. Could an administrator please restore the pre-deletion history? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a web design firm. It isn't particularly large. They happened to build a couple of vaguely notable sites, but probably most firms have. It isn't even an independent firm (it is a division of a firm called "IMS".) Out!!! --Brianyoumans 18:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  

Question 1 How is this firm's purported industry, "web design", relevant to its notability? (Incidentally, the correct industry is Interactive_advertising or the firm could be described as an Interactive_Agency, but that's neither here nor there)

There are industries that are very visible to the public (automobiles, cellular phones) and there are some that are not; web design is something marketed mostly to other businesses, so it has in general little public visibility. This doesn't mean that none deserve articles, but it doesn't help their cause. --Brianyoumans 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2 Is the firm's size a measure of notability? I did not see anything about company size in WP:CORP.

Size certainly doesn't hurt; if nothing else, being the largest firm in an industry is a claim to notability of sorts. --Brianyoumans 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3 Please explain how being a division is lack of notability. Take a look at MRO_Software or Informix, both divisions of IBM. Clearly a division or trade name can have notability, but I'm wondering what your reasoning is?

Certainly divisions can be notable, but it seems to me that "independent web design firm survives internet crash" is a more notable business story than "web design division supported through crash by fat pockets of corporate parent". --Brianyoumans 06:40,

Response Thanks for your answers. I think we can imply that you are retracting your objection to the firm's deletion based on size. "It doesn't hurt (to be large)..." is neither part of WP:CORP, nor an intelligble benchmark or requirement for notability. The converse is not denied by your statement (i.e., "it hurts if you are small or medium sized").

You have also accepted that being a division does not reduce notability, which is implying retraction of that point since your original reason was that simply being associated with a parent company was someone a reason to claim non-notability. You've restated that into a straw man argument, attempting to focus attention on one particular citation about the company's support during a few years while ignoring the rest of the article that states the company also survived by changing its strategy. Frankly, that's blatant bad faith.

That leaves your comment about B2B industries' visibility. Based on your reasoning, entire swathes of Wikipedia should be removed because they are "not very visible to the public". I contend that this logic is a reach to justify your pattern of hasty deletion as evidenced by your user record (see below).

