< July 12 July 14 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Dutch television channels. Mailer Diablo 03:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch television stations[edit]

Duplicate of List of Dutch television channels. Intangible 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mostly Rainy 00:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of slogans and chants opposing the Iraq war[edit]

Original research which attempts to get around WP:NPOV policy, by consolidating a list of slogans from various sites, but few of which are verifiably sourced to actual usage. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", points out the following should not be included: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). " As an analogy, one might create a List of phrases which have been applied to President Bush, and claim that because a web site says "President Bush Sucks", and Iraqi TV said "Bush is an idiot" according to a BBC article, it's a legitimate article entry.

I am also nominating the following related page because it has substantially the same problem, and was modeled on the earlier list:

LeflymanTalk 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The difference with "List of United States military history events" is that it is a timeline of factual, historical events-- and hence, verifiable and neutral. Whereas this (and the similar article also listed for AfD) is a list of expressions promoted by particular group(s), collected from assorted Websites, with limited verifiability-- falling into the same category as "quotations" and "aphorisms". I'd just as soon nominate List of unflattering nicknames for Bill and Hillary Clinton which could likewise be sourced to a Website: [1].
Of similar note is the "What Wikipedia is Not" interdiction against "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".--LeflymanTalk 00:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My earlier comments:

Wait. You say, "tagged for using Primary sources," and "If no non-primary references can be found, this article will need to go up for deletion." But WP:NOR, now that I look at it, says:
However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.
So primary sources are fine. It seems like you're trying to say the various antiwar groups aren't reputable sources. Of course they aren't for a lot of issues - but it seems to me like they are regarding the chants that they use. Again, from WP:NOR:
A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable." For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in the Socialist Workers' Party's newspaper The Militant to publish a statement claiming that President Bush hates children. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political newspaper could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself.
Emphasis mine. This seems analogous to me. Kalkin 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not a fan of beans; gassy and all that. But if someone really did want to create those pages, I'd be more than happy to put them up for AfD. Red-links are, IMHO, perfectly legitimate ways to demonstrate the non-existence of a subject :) --LeflymanTalk 15:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was speedy keep obviously -- Samir धर्म 23:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China[edit]

Poorly written article which needs drastic improvements in order to meet inclusion criteria. Also the fact that China is a commmunist country and Wikipedia shall not promote a communist regime. --Error 409 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • its just being "CONSIDERED" for deletion NOT certain to be deleted don't forget --Error 409 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination is a waste of time. --Ideogram 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then y is there anything such as AfD? Not all articles in AfD get deleted! --Error 409 23:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tigress (film)[edit]

This article consists of two lines of unsubstantiated rumor and two lines stating there's no confirmation of the rumors. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. CovenantD 13:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Bosworth[edit]

Again this weird rip-off of poor Kate Bosworth. See Google matches[2]. Non-existant. Mad Jack 07:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milipants[edit]

Delete non-notable undies and the article is the inventor's work [3], and Google (though not the end all be all of otability, only produces 374 hits [4], many of which are wikipedia/wikipedia clones.--Nobunaga24 05:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedily deleted according to CSD A7. --Stormie 05:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Subercaseaux[edit]

Vanity article, 0 Google hits. Punkmorten 21:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Living Causes Death[edit]

"popular online radio show" with 33 Google hits. Punkmorten 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Order with Jed The Fish[edit]

Radio show. Gets 48 Google hits (when excluding Wikipedia mirrors). Advertisement? Punkmorten 22:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As I doubt whether there are any truly global radio shows, aren't all radio shows therefore local? Markb 14:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well there are many syndicated radio shows, such as the Free Beer & Hot Wings Morning Show or Howard Stern. AdamBiswanger1 17:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is easy to draw a perfectly logical distinction between at least three levels (local, regional, national). I suppose if there were a truly global radio show, you would argue that everything is still local because no radio-waves from it have reached the Andromeda galaxy yet? — Haeleth
My point is quite simple, all radio stations are local, and hence regional. I can't receive Free Beer & Hot Wings Morning Show (and from it's title I'm probably not missing anything), it is therefore a local programme. Haeleth , pop over to Andromeda and let me know what the local radio is like. Markb 06:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk 19:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Adventure Quint[edit]

Have you heard of The People's Sprites? It's a web archive of 2D images (sprites). This nomination is for the Megaman fan fiction webcomic found on the People's Sprites here. With 27 Google links for the term "Super Adventure Quint". - Hahnchen 00:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta noise[edit]

Neologism. Very few Ghits, many with repeated text from wikipedia article. Artw 00:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Satori Son and Artw AdamBiswanger1 02:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Hello Bigpinkthing. Thanks for the update. If possible, could you please provide some background information on the new Grimes and Torres article that is now included an outside reference source? Has it been published in any way? Thanks again for your time. --Satori Son 14:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer Have requested further information from the authors and also found various other uses of the phrase - found lots of blogs using this term casually also - common usage in the field (web 2.0 / metadata) but not citable. In various discussions (going back over a year) on poor meta-data recording (three distinct types of 'meta noise'), 'meta noise' meaning scientifically recorded environmental data that has been corrupted by unwanted physical influence (in a research paper on optics), a metadata tag describing 'noise' (i.e. sound) in addition to the poor use of XML to record small/simple data forms - namely the ratio between XML tag names and the data they contain. I think there's a pretty good case here to keep this article open for further expansion to explain various areas - and that is *only* going on things I found through Google. Eyes hurting now! Bigpinkthing 14:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: IMHO there should be a disambig page. The first on the list would link to this article, and the others can just be very brief, non-wikified descriptions for now. Somewhere down the line there might be enough to write the other three articles. --Satori Son 20:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calico Monkey[edit]

I prodded this a while ago, but it got unprodded and then expanded upon. Probably by the flash artist himself User:CalicoMonkey. In my original prod, the reason was "3 flash animations, Alexa in the millions and 40 Google hits". Now, it's "6 flash animations, Alexa in the millions and 70 Google hits." But that doesn't make this notable. - Hahnchen 00:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. Mailer Diablo 12:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OC Transpo Route 674[edit]

Not speedyable via a7, so listed here. Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. --DarkAudit 00:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating:
OC Transpo Route 152
OC Transpo Route 602
OC Transpo Route 609
OC Transpo Route 61
OC Transpo Route 62
OC Transpo Route 662
OC Transpo Route 663
OC Transpo Route 683
OC Transpo Route 684

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fbn press[edit]

First hit on Google is to Wikipedia. The 2nd is to E-Bay site. The link at the bottom of page goes to a publisher totally unrelated Missouri Center for the Book Promotional ad for no name publishing? KarenAnn 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The Missouri Center for the Book is not "totally unrelated": if you click on the "Publishers" link there, you get a list of Missouri Publishers which includes the FBN Press, and a few details which match some of the ones in this article. It also lists a website address for the press, but the domain given (www.fbnpress.com) does not exist.
As it stands, most of this article -- particularly the details of the firm's history -- is looking very difficult to verify. — Haeleth Talk 19:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Savvie and Lacey[edit]

You can take a look at this BDSM webcomic here. Out of the 58 links on Google for "Savvie and Lacey", the best assertion of notability came from the front page of Something Awful, as an Awful link of the day. Alexa says 700,000 for those interested. - Hahnchen 00:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DesignTURF[edit]

Non-notable design company, does not meet WP:CORP; prod and prod2 were removed by creator without comment OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy But Dead[edit]

This webcomic can be seen here. The search term "Happy but dead" gives around 80 Google links, mostly from blogs or list of webcomic links. None of them are good sources for an article. Alexa figures are 750,000. This is not a notable webcomic. - Hahnchen 00:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patagonia restaurant[edit]

This seems to be an advert. Not particularly notable as a restaurant.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bone Zone[edit]

This is totally non-notable and parts of it border on nonsensical. Maybe the creator just got home from this venue when he or she wrote the article. Opabinia regalis 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article makes as much sense as can be made from such an absurd place. I'm in Richmond, too, and I think it's a fairly close depiction.

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shircago[edit]

Non-notable band as per WP:MUSIC (no label, no national tours, only assertion is an article accessable only by paid subscription). Delete. --InShaneee 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shircago is a professional group of a capella musicians with great voices (I'm a speech pathologist with specialty in voice and disorders). Shircago has existed for several years and has recently begun distribution of their CD at a reputable retail store, Tower records. Those who work for Wikipedia obviously have not bought the CD nor realize that Shircago is one of the few worthy young American Jewish pop artists. The type of music they play has been dying, similar to the Shadow Play in China. It is important for the Jewish people to keep that music alive. And Shircago obviously has the right qualifications given that the Jewish Community of Chicago knows the name of the group, and members look forward to attending their concerts - most recently at the Jewish Folk Festival in Chicago. Wikipedia would be making a mistake by deleting this reputable group from their Encyclopedia. Please do NOT DELETE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mini-K (talk • contribs)


It isn't a MySpace page. The band has existed for 10 years and is known to audiences in Chicagoland and beyond. The group is a representative of an important up-and-coming expression of religious music in a genre that is accessible to all ages, so the proper course of action is to not delete. --Wolverine94 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Wolverine 94, 4:38pm CDT, 11 Jul 06[reply]

I would be more convinced that this isn't a MySpace page if that huge picture wasn't emblazoned across the top of the article. The picture doesn't add anything of encyclopedic value and probably is why this is even an issue. Delete the picture, save the text. (University of Chicago Alum who has actually seen the group in concert)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.121.167 (talk • contribs)

Why would photographs be inappropriate here, yet appropriate on (say) Barbara Bush's entry? Do the latter add something of "encylopedic value" while the former somehow do not? I think the photo is quite appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.245.11 (talk • contribs)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, InShaneee 01:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<:_( Bwithh 12:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there may be a bit of vanity in the motivation does not automatically disquality this entry. I think the attention this group gets in the Chicagoland area and beyond puts it above your typical small band. They have been featured in one of the largest U.S. newspapers for being part of a newer movement of more ethno-religious-popular music (I read the Chicago Tribune article with interest). I think stumbling on entries like these is what keeps Wikipedia so interesting (although again, would not like to see every 'boy band' included). Since there is more than a little doubt and debate, I would certainly keep this entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.56.21 (talk • contribs)
Please see WP:Vanity and review that the article fails WP:Music. If there's a an obvious rule of thumb one can apply , it's that articles about bands written by the members invariably turn out to fail WP:Music, WP:Vanity, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information et al. Please also see Wikipedia is not a democracy and recognise that there are no real rationals advanced here for keeping the article, thus there is no doubt it needs to be deleted. Please do not construe my above comments to indicate that band members cannot work on their bands' page (I myself have edited an article about a co-worker of mine) but just that as an empiricist, I am forced to conclude when a band starts an article about themselves, it turns out the band is unencyclopaedic, the objections of David Hume not withstanding. WilyD 15:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The group is not comprised of any students at the University of Chicago and has featured the same membership for four years. There was also an article about the group in the September 2002 edition of the JUF News, and the group was mentioned in another Tribune article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolverine94 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V-Lancer[edit]

Originally listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers Theme Tune, but should be treated as a separate AfD due to the unrelatedness of the original listing. I am listing it for deletion because of the lack of context and the weak content when compared to the information on the fictional item at Power Rangers: Lightspeed Rescue#Arsenal. --Ryulong 01:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of the Power Rangers: The Ultimate Rangers[edit]

Originally listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers Theme Tune, but I am listing it separately because of the unrelatedness of the articles' reason for deletion. I am listing it for deletion because the information on the DVD does not show any sort of importance as to why this collection of episodes (of which only three are known) is more notable than other Power Rangers DVDs. Ryulong 01:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Carter[edit]

Non-notable person (original nomination) - Now the page has been changed and looks even more like a cut and paste of somebody's resume. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If all this can be done, KEEP If not - Mark me down for Speedy delete as a NN/vanity/hoax. -- Librarianofages 02:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miami v. Nebraska[edit]

