< July 19 July 21 >
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 Speedy delete - vandalism, hoax page. Tyrenius 21:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Kawamoto[edit]

Non-n actor. See [1] Mad Jack 16:27, 20 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 08:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bensalem Township School District[edit]

Irrelevant article about a school district; contains no useful information Bveale 06:16, 20 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 09:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Bautista[edit]

Non-Notable. See [2] Oh, and this [3] Mad Jack 04:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this isn't a vote, this is a speedy, thanks to Mad Jack's proof Antares33712 22:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I love it :-) A real pick me up at work :-) Antares33712 15:55, 21 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. No reason to keep waiting. Mangojuicetalk 20:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magnums[edit]

Probable hoax. The screenshot included as a source for this article, which purports to be of a cnn.com article about this topic, appears to me to have been photoshopped. Unless cnn.com filled their article with spelling and grammar mistakes. Also, I can't find any evidence of the existence of this street gang or its supposed boss in a google search, outside of someone's poorly written personal webpage Xyzzyplugh 23:40, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pi language[edit]

Non-notable programming language, doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE (Assuming a programming language counts as software). Can't find any record of this in a google search. The author of this article has listed some sources in the talk page, but they consist of wikipedia articles and one portugese blog, no reliable sources Xyzzyplugh 00:14, 20 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 nn-band. — xaosflux Talk 02:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket_Whoop[edit]

Seems like an experimental page, not known well enough to have a page, does not conform to WP:MUSIC ParalysedBeaver 00:14, 20 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 09:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexaroid[edit]

WP:NOR, WP:OWN - this article is a short essay about sex robots in anime. It is signed by the original author. There are some "hmm that's interesting" facts, but zero sources cited. BigDT 00:22, 20 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 09:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rickie Lee Tanner[edit]

Non-notable musician who fails WP:MUSIC. His biography makes his accomplishments sound a little better than a normal speedy candidate, so that's why I'm bringing it here. His article sounds so professionally done because it is professional done by User:2TManagement who appears to be his publicist. 33 Google hits for him, nothing notable as far as I can see. Metros232 00:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn and also vanity by virtue of the probable identity of 2TManagement as a publicist, as mentioned by Metros232. AdamBiswanger1 00:33, 20 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 09:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby of the Stars: Second Generation[edit]

This is fancruft. Google search turns up 0 results, and a video game fan fiction created by a fan on a fan forum doesn't seem to satisfy WP:CSD A7 or WP:NN to me. Also violates WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. I originally PRODded the article, but the IP that's been editing the article promptly removed it, so I put it up at AFD. Green451 00:27, 20 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 09:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Gitomer[edit]

delete as per notability, poss. vanity page Chris 00:55, 20 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 09:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Girl[edit]

Does not assert enough information. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 01:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)d[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close - people, stop running around process unnecessarily. There appears to be no article on this radio station on any Wikimedia project ([4]) so it is not a speedy candidate. Listing this page on WP:PNT is sufficient for now; if no one translates this in 2 weeks, we can propose/nominate its deletion again. Kimchi.sg 07:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art Radio[edit]

Delete as non-english speedy tag removed by author. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:04, 20 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. - brenneman {L} 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benefiber[edit]

Delete as advertisement. Prod removed by author without comment. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if you feel the criteria for advertisement has not been meet, then check out the article's footnotes. KarenAnn 14:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Check out the page history. Unless you think WilyD is the one advertising it, then I believe those were an established user's good faith attempts to flesh out the stub which, when put to AfD, had no footnotes or mentions of Oman. GassyGuy 14:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment allow me to assure everyone I'm not hauking it, I'm merely an astronomer and a game store owner, I ain't sell the stuff. I'm somewhat concerned that we're deleting an foreign product because there are few english references, and it's hard to find references for places where they use very different alphabets. I was just trying to give it a chance to get past WP:V, the supreme arbitor. WilyD 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The product is advertised on US national television, you can buy it at CVS, RiteAid, Grocery Store etc. It is in no way some sort of foreign thing. --Yshoulduknow 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would still make it foreign, but I guess would indicate a strangeness I can't find American references, only Arabian ones. WilyD 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you haven't looked. www.benefiber.com and an ask.com search: http://www.ask.com/web?q=benefiber&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir Yshoulduknow 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I prefer to use reasonably reputable sources, which is why I went for newspapers. It's just some foreign fibre suppliment. I'm not too concerned about it. Just didn't want to delete an Arabian proeduct because I don't speak Arabic. Mais, c'est la vie. WilyD 16:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This WIkipedia editor just improved the article by deleting a spam link from it... is that what you had in mind? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops sorry, I thought she was saying the people saying speedy delete failed. I was trying to make it easier, because if it were as I beleived, it would mean keep. Geez, sorry. There goes my chance at wikipedia, you'll probably ban me and stuff...
  • Comment: It is definitely poor form, but you should not let it persuade your vote. The content of the article and the actions of its creator are completely separate things. Czj 06:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I misspoke. I did mean that the company offering the product is at at least somewhat notable. Thank you for the correction.--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 1. Guar Gum is not advertised on TV 2. Benefiber is available in a pill, chewable tablet, and powder. 3. Guar Gum in its natural form cannot be used in food or drinks. Yshoulduknow 22:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot be used in food or drinks? Nonsense. Guar gum is a common ingredient in processed food. Sometimes I believe it's just called "vegetable gum." Just a second. Let me take a look in my refrigerator. How about cottage cheese? That seems like the sort of thing that might use it. Cabot Vermont Style Cottage Cheese. Ingredients: Cultured, pasteurized skim milk, milk, cream, salt, grade whey, nonfat milk, modified corn starch, natural flavors, potassium sorbate (to preserve freshness), guar gum, carrageenan, locust bean gum, citric acid, lactic acid, polysorbate 80, enzymes. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, I do not understand how it is advertising. Have you looked at its current state? Also, I have very good sources and references listed such as the product's official website, and the manufacturer's official website. Yshoulduknow 17:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm all for expanding it, but please tell me what I should add. I have reworked the page, re organized it, I've done everything. If it is deleted, I will simply re post the article as it is in it's current form, which is not advertising. Yshoulduknow 22:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A deleted page shouldn't be recreated without reason. If you really want to fix up the page, Yshoulduknow, I recommend looking at the article for Bayer for comparison. You can use that as a basis for expanding the article, if possible. Make sense? Happy editing. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you vote Keep if I did that? I would just need help with pictures, I don't know how to put them there with the source and everything. Yshoulduknow 22:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already voted for keep, but maybe some of the folks above would vote keep if it was fixed up. As Mattisee says below, though, it's not about the lack of pictures, it's about turning it into a strong article, with good, verifyable links, and information that would be found in an encyclopedia. --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:07, 23 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 broken beyond repair. Concerns have been raised regarding sockpuppetry which I find to be credible. Please feel free to open a new deletion discussion for this article at any time. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Bradford (professor)[edit]

This was originally tagged as speedy here as non-notable and attack. I removed it as invalid. It was then prodded here as non-notable, non-publc and author requests deletion. I do not know if User:YHoshua who created the article is the same as the anon who has been tagging it. I am listing here with no comment to keep or delete. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: There have been several comments left here by one off accounts etc. Groggy Dice has done an excellent job of laying out the problems and possible sockpuppets. He left the information on my talk page and with his permission I have copied them to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/William Bradford (professor). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't been the one tagging it, but I am the creator and would vote to delete the article. I don't think the professor warrants his own page and, perhaps most important, he would like removed. Therefore I vote for deletion.--YHoshua 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. The absolute minute that anyone provides sources in the article or on AfD to provide verification that Fox News (not FrontPageMag, as that publication is of borderline notability and no reliability) frequently interviewed and then covered this guy, however, my vote will change to keep. When you put your face on national television repeatedly, you are a public figure. We don't delete articles because they're inconvenient for the person being written about; to do so would encourage the writing of hagiographies and that is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Captainktainer * Talk 02:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep On the basis of the extensive work done by Groggy Dice, providing reliable sources that attest to the professor's notability, I have reconsidered my position. The professor is a notable public figure and became embroiled in a parallel to the Ward Churchill case, and was commented on several times by figures of note. I think it's time to give the contributors who are putting time and effort into this article a chance to fix it up and bring it into line with Wikipedia policies. I can't, in good faith, recommend the deletion of this article at this time. Captainktainer * Talk 20:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Delete. This guy isn't a public figure and the author wants it deleted. Easy call. Wiki shouldn't trifle. Vote to delete. The author wants to delete and the subject is not notabel. Jonswift 03:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete requested by author. -- Alias Flood 03:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete as requested by author. Delete Even without such a request, seems like a non-notable subject per nom. -- H·G (words/works) 03:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Tagged with ((db-author)), since the article creator wants it gone. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy removed, others have made substantial edits to the article. Kimchi.sg 07:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I searched on Google for '"william bradford" tenure', got 15,700 hits[7]. Adding "fox news" to the terms narrowed it down to 305 hits[8], which included left-leaning blogs crowing about how Fox's poster boy turned out to be lying about being a Desert Storm veteran, Green Beret, and Silver Star winner [9] [10], which led me to their media sources: [11] [12]. On Fox News, all I found was an O'Reilly article[13] and two guest listings for John Gibson[14][15]. The article as it stands says nothing about his military record claims. I looked through history, and found that it had been in the article at various points, then taken back out. The last time, IP 130.94.134.250 took it out[16], then nominated for speedy as an "attack page,"[17] starting this whole process. Not sure if this controversy is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. --Groggy Dice 03:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Sounds like the kind of smear job that both parties were trying to use against Bush and Kerry. Either way he's a nobody and not worth any attention. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonswift (talk • contribs)
    • Jonswift, please do not edit other user's comments. I already identified the blogs as "left-leaning," if you consider them "far left," say so in your response, rather than editing me in a way that makes it look like I called them far left. If anything, my post about them being blogs was misleading, because the first two articles were actual media articles I found through the two blog listings. Your action has led me to check your user contributions, and your only contribs are to this AfD. I hope you aren't coming to this discussion with a predetermined POV. --Groggy Dice 04:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Groggy, I'm new and didn't understand the etiquette. My apologies. Jonswift 04:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete attack guise is real tough to clean up, don't let it hang around long enough to regret it. Ste4k 04:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Delete. My husband Jens and I live in Florida, and I have known Bill for 15 years. Jens served with him in Bosnia and elsewhere, and I greatly doubt he would have ever spoken with a reporter about his military background. Jens still can't tell me much of what he did or where he went, and my guess is the reporter was misinformed by someone else about Bill's background and then had to blame him to cover her own you know what. Whether you think Bill deserved tenure or not, it isn't beneath a university to dirty someone's reputation in order to gain leverage, and my husband and others I've talked to think that someone from the university probably fed the reporter misinformation so they could blame Bill for it later. Something really horrible happened to Bill and his wife 5 years ago which is how and why he left the Army, and it would make him a very sympathetic person if he could talk about it. Whatever the case, it was a tempest in a teapot and it is long since over. Bill is out of teaching and is now working in insurance in New York or New Jersey. Wikipedia policy is not to include bios on living people that aren't notable. This man and his family deserves his privacy and for this article to be deleted. Barbara
    • Barbara, editing other users' comments is considered bad form on Wikipedia, especially when it changes the meaning of what they say. Don't change "turned out to be lying" to "had allegedly lied" (which was what the articles were saying, not me personally). Don't change me from saying "not sure if this controversy is notable enough" to "this controversy is not notable enough." If that is your opinion, you make your own case, don't make it look like I'm making it. This sort of thing only serves to push me towards voting to Keep. --Groggy Dice 05:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize, Groggy Dice. You are correct to admonish me. I admit to being a little emotional on the subject, because I know Bill and I am upset that he was treated badly. I hope you will maintain your delete vote :) Barb P.S. What does "Groggy Dice" mean or what is the origin? I think there is a bar by that name somewhere.
    As a "grognard," I've rolled a lot of "dice." --Groggy Dice 06:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jens is a Squad Leader fanatic--sometimes I lose him for a weekend to that damn game. Barb Definite delete. Author and subject want it deleted, and the subject is obscure and unimportant. Also it looks like a personal attach. Zvonimir
    • HOLD ON! Are all of the last few voters actually reading the article? The ironic effect of the heavy pro-Bradford edits is that it makes it hard to see how the article can be seen as a "personal attack" piece. It describes how he "graduated summa cum laude," received various degrees and honors, "served at the War Gaming and Simulation Center, National Defense University, Fort McNair, Virginia, and was an advisor to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Shalikashvili," "authored numerous law review articles," and "was named a Dean's Fellow in recognition of scholarly excellence." The controversy is a section at the bottom, and gives as much space to Bradford's charges as to his opponents'. All mention of the military record issue has been removed, which appears to be the sore point. While the controversy's result may have been one-sided (his resignation), Wikipedia's coverage of it is not.
    There needs to be an actual discussion here, not just taking claims at face-value that he's non-notable. Maybe both "author and subject want it deleted," but the only real reason the author's given is that the subject wants it deleted. He hasn't said why he created the article in the first place, and why he apparently thought the subject was notable then. Has everyone read the articles from the Indianapolis Star[18] and Inside Higher Ed[19], or did my mention of "left-leaning blogs" lead some to not look closely? I mentioned that one Google search I ran got 15,700 hits, which contains a lot of false positives, but would normally be enough for people to explore the possibility that he might be notable. I've come up with a more selective search[20] that gets 800 hits. That's not a huge number, but enough to normally make some people think he was notable enough, and others to waffle.
    I also turned up a copy of one Dean's Report (Google cache)(original PDF) which on p. 36-38 lists his recent accomplishments of 2004. It describes several papers he'd published or presented, a couple of positions he'd been appointed to, and notes his appearances in the media. Many of these are local, but also cited are NPR Morning Edition, Fox National, John Gibson, and Radio France Info. It says that he was interviewed by the Charlotte Observer, Spokane Spokesman-Review, the Associated Press, the Daily Tennessean, and the Atlanta-Constitution. At the end, it say that he was nominated for the "American Bar Association Law School Division Henry J. Ramsey, Jr. Award for Diversity." He may want his privacy now, but if he failed to achieve Wikipedia-level notability, it was not for lack of trying.
    Also, another thing we should consider is what to do about Florence Roisman#Controversy and the mention of the Bradford incident there. Again, it was edited to delete earlier references to the military record aspect (diff). If we decide this incident really is non-notable, maybe we should remove all mention of it there as well. --Groggy Dice 20:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I don't see that this is someone who needs to be an entry in an encyclopedia, virtual or otherwise. In my estimation, a person ought to be notable or important in some extraordinary way to merit inclusion, and I just don't see that this is the case here. I think it is especially true if he is no longer even a professor, and therefore being described incorrectly by the entry. The fact that the editing history reveals so many conflicting/contradictory bits of "information" makes me even less willing to give any credence to the article in any form. If both the subject and the author desire deletion, my opinion is that they should have the final say.Owmyeye 21:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) (Note: Sorry, I posted this in the wrong place initially). Owmyeye 19:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have some valid points, but overall I disagree with them. George W. Bush also has a "conflicting/contradictory" editing history, but that's not grounds for deleting his article. In fact, controversy can be an indication that the subject is notable enough for people to care about. If Wikipedia adopted a policy of deleting articles because partisan edits made them unreliable, controversial topics by the thousands would go. As for the subject wanting the article deleted, I believe that should hold NO weight. Everyone has warts, and as someone else has pointed out, the writing of articles cannot be held hostage by its subject. That's the Daniel Brandt precedent. Suppose Charlie Manson decided he didn't want to have a Wikipedia article, somehow convinced the entry's creator, and argued that they should have "final say" and that he was "no longer even a cult leader!" (Though we don't know for sure that Bradford wants his Wikipedia entry deleted, that's what YHoshua says, but he hasn't come back to the discussion to elaborate, and we haven't heard from Bradford directly.) Back to notability. I would agree that he may not be "extraordinarily" notable, but that's usually not the standard applied on Wikipedia, and the more I've dug into this, the more I'm leaning to the view that he's notable enough. Now that I've seen a photo of him, I do recall him being a guest on cable news. If a Wikipedia entry for Bradford had been created before mid-2005, before this mess blew up in his face, I'm sure he would have been pleased. And at that time, I'm also sure he would have taken umbrage at a move to delete it on the grounds that he wasn't notable enough. That's the tragedy here: here is someone who eagerly sought notability and had the gifts to achieve it, now forced to seek obscurity. He had remarkable achievements, but was undone by the need to claim still-more remarkable achievements. --Groggy Dice 00:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable. He fails WP:PROF. Regardless of whether or not he wants to delete the entry he doesn't meet notability. His credentials are nothing special for a tenure-track asst. prof. The controversy is essentially local -- this happens all the time where someone is denied tenure and claims he has been discriminated against based on race, sex, polical affiliation, sleeping with the dean's daughter, etc. Some of them have been discriminated against, others have not. Some win, most don't. He probably had a little more than his 15 minutes of fame because there are groups who like to push the point of view that conservative faculty are discriminated against. I see nothing beyond local interest. If he becomes a poster child for the Student Bill of Rights, then we can revisit the issue. Right now, he's simply just another relatively anonymous former-assistant professor. TedTalk/Contributions 05:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ironic that you would mention being a poster child for the Student Bill of Rights, because David Horowitz was one of the biggest backers pushing this case at a national level. I just Googled "student bill of rights", and the top result was "Students for Academic Freedom." That site created a special page just for the Bradford case[21], featuring seven articles from Horowitz's other site, Frontpagemag. (At the end of some of them, Horowitz gets personally involved in the correspondence.) Another page on that site, covering everything related to Indiana University[22], lists those articles and an eighth, a hosted Indy Star column[23] (written by the same journalist who would eventually question his military record. The combination "william OR bill bradford" "david horowitz" gets 475 491 Ghits[24]. --Groggy Dice 07:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Definite Delete. Looks like third parties with political agendas used this former professor for their own purposes, but inherently he doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria for notability as a professor. He was a useful tool for about 5 seconds. And Barbara's comments make a lot of sense. Finally, the author himself wants to delete the article, and it may well be that he regrets having written something that he knows has unfairly treated the subject. Delete. Silvestre
    • "Silvestre," he himself wanted to be "used" and actively sought to enlist those "third parties," which milked the case for a lot longer than "5 seconds." David Horowitz's Frontpagemag gave the case at least two months of heavy coverage, and he mentioned it regularly in his appearances. Even after Bradford's downfall, an excerpt[25] from the introduction to his new book (focusing on Ward Churchill as his poster "anti-child") makes a mention of Bradford's case. "Barbara's" story would actually make this case more newsworthy than the mainstream version. As for the author realizing that he had "unfairly treated the subject," I think it would be a good idea for everyone to view his original version of the page, since the current version has been so heavily watered down. --Groggy Dice 17:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Definite KEEP I think it's time to admit to myself that I've decided to vote keep on this article. Having my comments tampered with has led to dig far deeper into this matter than I ever expected to, and what I've found has convinced me more and more that this is a keeper. Also, I've come to realize that some people are drawing their conclusions from the current state of this article, which differs greatly from the original version. I'm going to do what I probably should have done a long time ago, and re-edit the page to resurrect an earlier incarnation. Don't jump on what appears to be a steamrolling bandwagon- look very closely. --Groggy Dice 17:25, 23 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 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vancouver Russian Community[edit]