There are many topics in Wikipedia ranging from obscure academic ones to corporate ones that 99% of the public does not know about. But that is why they are here - the world of information is so great that you can't expect the "public" as you so deftly describe it to be aware of every fact. If you then limit Wikipedia to only such facts, you are essentially proposing that we dumb down this information source to topics like Britney Spears or Coca Cola. I'm not proposing that anyone post absolutely anything, but notability is not determined by a rule based on what the majority or even a large part of the population knows - its based on whether the information is important or useful, which in the case of Polar_design may not be to a physicist or historian, but might be to a graphic designer. More importantly, notability is determined based on guidelines described in WP:CORP that are clear and met by this article, which you and other editors seem to choose to ignore for reasons that go beyond reason. I think that your pattern of hasty deletions of other articles (see User_talk:Brianyoumans#C.2B.2B_books) underscores this 'deletion without reason'. Based on the "strength" of your answers, I know you won't be convinced to reconsider your vote, but hopefully other editors reasing this will know what I'm talking about and vote based on accepted community principles. Endless blue 07:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is always upsetting to have one's integrity questioned. It is certainly true that one of my main activities on Wikipedia is deleting articles, but it is also true that when I vote on other persons' AFDs, I can go either way. If I am a deletionist, it is also true that TruthbringerToronto (who I have a great deal of respect for) is a well known inclusionist. It is also true that Sharkface217 can probably be considered an inclusionist, which is perhaps why you left a message on his talk page to come vote here (which he did, although he quite properly cautioned you on your talk page against doing that sort of thing.) As to some of your other points: I do not agree that I am withdrawing my objections with regards to size. WP:CORP is only a rough guide - it says so at the top. Also, size would factor in to the second criteria for corporations, ranking in industry listings by reputable third-party firms. I admit my point with regard to the notability of divisions was weak, but I think there are also other situations and reasons why a division is inherently less notable. And I am certainly not advocating that Wikipedia only cover industries that are in the public eye, but I was pointing out that Wikipedia is by and large by and for the general public, and the general public is less interested in businesses that serve primarily other businesses. --Brianyoumans 08:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I understood the three criteria in WP:CORP to be additive, not cumulative. In other words, WP:CORP is written so that you only have to satisfy one of the three, not all. Based on that, I don't see how the article can be disputed for notability. As concerns your point that WP:CORP is a rough guide, I agree, but that can swing both ways. I've tried to convince you and others that recognition through awards is as valuable as press coverage. I've obviously failed with you, but personally I believe this notion is important. It is not helpful to niche communities that are part of the so-mentioned "general public" and that have an interest in niche topics to have a standard of 'importance' in place that relies exclusively on articles in the mainstream press. This will exclude a significant portion of companies and articles that are not important to the mainstream, but are nonetheless notable within a particular area of study. I do appreciate your reponses though, and I would add that you've earned my respect through the, regardless of our difference here. I frankly find the one-line explanations placed next to Keep or Delete votes based on a cursory skim of an article demeaning to editors time and effort spent contributing. Thank you. Endless blue 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance for your answers. Endless blue 19:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reason given in the nomination. ArmAndLeg 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nom gave "A horribly spammy article on what may or may not be a notable subject" as a reason. I've spent considerable time adding references to satisfy WP:CORP and revising the text. The nom proposed revision as one solution. I asked this already of the nom, but have received no answer, and so I ask it of you - could you point out what is considered spammy? Otherwise, may we assume you're providing a hastily construed opinion? Thanks. Endless blue 22:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is insulting. The article reads like a company portpolio. The companie's website was linkied in the first words for God's sake. ArmAndLeg 04:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are thousands of web design firms, most of whom have at least some notable clients. I see nothing that makes this one exceptional. The article is clearly self-promotional from an SPA. Fan-1967 22:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Fan-1967 - you're entitled to your opinion, but I'd like to make note of your violation of WP:NPA in your tone and hasty comment considering the edit histories of the three contributors (yes, there were three - try reading the entire thread). Further, the presence of 1,000s of companies does not invalidate that all of them may or may not be notable - I think what matters is whether the standards of notability have been met, not who the author is or speculation as how many other "similar" firms exist (without citing similar degrees of notability). Endless blue 22:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had only one significant editor, you. A few others have made minor typo and formatting fixes. Again. I see nothing which makes this company exceptional or notable, and I have no desire to see Wikipedia become a listing board for all of the similar companies. (I'm sorry if you consider it a personal attack that I state that the article is clearly self-promotional. Others can view the content and make their own judgement.) Fan-1967 23:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, your mistatement of the facts indicate that you are at best careless and have not read the thread.
The article was originally started by me, edited and expanded by TruthbringerToronto, then prodded without reason, as far as I can tell, and without any notice placed on my talk page by UtherSRG (not strictly a guideline violation, but frowned upon in the deletion guideline recommendations). Weeks later when discovering this, I did my best to rewrite and restore the original content, as has been discussed earlier in the thread (which you are declining, intentional or not, to read properly). The article was then resubmitted and submitted for AfD, at which point I and one other user, SoreThumb expanded the references. You are mistaken because you are probably only looking at the current version's history, which does not reflect the history of the article prior to its first deletion. As you must know, article histories are not available to non-admins after they have been deleted, but you can consult with other admins if you don't believe me. I maintain again based on the foregoing that you are in violation of WP:NPA by criticizing me with little basis in actual fact, instead of providing reasoned criticisim of the article itself.

As concerns your allegations that my account is an SPA, I urge you or anyone to review my contribs) which has included an attempt to author an article unrelated to this topic as well as extensive participation in the AfD and CfD debates.

You are engaged in a personal attack because you are making unsubstantiated, factually incorrect claims about the nature of my edits to distract users from the fact that this article has achieved notability guidelines, which is the point. Anything else is just extreme deletionism. Endless blue 01:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would comment that your edits prior to December 2 are almost all to articles related to Polar Design. The major exception would be an article on 'Modifiable Multimedia', since deleted by AFD. Brianyoumans 08:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that. I stand on my record as having contributed to more than one article prior to December 2, and humbly admit that I'm an imperfect, somewhat new editor. I believe, however, that I'm rapidly gaining experience in Wikipedia's ontology and AfD debates and that my contributions have been worthwhile. Everyone is free to judge whether I'm an WP:SPA account, but I don't think I am based on the above and, in fact, your comments too. Endless blue 15:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If the article demonstrates notability through its references and otherwise, then it should be included. If there are stylistic problems, fix them. I think the article is acceptable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Non notable--even the awards are trivialDGG 03:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm. Putting the industry awards aside for now, you're asking everyone to believe that the NEA and American Library Association (which you probably are part of, based on your user page) are not notable? Endless blue 03:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the NEA and ALA were necessarily judging the web design; I would imagine that the kudos were largely about the content that was available at those sites. --Brianyoumans 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point DGG made was that the awards were "trivial". That is what I addressed. You're talking about something else.