Yet another copyvio. It has been edited but it is clearly taken from here - towards the end look for 'With no overtime, if Nebraska had kicked the extra point, it would have been doubtful if there was a voter in America that wouldn't have voted the Huskers the national champions.' for example. Delete BlueValour 02:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think that it would be very difficult to cleanup with confidence. All the article is taken from the source. IMHO it is not worth putting WP at risk simply to try to keep one article. The revision to my example sentence is 'With no overtime, if Nebraska had gone for the extra point, Nebraska would have been the Concensus National Championship'. Sorry, but this doesn't wash. BlueValour 15:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The mentioned copyvio problem has been addressed by creating a completely new article. ~ trialsanderrors 07:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Individual game articles are rarely kept unless they contained a very notable single play, which this does not. If this were kept, an out-and-out summary of the game is not encyclopedic and it would have to be trimmed down considerably and have its notability asserted by something other than a point-of-view assertion. ("...was considered one of the greatest games of all time"? By who?) I follow college football and don't see a good reason why this particular game really needs its own article. Plus, I think the full game summary is still intellectual property (copyrighted.) They give warnings about this on the TV broadcasts. Grandmasterka 06:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Grandmasterka. I appreciate the passion of Summonmaster13 in defending the article, but his belief the game is "too sacred" only points out the POV inherent in its creation. And frankly, what I'm reading in ~ trialsanderrors vote to keep, is to rewrite the article enough that it doesn't exist in its current form or context in any case (remove copyvio, cut down on the breathless tone, rewrite to fit into article on game theory). (apologies to ~ trialsanderrors if I'm reading too much into your nomination.) Tychocat 09:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - spoilsport :-) this is just what I was doing in my sandbox. More seriously, I am happy with Keep and Rename provided there is no suggestion of introducing a play-by-play account that would leave WP open to a copyvio (unless the editor watched the match and describes the unfolding of the game from his/her personal experience). BlueValour 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saltwater Croc vs. Great White Shark[edit]

Non-notable episode of a television show. It seems to have been written to add the bit of knowledge of who would win in the match-up. This seems to me to be unencyclopedic TeaDrinker 02:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on the subject, but the article is to be dealt with by WP:CP procedures. Mailer Diablo 09:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan State v. Notre Dame, 1966[edit]

Another copyvio. It has been edited with sentences moved about a bit but it is clearly taken from here. Look for 'After throttling USC 51-0, Notre Dame won the national championship while Michigan State ended up second.' at the end of a paragraph in both article and source, for example. Delete BlueValour 02:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I think that it would be very difficult to cleanup with confidence. All the article is taken from the source. IMHO it is not worth putting WP at risk simply to try to keep one article. BlueValour 15:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Closed and relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#Posteral_hypotension_.E2.86.92_Orthostatic_hypotension.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posteral_hypotension[edit]

redirect based on misspelling Moioci 03:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with Minor Ministry officials in Harry Potter. Mangojuicetalk 00:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawlish (Auror)[edit]

Nonnotable, only makes a brief appearence in the Order of the Phoenix. Could be merged with a new article called Minor Aurors or Minor Ministry officials in Harry Potter which the article Williamson was merged with. Treebark (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as separate article--Elendil's Heir 04:30 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Joelito (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn[edit]

Obvious nonsense Amadis of gaul 03:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binaca Geetmala 1971[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? nonsense? cruft? There is a whole series of these articles, but I am following guidance at WP:AFD to list one article here first before bundling. --Brian G 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum If I am misrepresenting the BG charts, somebody with a better understanding please correct me. GassyGuy 04:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In which case I would have to change my vote to a very reluctant weak keep because of precedents. I'm baffled that the KROQ countdown would survive an AfD, but thanks for honestly sharing that information. I'll be ready to vote for deletion once we start having more systematic standards against listcruft though. Pascal.Tesson 04:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be strictly accurate, the result on KROQ was No Consensus, not Keep, partially based on some "Keep because we kept it the last time" votes. Just because we made one wrong decision doesn't mean we should repeat it for consistency. Fan-1967 15:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Gassy Guy let me correct you. Binaca geetmala is NOT a chart issued by a local radio station - rather it is an old program that used to play in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the middle east through radio stations in Sri Lanka and then India. The program played every week from 1952 till mid 1994. The annual charts were a summation of the weekly charts. It was the ONLY countdown show of Hindi film songs in South Asia and the Middle East during its times with many millions of listeners every week - in other words it was definitely comparable to the Billboard charts. The historical significance of everything that I (and others) put up in these pages are immense for the many South Asian heritage readers that you have and will have. And yes, history whether it be musical history as represented here, or movie history or political history or military history is always encyclopaedic and deserve a place on Wikipedia - irrespective of whether we are talking of US history or the history of some other nation. And by the way - it is NOT an indiscriminate collection of nonsense as observed by one very wise (?) commentator here - For everyone's information, the cultural history of some country other than the US does not make it indiscriminate nonsense !!!--Ghoshi 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ghoshi, please do not take offence to my nomination of this article. Quoting from WP:GD - "Please do not take it personally Please remember that the deletion process is about the appropriateness of the article for inclusion in Wikipedia. A deletion nomination is not a rejection of the author or an attack on his/her value as a member of the Wikipedia community. When I first saw these articles, there was no context for them, and my lack of knowledge of the proper language honestly made it appear to me as gibberish. I never meant to imply that non-US culture was either indiscriminate or nonsensical, but rather, I could not make any sense of the article when I read it. Respectfully --Brian G 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do, however, consider WP:OSTRICH.Hornplease
  • Comment Can you at least add some explanation into these articles? Imagine an ignorant Westerner (me, for example) stumbling onto this article. What is it about? No way to tell. All I see is what looks like a list of foreign words or names. Nothing says it's a list of songs. Nothing tells me what the entries mean. Is "Zindagi Ek Safar" a song title or an artist? What about "Andaaz"? "Shankar-Jaikishan"? It's like some of the articles we see about an episode of a television program that forget to mention what the program is. The article needs to provide context. Fan-1967 18:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe we can put this group of articles under some suitable Hindi Film Music or Bollywood film music topic - I will search for something like that - I'm sure it exists on Wikipedia. It will take a while for me (and others) to put in all the information and explanations - so please be patient - I promise at the end of our project everything will be well explained. Please do not delete the group of articles - i will keep adding info, and find a suitable topic under which we can place it . Thanks --Ghoshi 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add context. JChap (Talk) 03:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I did do some searching before I entered this nomination, reading more at WP:CSB and WP:OSTRICH have convinced me that perhaps I did not do enough. I'm still not happy with the lists as they are and hope that they would be cleaned up, and I do feel that this generated some good collaborative discussion about that improvement that likely would never have happened if I had simply posted a question to the talk page. At the same time, I must acknowledge that deleting this article is probably not the way to go and am leaning towards withdrawal of this Afd. --Brian G 13:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Catholic Media Office[edit]

Delete - WP:NOT Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. --Brian G 04:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy G7 by Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Tevildo 15:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Brandon[edit]

This is an incredibly long vanity page from which my speedy tag was removed by the author. Quite simply, it is the biography of a non-notable acton/musician. AdamBiswanger1 04:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10th World Science Fiction Convention[edit]

I'm unable to verify that this convention even happened (what year was it?), and the claim that this is where Sturgeon's Law was formulated does not mesh with our history given in the Sturgeon's Law article, which is more referenced/reliable. So the whole thing seems questionable. Delirium 04:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Comment: In light of the below, I'd now support this being kept and cleaned up as well. --Delirium 23:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 13:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex-positive[edit]

This page was nominated for AfD in an incorrect way. Fixing the nomination; I did not nominate. -- H·G (words/works) 05:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be dleeted since i find it to not be noteworthy. At the very least i think it should be merged with Sex or Human Sexuality as a subsection of one of those articles. So delete or merge in my book. what do you think? Qrc2006 04:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Nom appears to be fairly young and fairly new at Wikipedia. My first AfD nomination involved a pretty well-sourced article on a subject who was notable (if not obviously so), and I was reamed appropriately in the AfD discussion. I'm going with AGF here; I pointed out some resources on the user's talk page and encouraged him to read up on WP guidelines in the future. -- H·G (words/works) 08:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment HG is, to be sure, correct that one ought to assume good faith here; I meant not to suggest that the nominator was acting untowardly but only to apprise him of how best to participate at AfD. To the extent that my comments can be interpreted otherwise, I'm altogether sorry... Joe 19:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mailer Diablo 09:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese Prime Ministers by longevity[edit]

Just an unsourced and basically abandoned list. Buckner 1986 05:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 69.159.15.53 has a point. Don't we all need to look deep into our hearts and come to terms with the fact that we're all horrible racists who have a disdain for human life? At first I was just voting "delete" because this list is ridiculous and useless, but then I realized it was just my own prejudices and hatred. Thank you, 69.159.15.53 AdamBiswanger1 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about someone writing a paper on the history of Japanese Prime Ministers, and could include data on who lived to be the oldest? I know people compile statistics on US Presidents like that - who's still alive, who died early, who lived to be an old fart, etc. I can't substantiate this, but I know people study the effects of holding high-stress jobs on one's health. People that hold those offices tend to die younger. Wouldn't an article like this be of use to a person like that? --Aguerriero (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone actually carried out a study like that of US presidents, the sample size would be so small as to make the study invalid. Even assuming the researcher were to include all 43 presidents, its still using only a sample of 43 to make claims about a very large group of people (people with high stress jobs, which numbers in the millions), and the researcher still have to deal with all the very wide historical differences in healthcare, diet, environment, operational role etc etc etc not to mention individual genetics and so on. The people you know who are compiling these statistics are compiling trivia. About the only practical use I can think of for this kind of information is if it were for a pub quiz or perhaps some kind of number puzzle, both of which are themselves trivial pursuits. Bwithh 22:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is www.pray4ray.com, but that's going out the window. AdamBiswanger1 01:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NBA's 60th Anniversary All-Time Team[edit]

Contested PROD produces yet another prolix nom from Joe. The extant version of this article enumerates prospective candidates for a team that, as a simple Googling reveals, does not exist. A previous version to which one might revert exists but simply conflates the text of the lead of NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team with a subsection thereof apropos of a "next ten" players announced by TNT (not under the auspices of the NBA), erroneously, in any case, terming the 60th anniversary team a league-sponsored team akin to the 50th anniversary team). In essence, the article is either (a) altogether redundant to an already-existing article (since the article copies exactly the text of the 50th anniversary article, a merge is unnecessary, and since the text came exclusively from the latter, GFDL concerns do not entail), or, even if expanded, an unnecessary content fork about a topic insufficiently notable as to merit its own article or (b) about a team that plainly does not exist, detailing candidates for a similar venture long since concluded (and undertaken only by television broadcasters); in each case, deletion is the proper disposition. A redirect to the 50th anniversary article is, per WP:R, unneeded and useless (toward which, see [6], [7], [8], [9] , Googlings of permutations of the title returning no relevant hits). Joe 05:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield podcast, Battlefield Podcast[edit]

"What's wrong with having this? Other podcasts are listed here as well..."--Peekj 18:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no advertising here, and i created this article with no intention of doing it. This is purely an informative article about the popular podcast among many BF2 fans. Who feels this should be deleted, please post it here so we can see why you would consider such a thing!