    Delete as it is non-verifiable, borders on original research. The content has been added to since the speedy tag was removed, but the article is not salvagable into an encyclopedic entry. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:14, 20 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 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    VAN Forum[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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bruce Klopfenstein[edit]

    Delete as a total vanity page. The article ws created by Drbrucek. Claims of nobility, but nothing sighting verifiable sources, just his blog. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:41, 20 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 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tyler Dumont[edit]

    Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable host of a local public access TV show; Vanity or Advertising. Prod was deleted without comment. Only google hits are related to this local show and the indicated website. No information is verified. TedTalk/Contributions 01:41, 20 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 CSD A1/A3. Xoloz 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Odyssey Online[edit]

    Delete as non-notable failing WP:WEB. The article asserts it's own non-nobility. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Players of Odyssey Online are contributing information to the pages, that's why I put "Does not need to be deleted" We are trying to get the pages in good running condition to avoid deletion. Please give us some time. Thank you for reading. - ImmortalKaine

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

    List of German military bases[edit]

    This is actually a list of American bases in Germany. As such all the information is already included in List of United States Air Force bases and List of United States Army bases. Hence this list is completely and utterly redundant. -- Koffieyahoo 02:01, 20 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 09:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Denovan Films[edit]

    Publicity ---Nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximini1010 (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 Speedily deleted.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kingsleigh Nobbs[edit]

    unflattering vanity page, possibly libellous, should be speedily deleted Thomas B 02:15, 20 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 08:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    An Excellent Picture of Yolanda (2007 film)[edit]

    I am proposing this article for AfD because it is an example of the dangers of crystalballism: the information available on the internet for a proposed 2007 Woody Allen film does not, in large part, match the information to be found here. Some of the information in this article originally matched a film to be released this summer by Woody Allen, entitled Scoop (that information, I must note, has since been removed; but its original presence in the article gives the impression of very poor research on the part of the author). A good deal of the rest of it, including the title, cannot be verified, since no references are to be found in the article. A search for the title brings 0 ghits. Charles 02:15, 20 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 07:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dadabase[edit]

    This was deleted before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dadabase. The only reason I'm bringing it here instead of zapping it myself is because this has a few assertions of notability the previously deleted version did not. If they can be cited, this can be kept only if it is cleaned up. Otherwise, it should be deleted. No opinion. Grandmasterka 02:19, 20 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 11:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    2006 Liberal Party of Canada election ads[edit]

    Stinks of original research and POV with a sympathetic tone. --Ardenn 02:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Compare that to the 2000 and 2004 elections where Liberal attack ads were able to reverse any rising popularity the Canadian Alliance or Conservative Party of Canada were enjoying (along with some poorly timed statements from the right). In the 2006 election, the ads not only failed to change Liberal fortunes, they undermined later efforts to restore support. Regardless, the controversy they caused alone makes them highly notable in Canadian election lore. Resolute 19:06, 22 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 waskeep, nomination withdrawn. Ifnord 00:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bhartiyavidya[edit]

    I tagged this as an ad before, which may have been a little harsh, but it does read somewhat like a press release. It is a teaching system of some sort, which I concede may possibly be notable, but its notability would need to be cited. Delete unless cited and cleaned up. Grandmasterka 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Keep now that I reformed the article into a clean stub. It seems notable enough to me and has been featured in secondary sources. Grandmasterka 21:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    1.I will include the website www.bhartiyavidya.com to indicate the existence of the concept. 2.To indicate recognition i will include results of surveys from thousands of students and teachers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vandanaahuja (talk • contribs) .

    Have made the changes..will wait for your response —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vandanaahuja (talk • contribs) .

    Can i remove the notices on the article now, till it comes up for review again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vandanaahuja (talk • contribs) .

    Grandmaster Ka...i agree my attempts have probably not been good enough....i have deleted all other attempts which either aimed at supplementing any other article or were posted in any other category. My aim is not to vandalise any article on wikipedia or advertise this concept. But, the fact that the concept had found widespread appreciation in a developing country like India which still faces numerous challenges for the implementation of Information Communication Technologies in Education is worth a look. Also this endeavour has been on for 5 years now. So i thought maybe it was worth a mention on Wikipedia....maybe, you could give me one last chance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.7.67.88 (talk • contribs) .


    Since most of my article has been already deleted, can the notice on top regarding deletion be removed?--Vandanaahuja 07:21, 24 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 11:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Insane Spider Productions[edit]

    Non-notable one-person machinima production company formed only this year. Article was written by founder. Googling for "Insane Spider Productions" gives only 11 unique hits. "Mud Monsters from Mars", one of the productions, gets zero hits. Prod tag was removed without comment. — TKD::Talk 02:33, 20 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 Therianthropy. Nothing reliable to merge. —Centrx→talk • 21:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Therianism[edit]

    Non-notable sub-sub-culture of therianthropy, who apparently label themselves "the cool group" —Ashley Y 02:39, 20 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 CSD G7. Kimchi.sg 07:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Savvas yerocosta[edit]

    Article was twice speedily deleted per A7, first under the name Savvas Yerocosta[27], then under the present, changed capitalization version[28], now recreated with the assertions of notability that he has won multiple music awards.