Your (new) point, that the award is not for the "web design" just re-exposes your confusion about this firm's actual industry, which is not web design. The thread covers that already.

Further, no web site with that much content can operate without good usability, design and either a database or content management solution. The content would be useless if the software to support it wasn't up to par. Any firm that can produce a site that receives this kind of national recognition deserves interest. A firm that does it over and over deserves consideration as "notable." And yes, there are many such firms, and yes, they should be listed in Wikipedia just as many other topics that may not seem notable to you (like C++ books, see User_talk:Brianyoumans#C.2B.2B_books), but are to others who have taken an interest in them and ensured that the articles meet basic guidelines of notability. Endless blue 07:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above points of internet notability. Also note that this company has won established awards. Sharkface217 04:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertising a NN company. WMMartin 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable company with references that are basically directory listings and press releases. Even the award is non-notable: hundreds were handed out in 2006; you can pay a fee to nominate yourself. The "standard of excellence award" is the lowest category of award.Glendoremus 21:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every major award requires that you pay a fee to enter, including the Webby Awards, which are the best known among web awards. Regarding the one award you speak of about, there are "hundreds" of awards given because there are typically several industry-specific and technology-specific categories, and most entrants do not win recognition. As far as the "lowest" category, other winners in that category include notable firms like 2Advanced, so its hardly a damning observation. Endless blue 20:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winn O'Donnell[edit]

Winn O'Donnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

View single debate

• Delete: Non-notable comedian, etc. 38 Google hits were mostly Wikipedia and YouTube (my Aunt Esther has more hits). De-prodded with no explanation (except to put the article in the "non-notable comedians" category - I guess he's into the self-deprecating style of comedy). —Wknight94 (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. lol, the references that the editor put are hilarious. "Astrological sign is Taurus <ref>Astrology.com</ref>" But anyway, non-notable comedian, as the editor admits himself. Axem Titanium 06:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reason given in the nomination. ArmAndLeg 21:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SkierRMH,07:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm sure the guy has a lot of potential, and when he lives up to some of that, an article about him will be welcomed. Until then - well, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. John Broughton | Talk 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Verkhovensky 00:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by admin Physicq210 (CSD G10). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 06:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The amazing pact[edit]

The amazing pact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

View single debate

This article is highly inconsistent with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. John254 04:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It's also, I'm sure, a bunch of crap. Cantras 04:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wow, it's so amazing that filmwriters try to write good films! -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if it were true, how are the directors basing this on? Good, bad, it's all conjecture. -WarthogDemon 05:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and BJAODN some of this. Daniel Case 05:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 05:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Amazing - err, I mean Speedy Delete by WP:Attack, Delete by WP:BULL, WP:OR and WP:POV -- wtfunkymonkey
• comment looking at the contribution history of the article's creator, Fgdncso, I would also reccomend a banning in this case. wtfunkymonkey 05:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• [17] - vandalism to Pigeon racing
• [18] [19] [20] - vandalism to Synopsis
• [21] - blanking of Hall
• [22] [23] - user's only meaningful edits.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. May I suggest that any future debate focus more closely on the article's merits under WP:WEB/WP:CORP, as in Quirex' contribution, rather than on WP:ILIKEIT-type arguments? Sandstein 07:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AboutUs.org[edit]