- SuperTyphoon— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.182.179 (talk • contribs)

Haha Angus just because you don't like the article doesn't mean you need to delete it, idiot. because other people enjoy reading it and learning about it. You got a problem with videogame podcasts? Take out your childish anger somewhere else, pal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperTyphoon (talk • contribs) 22:30, July 17, 2006

No demonstrated notability.--Peta 06:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problempoker.com[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. It is an ad for a nn company. Rob 06:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 San Jose State University. Redirects are cheap. :) Mailer Diablo 09:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California State Normal School[edit]

Repeats information found on both San Jose State University and California State University articles. No notability aside from now being SJSU, and a different name shouldn't be a sole reason to have a separate article. Last paragraph also suggests it is trying to promote the obscure agenda to rename the school. Recommendation to merge any new information in the article to the SJSU and CSU articles, and either delete article or redirect to San Jose State University since it is just a former name of the institution. NeoChaosX 06:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedily deleted by User:Fang Aili.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaddadi Papaiah (Telugu Artist)[edit]

Direct rip from http://www.hyd-epages.com/entertainment/art-gallery/painter-late-sri-vaddadi-papaiah.html, i.e. violates copyright. Rob 06:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Needs a decent cleanup, though. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rightrides[edit]

Probably copyvio of a non-notable organisations web page.--Peta 07:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Followup - well, clearly large parts of this article were taken from here and reworded a bit. So yeah, the article definitely needs cleanup--at least proper citation and adherence to copyright policy. -- H·G (words/works) 09:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In my opinion, it doesn't fail notability criteria. Though WP:ORG is still only a proposed guideline, something it shares with existing guidelines like WP:CORP is that organizations that are the subject of multiple non-trivial media articles qualify as notable. There are several to be found on Google[11][12] to say nothing of the print, TV, and radio stories archived on the organization's own website[13]. The uniqueness of the patrol's focus (on safety for "women, transpeople and gender queer individuals") combined with this makes it notable enough that an article on WP isn't unwarranted, as I see it. -- H·G (words/works) 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Eppard[edit]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geneticization[edit]

nn neologism. --Peta 07:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 08:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken suid[edit]

Bio of unremarkable university administrator (Vice chancellor is as high as he ever rose). Wikipedia is NOT a memorial. Calton | Talk 07:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This guy is clearly a notable educationalist Based on what? --Calton | Talk 00:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To elaborate on my "keep" opinion, I think the subject arguably meets WP:BIO--"Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office..."--as Asst US Sec of Ed; this doesn't specify elected office. Not a strong meeting of that criterion (this isn't one of my stronger "keep" votes), but combined with his other roles, enough to skirt by. I tend to think of notability criteria as an extension of WP:NOT--indiscriminate collection of info, and by that measure I feel the subject doesn't fall short. Needs work to be sure, but I think this would be of enough potential interest that it deserves an article here. -- H·G (words/works) 20:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone who has had "a tremendous impact on education in America" should have left bigger footprints, don't you think? And what, pray tell, are some verifiable examples of his "tremendous impact"? --Calton | Talk 00:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emporers of Necro-America[edit]

Non notable, probable hoax. Spelled the wrong way as well. 2 Ghits in this spelling, 1 with the correct spelling. ProD removed after three days without explanation or changes to the article. Fram 07:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispyz[edit]

I speedied the first version of this under CSD A7. The creator has now written an expanded version which I feel still falls under A7 but I'd like to go the extra mile for what looks like a good-faith contribution and get a second opinion. I recommend a delete or a speedy-delete. Haukur 08:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have an explanation as to what we are doing wrong? I'm sure that we can provide the correct information and fix this to your standards. Konnektor 08:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have certain criteria for what subjects are "notable" enough to have articles on them in Wikipedia. For musicians the guideline used is WP:MUSIC, which is a rather tough nut to crack and I'm afraid I don't see anything indicating that Dispyz fulfills it (which is no bad reflection on him). Haukur 08:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just informed of the proposed deletion. I want to add more info to this but need some sleep. This article is NOT finished and I would like to keep it open for further updates.

Two questions:

What are we doing wrong?

Why are you guys so quick to delete this page?

We are willing to play by your rules as long as you can let us know exactly what problem you are having with it.

Thanks! Realistik 08:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, nothing is being done "wrong" here. But as Haukur notes above, Wikipedia has certain criteria that subjects should meet. This nomination is to generate discussion as to whether the criteria for musicians (WP:MUSIC) and other WP guidelines have been met; if we feel it hasn't, we encourage the removal of the article. If you feel that verifiable information (see WP:V) can be provided in the article that shows that the subject meets these criteria, now's the time to add it; such info would undoubtedly sway editors into wanting to keep the article. -- H·G (words/works) 08:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We all have more info to provide. This is extremely quick to pass judgement. As far as myspace being possible self promotion, anything can be possible self promotion. Tyler plays an extremely big role in local Milwaukee music and we want to share the information. Realistik 08:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll continue work tomorrow. Any suggestions to keep this thing afloat? Realistik 08:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Just go ahead and delete this. It's an uphill battle and maybe we were just a little too quick to support. Thanks anyways 72.131.42.99 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 09:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music Lives Beyond.com[edit]

Non-notable website with an Alexa ranking below 6,500,000. Was prodded as such but prod removed by author without comment. ~ Matticus78 08:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above comment is this user's only edit. ~ Matticus78 12:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above comment is this user's only edit. ~ Matticus78 12:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above comment is this user's only edit. ~ Matticus78 19:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above comment is this user's only edit. ~ Matticus78 11:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above comment is this user's only edit. ~ Matticus78 11:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Head-fi[edit]

An internet forum for the headphone enthusiust community. Speedy deleted twice on notability grounds. Article is being re-created despite notability advice given. Bringing to AfD to determine if any notability exists at all. -- Longhair 09:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What's the reason for your delete vote, Longhair? Dionyseus 09:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator of the website did not create the wiki, its members are editing it... we are still working on it... --Flecom 12:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to neutral per Xyz below. I won't go for 'keep' as the article does need heavy cleanup to remove the VSCA (and whoever does that may need to be defend the article from its members re-adding unencyclopaedic cruft afterwards), and I can't unequivocally support keeping a hypothetical article that may or may not ever exist. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Orkney Islands. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orcadian[edit]

Delete Breach of WP:NPOV. This article was created from the original Redirect to the Orkney Islands article, and is purporting to describe a nationality, or perhaps (even more ridiculously) an ethnicity, called "Orcadian". No such nationality nor ethnicity exists, or has ever existed; and Orkney has never been a state (the island was Pictish before the Norse occupation). Orkney is one of the 32 council areas of Scotland, nothing more and nothing less. Its status is exactly the same as North Ayrshire, Aberdeenshire or Fife. The creation of this page is part of a campaign by User:Mallimak to utterly divorce Orkney from Scotland. For example, see his persistent attempt to remove Category:Orcadian Wikipedians from Category:Scottish Wikipedians and add it into Category:Scandinavian Wikipedians. He seems to think that he "owns" certain articles (see WP:OWN), including this one. I have tried to re-instate the Redirect to Orkney Islands, but been reverted. I note for example that Glaswegian redirects to Glasgow, and Bostonian is a dab page. There is nothing about the word Orcadian that cannot simply be stated at the Orkney Islands article; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mais oui! 09:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!

Mais oui! says: “This article ... is purporting to describe a nationality, or perhaps (even more ridiculously) an ethnicity, called "Orcadian". No such nationality nor ethnicity exists, or has ever existed; and Orkney has never been a state (the island was Pictish before the Norse occupation).” - I am afraid this is simply Mais oui!’s POV. He is not qualified to make such claims until he has read up a bit on Orkney (I suggest some books to get him started on the Orcadian discussion page), or maybe lived here for a while. The concept and the article do not fit in with his prejudices and so he is determined to have the article removed. He has already tried removing the page without any debate (vandalism).

This article has a legitimate place in Wikipedia. As Badgerpatrol points out, Cockney and Geordie do not redirect to London or Newcastle. (Note that I am not the first to introduce the term “Orcadian” to Wikipedia, there was already a very brief list of “Some well-known Orcadians” on the Orkney Islands page before I started editing. - It might be sensible to expand this list, as I have added a lot more to Wikipedia in the meantime, and move it into the "Orcadian" article.)

I never wanted to get into a dispute with Mais oui! I know there is the warning: “If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it“, but I never expected such pettiness or such prejudice. I have not been the only target, judging by the comment in the “Orkney people stub” debate:

” Comment- Mais_oui! has a history of going through articles changing "British" to "Scottish"- so it isn't very surprising he is opposing the changes you made. Astrotrain 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)”[reply]

Mais oui!’s statement: “Orkney is one of the 32 council areas of Scotland, nothing more and nothing less.” is a clear demonstration of his prejudice. In international law there is still doubt over the status of the islands, which is why John D. Mackay’s letter provoked the response it did. (Mais oui! insists on turning the patriotic Orcadian, John D. Mackay into a “Scottish man of letters”, I note.) The Scandinavians still see Orkney and Shetland as forming a part of Scandinavia (an historic and cultural designation rather than a political one), which is why they will allow the coats of arms of Orcadians and Shetlanders to be placed in the Skandinavisk Vapenrulla, a right they do not extend to any of the other 30 council areas of Scotland. The unofficial flag of Orkney (which you see flying all over the islands) is a Scandinavian cross based on that of the Kalmar Union of which Orkney was a part. There is a lot more to Orkney than Mais oui! will admit, or maybe there is lot more to Orkney than he knows - which is all the more reason to have this information in Wikipedia!

Is Wikipedia going to allow itself to be limited by Mais oui!’s prejudices? I hope not.

Mallimak 08:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedily deleted by FayssalF as CSD A7. DarthVader 12:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kishan Yerubandi[edit]

Not Notable, more of a user page, google yielded just a few autobiographic pages JuanPDP 09:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep after a 3rd party rewrite. Ryanjunk 16:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Acosta[edit]

This seems to be a vanity page -article has only been edited by one person who, I believe, is likely Joe Acosta himself. Ladybirdintheuk 09:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy G1 by Fang Aili. Tevildo 16:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped in the Pantry[edit]

I think it's a hoax. Tinlinkin 10:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy G4 by Fang Aili. Tevildo 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Phase[edit]

Recreated version of a deleted page, rewritten as another advertisement. Not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. RandyWang (raves/rants) 10:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Paisant[edit]

Hoax as with Trapped in the Pantry --Tinlinkin 10:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. For the template, this way please. - Mailer Diablo 09:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public transport connecting to The Hague[edit]

Article contains no notable information in addition to Railway stations in the Netherlands and Train routes in the Netherlands . It is cluttered with a transcluded template, that only used for this article (Template:Railway stations in The Hague) and I also propose that for deletion.Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy Deleted by Woohookitty (Eluchil404 11:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Ivonne Hernandez[edit]

Canadian fiddler that I don't believe passes WP:MUSIC. No entry on allmusic.com, CD not avaible, limited touring seems to be mostly clubs [23] and [24]. Delete unless, I've missed something obvious. Eluchil404 11:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Please defer to the article's talk page to resolve the question of merging. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine[edit]

I'm pretty sure we don't need a page on every book. I've never heard of this one either. Mithridates 11:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy Deleted (CSD G7) by Fang Aili. --(blue520 13:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Em-chan[edit]

Attack page, twice tagged as such, tag removed by author. Even if it were not an attack page, subject is non-notable. Speedy delete A6. --Huon 11:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per A7; no "remotely plausible" assertion of notability was present. Xoloz 03:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harris mercer[edit]

Can't find evidence of notability on Yahoo or Google; probably vanity; even title of proper name is wrong Tinlinkin 11:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a hoax. Tinlinkin 03:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Craig H. Yorke Jr.[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO. A Google search for "Dr. Craig H. Yorke Jr." produces only 5 results. Schzmo 11:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of Global Warming[edit]

Blatant POV and OR. NawlinWiki 12:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Crouse[edit]

This artist has no album releases, no tours, etc. - doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. feydey 12:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, that's why I went with afd, WP:MUSIC is not a "speedy A7" criteria. feydey 12:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AJILE[edit]

AJILE was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-13. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJILE/2006-07-13.