    Subject is listed here (PDF) as being a seventh grader who plays intermediate trumpet. I think it's absolutely great that he has won these awards but I do not think he meets WP:BIO and the article violates WP:AUTO. Two Google hits for the article subject, the first linked above, and the latter not mentioning him [29]. Lack of Google results for asserted awards indicates that that they do not imply any wide or unique fame. He may very well be a "rising star" but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, admins, you can delete this page. However, I ask you not to permanently delete it. For in the years to come I believe that Savvas Yerocosta will truly become a note worthy person, and will surely meet the criteria for an artical in wikipedia. So, bye for now, I shall be back soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savage1537 (talk • contribs)

    Comment That was the article creator, so the article's been tagged with ((db-author)). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:03, 20 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 11:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A phone call is worth a thousand emails[edit]

    Contested Prod. An expression "coined on July 19th, 2006". WP:NFT. Fan-1967 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note Author just vandalized this AFD. Fan-1967 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment pls don't cast disparity's around about peoples user-names, be civil!-- Librarianofages 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. I jumped too quickly. When the nomination comments were removed my first reaction was vandalism rather than ignorance, and I should have reacted more calmly. Fan-1967 12:54, 21 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 11:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yatsumi[edit]

    nn comic written by the page's creator. Contested prod Borisblue 02:48, 20 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 Speedily deleted lacking context. Just zis Guy you know? 12:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AR-01[edit]

    character in non-notable comic. Borisblue 02:52, 20 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 lacking context. Just zis Guy you know? 12:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Shiku Sakaru[edit]

    Character in non-notable self-drawn comic Borisblue 02:54, 20 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. Mailer Diablo 11:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Serial blasts in mumbai[edit]

    This article is only a collection of opinions and some information that is also found in 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings. --Sbluen 03:00, 20 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 11:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Brainbench[edit]

    This reads like an ad. But this reason I'm bringing this to AfD instead of Speedy is that I'm not sure if this is actually notable or not. Its hard to filter through the 626,000 ghits to see which actually apply. --Pboyd04 03:05, 20 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 to delete, defaulting to keep. - Bobet 21:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sage (internet)[edit]

    Not being an avid forum user I've never heard of this. Which lends me to think that its not notable considering most of the google hits are unrelated. --Pboyd04 03:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I meant to link to 2channel, not Futaba Channel. 2channel is the phenomenally popular non-image board, and that article is sourced. Many voters here seem to think the term is exclusive to imageboards, but it is not.--SevereTireDamage 22:46, 21 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 07:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ravihansa Wetakepotha[edit]

    Originally deleted on Oct 10 2005 re: [31] A second article was started on the 13th. Just found it while wfying. 2nd article no better than the first. Brad101 03:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not a repost, content is different, and previous AfD had only one "vote". Let's give it the five days, something might come up in searches. Just zis Guy you know? 09:03, 24 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Akroness[edit]

    PROD removed without discussion. neologism with no evidence given of much use outside some web forum... see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Gets 4,000 google results, but from just 10 total different websites. No Amazon, Google News or scholar results. Also, despite the claims of the article, I get no results for the term searching the archives of the paper that is claimed to have used the term twice [32] --W.marsh 03:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh, neither of those articles seem to use the term "Akroness". I think you're misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about... ultimately we just summarize information that has already been covered in published sources. Period. See WP:V and WP:NOR (and the above mentioned Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms). This really is not negotiable. There are plenty of sites that don't have this requirement (nearly any other than Wikipedia, really), see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for a start. --W.marsh 13:28, 21 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 11:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    CPU Wars[edit]

    Doesn't seem notable. About 600 ghits for "CPU Wars" +comic. --Pboyd04 03:25, 20 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 to merge to Clone Manga. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nana's Everyday Life[edit]

    Prod removed without explanation. Non-notable webcomic with no sources. Fagstein 03:26, 20 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 11:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Episode_27:_The_Game[edit]

    Article about a childrens TV show, with no need for an individual episode synopsis.

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close bad faith nom by edit warrior - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Bourrie[edit]

    This page is really nothing more than a vanity entry. This person has has little to no notabilty, whose emergance of publicity ocurred over a lawsuit filed against him. He doesn't fit the Professor bill of notabilty. He has written some books, that aren't best sellers. He has done freelance work for multiple Newspapers, hardly notable. Please read his blog, it alone get's very few comments. Google his image, and you'll turn up nothing. Pete Peters 03:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The immediate background was this. --JGGardiner 04:21, 20 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 11:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Compaq Presario V4435NR[edit]

    Individual computer model's generally aren't notable and this one doesn't seem to be an exception. --Pboyd04 03:54, 20 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 20:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kasandra_Shepherd[edit]

    Wikipedia is not a memorial, lack of historical significance? Jmcnally 03:52, 20 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 as CSD A8. Mangojuicetalk 20:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Power Ranger cross-overs[edit]

    Article was origianlly speedied, but I figured I'd put it here to see if the article really should be deleted. Have your say! Mostly Rainy 03:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Our sites include a combination of content that we create, that our partners create, and that our users create. All materials published on our sites, including, but not limited to, written content, photographs, graphics, images, illustrations, marks, logos, sound or video clips, and Flash animation, are protected by our copyrights or trademarks or those of our partners. You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, or in any way exploit any of the materials or content on our sites in whole or in part. [36]
    In short, this article is illegal. No prejudice against the subject, but we must respect others' copyright and delete this as quickly as possible. — Haeleth Talk 13:04, 20 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 11:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Weiss[edit]

    Non-notable and autobiographic (TV Genius is Tom Weiss). Delete per WP:BIO. Haakon 04:01, 20 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 (CSD G3). --Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Roy Patrick O'Duggan[edit]

    I suspect this is a hoax. No references are given and the article was created by a new account who created several similar articles. I could be wrong, but I can't find any ghits to back it up. It was originally prodded, and then de-prodded by an anon-ip who is I suspect the original author Megapixie 04:07, 20 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 11:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jarsaki Son[edit]

    I suspect this is a hoax. Created by a new account, who also created three other hoax like articles. I could be wrong - but no ghits. Megapixie 04:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's able to be written: ジャーサキ ... though the article is almost certainly a hoax. --Kunzite 20:34, 22 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 11:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Herbert Icabod Yerr[edit]

    I suspect this is a hoax, the article was create by a new account who created three other hoaxy articles (see other afds above). One has been prodded and de-prodded already - so I brought them all here. Megapixie 04:13, 20 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. Deleted by - Makemi 04:09, July 20, 2006

    Paris Hilton (Christian30)[edit]

    Unsourced, non-notable personality. CovenantD 04:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It was just there, I swear it was... Could it have been deleted already? CovenantD 04:19, 20 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 11:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Discoverers Web[edit]

    Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. --Pboyd04 04:11, 20 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. - brenneman {L} 02:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    TMNT Engine[edit]

    This is essentially a homebrew clone of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (arcade game). As such, it may merit mentioon on that page, but is generally non-notable and shouldn't have its own page. This is rarely doen for ports in general, much less unofficial ones. Note that I don't believe this qualifies for speedy. It is a recreation of deleted material, but was deleted without discussion before. Ace of Sevens 04:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following, because it's a duplicate, apparently created when the author saw the AfD:

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

    The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 11:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fortis Inc.[edit]

    *Delete. As it fails WP:CORP SynergeticMaggot 04:42, 20 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 07:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Roopendra Narayan Roy[edit]

    Notability of subject in dispute. I don't believe being the manager of PwC in India is quite notable enough. Subject gets 29 Ghits. hateless 05:12, 20 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 articles. Mailer Diablo 11:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Christian30[edit]

    This website was founded in 2006 according to the article. It has no alexa ranking [39]. There is also a template Template:Christian30 at TFD, an image Image:Screenshot of Christian30 Countdown.png at IFD, and a host of other articles that have been tagged with a prod. If any of Christian30 Annual Video Music Awards, Christian Hot 30 Chart, Christian30 Covergirl, Matt Labanelli, and Christian Hot 30 Chart survive their prod, need a trip to AFD. BigDT 05:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Here it is: [40] -- confirmed sockpuppets of the same user. Antandrus (talk) 14:49, 20 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 11:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fuselit[edit]

    Spam. Only link is to website asking for donations, not enough substance is given by author. Magazine has existed for less than a year which leaves its notablity in question. Kennykane 05:26, 20 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 CSD A1. Kimchi.sg 06:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jsofts[edit]

    Non-notable website, page created to promote the authors hack of a copyrighted video game TJ Spyke 05:44, 20 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 11:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OtherNet[edit]

    Network is no longer in operation and is becoming an area for vandalism. Pewtermoose 05:50, 20 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 11:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of hardcore punk genres[edit]

    This is entirely a duplicate of Category:Hardcore punk genres. Each of these entries was already in that category (except one). Nominating for deletion to eliminate duplication of function. -- H·G (words/works) 06:02, 20 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 11:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of musical punk genres[edit]

    Along the lines of my AfD nomination for List of hardcore punk genres above, I nominate this article as a duplication of Category:Punk genres. I've made sure that every bluelinked entry here is listed in that category. The two entries with no wiki article don't strike me as significant article topics at the moment, but if it bothers anyone I can go ahead and create stubs for the two terms before deletion. Either way, nominating for deletion to eliminate duplication of function. -- H·G (words/works) 06:12, 20 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 12:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    George Chang[edit]

    His party has absolutely no relevance in Taiwan, and there is no other claim of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:14, 20 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 07:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pacific World[edit]

    A tricky one, this. As a New Zealander, I've never heard the term used and it feels like a neologism. It's a virtual orphan, too, only linked from a disambiguation page. Truckloads of ghits, but they're all for different things (A Buddhist magazine, various travel companies, and more often than not qa chance juxtaposition of words). I'm not convincved. If it is an accepted term, then it's likely as not more of a wiktionary thing anyway as it's unlikely to grow beyong definition length. Grutness...wha? 06:16, 20 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 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OLE Automation[edit]

    First of all, it isn't OLE Automation any more, it's now just Automation (and has nothing to do with OLE), and it's a too obscure to warrant a separate article. The content should be merged into COM and the article deleted. - Sikon 06:17, 20 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 12:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Greenwich warriors[edit]

    Contested prod. No real notability; it's basically a little league team. Morgan Wick 06:22, 20 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 12:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hit the sticks[edit]

    I prod'd this a day or two ago, and an anonymous user removed it today without comment. The term definitely strikes me as a neologism--it doesn't appear to pass the Google test (44 unique Ghits for '"hit the stick" video games'), and the "history" of it as described by the article strikes me as unlikely, especially considering the lack of references. -- H·G (words/works) 06:27, 20 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 --Pilotguy (roger that) 16:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Perle Systems[edit]

    If the company is notable, would you mind adding some sources to back that up. AlistairMcMillan 17:10, 20 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 08:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cephogomorphia[edit]

    The term produces a grand total of 0 Google hits, which makes me highly suspicious. I'm listing it here to see if any experts in the topic can confirm if this term even exists. Sarg 07:03, 20 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 and cleanup. Natgoo 18:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Natas (band)[edit]

    Does not seem to meet WP:BAND, dead end, poorly written and no external sources. MER-C 07:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I should add to my above rationale that in no way do I necessarily call myself a fan of any of the artists mentioned. The vote to keep is merely a reflection of my belief that NATAS are notable :P BigHaz 23:29, 20 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 CSD A8. Mangojuicetalk 19:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian design[edit]

    Prod removed without explanation. nn company, 21 ghits for "Idiom+Tesseract", many unrelated to the subject of the article. WP not an ad service. Also, abysmal writing. Etc., etc. Finally, the arrogance of squatting on the 'Indian design' page! Hornplease 07:47, 20 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 08:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blosting[edit]

    Article does not assert notability and provides no defining references. Originally prodded, but tag was removed twice, as such, referred to here. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 08:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kottke's interest in Blosting shows a great deal of internet notability. This is a new web phenomenon-- a recent blost-related photo has already received over 1200 Flickr views--that will undoubtedly grow exponentially and will soon need its own Wikipedia entry. Philelvrum 08:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that Philelvrum is the user who first vandalised Wikipedia by inserting the Chocula story, and has subsequently also vandalised Boo Berry in the same way. He is apparently attempting to abuse Wikipedia to create a new meme. — Haeleth Talk 11:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: Wikipedia, I also noticed that wording and have edited accordingly. Considering the speed at which information travels online, "soon" and "now" are quickly becoming interchangeable. A quick Google search for "Ernst Choukula" will show that dozens of online zines and blogs have already covered this breaking subcultural expression.Jonabechtolt 08:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: None of them call it Blosting. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 08:46, 20 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 12:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Riddhipratim Basu[edit]

    WP:BIO Bronze medalist in International Mathematical Olympiad Clappingsimon talk 09:11, 20 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 and redirect - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    CrashCam Films[edit]

    Not particulalrly notable company. Fails WP:CORP. Just 53 Google hits here. Delete BlueValour 01:26, 14 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, Will (message me!) 09:13, 20 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 09:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jean-Claude La Marre[edit]

    Vanity Sanbeg 23:42, 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, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:08, 18 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, Will (message me!) 09:12, 20 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fitz R S de Souza[edit]

    Non-notable. Can scarcely find him in Google. Though he may have done some great things, a lot of other people have as well. Nathan Beach 20:48, 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, Will (message me!) 09:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm not going to say delete again, but I totally agree with your "Delete unless cleaned up" semi-policy. Unfortunately, this was a "Random article" click I ran across. I personally have no interest in researching this subject. It doesn't seem like the editor who started this will follow up (he/she needed a lot of help with grammar/spelling/formatting anyway). I guess out of penance for AfD'ing it, I should become the new expert on this obscure freedom fighter with the extremely long and confusing name: Doctor Shri Fitz Remedios Santana (a.k.a. F.R.S.) De Souza. Anyone want to help? --Nathan Beach 16:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be able to help - later this week. Judging by this, he seems to have been a participant at one or more of the Lancaster House Conferences (Kenya). Someone with access to the digital Times would probably be able to track him down. --HJMG 08:20, 25 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; content userfied to User:Kaustuv/WRGPT. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I have in turn moved it to User:Kidtire/WRGPT, as he was the original and sole author of that page. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WRGPT[edit]

    WP:SPAM for the "World Rec.Gambling Poker Tournament". A non-notable WP:WEB-site. Google hits (WRGPT): 658. No Alexa traffic rank for: quizkids.com. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: drew a border around multi-line comment. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The border gives undue prominence to one IP's comment. I lumped everything together as per convention for comments. Kimchi.sg 23:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Will (message me!) 08:45, 20 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, the award on itself doesn't seem to be notable, and the society awarding it had its article deleted earlier. The biographical information could be merged to Albert Mackey, but I can't verify it and there are no sources in this article concerning it. - Bobet 21:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Albert G. Mackey Award[edit]

    This is an nn award with only a five-year history, no list of recipients, and the part of the article that is actually about the award and not the person it was named after is only a stub, sourced to a few lines in one publication. MSJapan 14:19, 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]
     AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
     Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Will (message me!) 08:48, 20 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. Formed consensus, and the articles on themselves don't provide any information besides the players' positions and date of birth. If there's something encyclopedic to be said about them, someone can try again with a new article. - Bobet 21:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Maisonnueve[edit]

    This footballer plays for a club in a French amateur league, and have never played for a professional club.