AboutUs.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

View single debate

Lacks notability (and also lacks information value) orlady 04:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This discussion began, in a way, at User_talk:WikiPersonality. When the article was tagged for speedy deletion (and after the speedy deletion tag was removed), discussion continued at Talk:AboutUs.org. --orlady 05:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It does indeed lack notability. Also seems to be website promotion and possibly spam. -WarthogDemon 05:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or possibly merge some of its content into WHOIS. Topic fails Wikipedia:Notability (web) -- the news articles offered as evidence of notability are essentially press releases. I agree with WarthogDemon that article seems to be website promotion, although the article's advocate vehemently denies self-interest. --orlady 05:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Promo Nashville Monkey 11:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep It might be considered by some to be a promo, but it is backed by credible external sources. TSO1D 15:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep See example of how AboutUs.org is in use at an advanced and top rated Domain WhoIs Site Link goes to an Example pre-done of WhoIs for Wikipedia at DomainTools, (Name Intelligence). External link to show how AboutUs.org is now refernced as an additional info source on foremost domain WhoIs site. You can not only see the advanced searching info on Domain Tools which returns server info, domain info, cached image, and now includes AboutUs.org which allows another detailed information source. Don't be to quick to minimize a fun new controversial site. DomainTools is one of if not THE most respected whois sites on the net and webbuilders ALL know this!!! Don't let wikipedia be wikiignorant.. PLEASE visit before crying "Spam" it's just silly. Or go work for Encylcopedia Brittanica only printing old stale stuff.. Don't bring down Wiki with a snobbish attitude that only regognizes DMOZ and not the first true open direcory. Enough said.. I hope.. lol--162.83.180.170 17:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was that link supposed to demonstrate? Wikipedia doesn't include or exlude on how "useful" a website is. By the way "one of if not THE most respected whois sites on the net"? Both the blog posts linked were fairly critical... --Lijnema 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:SPAM, our spam guidelines? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WarthogDemon. — ceejayoz ^talk 21:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (As I already threw in a Delete on the talk page) Possibly a check whether wikipersonality/162.83.180.170 are the same person, as 162.83.180.170 has several warnings and a temp block for his/her spamming? I'm assuming they are just off their shared weird syntax. It's worth noting that the strongest keeper of the article loads his/her remarks with borderline brownnosing like "articles like this are what makes wiki great!" and "don't be stale like EB!" along with his/her mentions of aboutus.org's apparent awesomeness, including assorted "please look again at the awesomeness, really, it's awesome, i promise" comments on people's talk pages. Cantras 02:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I hadn't heard of them until recently, but when I was looking up information about a certain website, they were rather useful. This is an instance of the "if I've heard of it, it's notable" test :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but you're pretty much quoting exactly what notability is not. --Lijnema 17:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "notability test" was slightly tounge-in-cheek; I'm aware of the rules, thank you. However, I still believe that the article needs to stay, even though I can't back it up with a WP:Whatever link. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I thought your assessment sounded a bit odd. ;) --Lijnema 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Don't like this site at all. It seems OK to describe other sites in a distasteful manner, without any proof. Besides, it's funded by sites with might expect positive reviews for their financial contribution. That just doesn't seems right. (This is more a vote from my heart, than from my head...) Christoffel 18:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Question Your reason for suggesting delete appears to be that you "don't like" the site that the article's about. What has that got to do with our deleting or keeping the article? Isn't this discussion supposed to be about whether or not we have enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article that complies with WP:NOT? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance..[edit]

That's what. 80M page views on the Alexa ranking tool indicate that it is now a popular site alternative to DMOZ. If something is relevant to a large group although not mainstream (such as webmasters) it should be given more thought. If you are not familiar with the topics of WhoIs, Alexa rankings, and the importance of a DMOZ listing, please read the articles on them right here on Wiki. The first popular alternative deserves a mention under the catagory web directories, and based on the welcome by some webmasters, and controversy of automated publishing by others, deserves an article.--162.83.180.170 19:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about "deserving" an article. The only standard being applied is "has the topic received non-trivial coverage in multiple independent published sources." The best way to get an article kept is to argue that its contents are supported by good sourcing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Mostly a promo The Fox Man of Fire 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Some of this article meets WP:V, it has 2 veriable source (itself and business journal). The Portland business journal is the most reliable source, the other references range from blogs to specialized news sites. They are grey if they meet WP:RS expectations but the article is on the road to meet it. If it does pass WP:RS through an aggregation of the sites linking to it and the Portland article it does indeed meet criteria 1 of WP:WEB. Also arguments by 162.83.180.170 that wikipedia already has articles about similar sites is not valid according WP:SELF. I think that this article is actually verifiable enough to keep and it has an alexa ranking of 1,939 which is pretty high. The center networks post is just a link to the portland article but [[24]] is actual content about aboutus.org. That said the article could be improved. I'm voting weak keep because my keep vote relies on an aggregation of blogs plus that portland article to allow the page to meet the multiple non-trivial sources guidline of WP:WEB. Also I personally think aboutus.org is a terrible wiki and I'm glad this article has opinions about why it is controversal. --Quirex 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no less notable than others in here, and now verified.DGG 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment - Please read WP:INN. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. --Quirex 06:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NN. WMMartin 16:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Garcia[edit]