Non notable JS thingy Computerjoe's talk 14:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some people find it important, but that does not mean the article is notable enough to be kept. --Sleepyhead 08:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Will (message me!) 08:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Via Musica[edit]

Not notable music retailer, just advertisement for a company. Also overcategorized. Jklamo 12:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Guito Hassan[edit]

Hoax. If he's a renowned international criminal, why is he unknown to Google and Google News? Pablo Hassan returns some hits on Google, but they reinforce my belief that this guy is just a forum user... or a character from Human Traffic. And c'mon, look at the references. From UrbanDictionary: "All round top geezer. The kind of bloke you'd like to buy a pint!" KingTT 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 09:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peloponnesians (Greek)[edit]

This page was reprodded despite having been previously deprodded, so I'm making it into an AfD. The prod reason was:Unmotivated and poorly named fork of Peloponnese main article, contains no info that isn't already there; unnecessary disambig addition "Greek" makes it unsuitable as redirect. See Peloponnesians, which is a useful dab. Procedural nomination, no vote. --ais523 12:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HelpServer[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. goofyheadedpunk 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy A7 by Fang Aili. Tevildo 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knockin Boots[edit]

This article is a spam page for an obscure bandSpylab 23:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Spylab[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryanjunk 16:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Letter kills[edit]

Doesn't really outline anything from Wikipedia:Notability_(music). I can't find any sources whatsoever on their tours, their whereabouts, their charted hits or anything. Feel free to dispute. --Fractions 17:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination? This is a legitimate listing, because the article does not establish any notability per WP:BAND. Google hits and being on All Music Guide are not criteria. A national tour is a criterion - so why don't you edit the article to include that information and establish notability? Then, I'll reconsider my "vote". --Aguerriero (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). Anything less than a Keep at this point would be leaving one's head in the sand. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added those two refs to the article. --Joelmills 01:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like I've been proved wrong! :). Good finds. --Fractions 03:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. – Will (message me!) 08:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediasurface[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. Moreover, it feels kind of like an advertisement. goofyheadedpunk 20:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Europe[edit]

The consensus on the talk page is that this is merely a political manifesto and the article has been created to bump the search ranking of the group concerned. --Red King 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Red King 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a more balanced article or stronger claim to notability is made. Brisvegas 08:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porto Alegre Skinheads[edit]

The group in this article doesn't seem noteworthy enough to warrant an article, and there is no citation showing the claims are true. Spylab 02:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)spylab[reply]

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

The result was RENAME to Rodwell Munyenyembe and KEEP. Ryanjunk 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodwel Munyenyembe[edit]

Unless we plan on maintaining an article for each person on the planet I think this article is a good candidate for deletion. A quick googling brought up little, though that is a rough indicator of worth. Anyway, it needs work if it's not to be deleted. goofyheadedpunk 00:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment changing my vote to keep. It does seem that he was at least a member in March 2004 [28].
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eluchil404 01:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fresa[edit]

Reprodded deprod, changing to AfD. The reason given was WP:WINAD, but I'm not sure this applies here. Procedural nomination; but given the content of the article, I'm voting neutral, not no vote. --ais523 13:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Forest Results 2005-06[edit]

Wikipedia is not a results service. Warofdreams talk 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circular Strength Training[edit]

Spamvertising for nonnotable weight training system; I lost count of all the (r)'s and (TM)s. NawlinWiki 13:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Heppell[edit]

Non-notable bio; vanity. Page created by subject himself! Not notable enough to have an encyclopædia entry. Delete. EuroSong talk 11:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 08:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proprietary DVR[edit]

Google's 827 exact results with this term are not sufficient enough for its WP entry. There is no real intro to the article either. Non-notable tech jargon, it seems. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 13:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You typically have 5 days from the AfD date, so until 18 July 2006. This looks like a borderline call to me, so you can probably save it. You really need some links to published articles that use this term, otherwise it probably violates Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. I'll try to visit back and "cast" my opinion after your edits. Good luck. --Satori Son 14:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. . – Will (message me!) 08:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Lupo Sinclair[edit]

This article MUST NOT be deleted. It was placed there by a member of the historical fencing community, is referenced by members thereof, and is linked to several other articles. If there are any grounds for deletion at all, it is that this page has become a political quagmire. It should instead be locked. This "mob editorial" policy is the reason why academics such as myself refuse to allow Wikipedia as any sort of reputable source.

-Ken Mondschein

A non-notable fencer who, excluding a few mirrors, only has around 200+ exact hits on Google, and whose page was started by an IP user. Even more pitiful, it's been there since last September... And there we go—one of so many reasons why this Wikipedia has only recently given registered users the power to create new pages. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 13:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: Andrea Lupo Sinclair has been teaching to almost all the students and researchers of Historical Fencing in the USA and Europe. Removing the article about him should mean that most of many other articles about others should be deleted.

Fact: he has created the biggest Federation for historical Fencing in the world. The standards of the Federation he created are followed and seen as an example from other organisations such as the Spanish Fed and the British one. To me, this is enough to give relevance to Andrea lupo Sinclair here on Wikipedia. [No, this is not correct. ARMA is the largest historical fencing federation in the world, and it can be easily verified.]

Fact: Andrea Lupo Sinclair has founded the IMAF that collects some of the most relevant teachers in world. This is another fact of relevance. [How many teachers does IMAF number right now? According to the IMAF website, not more than ten, only a few of whom teach fencing]

Fact: he has been mobbed for three years by some of the very aggressive self promoting "researchers" in the USA because the knowledge of this Maestro was obscuring their own one. [This is debatable, and therefore a non-fact]

Fact: he has been independent from political games, and this can be absolutely proved. That is why some of the big "politicians" in fencing hates him so much, at the point that have no shame in attacking he who has been the only one to create a true independent federation in Italy. [Nobody hates anyone. Again, this is about credentials. These either exist or not.]

Fact: Andrea Lupo Sinclair still travels in the USA but not at the same events of other researchers or so called ones. All the IMAF has decided to change a bit its policy of public presence. But it is deeply unfair to use this as an evidence of other issues. [And this is from someone uninterested in politics. Ah.]

Others informations could be given by Maestro Ramon Martinez. Arzach 2

Comment Mr. Mondschein, there is no mob editorial. Questioning the credentials of someone who claims them is not a personal attack. Questioning the motives of those who pose such a simple question, on the other hand, is. As for locking an entry, well. So I can post an entry calling myself the father of contemporary Psychology, and as soon as someone asks for my credentials, I'd have one of my minions cry for the entry to be locked? Not deleted, mind you, but locked? And then cry wolf about Wikipedia's lack of academic credibility?

That's a bit too convenient, don't you think? So let's each of us put up some romanticized fiction about ourselves, lock the entries when somebody raises some predictable questions, and cast aspersions on those meanies who do the asking.

So, for the 1000th time: where's this great Maestro's official certificate? If this cannot be produced, where's the "notability" about this individual, as someone keeps asking? Again, let's all put up a higly embellished page about ourselves. Go Wiki!

(Nuages 2000)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 08:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollonfriday[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Procedural nomination; someone tried to db-bio this, but it's a website and so doesn't fit. No vote. --ais523 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep - These poor people have worked on this article! Trunk 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete all as nonsense. The bits about "2005 gummy worm squeeze" and "binary identification pneumatic" did it for me. Kimchi.sg 19:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark's markets[edit]

Also nominating:

Blog that does not appear to be widely noted[31][32]. Articles slip into semi-nonsense ("playboy savant", "Gummy Worm squeeze", "ultimate metaphor for...genius and power", financial world adopted his "masterfully engineered linguistical system", ...). Weregerbil 15:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I almost failed to realise Mark Patek fails WP:BIO. My bad. WilyD 17:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 pwn3d. Mailer Diablo 09:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resident owned[edit]

Fails: WP:SPAM Blatant attempt to use Wikipedia to start his own internet meme. Fails: WP:WEB - 0 Google hits for ("Resident Owned" + pablo83). --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy G7 by Fang Aili. Tevildo 16:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam_Belmar[edit]

I am an intern for ABC News. Adam Belmar is my senior producer and we created the page as a joke. The information in the page was taken from ABC News.com and was not changed at all. Adam Belmar requested that this page be removed and I am following his instructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rshaffer (talk • contribs)

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

The result was Keep. Mostly Rainy 01:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of automotive flops[edit]

The article contains inherent POV, as there are no fixed standards for determining an "automotive flop". As can be seen in the article's history and discussion page, it provokes perpetual conflicts, and is used by some people as a means of publicizing their POVs on selected cars or brands. It is evaluatory in its nature, and Wikipedia's main task is not to evaluate, but to provide information. I do not see why would any user seek for such information on WP, and if found, this article can only compromise WP's status as a good source of impartial information. Bravada, talk - 15:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that "obvious but unprovable facts" are a nicely-sounding catchphrase that can serve as a loophole for introducing non-encylopedic topics and pseudo-information, while avoiding proper definitions and referencing. Sometimes a definition of a subject is vague, and this is then discussed by a given article, but the definition of a "automotive flop" is inherently subjective and dependent on the peculiar POV of a given person - there can be as many definitions as users here. But that's not the main point.
The main point is that lists in general should only be created if they are really needed in WP for information/navigation purposes, and are too big or cumbersome to be included as parts of an article or a template. For example, one would expect an encyclopedia to contain a full list of Chinese Emperors, with reign years, date of birth/death, dynasty etc. preferably, but it would be far too big to be included in the Emperor of China article. Therefore, some factual information got moved to a separate list/table.
But, as you can read here, lists are not a place to make value judgements. The WP:LIST guideline refers to people and organizations, but I believe making value judgements of places or items would also be quite improper - would you find a "list of cities which are really terrible" or "list of disgusting jewellery items" proper? This list is in fact very similar to those examples.
This could be remedied by devising a good definition and change the title to a non-judgemental one, like "List of automobile models that sold worse than manufacturers' sales projections", but would it be anything really necessary in an encyclopedia? Wouldn't it be better to keep such lists in car-related websites, where one does not have to mind NPOV, and which are in general directed at car buffs and not the general population of Internet users?
And if you believe a given vehicle WAS a flop, and have a good rationale for such statement, why not just include that in the article and not cause tensions by putting it on a "list"? Bravada, talk - 17:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a 3 paragraph response and then lost it in an edit conflict... I'll rewrite it in a while AdamBiswanger1 18:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DarkAudit is absoutely right, the POV here comes from the Auto industry not the users. The only problem is lack of referencing. Upon the appearances of references (hey, that ryhmes! ;-) I will change my vote to keep as well. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world does the auto industry generate POV here? Have you ever read an official GM press release stating "Cadillac Cimarron is a flop"? Flop is a term expressing value judgement, the inclusion of a vehicle in this list is purely a POV action on the user's side. Bravada, talk - 19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The press is POV because they label these vehicles, "flops" through various publications. Signaturebrendel 03:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) The press is not industry 2) The press is POV and this is why WP does not contain everything that the press writes, and the editors should be very careful and considerate when citing the media, and especially should make sure they separated opinion from factual information. Bravada, talk - 10:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it's not a value judgment as in a page called "List of really, really good authors" or "great recipes". It's a value judgment of common sense, and although I know that some people don't have it, the definition of a "flop" is so obvious and yet intangible that we cannot let a need for an exact definitions be the downfall of this article. In addition, each entry is explained, so we can let the reader decide. AdamBiswanger1 19:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will you laugh if I say that the above statement is POV? Bravada, talk - 19:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing indefinable with POV. See Grey area. Other than that, I'm not sure why you would consider it POV. AdamBiswanger1 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you've got something that's indefinable and within a "grey area", then trying to categorize items definitely according to that criterium is POV. You put something on the list because your "common sense" suggests you that it is a flop. Still, some other person might not think of it as flop, and as being a flop is not defined well and a "grey area", you can both be right in your own perception and there is no neutral and fixed criteria to decide who is right. Therefore, putting or deleting anything on the list is inherently POV.
As concerns "we can let the reader decide", the reader is browsing through an encyclopedia not really thinking all the time whether the information contained here is true or not, so this list should contain a disclaimer like

This list is made up of some vehicles that some Wikipedia editors considered flops, and also doesn't contain some vehicles that some Wikipedia editors do not consider flops or didn't even hear of. It is not definitive or complete, and it is also up to you to browse through the descriptions and references and decide on your own whether a vehicle on the list is a flop to you or not.