    I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

    --Punkmorten 09:17, 20 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 (Take me down to the Paradise City) 09:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Barony of Tabria[edit]

    Original research, not a reputable source, not an important subject. Could be a hoax. I'm also adding many other pages in the category "Maltese nobility". Either they are unsourced, or they come from a small family of web sites. None of these web sites cite their sources. This subject would be of minor encyclopedic interest if a reputable source could be found. Historically, they may be interesting (but not without a good source). As for now, they look like vanity pages. Even if they do exist and have some bona fide claim to their titles, they would still be vanity pages if they're not mentioned anywhere in a reputable source. I'm not an expert, but apparently something like Burke's Peerage is a good source. There is no use in listing all of these baronies/noblethings as separate entries. It is promotion or vanity. Apparently it is all based on a single web site anyways. The user who made most of these has been notified on his talk page User:Tancarville

    At best, they could make a single page referring to Malta nobility, their committee, with good sources, and then put in a link to their web page. Many of these pages were already listed as unsourced or original research.

    The related pages I nominated are:

    I did not list the following pages in the same category because they have some sources:

    Perhaps we should consider letting the article writer put in better sources. In these types of articles, the reference should be to an individual page in these books or at least a chapter, so that someone can borrow the book in their local library and check them. But since nearly all of these pages are written by a single author, and these types of pages may embroil Wikipedia in the less-reputable sale and promotion of old useless or practically extinct nobility titles, I think it is better to delete them. Also, note the possibility that most of the text here has been copied wholesale from one of the older book sources, hence breaking copyright/GFDL.

    Also, could someone look for these pages in other language Wikipedias? - Janbrogger 10:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • How do you prove that you can't find a way to prove something exists? GassyGuy 15:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically, by asking yourself "what would we expect to find, if this were true" and seeing if anything like that is there? I'm not going to vouch for these articles, but I think that calling them a hoax in bulk needs something a bit more convincing than a Usenet quarrel. Smerdis of Tlön 15:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quite agree there. I'm not at all convinced that these articles are hoaxes. However, what I do think is that they fail to meet WP:V, so that is my main concern. GassyGuy 15:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still delete the lot. The big question here is sources. Wikipedia articles must, must, must be based on reliable, reputable and verifiable sources. If the sources were there, I agree we should keep a subset of these articles. However, the reason that I nominated the lot is that the sources are extremely dubious. Apart from that, and adding weight to the deletion question is that these are NN, potentially ladden with copyright, and embroils Wikipedia in the dubious claims of "lost" nobility titles (as I suspected, and has been verified. Wikipedia will not even inch forward towards encyclopedic fame and reliability unless sources, sources, sources are emphasized. I'm an MD, PhD with a strong academic interest. It really is vital. This is a good example of what does not belong in Wikipedia - because of sources. Janbrogger 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest that we re-open the prior deision that pertains to the lot of them. The consensus reached about these articles back in early 2005 was that none of them were technically "original research," they were generally notable and verifiable (if with some difficulty), and as such they should remain. Several things have changed since then: verifiability and reference requirements have been substantially tightened, and the number of Maltese nobility articles has substantially increased, and arguably reaches to dubious claims or minor figure. Finally, there's the new claim that some or all of them represent hoaxes. Smerdis of Tlön 17:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    and secondly here is a list which I provided to a site of notable.

    Move to Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility?[edit]

    It has been suggested that this discussion be moved to: Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility~ - Janbrogger 22:06, 20 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 CSD:A7 - no assertion of notability. Gwernol 11:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sam cox[edit]

    Not suitable for Wikipedia Phoenix Hacker 09:19, 20 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 repost, doesn't matter if you have got TfD'ed templates. As long as the text is substantially identical, down it goes. Kimchi.sg 10:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Public transport connecting to The Hague (2nd nomination)[edit]

    This article was deleted a few days ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public transport connecting to The Hague), but was recreated. It does not contain encyclopedic information and all relevant information can be found in The Hague, Railway stations in the Netherlands and Train routes in the Netherlands . Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:22, 20 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 speedily deleted. Kusma (討論) 16:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamie Edwards[edit]

    Vanity Page Phoenix Hacker 09:28, 20 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 with Nukular Fire lol. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of catch phrases[edit]

    Fails WP:NOT (various failures of WP:OR and WP:V within the article too), and any article that has a warning at the top that it isn't about what it states in its title has to be a candidate for deletion. Yomangani 11:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Due to popular demand, I'm also listing the associated:

    Yomangani 14:51, 20 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 and redirect to Homestar Runner. – Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 09:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Homestar Runner Wiki[edit]

    Following deletion of Lostpedia, this is another generic fan wiki. No cited sources, nothing in Google News, all looks like WP:OR. "Notable users" includes one name, no article on this person, just an interwiki link to the HR wiki user profile (cross-namespace and cross-wiki!). Has about 1400 articles. Just zis Guy you know? 11:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Many fan wikis would be the same. There is a long-standing tradition of interaction between the fan community and their idols, wikis just extend this. The point is simply there is nothing to show how this wiki is unusual; the wiki is a notable concept, individual wikis are rarely notable. Ditto blog/blogs, myspace/myspaces, YTMND/YTMNDs. Just zis Guy you know? 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that YTMND itself isn't notable? Even after all the press it gets? Crazyswordsman 00:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Note that vanispam is a definition, not a policy. And for verifiability, then every article but two in this category should be deleted per that rationale; that and thousands of other articles that I am sure have the same issues. I must agree that the article deserves a major rewrite (I honestly don't know what the policy is regarding a rewrite in the middle of an AfD), but how hard is it to do THAT? Something slightly larger than this article migtht suffice, or is that article going to be AfD's too? I am willing to continue the shave but I am afraid that even despite the changes the end result would be deleted anyway. Forgive me for being a little bitter (and verbose), but to me this seems like a sledgehammer solution for a problem that requires pliers, and no one wants to help. Just AfD. --Stux 17:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A rewrite during the AFD is fine. I've done it myself to have articles saved and so far it's worked, but perhaps I only pick easy ones. Yes, VSCA is definitional, but it is a WP:NOT definition. Verifiability is very difficult for websites in general, and few actually pass any sort of strict interpretation. The existence of the site can reasonably be inferred from its existence, and a short description likewise, but where do you go from there ? WP:WEB is not an easy bar to get over, but if Homestar Runner Wiki meets any of those criteria you should add the references showing that to the article right away. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry it has taken this long, but thank you very much for your response to my question and advice. I have tried to make a few changes by condensing the article. --Stux 05:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What do we need to verify here that can't be done by A) seeing it exists and B) reading HRWiki:HRWiki:A History? - Kookykman|(t)e 22:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The notability of the site.--Peephole 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The majority of fan wikis seem have no articles at all, or to get deleted, because the ocntents are almost without exception unverifiable from independent secondary sources. A short paragraph on the parent article is fine, but fan wiki articles in general have a cruft factor of close to unity - I'm sorry, but the world at large really does not care about anything more than the fact that they exist. Just zis Guy you know? 15:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, actually, the Homestar Runner Wiki is one of those few exceptions. I don't edit the Wiki (I DO have my own Wiki which will get an article on Wikipedia just as soon as I get struck by lightning), but there IS maybe a paragraph or two that could be merged somewhere else. I personally think this is more notable than Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia, however, it's not notable enough to warrant an article (mainly because this Wiki has become much more than just a fanwiki). Sir Crazyswordsman 15:44, 30 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 and protect. Cross-space redirects are not allowed, anyway. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Votes for deletion and Articles for deletion[edit]

    Delete pseudo-article-redirects absurdism beyond the ridiculous reaching somewhere into the sublime. These are either the incredibly obvious redirects to their incredibly obvious target or they are nothing. They are not the lunacy that apparently two people want them to be. Or, better, make back into redirects. -Splash - tk 11:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    also, protect-delete for a while if this comes back after being deleted, theres no reason to go through AFD a third time for this. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 00:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, the first deletion debate was completely unrelated to the redirect, you realise? -Splash - tk 00:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the point of protect-deleting this? The end result will be replacing a useful "self-reference" (a cross-space redirect) by a useless self-refernece (((deletedpage))). I fail to see how this improves Wikipedia. Kusma (討論) 08:34, 24 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 12:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Shadows in Light's Sky Castle[edit]

    Article about a fantasy series, apparently on DeviantART. I googled for the phrase, and only got the Wikipedia entry for results. --Sam Pointon 12:07, 20 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 07:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pat Mullin (soccer)[edit]

    Non-notable footballer. soccerbase.com has no record of him ever having played in the football league and he is now plying his trade for a non-league team nine levels below the Premiership. Article also contains essentially no information on him ChrisTheDude 12:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nobody is denying that he plays for Maidstone, however that alone does not confer notability..... ChrisTheDude 06:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed - hence the second part of my comment :-) BlueValour 11:15, 24 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 08:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fin Smith[edit]

    I might be wrong but that looks like a hoax to me. There is no Google hit for a Fineous Farrier, there are no references given and why is the article called Fin Smith? It's also the only contribution of the user ‎FinLeNinja Optimale Gu 12:11, 20 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Hageman[edit]

    How is he comparable to a high school soccer player? He's got a professional contract in one of the better teams in the premier Irish league. Vickser 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This was User:JeffMurph's first post. -- Alias Flood 17:44, 24 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 06:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Artemis Fowl (film)[edit]

    WP:NOT a Crystal Ball. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 23:52, 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 keep - multiple non-trivial works, yada yada yada - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles B. Johnson[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 speedily deleted by Royboycrashfan. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    David Summerlin[edit]

    This article needs more fleshing out, but I disagree strongly with deletion. Ebacherdom 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with the mystery poster. This article should be considered a legitimate stub until we see where the editing tasks it, or if someone proves that David Summerlin is a non-notable. --chemica 23:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe, the mystery poster is the person who started the article. Could you please add a post-dated sign please? --anirudh 02:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Fine, delete it already - you obviously have more friends than I do, Gingerjoos! Ebacherdom 20:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete per author request. So tagged. Fan-1967 21:15, 20 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 when ignoring the anons - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Delfin Fernandez[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 19:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dinio García[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 as rewritten. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Kellogg[edit]

    Having been asked to explain my vote, I observe on further inspection that his father (to which I thought the article should be redirected) doesn't actually have an article to redirect to, while the company mentioned -- which might have been the other logical target -- has only a one-line stub. This therefore appears to be the most detailed entry on any of the related subjects. I remain of the opinion that a single article on the Kelloggs would be preferable to several, but as we don't have several, there doesn't seem to be any such problem. I am therefore changing my vote to keep and expand, at least for now; perhaps the father could also be discussed in this context, to give a broader, more detailed article. — Haeleth Talk 15:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment for further clarification: since a redirect would make no sense when the only possible target article does not mention this man at all, the minimal sensible outcome, if the consensus is to delete or redirect, would be to merge this with the article on the company. — Haeleth Talk 15:21, 24 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. Little context.. Tyrenius 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Raindom[edit]

    This is a senseless entry containing no information at all. Spam? Wastekiller 22:06, 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. Redirect optional. Mailer Diablo 19:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    University College Dublin YFG[edit]

    Its the same reason for University College Cork YFG --Wild ride 11:41, 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 an attack page. -- Kjkolb 13:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kage Syndrome[edit]

    Zero google hits on this, a slang term apparently known only to members of a certain internet forum. Non-notable, no reliable sources for this, etc. Xyzzyplugh 12:39, 20 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 20:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Stoomie[edit]

    Falls well short of WP:MUSIC, vanity Optimale Gu 12:43, 20 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of vehicles in Halo 2[edit]

    Sigh. Though this was deleted just a week ago, the article was reposted. Speedy deletion tag was removed by admin as the content was not identical. Admin then placed a PROD tag on it which was removed with the edit summary "the predecessor to this article should have never been deleted" which shows the editor has clearly gone against the consesus of other editors. Previous discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_vehicles_in_the_Halo_universe. We've already had the discussion and such, so hopefully a speedy delete is still in order. Let someone take it to articles for undeletion or deletion review or whatever. Simply re-creating the article is not the proper way of getting things done. Delete. Wickethewok 12:49, 20 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 and wikify. Natgoo 19:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Amber Chia[edit]

    Questionable notability. She's a model, not one of the ranks of supermodels. Many Google hits, but they tend not to assert any notability for her, often mentioning her name in passing Lurker 13:03, 20 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. Natgoo 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Guitar moves[edit]

    Despite the obvious good faith in its creation, the article is unmaintainable. It has references for only a handful of the listed moves, making the rest apparently from author experience. Furthermore, few reliable sources on the subject could possibly exist. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and while a comprehensive list of stage moves certainly has a place somewhere on the Internet, this is not it. Deltabeignet 13:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Titles should be either clear, known to everyone (referenced, not made up) names of moves, or just bare descriptions (for example, I doubt that "Playing behind the back" can be named otherwise or it's not clear for everyone what this title refers to)
    2. Move description should include clear and brief descriptions of actions involved and refer to particular persons. A good reference is a photo or short animation of a person doing it.
    3. Move should include description of famous performers of this particular one, an inventor (if applicable), history of development of move, info on various variations, info on performances captured on video.
    4. Article should be fixed to use neutral, encyclopedic tone, without using "you do so and so" and that kind of language.

