< November 13 November 15 >
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 Retracting nomination. AfD closing by non-admin. No delete votes, and I am the nominator. After thinking about this for a while, even if what I'm saying is true, there's about a snowball's chance in hell of this list getting deleted. But the real reason I am retracting this nomination is that I'm violating WP:POINT. I was pointed to this article while in dispute about a similar article. The criteria of this article doesn't sit well for me, but clearly an AFD is not the appropriate way to go about this. I apologies to all involved. -- Ned Scott 08:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of major opera composers[edit]

List of major opera composers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Let me start out by saying that this is a great article. It's well written, it provides sources, it's interesting, and has a well explained criteria for inclusion. Except that's where the problem is, the criteria for inclusion, is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research plain and simple. This will be a hard AfD, because I'm sure people will be voting keep left and right, but I should not have to remind everyone that WP:NOR is policy and cannot be over-ridden by votes. If we can't address this issue then we can't have this article. I attempted to tag the article with ((OR)) [1], but it was promptly removed [2]. I added it back and it was removed again [3].

List of major opera composers#Lists Consulted even explains how people are added to the list. Ten lists are used, then people who appear on at least six of those lists are included.

WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position addresses this kind of issue: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

Unless it can be cited that someone else has noted these people by the same criteria using these ten lists, then it's been defined as original research. It's that simple. No matter how good of an article it is, we can't use it if it violates the no original research policy. Ned Scott 05:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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




























































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

The result was delete. 1ne 01:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaymer Pride Flag[edit]

Gaymer Pride Flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is no such flag. It is a complete fabrication. It was started by someone on a gaymer message board and then posted here. Therefore, it is not notable and is original thought. --Pinkkeith 20:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:V and [[WP:Cruft]; and before it's raised here, no this isn't gay bashing.SkierRMH 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete WP:SNOW + already been deleted + officegirl's comments, something fishy here and I see no harm in deleting the article. W.marsh 17:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koji Yokogawa[edit]

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

Seems to have been deleted twice before [4]. Rex the first talk | contribs 00:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment They are "fair" in the sense that they reflect current practice on AfD. Anyways, he or his area doesn't seem to be notable enough for reliable sources to report about him (even in Japanese), so he's no better than the average professor. ColourBurst 23:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE As per my own suggestion, I sent an e-mail to Dr. Yokogawa at his university. He resonded to me immediately, saying:
Please delete the page!!!!
The contents on the page is nonsense!
I am very angry!
That just about sums it up from the foremost authority on Koji Yokogawa, Koji Yokogawa himself. That is why I am changing my vote to STRONG AND SPEEDIEST DELETE ASAP AND SALT THE PAGE. OfficeGirl 17:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. Kimchi.sg 04:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMediaMatrix[edit]

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

Obvious spam for a start-up company (created by, big surprise, User:Imediamatrix) that gets all of 24 unique Google hits (out of 77 total). Also you can add company founder Ahmed Gomaa, who does not appear to be the historian of the same name [5]. Calton | Talk 00:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. 1ne 06:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vasiliu Lucilius[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. Majorly (Talk) 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GRWF[edit]

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

The page is about an online e-Wrestling club with no notability. The page creator is the one who is in charge of the online club, and the only contributor. The creator had also broken 3RR while removing speedy delete tags, and has a warnings on his IP's talk page, as well as a block log (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LtCannon). Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (Talk) 01:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions by age[edit]

List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions by age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment Actually, the ages are given when they won the title the first time, since WCW isn't around anymore, the list basically is stable and you can't really do anything with it. Although I'm pretty sure that Ron Simmons was much older than listed when he won the title. Cornerbock 04:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, didn't notice Chris K.'s similar cynical tirade. Valley2city 17:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as an empty template with no context. (aeropagitica) 05:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauchlord[edit]

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

suspected hoax, or at best heavily original-research. Zero google hits (except WP itself) for the title and no citations. Original was an contentless template (but was a few weeks ago, so not sure it's SPEEDYable), recent (and only other) contributor's other history appears as vandalism; some template values appear invalid for whatever types of data they should have. DMacks 02:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD G11 spam; A1 - very short article without context. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon House Group[edit]

Beacon House Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is the one article left over after the mass deletion of pages from a banned user, Calvin John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); see this MFD entry for evidence. Worse still, there are only 47 exact results on Google, most of which are unrelated commercial links; only one of them is barely relevant at all. To top it all off, Alexa's ranking for the official site has the worst that I have ever encountered as a Wikipedian: a pitiful, miserable 3,368,725.