If this does not prove how nonsensical this whole thing is, then what would? Bravada, talk - 10:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a sidenote, the reference you just added to the section on "Eagle" pertains to the Premier as lacking sales success, not the brand. Bravada, talk - 00:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarchal marriage[edit]

Non-standard usage. Consists entirely of factual inaccuracies and non-neutral POV. Certainly, patriarchal marriage is a commonly used phrase, but to say that it is refers simply to couples who call themselves "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith" instead of "Ms. and Mr. Jane Doe", as this article seems to suggest, is absurdly inadequate. I suppose it's conceivable that a good article with this name could exist in the future, but the current content is all junk. (Taken along with its sister article Matriarchal marriage, which I will nominate shortly, it is also—and I say this as a feminist—sexist bullshit, but don't get me started.) —Caesura(t) 15:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rebel without a cause. – Will (message me!) 08:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Without A Cause curse[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mostly Rainy 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GEMAYA[edit]

Article is a dictionary definition, and is non-encyclopedic in content. Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this term doesn't seem to be in wide use, so probably wouldn't be accepted at Wiktionary. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 15:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matriarchal marriage[edit]

Current text is irreparably non-neutral and generally factually inaccurate. It isn't quite as wildly inaccurate as Patriarchal marriage (see my AFD for that), but has the same POV problems. I could certainly see a really good article on matriarchal marriage existing in the future (say, describing the marital customs of matriarchal societies), but none of the current text is worth keeping. —Caesura(t) 15:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Frank Anderson[edit]

I don't know what the hell this is. It seems to just be random crap, with links spammed onto other pages. See Stephen Root. Delete this please. Jack Cain 15:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darkmiracle[edit]

Reads like an advertisement. Top album sold "more than 350 copies". From the Dominican Republic so I have a hard time judging if they meet the WP:BAND test, but 350 copies doesn't sound like a major band. GRBerry 16:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Gathering of Storm Clouds[edit]

Contested prod2. Nominating as the prod2'er. Seems to be NN. --ais523 16:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu Wikipedia[edit]

Non-notable website (Liberatore, 2006). 16:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut Cafe[edit]

Non-notable small cafe - does not meet WP:CORP. Deprodded without comment.

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

The result was strike with ten-pound sledge. Punkmorten 22:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elektriq[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable online publication. Deprodded without comment.

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeyface[edit]

Looks pretty made up, monkeyface "pubic hair" only gives 45 hits on Google, with just a single one mentioning the subject at hand (excluding Wikipedia/mirrors). Article was created by a user with a single edit. Woseph 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas F. Hamilton[edit]

Delete as this is an essay which is original research - I am not sure, but could it be transfered to anther wiki? Gay Cdn 14:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Computerjoe's talk 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to List of neologisms on The Simpsons. No need for Afd in cases like this. Friday (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skotchtoberfest[edit]

De-prodded without comment. Fake-holdiday on Simpsons, and this page should either be merged to one of the many Simpsons pages or deleted, which is probably the best choice. 11kowrom 17:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. – Will (message me!) 08:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernice Golberg[edit]

Non notable candidate fails WP:BIO doktorb wordsdeeds 11:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, 13 citations as an academic is not particularly noteworthy, per WP:PRPF WilyD 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nugget porn[edit]

Delete non-notable neologism, unverifiable as actual practiced porn genre. Google shows nothing but a relative smattering of off-hand uses of the term,[35] and a Google image search reveals no actual nugget porn, which I find particularly damning.[36] Postdlf 17:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 08:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lion-baiting[edit]

baitingcruft Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - With respect, the quoted information has citiations with sources and dates provided; the sources are over 100 years old. I don't believe they would be copyvio. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - yes but that is not sourcing. Each section, or set of facts, needs to be tied in with a specific chapter of a book or a webpage, for example. BlueValour 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While that is true, if it were grounds for deletion, most of Wikipedia would be gone. –Joke 02:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One issue is the article would be to large Wikipedia:Article size. In addition, it would make it more difficult for searchers to find the individual article topics using wiki-search or external search engines. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+Tags[edit]

It seems User:Hipocrite is using frivolous tags on the article to attack it now. I do not want to go 3RR so if someone could revert the article page in future I would be obliged. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While he is being quite excessive about the tags in order to make the articles look worse during AfD, some of the tags are certainly warranted. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, I was being excessive with the tags because every one of my attempts to fix the article by correcting the problems the tags documented was reverted by the owner of the article.Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rat-baiting[edit]

baitingcruft Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The quoted information has citiations with sources and dates provided; the sources are over 100 years old. I don't believe they would be copyvio. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was impossible to find the information elsewhere, just that I don't think it would be easy. The author of the article has found the information, in the sources he cited. He is making it available in a more accessible location. It seems to me that's a major functon of Wikipedia. Rbraunwa 21:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His sources do not support the article. Did you review them? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One issue is the article would be to large Wikipedia:Article size. In addition, it would make it more difficult for searchers to find the individual article topics using wiki-search or external search engines. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
+Tags
It seems User:Hipocrite is using frivolous tags on the article to attack it now. I do not want to go 3RR so if someone could revert the article page in future I would be obliged. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 08:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human-baiting[edit]

baitingcruft Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Fix the article please. Violations of OR and copyvios MUST be deleted. There is little salvagable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With respect, the quoted information has citiations with sources and dates provided; the sources are over 100 years old. I don't believe they would be copyvio. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - User:Hipocrite has only made this deletion request out of spite against me. He has also tagged the Monkey-baiting Rat-baiting and Lion-baiting articles. SirIsaacBrock 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One issue is the article would be to large Wikipedia:Article size. In addition, it would make it more difficult for searchers to find the articles using wiki-search or external search engines. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are many citations in the articles up for deletion. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+Tags[edit]

It seems User:Hipocrite is using frivolous tags on the article to attack it now. I do not want to go 3RR so if someone could revert the article page in future I would be obliged. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While he is being quite excessive about the tags in order to make the articles look worse during AfD, some of the tags are certainly warranted. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, I was being excessive with the tags because every one of my attempts to fix the article by correcting the problems the tags documented was reverted by the owner of the article.Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sustagen[edit]

Advertising. Deprodded by creator. --ais523 14:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Will (message me!) 08:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Rite Research Society[edit]

the page is little more than a dicdef, and there's really nothing else that can be said about it. MSJapan 14:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with a merge is that this particular Research Society is one associated with the A&ASR Southern Jurisdiction in the US, and is not a universally present group (the AASR Northern Jurisdiction, for example, does not have one), so it's a bit difficult to add in. MSJapan 21:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Will (message me!) 08:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area 51 - Concept Album[edit]

I think the author himself summed it up best when JasterMereel (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) said on the article's talk page: "I am seriously fuzzy about some of the details of this... This is just what I could glean from the various websites about this album, if anyone actually has it then please correct."

As far as I could work out, Area 51 is a "science fiction" concept album starring Claudia Christian from Babylon 5 that spawned a musical. By seeing as I can't find any information on the actual album apart from the copyright-violating copy/pasted reviews on the article, I think I can safely say it fails WP:MUSIC. If it's not listed on Amazon or Allmusic, how else can anyone be expect to find this album? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the critera for deletition was that it is no longer available could we also remove most minor bands enire back catalogue? And if the Criterea for deletion is that the article is incomplete can we remove all the stub articles? Could Stifle fill in some of the details please ? --Jaster 08:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW and CSD:G1. Stifle (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Theory Parallels to Consciousness[edit]

This article consists entirely of nonsensical musings over pseudoscientific psychic claims. Most references are either not reputable, or taken out of context. Legitimate content concerning somewhat similar pseudoscience can probably be found elsewhere in wp, though I don't currently recall where. Delete Philosophus T 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eluchil404 01:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unit 4 Agresso[edit]

It reads as an advertisement and seems to fall into WP:OR otherwise. Gay Cdn 20:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes to the article to make it more encyclopedic. --Sleepyhead 09:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Affairs Board[edit]

Presumably non-notable internet forum. Google returns a few links, no more. Wikipedia is not a directory of web sites. Notability and importance non asserted anyway. Edcolins 21:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 08:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid talk show[edit]

This article is both a long-winded explanation of a neologism and also original research. It is heavily POV, and heavily non-cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harro5 (talk • contribs)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cathsoc football[edit]

Non-notable amateur football (soccer) club. Cathsoc football doesn't meet WP:BIO or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). Perhaps a merge with Oxford University Catholic Society would work, but I question the notability of that organization, too. -- Scientizzle 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Car I Win[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Need I say more? Alas, Category:Car_games has set awfully slippery slope. "SHOTGUN!" --  Netsnipe  (Talk) 

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lunacore[edit]

Non-notable website that fails the WP:WEB criteria. Alexa ranking of 72,373[37].--TBCTaLk?!? 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Tapir Terrific 18:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.Blame the five of spades.Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 of spades[edit]

.— Arthur Rubin |(talk) 23:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • There might be a basis to it, but we need to see at least one or two things published that mention the 5 of spades being unlucky. If you could just find a couple web pages that mention it being unlucky or at least as part of the rule variations that are mentioned in the article, that would go a long way towards convincing people to keep this, I think. Which part of the world are you from, if you don't mind my asking? Recury 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link to a tarot site has been added to the origins section, explaining that it is a card with very negative effects. [[38]]. I live in the Highlands of Scotland. Many people in this area are at least familliar with the idea that this card is apparently unlucky. --Kryters 11:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope my contribution is helpful, The Flame Haired 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theflamehaired1 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fbn press[edit]

First hit on Google is to Wikipedia. The 2nd is to E-Bay site. The link at the bottom of page goes to a publisher totally unrelated Missouri Center for the Book Promotional ad for no name publishing? KarenAnn 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The Missouri Center for the Book is not "totally unrelated": if you click on the "Publishers" link there, you get a list of Missouri Publishers which includes the FBN Press, and a few details which match some of the ones in this article. It also lists a website address for the press, but the domain given (www.fbnpress.com) does not exist.
As it stands, most of this article -- particularly the details of the firm's history -- is looking very difficult to verify. — Haeleth Talk 19:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was speedy flush as, well, nonsensical crap. Patent nonsense doesn't have to be what comes from 50 monkeys banging on the keyboard for an hour. This is just as bad. Kimchi.sg 21:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Thurmond Wilford-Anderson III[edit]

Contested speedy. An article about a piece of crap. Somebody took a dump and named it, then wrote an article about it. No, I'm not kidding. Fan-1967 18:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is saying that Wilford-Anderson is the dump. If it was referring to Wilford-Anderson as a person and not a dump it would say "as big as Dr. Jason Thurmond Wilford-Anderson did" instead of just "as big as Dr. Jason Thurmond Wilford-Anderson." Jacketeer 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. – Will (message me!) 09:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Arab-Israeli War[edit]