    Guitar moves are pretty popular, has its traditions and long history. While current metal bands may thrash the whole scene and it looks pretty average, aggressive and extreme moves in 1950-60s looked really shocking. As for obscurity of the material - we have articles such as air guitar or juggling that also list various moves and techniques and even whole categories such as Category:Juggling patterns and tricks. Also, the article can be a good source for beginner performer to find some interesting thoughts to spice up his performance. --GreyCat 17:22, 20 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 22:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This article is currently undergoing examination for copyright violations and may be deleted on those grounds. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Christine Caine[edit]

    Non-notable minister. Google returns inconclusive results, mostly a jeweler with the same name. She also seems to be connected to the Christian30 hoax astroturfing campaign. Danny Lilithborne 13:53, 20 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 22:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Adam Fulara[edit]

    No evidence is given of notability. Evidence of absence, etc, but Google didn't reveal anything overtly promising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystallina (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 no consensus to delete. - brenneman {L} 01:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fonzie Syndrome[edit]

    The text and the premise are rampant violations of WP:OR. Since an official set-in-stone definition of this contrived made-up neologism can never be conclusively proven in any reference work, it's a dumping ground for anyone to insert their own opinions and stick any info they feel might belong there (however tenuously). wikipediatrix 14:01, 20 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 debate was delete. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Quantified Marketing Group[edit]

    Advert for a company Edward 14:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Hageman[edit]

    How is he comparable to a high school soccer player? He's got a professional contract in one of the better teams in the premier Irish league. Vickser 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This was User:JeffMurph's first post. -- Alias Flood 17:44, 24 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 - multiple non-trivial works, yada yada yada - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles B. Johnson[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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Diana Bianchi[edit]

    Not notable. The information can already be found on Christie Brinkley's page, in fact it's the only page that links to it. Besides having the affair with Christie Brinkley's husband she's not notable. I'm listing on AfD because this page has previously been marked with ((db-bio)) but it was reverted/removed. ImmortalGoddezz 14:32, 20 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 as rewritten. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Kellogg[edit]

    Having been asked to explain my vote, I observe on further inspection that his father (to which I thought the article should be redirected) doesn't actually have an article to redirect to, while the company mentioned -- which might have been the other logical target -- has only a one-line stub. This therefore appears to be the most detailed entry on any of the related subjects. I remain of the opinion that a single article on the Kelloggs would be preferable to several, but as we don't have several, there doesn't seem to be any such problem. I am therefore changing my vote to keep and expand, at least for now; perhaps the father could also be discussed in this context, to give a broader, more detailed article. — Haeleth Talk 15:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment for further clarification: since a redirect would make no sense when the only possible target article does not mention this man at all, the minimal sensible outcome, if the consensus is to delete or redirect, would be to merge this with the article on the company. — Haeleth Talk 15:21, 24 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 20:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sunday Night Group[edit]

    A group of environmental activists at Middlebury College. Has been tagged for WP:NPOV problems, and per comments on the talk page there's some serious WP:Weaseling, but even if those are resolved, I really don't see that this group has any notability beyond their campus. Citations are primarily to campus websites and a few blogs. I would guess there are similar groups at thousands of universities, and this one is not notable enough for an article. Fan-1967 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • What student organizations are you specifically referring to? Generally, we tend to avoid articles on student organizations confined to one college. There certainly may exist some, which have not been noticed, but overall articles for such organizations tend to get deleted. Fan-1967 04:57, 23 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AEA Consulting[edit]

    Article reads like vanity/advertising. Also see Aea consulting. Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 14:56, 20 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Schools in the East[edit]

    Listcruft Computerjoe's talk 15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment At the very least, it drastically needs a new title. I was expecting to see Harvard, Georgetown, Yale and MIT. Fan-1967 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can you explain what you mean by 'no context' please? If you mean the title of the article, then I have said above that probably needs changing. If it is just that the title is ambiguous, which is what your comment implies, then why vote to delete? Wouldn't suggesting a new name be better? Evil Eye 16:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Fine, if you want a reason, much of the list just invites redlinks to be created and AfD'd. In other words, much of the list is nonnotable and it's a little too indiscriminate for my liking as well. Why only England? What about every other country (for example, a list for the U.S., even for a larger state, would become unmaintainable quickly.). --ColourBurst 04:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Such lists do already exist for every US state. The other parts of the UK also have such lists (which I noticed were split out of a single article for the whole UK about a week or so ago. I'm sure other countries will also have simialr lists. But this idea of lists was a compromise I had heard talked about many times when reading the arguments for and against individual school articles. rather than a tiny stub article on every school, just giving the info of type of school, location, size etc, the list gives all schools in one area, (which is the way the list will likely be most useful) with this information in just one large article instead of 100 or 500 or 1000 separate articles. Evil Eye 12:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You're right (it exists for Canada also, but only for certain provinces). But I've taken a look at the country listings and it's very inconsistent. I'm still of the mind that it's unmaintainable (and probably a lot of the other school lists are unmaintainable as well). I'm not picking on you personally - it's an incredible mess. (E.g. why are only international schools in Shanghai in the China list? Why isn't BC (a fairly large province) included in the Canadian schools? Why is the listing of schools in Quebec only art schools? What about school-like institutions? What constitutes a school?) --ColourBurst 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Then I suggest you nominate for deletion the 50 or so list articles for lists of schools in the US for each state. There are no articles to go along side them of exactly the same name either. Why is there no article of the same name? Becuase the article which would contain the information in an article called Schools in the East of England would actually be contained in an article either on a more specific area or a more general area and would also be entitled education, eg Education in England or Education in Cambridgshire. And you say there is nothing in common between schools in the article, well within each such section of the article there are similarities. For example, you see the structure in Buckinghamshire contains upper, middle and lower, where as Cambridgeshire has Primary and Secondary Schools. Some LEAs will show lots of Grammar Schools, others wil have none. Maybe Educational establishments in the East of England would be more suitable? Alos, I say again, the reason there is this article is becasue one single artilce for the whole of England or the UK would be too huge to keep as a single article. What is really silly here is that people on here have been arguing for a long time against individual article for all schools, with the suggestion articles on education within each LEA, which lists the schools and gives only the basic information, eg type of school, local, size etc, with only the most notable schools having their own articles. Here we have the startings of such a system and yet people are still not happy and want to get rid of even the most basic collective articles on the subject. I really don't understand it. Evil Eye 12:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole education structure is mess I agree (probably because schools aren't encyclopedic per se), but even if one was to accept your reasoning that it should exist because it can't be found anywhere else, the list you've created is just slightly less unmanageable than a whole list of schools in England. It's already huge and I guess you've barely started. Yomangani 12:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd guess the current list here is about 1/3 to 1/2 complete. That is however only a rough estimate. Then there would be finding the information on each school which would make the article more worthwhile. But the current state is a start and there is a clear end point to it too, which, once reached, means the artciel would only need updating when a schools changes, eg closes, a new one opens, a specialis is added/changed etc. It's not really an open ended lsit. Large yes, but certainly it has it's boundaries. And I'd say it's a very useful list too. Evil Eye 12:59, 21 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 08:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chavworld[edit]

    Non-notable website Geoffrey Spear 15:12, 20 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 --Pilotguy (roger that) 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Black Box Network Services (UK) Ltd.[edit]

    Article is lacking is notability and is a copy vio from the company's website Spartaz 15:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    please also note Black Box Network Services (UK) Ltd has been put up for speedy Spartaz 15:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    at the very least it needs to be an original article and not a copy paste from the company website Spartaz 15:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please explain to me why cyclades corporation are on wikipedia? Why they are also allowed to advertise vendors of their products. The inconsistency on here is truly remarkable. Why do corporations like Microsoft or IBM get to advertise their products too. One rule for one, one rule for another.

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Everson (2nd Nomination)[edit]

    Call for Second VfD It's time we voted on nuking this a second time, this time noticing these points:

    - --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 15:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    One more thing, since Everson would always rather waste time addressing the author than the issue, I would like to state ahead of time that I'm not a sockpuppet and that I nearly never contribute anything to Wikipedia whatsoever, which doesn't make any of the above points less valid. Thank you. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 15:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Woah, he was on the front page of the technology section of the New York Times. That's what, section number S? If he's so famous, how come nobody else wrote an article about him? --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you aware the author wrote the article himself and reverts all changes made to it? That's not NPOV at all. This is precisely the sort of article that Wikipedia vanity page guidelines are specifically against--SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I see no evidence of that. If he's notable enough (which he seems to be, he meets WP:BIO), we can ignore the vanity guidelines. As for the edits, he has only made three edits to this article this year. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 16:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds to me like you need to read the discussion page of the article, where he rants and raves about what a celebrity he is --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but are you making a joke? In WP:BIO guidelines is a direct quote: "Autobiography -- Has this been written by the subject or someone closely involved with the subject?" Then I direct you to Talk:Michael Everson and tell me he's not the worst offender to WP:VAIN in the history of Wikipedia. This is precisely the sort of self-aggrandizing garbage that the editing guidelines are for. Also, an autobiography is by definition not NPOV because it is from the point of view of the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay (talk • contribs) .
    You fail to mention that your quote comes from the section headed, "Other tests for inclusion that have been proposed (but haven't necessarily received consensus support)". There is no rule against autobiography, and I do not agree that autobiographies are by definition POV. When I said, "seems to pass WP:BIO," I was of course referring to the primary guidelines at the top of the page, and not the alternative proposals which haven't yet reached consensus. --Craig Stuntz 16:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the cruft about him being a Buddhist, a polyglot, part Irish and other stuff like that? That's uncyclopedic and belongs on his userpage or better yet, MySpace. If I for some bizarre reason were researching Unicode contributors and authors (and there's a whole lot of them but Everson likes to make it sound like there's a grand total of two Unicode authors in the world) would I need to know all this? --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment That can just be removed. AFD is not a cleanup tag. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were that easy, I wouldn't have gone to all this trouble. I've attempted to edit that cruft out and revert wars between me, him and his sockpuppets start. He doesn't allow a point of view that is not the Michael Everson point of view. With Everson, you get your cake and you eat it too. He's advertising on Wikipedia for free, he has his resume on Wikipedia for free, and he's the god of his own article. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case you need to list this article at WP:RFC, not here. Yomangani 16:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Biography suggests including the subject's religion. Being polyglot and part Irish appears to me to be 1) directly relevant to his professional work and 2) categories, not article content. If you don't like the categories, that's also a separate issue. --Craig Stuntz 17:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does he need a biography? All he's ever done is make a few fonts for Unicode. Big deal! He didn't invent Unicode, he's not the sole contributor, and if it weren't for Michael Everson's vanity, this article would never exist in the first place. He's worthy of maybe an extremely brief mention in Unicode on what fonts he's made, but why does anybody at all need to know all that about him, why do we need a picture of him looking very color-coordinated in front of a landmark in Iran, or have a seperate page for him whatsoever? He's got a userpage, that's what it's for. DELETE. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 17:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your suggestion of rewriting the article yourself would, for once, actually be a step in the right direction to obeying the rules and making the article up to some sort of NPOV. If one is to base judgement of Everson's notability by the entry he wrote, he is like a God, the master of letters and linguistics who all but invented Unicode. Anybody who checks up on the facts finds this to be embellished and inflammatory. He won't link to Unicode.org because that website shows he is less of a contributor than at first it may appear, and joined the project at a later date than many. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your last remark indicates to me that you have very little first-hand familiarity with the history and evolution of both the Unicode and the ISO/IEC 10646 project, that you have not been for years on the relevant internal mailing lists and committee meetings, that you are not a regular reader of the countless very well researched documents that Michael Everson has contributed to the working groups in charge of ISO/IEC 10646 over the past decade, but that instead you are quick to form strong opinions after a very superficial search on a few web sites written for lay audience. With regard to rewriting the article from scratch, well, I am to a first approximation as lazy as anyone else and am certainly most happy to let the man himself provide the raw material to get started, which I am then most happy to trim and extend in scope and language as I see fit for an encyclopedia entry. Just like with any other Wikipedia article. Please work a bit harder on finding a pragmatic balance between treating the no-autobiography policy as a strict and irrevokable religious dogma, and the practicalities of getting high-quality and authoritative biographic information into Wikipedia. Did it never occur to you, that the vast majority of biographies out there of living people written by others are relying almost exclusively on raw information provided by the person concerned? Most dispicable of all, you have so far been only some anonymous coward. Show at least some face, contribution, and personality, rather than a sock puppet created obviously for the sole purpose of deleting this article! Markus Kuhn 23:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While you're right that SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay hasn't contributed anything, and yeah he probably is a sock puppet, and I'm sure Michael Everson has done a lot with Unicode, what does that have to do with the general utter suckiness of this article? --205.162.51.137 03:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering when you'd show up, John Cowan. The very fact that the page has not changed at all and is not *allowed to be changed at all* through you and Everson's (is he your friend or something?) reverts is further proof that this page does not belong on Wikipedia. It's a MySpace, and you know it. To answer your accusation that the VfD itself is somehow abusive, it's been over an entire year since the last time and a whole lot of people have tried to change this page and it just seems to be getting reverted continuously, even on the occasion something new is found out about him. In addition, he only cites primary sources, which is reason enough to nuke. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the honor to be Michael's friend, yes. Useful changes have been made and not reverted: only vandalism has been reverted. In addition, anyone who deliberately links a Wikipedia article to that extremely unfunny travesty at Encyclopedia Dramatica exposes, in my opinion, his utter lack of good faith. --John Cowan 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That vandalism has nothing to do with this VfD, as per addressed in the original reasons. I wrote that part for people like you. [So you openly admit violating a guideline, then. --John Cowan 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)] [No, I definitely do not. You must have heard I am backing out of this conversation. That doesn't mean you get to accuse me of things long after we have discussed. That's bad faith. Back off. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)]You're terribly predictable. To address your earlier comment about how there should be "exceptions" to the Wikipedia:No binding decisions policy, that is the sort of ludicrous hipocrisy that brings the trolls to target contradictory arrogance like that. You want the Wikipedia:No binding decisions policy to have binding decisions? Logically, it wouldn't be a no binding decisions policy any more, then, would it, Johnny? Your action of asking for some sort of special protection against people constructively editing an autobiography does NOT apply, that's for user pages, not autobiographies. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 02:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asking for a policy to prevent endless VfDs. That's very different from page protection. --John Cowan 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, anybody who starts from the first edit and looks at the diffs can plainly see there's been A LOT of constructive edits that have been reverted soley because of the autobiographer's personal opinion. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 02:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree with this, although I think that AfD is not the solution. --Craig Stuntz 18:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He has recently asked me to revert vandalism, and I was happy to do so. (I am not a sock puppet.) --John Cowan 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that what user pages are for? Again, if he's notable, why didn't somebody else write an article about him? --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Says who? Him? --205.162.51.137 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My response to that: There's been a whole lot of talking about how notable he is. If there's so many institutions verifying all of this information how come links to unicode.org keep getting reverted, how come ON unicode.org he wrote his own bio as well, which echoes this article, and how come he only references his own website and interviews about himself? Could it be because if you research the issue, Everson is a much more minor contributor than you think he is to Unicode? Tell you what, why don't you give me some sort of number here on how much he's done vs. total number of typefaces and we'll see how notable he really is. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 06:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In 1986-1987, At Xerox, Huan-mei Liao, Nelson Ng, Dave Opstad, and Lee Collins begin work on a database to map the relationships between identical Japanese (JIS) and Chinese (simplified and traditional) characters for quickly building a font for extended Chinese characters. Xerox users (e.g. Nakajima of Toronto) were in fact using JIS to extend the small Chinese character set. This leads to a first discussion of Han Unification, the pros & cons of which are written up by Eric Mader. At the same time at Apple, discussions of a universal character set are sparked by the Apple File Exchange development. Mark Davis begins Apple's participation in ANSI X3L2. From February 1989, working group meetings starts more frequently, starts the foundation of Unicode Consortium, (which formally founded in 1991). (At this point, most probably less than 25 active founding members). November 1988, Lee Collins begins building the Unicode Non-Han database and defining the initial repertoire, the first database for the Unicode names and mappings. The Unicode Standard was first published in October, 1991 (ISBN 0-201-56788-1 ). Unicode 1.0.1 (Volume 2)(June, 1992)(ISBN 0-201-60845-6). Unicode 1.1 (June 1993)(Previos 2 publications and Mark Davis' Unicode Technical Report #4:The Unicode Standard, Version 1.1) is actually known as real Unicode. UTF-8 borned in 1992. Even in June 1994, Michael Everson was Irish representative (official member CEN/TC304 and ISO/JTC1/SC2/WG3). I've found Michael Everson's papers (Unicode related N956 at JTC1-SC2-WG2 archive) from March, 1994. Michael Everson released "Everson Mono Unicode" font in 1995, After more than a year in development. Which is world's 3rd Unicode font. Before him, first was Charles Bigelow & Kris Holmes' "Lucida Sans Unicode" font in 1993 (Shipped in Win NT 3.1). Second was, "Unihan" font by Ross Paterson in 1993. UTF-8 was formally adopted in ISO 10646 in 1996. Unicode 2.0 (August 1996)(ISBN: 0201483459 . 9 major authors). Unicode 2.1.2(May, 1998. Prev 3 publication and paper of Lisa Moore, Unicode Technical Report #8, The Unicode Standard, Version 2.1). Unicode 3.0(Sept, 1999, published in 2000. ISBN 0-201-61633-5). Since 2000 (from the version 3.0), He is one of the Co-author of publications of Unicode Standards, out of total 12 (principal) authors (Joan Aliprand, Julie Allen, Joe Becker, Mark Davis, Michael Everson, Asmus Freytag, John Jenkins, Mike Ksar, Rick McGowan, Lisa Moore, Michel Suignard, and Ken Whistler). Unicode standard is now going under very important changes (ie roadmap) to enhance the standard for applied fields, based on the papers, where Michael Everson is one of the co-author, out of total three authors. He is now a very bigger figure than before. --Tarikash 23:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    There's only primary sources (interviews *are* primary) and original research here, which violates WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:BLP, and have been reason enough all by themselves to speedily delete other articles. Then there's the fact that he keeps reverting and nitpcking edits by not just the vandals but ordinary edits of himself or reverting by proxy through Mr. Cowen, which is explicitly violation of WP:BLP#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 06:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you feel so strongly about this person's accomplishments, would you please edit the article to put more emphasis on them and why they are particularly notable? I accept that Everson may be a terrific person, but from the article I still don't understand why he deserves note in an encyclopedia or why it's relevant that he was born in Norristown or is a Buddhist or likes Tolkien. That Unicode is important is a fact which belongs in the Unicode article; that Everson is a "significant part" of it is something which this Michael Everson article does a poor job of conveying. - Brian Kendig 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The authors in Unicode 3.0 are listed in alphabetical order, and everson is 5th of 12, not 6th. In Unicode 4.0 ISBN 0-321-18578-1, they are also listed in alphabetical order (Everson is 5th out of 13). More bad-faith special pleading on your part. Aye-Aye 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's one of 12 contributers, none of them have userpages. Read [60] and you'll find there are contributors with more notable achievements, and none of them have their own vanity page. Go on, look. You can change your vote if you want. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't we just make articles for the other 10 out of 12 primary co-authors as well? And then all of the secondary contributers. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 19:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes we should. – Kaihsu 20:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Can you contend with a straight face this article would exist if it were not auto-biographical in nature? --NEMT 20:54, 25 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, obvious junk. No google hits, this word is not in usage. Friday (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bedridiation[edit]

    Neologism - perhaps joke or hoax. Meaningless in any event. KarenAnn 15:46, 20 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 20:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Locke LeCruset[edit]

    Prod removed by author. I cite this line of text about the subject: "Locke LeCruset is a fictional character appearing in several short stories written by Zachary Adam, many of which have gone unpublished outside a few scope of fan-boards." After prod removed, another sentence was added: "(Though an analogy will avialable in hard-copy in January 2007)." I'm not sure what to make of that, but, at best, it's claiming it will be notable at a later date, and WP is not a crystal ball. My google searches of "Locke LeCruset," "Locke Le Cruset," "Lock LeCruset," and "Lock Le Cruset" return no results. GassyGuy 15:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Update: This doesn't affect the nomination, but I thought I'd add that my research shows that this character is fanfic from the forum Final fantasia. I don't know anything about fanfic fora, so I won't prod that article, but request that someone else look it over as, to me, it seems non-notable. GassyGuy 16:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Agreed and done. --DarkAudit 19:23, 20 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. -- Longhair 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Planetpaul[edit]

    "Imaginary planet", really just an artist's website; nonnotable as planet, no opinion as to artist. NawlinWiki 16:07, 20 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 CSD A8. Xoloz 17:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Gnostic Movement Incorporated[edit]

    violates WP:NOR and also most of the article is a copyvio (cut and paste from [62]) -999 (Talk) 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Often, noncommercial sites such as those of nonprofit organizations, governments, and so on will use .com addresses, which some find to be contrary to the domain's original purpose. A .org, .gov, or other more specific TLD might be more appropriate for such sites."
    See www.tva.com, (U.S. federal agency) and www.ordotempliorientalis.com for just two examples.
    SynergeticMaggot and 999, you are not disinterested parties when it comes to editing gnosticism-related articles. From the perspective of an outsider, pushing for the speedy deletion of this article (as well as, for 999, a pattern of not notifying authors of articles nominated for deletion) may begin to look like POV-pushing, an attempt to bypass the more deliberative process of AfD and even bad faith (if there's enough of it). I continue to believe this article should be deleted if it's not improved this week, but I will fiercely oppose speeding up the process.--A. B. 17:55, 20 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 and cleanup. – Avi 04:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Homogeneity (statistics)[edit]

    This article seems to be totally unintelligible to some mathematically astute WP editors, I have serious concerns about the history of edits of this article (some major contributions by 'Cruise' or 'David Cruise' and links to external sites which mention 'D. Krus') In its current state, the article is quite possibly OR, and fails to give any sensible definitions of the concepts it claims to be about. Reason the page should be deleted Madmath789 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC) and Salix alba (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This was previously listed as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homogeneity however the content of the page in question was cut and pasted into Homogeneity (statistics) and Homogeneity was turned into an uncontriversal disambig page. It seemed simpliest to start a new AfD discussion here rather than have a possibly confusing one at the old AfD. --Salix alba (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Content of previous AfD listed below

    Conditional keep I'm not an advanced math guy, but the history suggests that this has been taken seriously by a number of editors and expanded. It would be good to get a statistics expert to take a peek at it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    There does seem to be a core of something worthwhile here, there is certainly important statistics concerning hierarchal statistics, which I brushed across in my PostDoc days.
    I'm less certain that this material is correctly titled, or the concept of homogenity in statistics is adaquatly represented by this page. --Salix alba (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at Cruise's edits and found out that he made significant contributions to a number of articles (see User:David_Cruise/Contributions), some of which contained references to Krus' publications. He decided to leave Wikipedia around February and deleted many of his contributions. Since then his edits were mostly minor (or so I think) (Igny 17:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    There seem to be 2 different accounts here: Cruise and David Cruse, and I have some serious concerns about another contribution: Canonical analysis, which 'looks sensible' (and has references - but almost all to sites connected with David Krus of 'Cruise scientific') - until you try to read it very carefully! Madmath789 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to raise the issue of Cruise's contributions to math articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics (Igny 18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    According to Google Scholar [63], Krus has many publications in the fields of Psychometrics, Psychology. Could it have sense as homogeneity(psychometrics)? (Igny 19:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    Comment a quick google finds An explanation of the statistics used in the Meta-analysis: A meta-analysis combines the data from several studies about the same subject. Homogeneity measures the differences or similarities between the several studies. which I think is an acurate definition of the term (well it seems reasonable to me). Taking this definition the article begins to have more context. If we have two studies which largely agree then will have logically consistant data matricies.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Candy Bouquet[edit]

    Advertising spam. Violates WP:SPAM. KarenAnn 16:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak delete, Google generates quite a few hits, mostly related to individual franchises. Current article reads like an ad. Either clean it up and make a legitimate article or get rid of it. SmartGuy 16:37, 20 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 20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Subdermal[edit]

    Dictdef, entry already in Wiktionary. I don't see this article ever expanding, as just the adjective itself is too vague to be a topic. hateless 16:25, 20 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 20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Commonwealth recipes[edit]

    Fails (by a mile) WP:WEB. KarenAnn 16:37, 20 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 Pittsburgh Steelers. Done. Ifnord 00:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Pittsburgh Steelers players who have been MVP[edit]

    Needless list-cruft. If anything it should be part of the Pittsburgh Steelers article. Wrath of Roth 16:38, 20 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. Natgoo 19:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Belle (Beauty and the Beast)[edit]

    The entirety of the page is just a summary of the movie, and includes some parts that the writer aparrently made up, i.e. the Beast's human name. The page is therefore redundant and pointless, and contains some bad information. EDIT-- Since my initial complaint was lodged, the article has been redone to include her other appearances. It's fine now, save that there's a very long synopsis of one movie, and "Prince Adam" is not mentioned in the movie or its screenplay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edmundog (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 Jul 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 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Philosophy[edit]

    Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 16:49, 20 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Entitlementia[edit]

    Neologism. Patent nonsense. KarenAnn 16:50, 20 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 as incoherent rambling.