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

View single debate

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)).

Non-notable high school athlete, nominated as violating WP:BIO Mhking 05:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing Stephen Garcia is a notable high school athelete. He is a quarterback which is a highly important and highly sought after position. He is also ranked very high in all of the football recruiting polls and is ranked the third quarterback in several polls. Fans from all of the mentioned schools also show great interest in Stephen because he will make such an impact on the team he chooses to play for. He is also considering graduation early which will no longer make him a high school athlete and he has scheduled a conference to announce his college decision on Wednesday.

Smellslikebrett— Smellslikebrett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep I personally think that the Stephen Garcia page is notable because it describes a valid college prospect who is thinking of playing at South Carolina. Having this page available would allow South Carolina Gamecock fans to learn about the prospect easily through Wikipedia. mas29— mas29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment the above vote was made by 72.159.148.3, who has voted below as well. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Never mind, didn't know that's a shared IP address. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't care about Stephen Garcia, but he is important to other people in SC.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VlaDude91 (talk • contribs).— VlaDude91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete as a high school athlete. Once he actually signs with a college and joins the team, perhaps he will be notable enough. Montco 05:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He has not been drafted by any college team yet. Someday he may be notable but presently he does not meet WP:BIO.--Dakota 05:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; also, delete Stephen Garcia "The college prospect". I don't know why that page was made. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 06:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, in agreement with Mhking. LastChanceToBe 06:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable 74.241.140.49 06:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above (due to lack of a college recruitment). Also, so above IP address because IP addresses can't vote for AfD. Bearly541 07:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like an IP, but it isn't. Click on the link; that's a bona fide user. I already told him to change his username through WP:CHU. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 07:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[[reply]
    • Even if he was an unregistered user, he would still be allowed to submit his recommendation in an AfD: "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight." See WP:AFD. --Metropolitan90 16:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable person. Danny Lilithborne 21:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article should be considered because of the time when the player will be legitimate. The author of this page should be allowed to re-edit the page when he is signed.

Smellslikebrett 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. By the article's standards, I've had a high school math teacher with just as much notability. -WarthogDemon 21:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Article has been speedied several times (by me and others), and same author keeps reposting it. NawlinWiki 03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and Salt the Earth if possible.SkierRMH,07:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article is notable as the player will have signed with a team within a few days.

72.159.148.3 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This person is notable as he is a top high school football prospect, and he is notable to fans of the schools at which he is being recruited, who are anticipating him being part of the institution's team. Perhaps those who believe that he is not notable do not follow NCAA football. Drpaynemontgomery 18:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)— Drpaynemontgomery (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment users saying he will be notable once he is "drafted" obviously do not know anything about NCAA football because prospects are signed, not drafted. "Delete per above (due to lack of a college recruitment). Also, so above IP address because IP addresses can't vote for AfD. Bearly541 07:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)" A lack of college recruitment? He is being recruited by the best teams in the country! Drpaynemontgomery 18:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)— Drpaynemontgomery (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . I am a new user who is a Southeastern Conference football fan and happened to stumble across this article. I don't see that comment's relevance to the topic. Drpaynemontgomery 18:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you mean the comment about your lack of edits. The relevance is that many times, people tell their (like-minded) friends to go vote on an AfD, which leads to a rush of people all voting one way and causes the appearance of a consensus where there is none. By tagging new user accounts this way, we can notify any closing admin of such suspected accounts. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The user that created the "Delete" comment earlier should obviously do some research before he criticizes the quality of the article. Furthermore, Stephen is looking at some of the top colleges in the nation. Seven out of the ten teams were ranked in the 2006 season, and five of those teams were ranked in the top ten at some point this season. I personally would consider those teams in the top of the country. Stephen Garcia was also looking at Ohio State and Michigan, but Michigan selected another quarterback and Ohio State was not looking for one. Another part of his decision lies in the history of Steve Spurrier and his fine coaching ability. This is signifigant in his career and his future with the team he chooses. There is more value in the early recognition of athletes. This is reflected in many things including the increased value of rookie paraphenelia of high impact athletes. It would give other wikipedians a sense of pride to know that we, as a wikipedia community recognized this fine young athlete before other sources.