This article is highly speculative right now, attempting to turn two current military operations into a new full-blown war between nation states, and at the same time just providing links to the two articles already dealing with the two operations. I think it should be deleted until the world's media regard this to be a proper war between Israel and its neighbours. Thomas Blomberg 16:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is speculative - let's not delete it, let's work to make it accurate. Let's try to create a clear picture of the situation. That's the purpose of an Encyclopedias, no? Jeanmariesimpson 18:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's no all-out war yet, Syria is not yet involved. Robin Hood 1212 16:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[43] This is a semantical issue: something is happening that will either validate or make moot any of this. The Lebanse are calling in the UN; Abbas says a regional war is developing. Cwolfsheep 16:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but FoxNews are one of those outlets known to coin their own words for things, like calling what is normally known as a suicide bomber a 'homicide bomber'. It's what I was talking about with the WWIV and all that. Joffeloff 21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Call it a war, call it a conflict - whatever it is, it certainly is something. It makes sense to keep, because two operations are clearly a part of something. Someone decided to name this something the 2006 Arab-Israeli War, because it seemed appropriate to them. If you disagree, we can settle on something like 2006 Arab-Israeli Conflict. But to delete it is to prevent us from covering an obvious event. Rangeley 20:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly... this isnt a duplicate of the Lebanon thing. It is for the conflict for which the lebanon thing and the gaza operation are a part. If you disagree with the name, rename it, dont delete it. Rangeley 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a POV to link the Operation Summer Rains in Gaza with 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis and on top of it, another POV is to call it a war. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh! This article isnt only about the Lebanon Crisis! It is for the conflict for which the Lebanon Crisis, and the operation is Gaza (Operation Summer Rains} is a part. Rangeley 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh! Two separate conflicts. Obviously related, but at this point I don't think you can say they're the same. Fan-1967 21:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On its talk page I posted a suggestion to rename to 2006 Arab-Israeli Conflict. This is a better solution to deleting. Rangeley 21:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its already been moved to 2006 Arab-Israeli Conflict. Whether you think its a war or not doesnt matter, its obviously a conflict. Rangeley 02:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a POV that it is a conflict. There are separate conflicts in different places. Fan-1967 03:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not much of a reason to delete it, thats a reason to improve it. But its funny how hard it is to improve things when all the discussion is about deleting it. The article is about a day old, and its obvious that the conflict for which it describes is real, and worthy of a good article. This isnt an attempt to merge two articles together, its an attempt to have an overview article over the conflict for which Operation Summer Rains and the Lebanon crisis are a part. It needs more work, noone is denying this, so lets be productive and work on it, shall we? Deleting this will solve nothing. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That’s my whole point, It can't be improved now because we lack the proper perspective to try and describe this phase of the Arab-Israeli conflict other then what’s already been done in the two respective articles (which are more of a news articles then an encyclopedic articles but that can not be helped because its an on-going current event). Any attempt to write an overview now will resolute in an original research and POV article. --TheYmode 07:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated news[edit]

The Yahoo articles are linking the events, and the CSM article has people calling the situation a "war." Cwolfsheep 04:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to say the article should be renamed or kept as "war:" rather that people stay on top of things before deciding on what to do. I want people to arrive at a consensus on how to treat this situation. Cwolfsheep 04:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From the Yahoo article cited above: "The military offensive coincided with a major Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip to retrieve another captured soldier and halt Palestinian rocket fire." (emphasis added). That doesn't sound to me like they're regarding these events as a single conflict. It's obvious that the events are related. That is not the same thing as saying it's a single conflict. The CSM article is calling the Lebanon situation a war, but refers to the Gaza events beginning with the words "At the same time..." Fan-1967 13:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a clear debate (which Rangeley repeatedly chooses to ignore) as to whether the events constitute a single conflict. Related, clearly, but not one single event. Fan-1967 15:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge. Redundant to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Yeah, it covers Hamas in the south, but everything that's been going on in the last few weeks should be covered in one article (or one article branching outwards, using summary style).

*Keep The article will need reworking throughout time but: 1) We have many articles regarding ongoing events. 2) We have many articles covering each event on the ongoing Israeli-Arab affairs through history. nihil 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future of article[edit]

I just counted the votes, and after 5 days, there are presently more keeps than deletes: the fact being that calling the situation a "conflict" instead of a "war" resolved general objections. Furthermore, there have been some work on timelines for events before and during this conflict: I feel content from those lists should be used to expand the article. Links to all articles relevant to the current situation should be posted in a "See Also" section. Updated references should continue to be posted. Cwolfsheep 04:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination[edit]

Copyvio. Taken directly from the UN site - as stated by page creator during creation! EuroSong talk 14:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey-baiting[edit]

baitingcruft Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - With respect, the quoted information has citiations with sources and dates provided; the sources are over 100 years old. I don't believe they would be copyvio. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - yes but that is not sourcing. Each section, or set of facts, needs to be tied in with a specific chapter of a book or a webpage, for example. BlueValour 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are five citations noted and four identified artists paintings posted. For an article on the topic of Monkey-baiting, I think that is reasonable. -:) SirIsaacBrock 02:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that you may be missing the point. To take one of numerous examples I could pick out of your series of articles, if I wanted to check that 'Jacco Macacco was a celebrated monkey gladiator' it should be clear by that paragraph exactly where I should go and it isn't. BlueValour 02:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+Tags[edit]

It seems User:Hipocrite is using frivolous tags on the article to attack it now. I do not want to go 3RR so if someone could revert the article page in future I would be obliged. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While he is being quite excessive about the tags in order to make the articles look worse during AfD, some of the tags are certainly warranted. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, I was being excessive with the tags because every one of my attempts to fix the article by correcting the problems the tags documented was reverted by the owner of the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 09:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeugma (literary journal)[edit]

It is with sadness (Canadian content and all), I nominate this as a non-notable publication. A limited edition, with only 2 issues completed. It may fall within WP:ADS. Gay Cdn 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - I ignored the socks of course.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Pennington[edit]

Nonnotable person. Prod tag removed. Created by User:Rpennington, so I think it should be userfied and then deleted. NawlinWiki 19:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Above user has only 2 edits. Only other one was 3 minutes prior to this, and change was a single letter. --Satori Son 23:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philberth-Transformer[edit]

I am fixing a nomination (see talk page and history for details). Rationale is (essntially): "Not notable. Not encyclopedic [...] obscure and trivial.". I personally disagree. (Liberatore, 2006). 19:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zen of Sudoku[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:SOFTWARE (Liberatore, 2006). 19:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


FoughtFoo:I edited the page to fit Wiki guidlines. I have no affiliation with Charlie Cleaveland or Unknown Worlds other than the fact that I use his product and web services.

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cym kafe[edit]

Non-encyclopaedic club BillC 19:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas_Bromberg[edit]

Vanity Sanbeg 19:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable work has been added to this article on July 14th, 2006.

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Himalayan goji juice[edit]

Hits on Google are hyper adverts for its age-defying health benefits. Article in Wikipedia Wolfberry which this article links to because Himalayan goji juice is made from it talks mainly about other uses and makes vague reference to Wolfberry uses for health benefits in Asia.KarenAnn 19:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pepsidrinka 03:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.pray4ray.com[edit]

A guy named Ray Ducharme was paralyzed last week running with the bulls in Pamplona. Friends and family have set up a website asking for prayers and donations. Sad story, but I really don't see that it merits an article, per WP:WEB. -- Fan-1967 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sink the Biz[edit]

Prod removed, sending to AfD per procedure. Just becuase a drinking game is notable at a local college hangout, does NOT make it notable for Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was orginally delete all - listcruft, changed to no consensus upon review.. – Will (message me!) 08:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by longevity[edit]

After reading another AfD today, List of Japanese Prime Ministers by longevity, I was inspired to nominate these. Here's why
This is essentially a collection of trivia and has no apparent usefulness. The information is alreadly fully contained in another list. Also, the old "shoe size" analogy has been brought up a number of times, and hell, I think it's appropriate here. If you gave me 3 hours alone to think of a possible application for these lists, I would be dumbfounded. As much as I hate citing Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information, this is exactly what it was created for. Here are some other pages I'm nominating:

AdamBiswanger1 20:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of them, except perhaps height, have a clear and obvious use. That's why they're not of AfD. These have no use to anyone outside of writers for Trivial Pursuit AdamBiswanger1 20:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my humble opinion Triviality is one of the strengths of the medium, If it's true, and verifiable I say let it be. There is far more innacurate and unverifiable articles than ones deemed purely trivial. FancyPants 01:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tevildo 22:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of that. Newspapers mention that a given ruler was the n'th longest-lived president? I don't want to be rude or incivil, but I highly doubt that is a common practice. AdamBiswanger1 22:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems odd to me, but I wouldn't have noticed this sort of fact, so I decided to look around a bit. I picked the death of Ronald Reagan, as I figured that'd be major and recent enough to have some reliable sites still available. [45] is a CNN.com story. I don't see anything about his longevity compared to other Presidents in it. [46] is a foxnews.com story which also fails to make such comparison. [47], from BBC News, mentions that Reagan was the oldest to take office, but fails to make a longevity comparison. I don't mean this proves that no news source ever makes reference to this sort of thing, but I don't believe it is a common practice. GassyGuy 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that every single Pope except one has held office until they have died, so the end of term of their office coincides with their death. That's why age is non-trivially significant for the Pope - because people expect them to serve until they die. The modern US Presidency is limited to 2 terms (8 years) and they cannot serve again. The age of former Presidents is irrelevant to the US political system. The media talks about the age of former presidents, because - bluntly - its a game (for the news commentators) of wondering when they're going to die (especially in the case of Reagan, who had Alzheimer's) because when they die, it means a big media event and a state funeral. The comparative longevity as opposed to the anticipated deaths of former Presidents is marginal and trivial compared to that main consideration. The House resolutions are celebrating Reagan not-dying-yet not his winning-the-race-of-longevity-against-every-other-President-which-will-prove-his-ultimate-superiority. It's the same when we talk about our own elderly relatives. We're glad they've not passed on yet, but we're not expressing the hope that they "beat" everyone else in the longevity "contest". The WSJ column you cite is a humorous trivia piece about a humourous interview exchange. And in that specific Washington Post example you gave, they're emphasizing his age not his comparative longevity (if they were, there'd be a silly discussion of why Reagan is living longer than other Presidents blahblahblah)Bwithh 01:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting points, certainly more insightful than "ridiculous listcruft". Thanks for the discussion of the Pope, although you might have noted that I mentioned that in passing, not unlike your more appropriate French tennis player and Mexican poet examples. You are certainly entitled to view the longetivity of the Presidents as "humorous trivia". However, I would beg to differ, not the least because comparative longevity has long obsessed the ex-Presidents themselves, for example John Adams, whose famous last words were "Thomas Jefferson survives" [54]. --JJay 01:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere probably is a category such as "List of popes by length of reign", or else there should be, so why not get rid of this junk and focus on that list, which is much more to the point. AdamBiswanger1 01:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment Found it. This article, List of 10 longest-reigning popes could be expanded and moved, thus making the papal longevity list useless (in my opinion). AdamBiswanger1 01:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. AdamBiswanger1 03:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you really feel you'd have trouble doing the math in your head, you could always use copy+paste into Excel/use a calculator/use a pen and paper/ask your mum or dad Bwithh 21:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...or check our article. --JJay 22:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now when I'm wondering who the seventh-longest lived Nobel Prize winner for physics is, I'll know right where to look. I wonder who had the largest shoe size... AdamBiswanger1 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Oldest living President doing well" [55]- nothing about shoe size though... --JJay 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anything about the 8'th oldest? AdamBiswanger1 03:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll to bottom [56]. --JJay 03:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was in a newspaper, so it must be worthy of an article. AdamBiswanger1
Newspapers are perfectly valid sources at wikipedia and the WSJ is better than most. According to our article, the WSJ has a circulation of 2.6 million and serves a global elite (a readership profile of about 60% top management, an average income of $191,000, an average household net worth of $2.1 million). They don't just print anything. --JJay 03:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that they printed a table of the ages of the oldest-lived presidents, but I dont' understand how this illustrates that it is a matter of common concern and not more than a nice bit of trivia. AdamBiswanger1 03:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have already placed a number of links into this discussion showing that Presidential longetivity is frequently mentioned in the media. I have further pointed out how the issue of longetivity has been an issue for the presidents going back to Jefferson and Adams. I understand how some might find that trivial. However, I consider it just as valid as any other aspect of presidential scholarship. --JJay 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the first thing you do when a president dies? You mention how old he was. Of course the relative age of presidents comes up often, but that does not mean it is notable, and that does not make it more than trivia. I also cringe at the fact at such justifications being used for "List of Wimbledon champions by longevity" or something of the like. Lists arranged as such should have some value in their arrangement, i.e. why does it matter that Dwight Eisenhower(#13) lived longer than Andrew Jackson(#14)? Also, what about the other nominations up for deletion? AdamBiswanger1 04:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it comes up often it is "notable". Otherwise, it would not come up at all. Regarding "trivia", one man's trivia is another man's vital nugget of information. Every article here contains some element of trivia. If I looked at the articles you created, I would probably consider some to be trivial. I might also think that someone would have some use for the information. I didn't know that Andrew Jackson lived almost as long as Dwight Eisenhower. I think that is an amazing bit of information considering that Jackson was born in 1767, fought in a bunch of wars (like Ike) and was sick most of the time with TB. The ramifications of this type of thing for historians and president buffs are endless. Regarding the other nominations, I already pointed out that this is a global encyclopedia so we need the same lists for foreign heads of state. I can tell you that the same issues of longetivity are frequently raised in other countries (Churchill and Mitterrand immediately spring to mind). I will say that as a general rule group noms are a bad idea. --JJay 04:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't ya know! Its Gerald Ford's 93rd Birthday today! He and Reagan are the only US presidents to make it that long. Few more months and he will be longest lived.FancyPants 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and the fact that he is the oldest living is covered round the world, so of interest to many --Rye1967 02:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone tag this bunch of garbage "Children's television series" FancyPants 04:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dearest Kevin- It is not a quest to change the rules, but a quest to create rules when there aren't any. A clear violation in the absence of a specific ruling against it is not grounds for inclusion. But I suppose that this call for change is a foolish venture and we should simply live with the status quo. Remember that we are not mindless rule-followers, and we do what we believe is best for the encyclopedia. Remember the Pharisees? This is not to say that we are not to have the utmost respect and reverence to rules and guidelines, however you may want to take a look at WP:IAR to take in the spirit of Wikipedia since you are a newcomer. Regards, AdamBiswanger1 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amending slightly. Thinking on the Pope one makes me think that if these survive they should be limited to just listing "ten longest lived" and "ten shortest lived." Also do we have one for monarchs as they, like Popes, often serve until death.--T. Anthony 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note these two users have a combined edit total of under 30. AdamBiswanger1 23:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nn-bio. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Collins[edit]