    Eclectic Movement for Inri Cristo and Consolidation of the Kingdom of God Over the Earth[edit]

    Is it not obvious from reading the article? This is a pamphlet for some non-notable religious fanatic in Brazil. Cuñado - Talk 16:56, 20 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 08:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Final fantasia[edit]

    fails WP:WEB. Only 3 ghits for 'final fantasia', and none refer to the site. High alexa ranging is for the host for their work with other web forums, not the page in question. Article reads as an advert, coming foul of WP:SPAM. Author's rationale 'because I wanted an article on this'. --DarkAudit 16:57, 20 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 20:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    IndyScribe[edit]

    Non-notable blog/online mag rogerd 16:58, 20 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 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    God(song)[edit]

    "God" is a single and we have a page for the single (See God (single). I see no reason for this page. Jesussaves 17:04, 20 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Plotkin[edit]

    This article does not cite sources to establish notability. It was tagged [64] but the tag was subsequently removed [65]. A Google search does not reveal much [66]. Beside the Wikipedia entry, an interview to an online zine. This article is nominated for delete as per non-notable and possible fancruft. Tony Bruguier 17:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and said awards include multiple XYZZYs and first place in the 1995 Interactive Fiction Competition. Crystallina 18:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, saying "the tag was removed" implies that no additional information was added - award information was also added to the page at the same time. The notability tag can be removed if information is added to show notability. DenisMoskowitz 20:36, 20 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 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    William Lilburne[edit]

    This one's a borderline case of notability, which why I've AFD'd it instead of simply asking for a speedy deletion. Most notable clain he has is being a first cousin to one of the regicides of Charles I. A secondary claim of notability is being a great-great-great-grandfather of Thomas Jefferson. While we do have articles of relatives of some notable people, the relationships here are so remote that I can't see any reason to keep this article unless Wikipedia were a genealogical database, which it is not. Delete Caerwine Caerwhine 17:32, 20 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 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Heather Ekstedt[edit]

    Non-notable blog writer. Claims of activism unsourced and cannot be found via Google, and I found her blog here but it's just an infrequently updated blog with occasional press release postings from a fight attendant union. Subject's not notable enough to ensure sources that will pass WP:V. hateless 17:44, 20 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 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Francesco[edit]

    No indication of notability given. Google doesn't help, and his personal website has an Alexa in the vicinity of 600,000. Crystallina 17:52, 20 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 08:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    GhosT clan[edit]

    COMPLETELY non-notable gaming clan. As I have seen many a time here, delete all clans! Speedy and prod removed by author Wildthing61476 17:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ghosT clan Why do you have to delete is? it is simply an article about a clan that plays Cod2 and its just information? Dose it cause problem? Its just information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozsa123 (talk • contribs)


    Why dosnet it belong on wikipedia? the whole point in wikipeida is that it had everything? if you hate this artical so much just dont come here? savey?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozsa123 (talk • contribs)

    hahaha okay i dont care delete it. Its not that big a deal to me i just did it for fun.But damm you guys are sad i mean it dose nothing bad to you its just a cool thing but no it has to be gone gone gone,the majority of people go to wikipedia to enjoy what there looking for so it should matter. Maby some of the people i know will wanna know about the clan. but fine be hardas*s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozsa123 (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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reach Beam[edit]

    obscure pizza joint in Korea, not notable, advertising wikipediatrix 18:00, 20 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Organ Stop Pizza[edit]

    obscure pizza joint in Arizona, non-notable, advertising. wikipediatrix 18:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree it sounds like a very cool place, but a pipe organ doesn't bestow notability. Incidentally, their own website contradicts your claim: it says "one of the largest", not THE largest. wikipediatrix 18:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you show me the official WP policy that states that a pipe organ doesn't bestow notability? :) And, if you look further at the website, it does state that the organ is the largest. Also, I have cited a reliable source in a major newspaper about the establishment. It is a landmark in the area, and now that you know about it, and have seen there is reliable info about the location in confirmed sources, why not withdraw your nomination? (by the way, 822 Ghits, 321 unique.)PT (s-s-s-s) 18:24, 20 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pizza Papalis[edit]

    obscure pizza joint in Michigan, non-notable, advertising. wikipediatrix 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Shield's (restaurant) & Buddy's Pizza should be nominated for deletion as well. I can't be everywhere at once. wikipediatrix 19:54, 20 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 22:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hot Off The Press[edit]

    Article reads like vanity/advertising. Also appears to be cut and pasted from comapny website. Speedy and prod removed by author (as always) Wildthing61476 18:22, 20 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 20:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pizza Haven[edit]

    Two completely different restaurants of the same name share the same article, and neither of them are notable. wikipediatrix 18:28, 20 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 22:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tarikh Ahlul Hadith[edit]

    Incomprehensible religious gibberish. Probably meant to be a hadith about some holy man, but would likely fail WP:NOT, WP:NOR etc. even after extensive cleanup. Bonus points go to this article for citing itself as its only source. Sandstein 18:30, 20 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 22:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Netricity[edit]

    This is buzzword-based spam, and poorly worded to boot. If the term refers to something real and notable, this gibberish doesn't express it. Calbaer 18:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Artw, Please see my personal message to you concerning the rewrite in progress. Jthomp4338 21:39, 20 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The World Of An Idiot[edit]

    A TV show some guy wrote but it hasn't actually been made and there is no certainty that it ever will be. After I added a prod tag pointing this out the claim was added that talks are underway with a production company but that's not enough to justify an article. This is surely unverifiable crystal ball gazing, if not vanity/self-promotion. Delete Spondoolicks 18:48, 20 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 withdrawn/erroneous nomination. W.marsh 20:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaydar[edit]

    In the Afd for thingbox it was suggested that this article might not meet the requirements for WP:WEB, therefore I'm nominating it for deletion. Artw 18:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC). This page was listed in error. The correct listing is here . Artw 20:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this article slated for deletion? It's a well-known topic that has crept into mainstream usage. It is basically a twist on the old "it takes on to know one" proverb, but as it applies to gays being able to tell whether another person is gay. It's a valid term and I see no reason for deletion.My vote is no. slowhandsd

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 18:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OUTeverywhere[edit]

    In the Afd for thingbox it was suggested that this article might not meet the requirements for WP:WEB, therefore I'm nominating it for deletion. Artw 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the changes that have been made, it seems that now it would meet the requierments of WP:WEB, and so I would now say a Keep ddstretch 11:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that the SinG website may meet notability requirements (though the links are somewhat trivial) but there's no evidence of meeting the requirements for the main article. Teppic74 12:58, 21 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 21:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    12 Cent Dwarf[edit]

    No Google hits, no hits in All Music, deletion tags removed by author. I think even MySpace bands have more notability... Wildthing61476 19:03, 20 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 22:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hillsong Wildlife[edit]

    The author removed the speedy tags twice without explanation, and then did the same with prod tags, and then added a lot of awful images, so I'm listing it here. Basically, this is a non-notable association, and the article is pure vanity. Oh, if it is deleted, whoever makes the deletion please kill those images too. Sarg 19:03, 20 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    2SPK (Internet Marketing Service)[edit]

    Advertising. No google hits or notability. The author of the page has the same name as the article. IceCreamAntisocial 19:05, 20 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 08:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Battlestar Wiki[edit]

    Unsourced article on a Microwiki (1100 pages). Seemingly ample blog links, but zero news hits either on Google News or NewsBank. Was recreated after a first AfD, with consensus Delete. Prodded, seconded and deprodded as potentially controversial. ~ trialsanderrors 19:02, 20 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 TransWiki to Wiktionary. There wasn't really a quorum but it doesn't seem worth relisting. The Transwiki has been completed. Herostratus 18:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Company seal[edit]

    dicdef DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 19:07, 20 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. - brenneman {L} 07:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Montgomery Burns' state of mind[edit]

    Not only is the premise and title completely unencyclopedic and non-notable, massive fancruft like this unsourced list of every occurence of Mr.Burns' memory quirks and malapropisms opens the doors to all kinds of obsessively fannish lists. Similar lists could be made for every Simpsons character - and indeed, any fictional character anywhere - listing all the instances in which they display their trademark habits. wikipediatrix 19:16, 20 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 09:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of GameCube games on two discs[edit]

    How is this list encyclopedic? What use to anyone is a list of Gamecube games which are published on two disks? Maybe they're rare for the GameCube, but what about List of PC games on four discs? This is of no use. - Hahnchen 19:28, 20 July 2006

    Reply Good points, you've convinced me. -- Solberg 08:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was DELETE, with 4 Deletes (incl. nom.), 1 Weak Keep/Merge and 1 Merge, we tend toward delete. There's no article to merge to. Should one be created to make a merge place for this article? I don't think so. There are scores of hundreds of congressional candidates every two years. Herostratus 18:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Linnea Noreen[edit]

    As with other candidates, bringing this to AfD for a concensus. Article is about a candidate for office. Until she wins, she would be non-notable, not other claims to notority Wildthing61476 19:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I added Noreen, because I noticed information about Darcy Burner (also a non-notable by the above definition) was added for the Eight District election, and I figured informing the electorate is an important function for these entries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabrinkmann (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, someone wanting his article to be deleted shouldn't have an effect on its existence here, although it's easy to see why the article would be considered pointless since it doesn't really have much biographical information about the subject. However, that's a reason for improving the article, not deleting it. - Bobet 22:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark_Pilgrim[edit]

    The subject believes himself to be non-notable and has asked for his page to be deleted [74]. The Wednesday Island 19:48, 20 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. - Bobet 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Scramels[edit]

    Apparent nonsense/hoax and prodded as such, but prod removed quickly by different user to author (author Scramel, deprodder Scraz - mysteriously coming out of a 3 month Wikipedia hiatus within one minute of the prod to do so...). May be speedyable as reposted content from the previously deleted and protected nonsense/hoax article Scramel. ~Matticus TC 19:53, 20 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 20:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaydar (website)[edit]

    In the Afd for thingbox it was suggested that this article might not meet the requirements for WP:WEB, therefore I'm nominating it for deletion. Please consider my vote on this to be neutral. Artw 19:57, 20 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 closed, TfD is thataway. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:EgyptianRoyalTombDetail2[edit]

    Template changes mean that this template is no longer needed Markh 20:06, 20 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 to delete, therefore default to keep. - Bobet 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Shane Bugbee[edit]

    This page should be deleted for a number of reasons. First and foremost, he is non-notable. His name reveals only about 560 google hits, most prominent of which are wikipedia or wikipedia related pages (such as Answers.com), and webpages hawking his stuff. Secondly, the article suffers from being autobiographical, in that almost all of the article was written by Mr. Bugbee and his wife. Furthermore, the vast majority of claims in the article are subjective and completely unsourced. In short, the article is a messy, largely unverified biography about a non-notable individual that fails the criteria for inclusion. Edit: All of sources are either a)tiny webzines, b) concerning a local event or c) mention the subject only in passing. Detruncate 20:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Look back on all the notes & edits, they ALL revolve around Mr. Goad, a subject that seems to be attaching it self to me at this point. Let's talk stuff other than Jim Goad.

    Let's talk google... the hit reflect that, yes, I'm still very active in a number of areas... so, yea, I have multiple sites for multiple projects.

    when I run MY name on google I see sources ranging from mit.edu to philadelphiaweekly.com I see it relating to everything from the true crime books I've written to folks I've published.

    I'm not sure if I deserve a listing here, but I do know, if I don't, most in the: Transgressive_artists category don't. Here's a book & author that tells me so: http://creationbooks.com/frameset.asp?p=news.html - Yes, that's my name next to the likes of JOE COLEMAN, GG ALLIN & MARILYN MANSON

    Oh and one more thing - I DID NOT write my own profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Shane Bugbee (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. - Bobet 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tulsi (musician)[edit]

    Fails WP:BIO - 4 ghits DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 20:11, 20 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 09:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Darcy Burner[edit]

    Article is about a candidate for public office. Article does not show enough notority to warrant inclusion outside of the fact she is a candidate for office. Wildthing61476 20:13, 20 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. The contents of the article have been preserved (userfied) at User:Chambers High Historian/sandbox per the request of the original creator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chambers High[edit]

    Article about a game in a webforum... extensive but nevertheless subject apparently does not meet WP:WEB. --W.marsh 20:24, 20 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. - Bobet 22:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen strosin[edit]

    NN producer (1 film at imdb) Computerjoe's talk 20:42, 20 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 CSD G4 (repost). This is an identical copy of the article considered at Kitty May Ellis and deleted at AfD (as it was reinterpreted by DRV.) Since even the original closer agreed to overturn the original keep, appeals regarding this content belong at DRV. Note that G4 would not apply if this article contained substantial new content, but it does not. Xoloz 04:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to request mediation and arbitration as soon as I can figure out how. Meanwhile I'm protecting this page in my user space and by mirroring. Wjhonson 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kittie May Ellis[edit]