Smellslikebrett 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment Which user? If you're talking about my suggestion to delete a different article, that's because it was essentially a duplicate of this one, which is unnecessary. And why do you presume to know what would give other Wikipedians a sense of pride if you've only had an account for four days? Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 19:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:BIO at this point.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 12:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment First of all, I at no point commented on the "crystal ball" like powers that you mention. Secondly, your opinion is no better than mine unless you live in some other little world where you worship yourself because you have underlying insecurities. You should consider respecting the other wikipedia members instead of trying to chastise them.

Smellslikebrett 01:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Please remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. And I never stated my opinion is better than yours, I merely asked why you think you can know what would please the entire Wikipedia community if you've only been a member for a few days. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 01:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm no longer concerned with the results of this silly deletion poll. It does not matter because Stephen Garcia will commit to a college football team of notable status on Thursday December 7, 2006, in a conference at Jefferson Senior High School at either 11:00 am or 1:00 pm. After this official announcement your argument that he is not notable will be unjustifiable. The WP:Bio states that "Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles." All of the teams that Stephen Garcia is looking at playing for have multiple notable athletes. Also Stephen Garcia is included in multiple published resources including several newpapers and a few magazines. He also meets the criterion for the "Search Engine Test -- Does a search for the subject produce a large number of distinguishable hits on Google ([1]), Alexa ([2]), Yahoo! ([3] or other well-known Internet search engine?" I am in no way closely related to Stephen Garcia nor have I ever met him. All of the information will almost certainly be verifiable in the future because of the high chance of professional acheivements in football. Especially under coaching from Steve Spurrier. Stephen Garcia even passes the criterion for "Notable Actors and Television Personalities" as he has a rather large fan base. (from South Carolina Gamecock fans). There are several videos of fans who drove hundreds of miles to Tampa, Florida to see him play in a High school game. He also gets signifigant local media attention, having his own section on the "Tampa Bay Online" website, www.TBO.com. This article could also be written into the "perfect article". It's subject (Stephen Garcia) will almost undoubtably be successful and is a very interesting person. He also shares a good deal of information about himself and his family with the public and would likely provide additional information in the future. As you can probably tell by now (or at least tommorrow at 1:00 PM, there is little if no sense in continuing the comments on this page. This page will be valid soon. I will also re-edit this page once Stephen Garcia has signed to make it more accurate in such ways as deleting the section about his college decision and adding a section about his future with his new team.

Smellslikebrett 01:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'search engine test' is a proposed criterion, not an actual one. The South Carolina Gamecock fan base is probably not large enough to qualify. The significant local media attention is just that: local. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 01:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Further arguing concerning the notability of this article will be pointless. Veinor and Smellslikebrett have both presented their arguments which probably were already recognized by interested wikipedia members. Therefore, additional bickering is of no consequence.

• IT IS OFFICIAL STEPHEN GARCIA HAS COMMITTED TO SOUTH CAROLINA AND SHOULD NOW BE CONSIDERED AS A NOTABLE ATHLETE BECAUSE OF HIS STATUS ON A NOTBALE COLLEGE TEAM. ALSO, please do not defile the Gamecock nation Veinor. It is extremely insulting to question our allegiance. THANK YOU