NN comic author, nothing published yet, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prodded as such, prod removed. Delete --Huon 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TrollfesT[edit]

Article was originally proposed for deletion, but tag was removed without an explanation. From some outside research I did, and the current article, it doesn't appear this meets WP:MUSIC. Delete Yanksox 20:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Arthur E de Sa[edit]

Non-notable. I hate to pick on the creator, but a lot of his other articles are of similar non-notability. Nathan Beach 20:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Oddworld. —Centrx→talk • 06:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glukkons[edit]

Delete - WP:NOT Listcruft? --Brian G 20:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Weed[edit]

Yet another nn candidate for public office. Wildthing61476 21:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was usefy and delete. Mailer Diablo 09:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sanie[edit]

Zero Google hits for this person as a pianist or composer (a few for a "Michael Sanie" who is a midlevel tech executive). Article author is User:Msanie; userfy if deleted. NawlinWiki 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was moot. Mailer Diablo 08:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Maxwell[edit]

non-notable person Whpq 21:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not slanderous; it is purely informational, based on sources on the internet which can be verifed. This person may not be as notable as George Washington, but it does not violate the tenets of Wikipedia and the tag "non-notable" seems inappropriate based on the content of the article.

"Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited."

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, probable hoax. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The church of mundallah[edit]

Even if not a hoax, the article asserts that this church has only 50 members -- nonnotable. NawlinWiki 21:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Yet, they don't appear in a single online news source, even these days when just about every local paper and TV station has a website. Odd. Please review the policies on Verifiability by Reliable Sources. -- Fan-1967 22:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoax is not a speedy category, and is not the same thing as vandalism. Fan-1967 01:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Fan-1967: this is not pure vandalism under the criteria for speedy deletion. The CSD:A7 (no assertion of notability) claim is closer, but the article does make a weak claim of notability. I've removed both speedy notices. Let the AfD process run to its completion. Gwernol 02:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the list of non-criteria for speedy deletion, obvious hoaxes count as vandalism. Remotely plausible ones do not qualify, though. I thought that this one was not plausible at all, so I nominated it for speedy deletion as vandalism. Jesse Viviano 02:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. It's remotely plausible. It's conceivable that such a group could exist, though unlikely in the extreme. Give it a few days, and it'll get deleted in the normal course of things. Par for the course with these fake religions. Fan-1967 02:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. Jaranda wat's sup 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt[edit]

The Wikipedia cabal are really starting to show their true colors right now. Brandt is far, far, faaaaaar less notable than someone else up for deletion right now, and has long requested that the biographical article about him be deleted. For the last time, please show compassion and vote delete on this subject of borderline notability and respect their right to privacy. Hypokrysis 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 08:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme[edit]

Not significant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hackwrench (talk • contribs) 2006-07-13 17:33:20 (UTC)

To address the points in the order in which they were raised: I'm not totally cognisant of the debates regarding the notability or otherwise of Idol contestants, however I'd be tempted to argue that if each contestant does currently have their own page, they're notable enough to warrant same. Regardless, as the ESC is larger than that (broadcast throughout the world for starters), I'm not sure that it's the most useful analogy. The song is not currently linked to from either of the pages you've named due (in the case of the band) to my own laziness in not linking it and (in the case of the Contest page for that year) a conscious decision to link the Contest pages to the songs en masse rather than piecemeal (i.e. once all the songs for the 2002 Contest, or as many as don't get AfD'd, have entries, then the page will be updated to link accordingly). In regard to the number of ESC entries with their own pages, a quick check of the the relevant category tells me that there are 273 (275 entries in the category less one song not performed and one separate entry for the Swedish version of "Waterloo"). In regard to the songs at that particular Contest, there are currently 8 entries with their own article - including this one. One of them (Run Away, or "Runaway") being a tied-for-third entry. As I said earlier, the lack of links is due to a combination of laziness and it not having seemed like a good idea at the time. I'll happily put the relevant links in if that's what's required here. BigHaz 07:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further, in relation to the claims regarding the 2005 entry (which I missed earlier), I would direct the nominator to the article Ela Ela (Come Baby). I was unaware (I'm not as well-up on Cypriot pop music as I'd like to be, this isn't a laziness thing) that the singer there was a former member of the band, but will update the relevant articles in accordance with the information. BigHaz 07:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't broadcast in America to my knowledge... Dunno about China. What makes you think it is broadcast outside the EU?Hackwrench 20:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reasonably sure that I've heard about it being broadcast in the States (certainly there are plans afoot for an American version thereof, designed as a competitor to Idol). I know it's broadcast outside the EU because I live in Australia and watch it every year. Further, it's broadcast in countries like Armenia [who compete], Georgia and Azerbaijan (none of whom are EU members). I'm also aware of a broadcast in Canada. That said, even if it's only broadcast in the EU, that's still at least a comparable potential audience to American Idol. BigHaz 22:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with the EU whatsoever. It is broadcast by full and associate members of the European Broadcasting Union. Full members lie within the European Broadcasting Area (which has nothing to do with the EU, and is only loosely based on geographic Europe), and associate members may be any around the world. The Contest is broadcast in Australia and Japan - and has been shown also in Canada. It is not shown in the USA because no American TV company is an EBU member. Hope that's cleared that up for you :) EuroSong talk 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft version history[edit]

If World of Warcraft is like every single other video game for PC ever made, the version history will just be included with the patches you download or on the game's website somewhere. Violates WP:NOT by being both an indiscriminate collection of info and trying to use Wikipedia as a webhosting service. Recury 21:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bionicle World[edit]

This page is utterly bogus. I have seen no note of it on BZPower and one of the Bionicle Storyline team members himself notes it as bogus. This is completly fake. Look at his comment on it:

I know nothing about that. There is a game called BIONICLE Heroes out later this year, but it does not involve all three islands to my knowledge. And I have not heard anything about a BIONICLE World game. Since it is on Wiki, and not BS01 Wiki, it is most likely just bogus. BS01 Wiki is pretty accurate, regular Wiki is full of nonsense.

All I can tell you is no one here at LEGO seems to know anything about that. In general, standard Wiki is full of a lot of nonsense and really shouldn't be used as a resource -- if you want to check out a Wiki for BIONICLE, stick to the one BS01 does.

Basically, I'm wanting this to be deleted, because I don't want anyone to fall for this bogus nonsense. Utopia7391 21:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete and utter nonsense made up by some fool.69.153.122.110

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

The result of the nomination was speedy delete CSD G3 - vandalism fork of CS Marítimo. The club exists however, and their official website is here; however, the deleted article was such an unmodified copy-and-paste that anyone who wishes to write about the real Ashdon Cricket Club would have found it absolutely unhelpful. Kimchi.sg 22:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashdon Cricket Club[edit]

Possible hoax "third division" cricket club; most of this article is cut and pasted from the article on CS Marítimo, a Portuguese soccer club. NawlinWiki 21:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. – Will (message me!) 08:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal metaphysics[edit]

the text of the article does not really match its title as it is a limited personal view on rather speculative topic al 21:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xoloz 03:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Canoe Records[edit]

Non notable record producer label. The only author who did major contributions is User:Bluecanoe who is obviously using Wikipedia to promote itself and it's only "notable" artist Joseph Patrick Moore whose page is also listed for deletion for notability reasons. Ryulong 22:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also listing Decade 1996-2005 because it is the only album listed under this self-promoting label. Ryulong 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you're a sock puppet adding links to "your favorite cd", which just happens to be this guy. Strange that User:Bobj7 has the exact same kind of edit summaries when he adds links to his "favorite CD" - [57]--Awiseman 19:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the Executive Producer for Blue Canoe Records, I would like to REMOVE our label listing Blue Canoe Records from Wikipedia. It is obvious from the editors posts that our label is not ready to be listed at this time. On behalf of Blue Canoe Records I appreciate your time and attention to this article. Thank you for your consideration-Karen Frieske. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecanoe (talk • contribs)

I think she means she wants the article to be deleted. Right? --Awiseman 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a speedy, creator requests removal. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, that means I'll have to start another AfD for the two sockpuppets' "favorite CDs" that belong with this, then. Ryulong 20:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Alone Together should definitely be deleted. There are two other artists where this links to, including Tony Orlando's discography. Ryulong 21:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should list those two albums separately and let this one be speedied. ~ trialsanderrors 01:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are now listed separately. Ryulong 02:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was do not keep. Punkmorten 22:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond cole[edit]

Candidate for city council. Does not pass the notability test for political candidates. --DarkAudit 22:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh_Belson[edit]

Vanity, one edit by subject Sanbeg 22:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Haven[edit]

Non-notable local band Artw 22:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. – Will (message me!) 08:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skyphone[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (by Borghunter). Mushroom (Talk) 22:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fannon[edit]

This is probably a neologism, perhaps something made up in school one day, and in any case a dictionary definition. - Richardcavell 23:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerd Schenkel[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. The guy has obviously had a successful career but he has never made CEO and is no different from thousands of successful executives around the world. Only 51 Google hits here. BlueValour 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - they do if they meet WP:BIO. BlueValour 03:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jae Dougall, Wilson chu[edit]

Also nominating: Kiff Holland, Francine gravel and Nicholas Bott. Promotional artist articles added by website they are affiliated with. Delete as spam, non-notability.