    After a lenghty discussion and a deletion review, the article Kitty May Ellis was very recently deleted. The creator now recreates the article under this slightly different name (and relinks all links he created from the old to the new one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty May Ellis is the previous AfD, this is the deletion review, and the conclusion at Wikipedia:Deletion review was "Kitty May Ellis - Keep closure overturned unanimously (including original closer), article deleted. 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC) ". I have tried a speedy delete as a repost, but the author objected, so here it is for AfD. Fram 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an outright lie. The article was relisted for further discussion (not by me). That further discussion started on the 15th, and the review was closed *after* that date with no conclusion. Wjhonson 20:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was not deleted by the original closer, but rather a vandal who has been consistently attacking this article. Wjhonson 20:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you accuse people of something, please say who you are accusing, and give us the username of that vandal that deleted the article. Better yet, contact the person, so he or she can give his or her version of the facts. Fram 20:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The history of the article as you know, has again vanished. So there is no way to know who, except I see one of the same persons who have viciously attacked this article in the past, running abour deleteing any reference to it. So what do you think? Any *new* review should either be based exclusively on new comments, or should take into account the many responders in the original AfD who voted to KEEP. And should not be done, in the middle of the night, in a few hours. The persons interested in the history of the Pacific Northwest in general are not awake at 3 in our morning to respond to attacks on our published history by people who have no idea what's going on, and who are boldly lied to by others in the response pool. Wjhonson 21:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, a quick look at the deletion log (obtainable from a link on the edit page) of the deleted article reveals who deleted the article. Never mind. Since a redirect has been created, I believe the deletion log is no longer available. The deletion log is still available on the redirected article's talk page, however. Katr67 21:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion log page is generated. Try this. It says:
    --Calton | Talk 23:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "I see one of the same persons who have viciously attacked this article in the past, running abour deleteing any reference to it." If you mean me, I see no evidence of my particular viciousness. If by "attack", you mean I deleted references to redlinks after what I considered a legitimate AfD and DRV, well, yes, I have done that. Katr67 21:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I have and will continue to revert your deletes, which serve no purpose except to censor the history of our region. This person is of historical note. You may not see that, but others do. Wjhonson 21:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete, I guess I'll be the first vote then. Not-notable person. --Liface 21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This person is one of if not *the* only narrative, first-person, source for many events in early Pacific Northwest history. The original article stated that quite clearly. Now I have to recreate that as well from memory... This is so stupid. Do you people really have no life whatsoever to keep this up for three weeks? Wjhonson 21:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With "recreate from memory", you mean go back to the link you posted yourself [79] and take the text of the previous article back from there? And the article and the AfD and review revealed quite clearly that most of her diaries are comments on newspaper articles (which means she isn't the only source), and furthermore that your argument does not really matter as long as she doesn't pass WP:V. Fram 21:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you ever get tired of constantly making things up to try to *win* your point? The point isn't whether "most" of the diaries are x y or z. The point is that *some* of what she says, is very relevant to the history of this region. So stop trying to spin this discussion by masking what's really going on here. You refuse to even read the diaries to see what they say, but suddenly you're an expert on them? And you constantly mischaracterize what's in the diaries, in the Afd, in the Review, and now here. Anyone who reads them can see the value of the source. And if she is valuable as a source, then she needs an article to explain WHO she was. That's pretty simple. Wjhonson 21:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll let the other editors judge the value and truthfullness of our contributions to this bickering. One thing truly is simple though: show, as per WP:V, that your claim that she is a valuable source falls under "facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers". If you can't do that, then the article fails WP:V and it should be deleted. Fram 21:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are again being intellectually dishonest. You know quite clearly that I've stated, now 14 times, that every statement in the article has been previously published. You know quite clearly that I stated the sources. Once again you try to mischaracterize the conversation. Wjhonson 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't seem to understand the problem. I'll try once more: in which publication by a reputable publisher has it been said that she is a valuable source? Fram 21:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Undent. Oh I understand it quite clearly, as it's been discussed ad absurdum in these multiple attempts to wipe our history out. Clearview, founders and pioneers, Frances Smith, 1982. John Brown & Co. Everett. states :" Miss Ellis' diaries, should they ever be completely published promise to be a significant source for the history of the Pacific Northwest, she having come here in its infancy in 1883 and lived here her entire life. I here give a brief biography and a few pages of some example stories that were gleaned from just a few of her journals, and proofread by my publisher, but space cannot allow me to publish more". Wjhonson 21:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Her notability is stated. She is a source for local history. Wjhonson 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Your argument fails logic. This source has not been easily available for historians to consult. The only persons who have consulted the works are the sources I cited, whose works are local in scope, and limited in copies (to my knowledge at least). These is no requirement on wikipedia that a person be widely known already, outside their focal group. In fact your argument fails the notability critieria, which states, in fact, the exact opposite. Wjhonson 00:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I do believe that if an artical has information that is useful for the research of our Ancestery ,Then it should be left alone ,I would like to heaar the reason for the deletion,It is such athrill when you can find out the History in ones family, There stiries are why we are here today .Sio It is so important to keep thes ethings available.and not hidden.Thank you for the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.67.217 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well if these rambunctious editors would relax, you'd get a chance to see them. As it is, they keep deleting the article *as I am creating it*. It's going to be hard to prove notability, if every time I find another notable thing the article gets deleted again. And she wasn't a girl number one, and I think watching Tarkio get created from nothing is notable, since there is *no* other narrative source which claims that for one thing. That isn't the sole notable thing, but again this comment proves another editor refuses to actually read the diaries. Editors who vote, and yet refuse to acquaint themselves with the situation shouldn't be counted. Just like the one who claim "not verifiable" and yet refuse to attempt to verify. Verifiability is not whether it's *easy*, its whether its *possible* and Kittie passes that test with flying colors. Wjhonson 04:10, 21 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, having interviews with people is great, and something you'd expect any reasonable gaming site to have, but it's just not useful to list every site here that has ever interviewed someone notable. The size of the community and the general traffic of the site itself have failed to impress the people taking part in this discussion. Just because some people happen to like a site doesn't mean it's necessary to write about it here. - Bobet 22:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Total Gamer Zone[edit]

    Non-notable web site, fails WP:WEB Wildthing61476 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Does not WP:WEB refer to content, rather than a website? It is true that Total Gamer Zone is host to a forum, but it is not limited to its forum, despite its large member base. It is also a Game News website, a wallpaper and graphic repository, a forum, a game review site, and a place to set up online matchups. Theirfore, I beleive that WP:WEB does not apply in this case, and that this Deletion should not take place. MasterIkrit 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Keep" I think Totalgamerzone deserves to stay, it is a growing site and every single website deserves to be recognized. They have had really good interviews and clearly put there time on making the site. I will be adding this site to my favorites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.109.169 (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. - Bobet 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kristina Coccia[edit]

    Completing malformed nom. Per User:Liamdaly620: "No assertation of notability". No vote from me. Fan-1967 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note Also need to delete redirect at Christina Coccia. Fan-1967 15:00, 21 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. - Bobet 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kam Tse Tsuen Aubeck[edit]

    This subject does not obviously meet WP:BIO though his latest civil service posting may come close. As it stands it has WP:NPOV and WP:VANITY concerns as well, but those can be addressed if he is found to be notable. Eluchil404 21:19, 20 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 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bjornar Simonsen[edit]

    Tagged db-bio but notability is asserted. Not particularly convincingly, as it turns out. A very short article which more or less completely fails to establish how we would know him from a hole in the ground. Just zis Guy you know? 21:24, 20 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. – Avi 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Brute Force Committee[edit]

    This article isn't verified, and is pretty much vanity. It isn't even remotely notable. Delete Ardenn 21:29, 20 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 Computerjoe's talk 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Obscure Baseball Records[edit]

    Completely trivial, not particularly useful. BoojiBoy 21:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I guess thats my issue really, what exactly is it going to grow into besides a list of trivial facts that are not really of any importance? How obscure is obscure enough to get listed here? How does this list not turn into an indiscriminate collection of information? DrunkenSmurf 17:08, 21 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. - Bobet 21:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Poughkeepsie tapes[edit]

    This article was speedy deleted in May under the title Poughkeepsie Tapes (with a capitalized Tapes). It's now returned without a capital. It appears to be a half-truth/half-fiction advert for an "underground phenomenon" independent film. 58 Google hits for it and only 7 when you include the filmmakers' name. Metros232 21:36, 20 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 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of television characters who are hiv positive[edit]

    TVcruft DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 21:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryan White I believe qualifies if we consider the dramatization of his life in a TV movie. One wonders whether whatever T'Pol has qualifies as a HIV parallel if it can be cured. anyway, none of this is in the province of an AFD, which leads me to... hateless 05:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment OK, it looks like this is going to be a keep, which is of course fine by me. However it is apparent that I didn't express my concerns about this article ...
    1. I don't think that this article is at all encyclopaedic - would one expect to find this in a paper encyclopaedia - I think not - I am aware that Wikipedia is not paper, but does that make the article any more encyclopaedic???
    2. The list is entirely unmaintainable - I note that all of the TV shows are western in origin. What about Asia and Africa??? There must have been many TV shows with many characters who are HIV+.
    3. Is it not just a little presumptive that all characters who don't mention that they're HIV+ aren't???? Maybe the characters don't feel comfortable telling their workmates or friends - just like in real life.
    4. Where would lists of this sort end??? With a List of Fictional Characters in Literature who are HIV+??? ..... List of television characters who are NOT HIV+ ... List of television characters who have Influenza ???? DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Maybe it should be changed to "List of fictional characters with HIV/AIDS". That way it eliminates real people(like The Real World) and includes character in other sources like movies and books. TJ Spyke 04:08, 22 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. - Bobet 21:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gareth Christie[edit]

    Fixing an erroneous AfD; I did not nominate. -- H·G (words/works) 00:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fails WP:BIO 2 ghits DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 21:45, 20 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. - Bobet 21:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    James Cooper (b.1729)[edit]

    Fails WP:BIO totally non-notable DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 22:00, 20 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. - Bobet 21:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Acurazine[edit]

    Article about a specific content web forum that is no longer in existence. The server was down when I accessed the site. However, it is nothing but advertising and fails to meet the criteria in WP:WEB. Pc13 22:00, 20 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. - Bobet 21:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    MAC Valves Inc.[edit]

    Delete as complete and total advertisement - call for your free demonstration! Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 22:00, 20 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 Speedily deleted. enochlau (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Queerkas[edit]

    Neologism with zero Google hits, possibly even some kind of subtle attack article. Prod and prod2 was removed twice by anonymous editor, so listing here. ~Matticus TC 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tagged as db-attack as the consensus seems to be it's an attack page (in hindsight I should've done that to begin with, as it's fairly obviously an attack on someone). Doesn't stand a chance anyway. ~Matticus TC 13:54, 21 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. - Bobet 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    EESHAAN[edit]

    Delete as a non-notable band failing WP:MUSIC - call for concert info! Speedy and prod tags removed. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 22:19, 20 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 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Assembly of Dust[edit]

    This is partly technical and partly because there is no assertion of notability for this band. There is an extensive history of this article being deleted and recreated, hence the "technical" aspect of this nomination. One of the deletions was because the article was a copyright violation. It needs more than a "speedy" delete in the circumstances. If the article is deleted, it ought to be protected. Agent 86 22:31, 20 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 21:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nathan Haselbauer[edit]

    This is a fix of a mal-formed AfD nom. The original nominator, DaturaS, wrote: "Delete or possibly merge - It has been suggested that there is not enough meat in the article, but I believe that is because this individual is not notable enough for an individual entry." Agent 86 23:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment These puzzle books are just not notable. DaturaS 18:07, 21 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 d3l3t3. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    H0w0rld[edit]

    Non-notable performer or entertainer. Speedy was contested, so I'm putting it up for fair vote, but it looks like possible vanity or hoax, defintely non-notable Antares33712 23:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - actually we have the nn-bio tag specifically for a totally non-notable bio. Antares33712 20:22, 24 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. – Avi 04:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thin slicing[edit]

    User:Dlyons493 prod'd this article, but I don't agree. Reason for prod given as: Non-notable concept with no currency outside a single book.

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Lee Melchionni[edit]

    He was a benchwarmer and was a bad player. Unless he's a professional or prominent amateur player who made news, this article should be deleted. Averaged 5.7 pts, give me a break. LOL. Squadoosh 23:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This nomination was formatted incorrectly because it was the article's 2nd nomination; I have fixed this now. -- H·G (words/works) 23:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Fair enough, questioning what does and does not belong here is healthy and makes for the best possible set of articles which is what we all want. Doing it twice in the span of a couple weeks does not sit well with me however. (I know you personally did not do this, just a general comment regarding this second nomination) My feeling is that a former captain of one of the top teams in collegiate sports [84] would make someone pretty notable. In addition the article linked above states that Benetton offered him a contract, and he expects to sign it. I can't imagine a senario where he would not be playing for them in the upcoming season, but as you say maybe we can just wait a few months. DrunkenSmurf 17:02, 21 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. Kusma (討論) 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Buffy the Vampire Layer[edit]

    Inaccurate article about hardcore pornographic film without any merit or notable features. Parody title doesn't deserve an article. VivianDarkbloom 23:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirect I'll change my vote to redirect to Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies, maybe the film by iteslf does not need it's own article. -- Boffy Layer 15:14, 22 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. - Bobet 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    DALiWorld[edit]

    contested speedy. Reason for Speedy="nn website. no asserion of notability." Reason for contest="How many p2p aquariums do you know?" --Pboyd04 23:42, 20 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 now. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kemal Gözler[edit]

    My languages being inadequate mean that I'm not able to study the sources but the subject is not a full professor and seems not to meet notability requirements. Can anyone help, further? BlueValour 23:45, 20 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. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 09:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vanquish Labs[edit]

    Spam, nn notable, un referenced advertising, vanity, authors name is same as article name

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

    The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Snyder[edit]

    Local news anchormen don't pass WP:BIO. BoojiBoy 00:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for unanimous deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 11:38, 27 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