Moreover, a vandal going by the e-mail name of Asadaleem12@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created this article. This account has also been blocked, and henceforth the content in question should just go away. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, website/game, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 04:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tankball[edit]

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

Not notable enough for its own page, written like a 8-year-old. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 02:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. 1ne 07:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Hayek Society[edit]

Oxford Hayek Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable student club. Delete. TerriersFan 03:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (Talk) 01:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamera 4: Truth[edit]

Gamera 4: Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

no notable fan films. see Imdb no page. Single6 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (Talk) 01:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New Way[edit]

original research Voice of the UK 04:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen so much work done to create vanity articles? Sandstein's term was apt: "a walled garden of cruft" OfficeGirl 16:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about all the exclamation marks. I guess I was taken aback by the extent of the articles created in this scheme. I went ahead and made a mass AfD for the rest of these here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet(2nd nomination). It is listed as a 2nd nomination because there was also a Category created for this author and someone tried to use the AfD process to delete the category.OfficeGirl 19:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly (Talk) 01:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare's Influence on the English Language[edit]

Shakespeare's Influence on the English Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an essay, not an encyclopedic article - it's drawing original conclusions. Much of the information here already exists in other articles anyway. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even then, though, the article would surely have to be "Shakespeare's Perceived Influence on the English Language". I'm not saying I disagree that WS was the most important and influential writer in the history of the English language (as someone who studied him at Oxford, I'd be a fool to do so), and no, I don't know anyone who denies said influence (save for those who don't believe he was the sole author of his works, and that's a sufficiently large and significant debate that it can't be ignored). Even so, however, that doesn't mean that such people don't exist - and concepts such as "influence" are too abstract and subjective to ever be considered truly factual. Seb Patrick 13:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title is neutral, since it doesn't claim that Shakespeare has a large influence on the English language, or that he had minimal influence on it. The title merely announces that the subject of the article is whatever influence Shakespeare may have had on the language, without passing judgment. It's the article that needs rewriting. Andrew Levine 08:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g1, patent nonsense, also WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 17:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Proportional Pirate Law[edit]

Disputed speedy. Nonsense, or at best original research. -- RHaworth 04:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: Speedily deleted as patent nonsense and ridiculous slander. - Mike Rosoft 15:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Sadauskas[edit]

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

The article sites no sources, the only results yielded by Google searches of the name are of a video game designer (with no known relation to Agamemnon), and a review of the edit history suggests nonsense, especially considering the ridiculous image posted by the original author (that was subsequently removed) in a November 8 edit Canuck90 04:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If "happens" to be the name of a real person, and is actually a load of nonsense, couldn't it be a possible attack (Especially with "ridiculous image"s)? 68.39.174.238 05:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfy per [8]. If they want to expand it, they have thirty (30) days to do so. Kimchi.sg 04:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HLD clan[edit]

Online gaming clan. I previously speedy deleted this and User:WhateverPaper contested the deletion so I am bringing it to AFD instead. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-14 04:15Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Y.Ichiro (会話) 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Schwarzenegger[edit]

Being the father of someone famous does not make you notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This book on Arnie also says that highest rank in Nazi military Gustav achieved was master sergeant[9] Bwithh 04:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edited the lead to say "high-ranking enlisted soldier" instead of "high-ranking soldier". Master Sergeant is a significant enlisted rank with command responsibility. It is near the top enlisted rank in the Wehrmacht. --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO guideline asks that the coverage take the subject as the primary focus. The primary focus of the coverage mentioning Gustav would be the son, not the father. In any case, media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 06:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Records: Arnold's father was member of Nazi storm troops", "Austrian Archives Reveal Nazi Military Role of Actor's Father", "Spotlight Thrown on Nazi Past of Schwarzenegger's Father", these are not headlines about Arnold. You need to put some considerable spin to pretend the last article is primarily focused on Arnold himself. If you want to argue that newspapers does not count towards the "multiple independant sources" rule, then good luck. hateless 17:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So merge mention of Gustav to the main Arnie article, if its not there already. There's not much to say about Gustav except that he was a minor Nazi, a local police commander and Arnie's discipl inarian dad Bwithh 07:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 04:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technopathogenology[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, 2 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 04:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep""This is the case the inventory supporting the invention""Wikipedia must not be used as a platform for promoting coinages " OK But if it is the case what is the problem to put it in Wikipedia? There are a lot of intrascendent terms( I tell you a list if you like)in Wikipedia.Are you sure It was not the case? You can affirm it? I think the problem is that technopathogenology an "unpollitically" term is. "Keep"

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

The result was delete. Dakota 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Orlowski[edit]

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

Failed candidate for city council of a small California city, otherwise unnotable, especially since he came in 4th place. Calton | Talk 04:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 01:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling singles in Japan[edit]

Listcruft Crazy Jackees 04:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC) — Crazy Jackees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 02:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial activities of the Shiv Sena[edit]