Comment: Editor has also contributed the articles Francine gravel and Nicholas Bott which may fall under same AfD. - Tapir Terrific 22:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 01:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dafino[edit]

Delete per WP:BAND Brian G 23:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was speedy userfy to User:Tarartrat, clearly CSD A7 candidate - simply being a painter is not an assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TAR ART RAT[edit]

NN, vanity. ((prod)) removed without explanation. --Chris (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - I ignored the Ip address and also one keep which had two edits. another is the author, and another is suspected of the being the article's subject.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Guttman[edit]

Any claim to notability that this person has is solely due to the Stolen Sidekick ordeal; he is not famous enough outside of htat incident. The article should logically redirect to How NOT to steal a SideKick 2, which was deleted. If that incident isn't notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia, I feel that this person doesn't either. Hbdragon88 23:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What matters is WP:BIO. Specifically, one of the guidelines states: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" Guttman has only been mentioned in the context of a single day's news event - the Sidekick incident - and nothing more, and thus does not meet the notability guideline as set in WP:BIO. Hbdragon88 06:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, another guideline states that it is okay to have articles for "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events," something Evan Guttman has, indeed, accomplished. And "In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?" Most certainly--the moral aspect behind the Stolen Sidekick issue transcends time as a core value of humanity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Connected 24x7 (talk • contribs) at 15:08, July 18, 2006.
  • Well, the second guideline that you pointed out is under the alternatives section, which has not necessarily gained widespread support. Also, why are you making such sweeping judgements over the predicted sentimental value of this incident? One oculd argue that the P-P-P-Powerbook also teaches the similar morales, about honesty and what-not. It is on Wikipedia because it was still memorable and well-known months after it had taken place. I don't necessarily know if it's a de facto guideline or real, but it has been a general guideline that people only notable due to a single event are redirected into that event's article. For instance, the owner of GameFAQs, CJayC, redirects to GameFAQs because he is not notable besides being the owner. Patsy Ramsey, accused killer of her daughter, simply redirects into JonBenét Ramsey because she is not notable outside of her daughter's murder. Hbdragon88 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I beg to differ. There were actually now 3 news events that were reported. One was the start of the website, the second was the arrest of the alleged thief and return of the Sidekick, and the third was the Ebay auction with portion to charity. On top of that, it caused debate online and in the media on what is the right thing to do when you find someone else's property. Maybe one of you can explain how the Dog Poop Girl fits in the WP:BIO Actually, according to the guidelines of WP:BIO this entry qualitifes:

(Does TV, radio, and newspapers around the world count?)

(Does it's own forum, IRC channel, 1,000-3,000 mails a day, and massive amounts of hits STILL a day count?)

(well...that would be this page you are recommending for deletion)

(see below)

(because of the publicity associated with the website, there are talks of doing commercials <can't mention the brand at the moment>) (UTC)" - EvanWasHere10:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh j noble[edit]

Possibly non-notable musician, unverified, possible vanity. "Hugh J and the Picnic" has 58 Google results, and "Hugh j noble" has 67. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cali Ruchala[edit]

This is a curious recently recreated page I am bringing here to get some opinion/consensus on. I first noticed this article when it appeared on AIV[58]. It had been around for quite a while (since 2004 if you look at the article's talk page and the first AfD), but two days later it was listed for AfD[59] and within thirty minutes, before the AfD3 was made and without any comment from anyone, the article was deleted[60]. I looked into this before, and there are some curious things going on between the two editors mentioned in the AIV report, and involved in editing the article (eg [61]). I can only see these issues arising again, and maybe even another hasty deletion, so I think it best to get some opinion here. This person may be a journalist, and a founder of a publishing press. The recently recreated article is currently light on content, but it has looked more convincing. I have no vote at this time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently came across some material written by Cali Ruchala and was surprised not to find anything about him/her in Wikipedia, - on further search I noted that there had been an article and I basically restored it as I did not see in the discussion of the article any reason for deletion. Indeed it looked to me that the consensus of the few respondents was "keep". I agree that there is not much information but a little is better than nothing, and we have to trust the wiki to get more over time. Is Cali Ruchala the real name or a nome-de-plume? This a spurious argument. That's all we have, and there are lots of people who are listed here not by their given name. If it is not the real name, let us say so in the article. So that's my reason to keep/restore the article.Ekem 02:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone who has published a few things on the internet gets plenty of Ghits. Try Googling "Cary Bass" or "Cary Michael Bass" (use quotes). Not an indication of nobility. Bastique▼parler voir 23:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gill Langley[edit]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO - no doubt a worthy scientist but consultants and research fellows are, without being disrespectful, two a penny. One published report for a lobbying body doth not a notable person make. BlueValour 00:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I spend long periods patrolling new articles hence the rapid response. The report that Langley wrote was not in a peer reviewed journal. There are countless people around who have advised the Government, including me as it happens. And, SV please don't play the man and not the ball - it simply demonstrates a lack of confidence in your case. BlueValour 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That you were patrolling new articles is not the point. You shouldn't be responding so rapidly. Stubs need time to grow. And why on earth would Langley's material need to appear in peer-reviewed journals? Are we now to go around deleting all living bios of people not published in peer-reviewed journals? Please reconsider your approach to this. You're a new editor. Wikipedia would have virtually no articles if every stub was nominated for deletion within 34 minutes of being created. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the Research Defence Society discussing Langley's notability, and a recent television interview she gave: "Gill Langley is from the Dr Hadwen Trust (an anti-vivisection organisation which funds non-animal methods of research) and is also scientific adviser to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. She stated in a television interview last week that she was "looking forward to an open debate, but it hasn’t started yet". This is an astonishing statement from someone who gave evidence twice to the House of Lords committee, sat on the Animal Procedures Committee for eight years, and has been involved in dozens of debates, workshops, interview, reports, committees and investigations into animal research." [63] SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vote solicited by SlimVirgin on Jayjg's talk page [64]. (I had Jayjg's talk page watched and noticed this.) --Ben Houston 20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin did not "vote solicit", she asked me to look at the article and AfD, and told me her reasoning as to why she thought it should be kept. I looked at it, did a little research of my own (I noted, for example, that Langley has been interviewed for 1/2 hour on BBC TV as well [65]), and decided that the article should be kept. Is asking for third-party opinions on Wikipedia now something to be frowned upon? I have had literally hundreds of requests on my Talk: page from dozens of editors asking me to look at situations. It used to be something that was applauded. What is frowned upon is Wikipedia:Harassment; I would classify watchlisting someone's Talk: page , and then using the posts there to make bad faith accusations regarding their actions on various articles, as falling under that policy. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jayjg, those claims you make above are pretty extreme. Anyhow, SlimVirgin's response was "So what?", she didn't contest she was getting support from you, just that from her perspective there wasn't anything wrong with it. --Ben Houston 23:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. You feel free to accuse others of making bad-faith votes, but feel no concern that your own vote will be seen as nothing more than a continuing campaign of harrassment against SlimVirgin. Wonders never cease. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ben, you really should be ashamed of yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the strategy of trying to show notability, such as your comments below, are much more valuable and more likely to result in a desirable outcome that either recruiting friends to vote keep or aggressively attacking those which may not take a position you approve of. --Ben Houston 22:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a 27-minute interview with her on BBC television, and an interview on BBC Radio Four that I just linked to. Plus she is the author of one book and the editor of another. And sat on an important government committee. I find this utterly bizarre. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has she had any public recognition? Sitting on a committee doesn't confer intrinsic notability, neiother does appearing in an interview on TV. Has her work been cited anywhere? Her name comes up just three times in what are arguably the three leading British newspapers. Her book "Vegan Nutrition" has a sales rank near 500000 on Amazon.co.uk, "Animal Experimentation: The Consensus Changes" has long been out of print. What I am asking here is: would anyone outside the circle of Animal Rights activism ever have heard of Gill? I'd say no. Please convince me that I should have heard of the lady. Dr Zak 22:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, she is known within animal protection circles, not just animal rights activism. So anyone involved in animal testing will know of her i.e. anyone involved in writing about it, presenting evidence about it, taking cases through court etc. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Her recent report was cited in The Scientist if that's what you mean by cited. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Scientist doesn't exactly command great respect. In Nature (the leading British science journal) Gill is mentioned twice (as spokeswoman for the Hadwen Trust), saying that not enough is being done to replace animal testing. I see no evidence (in Nature again) that her report has been cited anywhere. The "Union for the Abolition of Vivisection" on the other hand is mentioned often. I'm a bit reminded of the Lumber Cartel. It's a running joke amongst antispam activists - I certainly have heard of it - but outside that narrow circle the joke is unknown, and I'm not convinced that that particular meme needs its entry on Wikipedia. Same here. I'm just looking for her being mentioned giving testimony etc and getting noticed for it. Dr Zak 22:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mistyped: New Scientist. If you mean her recent report, it has only just been published, so people will need time to respond to it in full. When you say getting noticed for giving testimony, I'm not sure what you mean. I'm very confused by this, because there are so many (possibly hundreds of thousands) of articles about people and issues less notable, and less well referenced, than this one. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about expert testimony in courts, or anything else that might confer public recognition. Sine you mentioned less notable people and issues, no, I'd say that minor porn stats, morning radio presenters and local politicians shouldn't have entries here either. Dr Zak 23:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the article says, she was invited to be an expert witness at the House of Lords inquiry into animal testing in 2001. She sat on the Animal Procedures Committee for eight years (the committee that oversees animal experimentation in the UK). She advises the European Commission on issues related to animal experimentation. She is one of a very small number of researchers in this field who are extremely highly regarded by all sides of the debate (scientists, animal-rights activists, governments, courts). SlimVirgin (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The editorial part of Nature commands great respect amoungst scientists as a reliable source for news on science and science policy, especially European issues. I've said it already: what I doubt is the assertion that Gill is "highly regarded by all sides of the debate" as she is mentioned in Nature merely twice, and only as a spokesperson for an organization. Also note that unlike Nature, the New Scientist is a popular journal. Until we see the "Next of Kin" report mentioned in notable journals we must assume that the publication went unnoticed. Remember that Wikipedia isn't a vehicle to advance worthy causes, it is a record of notable causes. Dr Zak 00:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and the nominator have misunderstood this article and, with respect, Wikipedia. This is not an article about an eminent scientist qua research scientist who is writing in peer-reviewed journals and working for a university. This is an article about a zoologist and writer, who has become an expert in an unusual field (where peer-reviewed articles are rarely, if ever, written), and who has succeeded in gaining respect from all sides of the debate, which is exceedingly rare in this area. However, I think the article speaks for itself, so I won't say any more about it, except that I'm somewhat bewildered, and very disappointed in certain people on this page. I have never viewed myself as an inclusionist, but if this is what deletionism causes, then I may indeed have to cross the floor. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read again what I said above. I mentioned the editorial part of Nature, the "News" section in particular. Here is what an issue looks like. Anything important in animal testing would be reported there; it's such an important issue that affects so many scientist. I made my case that Gill is non-notable (because she rarely appears in the newspapers and twice in the scientific news but not as an expert). Can you make your case that she is a highly regarded expert with verifiable evidence? There was a blog cited further up... is there really nothign better? If you can't, and someone disagrees with your view, please don't attack that person. Dr Zak 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my edit has been reverted again without any talk page discussion. I am not prepared to engage in a fruitless edit war so I have simply put an npov tag on the page. BlueValour 22:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Courage[edit]

Nothing in the article suggests to me that he is inherently notable enough, aside from being a candidate, for his own article. I suggest Delete and redirect to United States House elections, 2006. It is not a merge because a balanced entry for Texas 21st Congressional District is needed there. BlueValour 01:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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