Smellslikebrett 18:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • A: Do you have a source? B: I never questioned your allegiance, I questioned the size. Do you have reliable estimates for the size? Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not yet advocating in one direction or another on this, but to repeat from above, the standard for this person to meet is "first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance". To be on the first team for USC, this person would need to be named the starting quarterback. I'm not aware of any coverage indicating that this individual meets this standard. I think that there may be room for allowing articles for particularly noteworthy recruits, but that standard should be particularly high. ScottW 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Anyone who knows me knows I fight for football player articles to be kept. But even this one I cannot. First, he isn't in the top ten for recruiting in his position in the nation. Second, WP:BIO states they must have played as a college athlete to warrant an article. I'd be happy to recreate this article once he plays. Also, the article is so horrible as it's just about him going to sign with South Carolina that it would just need to be blanked and started over. See ya in a few years kid. --MECU≈talk 03:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The starting quarterback for South Carolina may be notable but one they just signed out of high school is not. Eluchil404 08:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN. WMMartin 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Million Miles Away[edit]

View single debate

RWikipedia is not a crystal ball non released song from nn artist SkierRMH 05:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Rihanna appears to be a notable artist but still delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball and not an indiscriminate collection of stuff. Axem Titanium 06:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nashville Monkey 11:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverified crystalballery, though I disagree with the notion that a singer whose last album went platinum and produced a U.S. number-one hit is "nn". Extraordinary Machine 15:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article title but make it about the 1983 hit by The Plimsouls, which was one of the more notable new wave music songs of the 80s. Puppy Mill 03:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A load of ( crystal ) balls. WMMartin 16:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Brooks[edit]

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

View single debate

"Stacy Brooks is a critic of Scientology and member of the Lisa McPherson trust who accompanied Bob Minton and Mark Bunker on a number of anti-Scientology pickets. Like her late ex-husband Robert Vaughn Young, Brooks was formerly a Scientologist herself." That's the entire article right there. Non-notable bio, maybe even eligible for a speedy. Notability not asserted unless you think being a critic of Scientology makes a person special. Highfructosecornsyrup 05:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Article has been completely rewritten since this was nominated. The above no longer applies as written Glen S 07:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge into Criticism of Scientology. I have actually heard about this person, unfortunately, the article is pretty short on any references to establish a claim to notability in her own right. Montco 05:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I'd never touched that article but shes one of the worlds MOST notable critic of Scientology so when I saw this I quickly tried to show at least some justice more than the line that was there.
  As an ex-member that worked in Scientology's upper level management for 15 years, shes been on literally dozens and dozens of national television programs as an expert critic including 20/20, Dateline and 60 Minutes, as well as an expert witness in Scientology lawsuits and been published countless times in the press. Added some reliable sources.
  So article is now at least sourced, and if the television appearances etc dont ascertain notability then surely the fact that a google search for Scientology "Stacy Brooks" gives over 14,000 results - from what I could tell all her. Keep  Glen  07:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced providing passing the usual WP:BIO guidelines. Notable critic of Church of Scientology. --Oakshade 08:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment - Noticing the noms edits on Scientology versus the Internet, it's talk page and this particular Carpet-bombing of "citation needed" tags, it seems this editor has demonstrated issues about criticism of Church of Scientology. This might be a bad faith nom. --Oakshade 08:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been about criticism, don't you think I would have simply tried to remove the criticism? The fact that I'm asking that the criticism be properly sourced bolsters the critics' position, not the Scientologists. And if applying a "citation needed" tag to sentences that lack citations is the wrong thing to do, then I guess I just don't understand the purpose of the tag. Mea culpa. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As well, this editor has put 4 articles up for deletion or merging in less than 12 hours. AndroidCat 14:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, four whole articles. And you think there's something wrong with that? This article was a two-sentence unsourced stub when I nominated it. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nothing apparently wrong with the article --Eqdoktor 08:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article is sourced, person has been mentioned in print several times. --AlexWCovington (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - possible COI nomination. yandman 10:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Eqdoctor--Buridan 14:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn. As Glen S has noted, the article has been completely rewritten since I nominated the original. It now has proper references and sources. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - bad faith nom, as per AN/I incident for nominator being anti Co$ criticism based sock editor. ThuranX 15:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being accused of being a sock doesn't make it so. Thanks for trying to perpetuate the lie. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep good faith nomination. But the article as I read it now is sourced properly and she is a knowledgeable critic imo. ---Slightlyright 16:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly bad faith nomination. Futurix 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly". Of course. By the way, I've already withdrawn the nomination (boy, that's sure bad faith, isn't it?), so why are people still voting? Close it up, it's over. Highfructosecornsyrup 19:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reasons you have withdrawn the nomination, in my opinion originally it was in bad faith. Futurix 22:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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