Controversial activities of the Shiv Sena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Most of the information presented here is already there on Shiv Sena so no need to merge. The article is a potential POV fork of the Shiv Sena article and is wholly unnecessary. Hkelkar 04:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV fork, also the article was created when a user could not find reliable sources to back up outlandish claims against the Sena.Bakaman Bakatalk 05:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Delete. As a copy of already available information. Shyamsunder 10:04, 164 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話) 20:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic: The Gathering deck types[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game strategy guide. For more arguments, see AfDs at:

Andrew Levine 05:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Control deck (2nd nomination)
For NPOV, I mean popularity bias. Also possible a bit of age bias. Just because Magic is new compared to sports like Chess or Football doesn't mean we can't have articles on it. Mainstream bias is a bias too. Now I might agree having articles on individual deck types is too much, but that's not what you're asking for here in this AFD. You're asking for the deletion of a page about deck types in general, which is itself is a clear sub-article of the already too large Magic the Gathering article. Why? Because it's a game strategy guide. That's where you fail to convince me, because the fact is, Wikipedia has literally dozens of articles that involve the same kinds of material. The only difference? The game. I see a bias here, and that's why I am concerned about NPOV. And besides the sources you mentioned, I'd add Starcitygames, Scrye, Inquest, Pojo and possibly more. (Is there a Magic: The Gathering for Dummies? Maybe, I dunno, but it's possible for one to be written.) All of them understand and use the concept of Aggro/Combo/Control in their writings. But yes, I would recommend Wizards.com as a primary authoritative source in this case, and since I know where some of the articles are, I'll go add them right now. FrozenPurpleCube 21:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, nobody is saying we shouldn't have articles on Magic; nobody wants to delete Kai Budde or Time Spiral or Pro Tour (Magic: The Gathering). I strongly disagree about the systemic popularity bias and age bias, because I am pretty sure those biases actually work in Magic's favor rather than against it; interest in editing Wikipedia hits many of the same demographic points as interest in playing Magic, especially 13-to-35-year-olds who are technologically adept. The big sports have much broader interest across age brackets, personality types, and social strata, but the same doesn't hold on Wikipedia. Look at this vs. this or this, which seems to indicate Magic may actually be more popular among Wikipedians than baseball, and almost as much as football. Of course this is far out of line with its popularity among the general population. So I'm pretty sure the popularity bias, on Wikipedia at least, is in Magic's favor. It must again be stressed that WP:NPOV only applies to statements made in articles, and redefining it to include the idea of whether specific topics should be given coverage is a dangerous expansion of the concept. It does not violate any policy to give, say, Soccer more coverage than Settlers of Catan. Andrew Levine 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying "Delete this article on Magic Deck types" because it is a game strategy guide but not saying "Delete this article on Chess strategy, or football strategy, or baseball strategy" even though the information is comparable. How is this page any different from Chess Openings(which by the way, has its own category with over 150 sub-articles!)? I wouldn't say there's a difference in terms of strategy-guide ness. That's where the bias comes in, just like having so many articles on Anglo-American stuff represents a bias and a violation of NPOV which we should work to avoid. I can understand the game guide problem. This article is not a game guide, it's just describing a well-known aspect of the game, one the developers themselves recognize and design for, and in comparison to articles like say Sacrifice hit, bunt, Trick play, or Napoleon Opening it has sources. Lots of them. Yes, it could certainly be improved, but that's a clean-up issue, and I agree that it could use some. I'm willing to go with you on individual decks not having articles. I'm even willing to go with you on the deck types listed here not having individual articles. But I draw the line at deleting this content which combines them. One article is fine with me. This is not out of proportion with the importance of this material within the game, nor is it out of line with Magic's importance in gaming. 6 million players? I'd say an article on deck-types is reasonable. Especially if you consider that wizards.com uses them in their design, and included them in their theme week coverage. FrozenPurpleCube 23:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes."
This article contains NO instructions whatsoever. It is in no way, shape or form, a howto guide!
As NorrYtt put it in the related AfD: "There's no 'How to Play' in these articles. They are theory articles. It's not "The Queen's Gambit", it's "Controlling the center squares is an excellent strategy." Magic is too dynamic to write books about it that don't quickly become obsolete. Sources are Internet-based." Crimson30 00:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 02:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mister J[edit]

NN, probably WP:VANITY ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above comment is this user's only edit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kimchi.sg 05:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vengeance 77[edit]

NN. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Escapist (magazine)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Fails WP:WEB. No media references or sources to back it up, only its website. At this time the article doesn't even have a talk page. Less than 50 edits in the whole article for over a year. Anomo 05:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saxifrage. MER-C 06:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waterman (flash)[edit]

Non notable flash cartoon; possibly spam.--SUITWhat? 42 05:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Control deck[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Since the last afd, the following precedent has been formed:

MER-C 05:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as copyvio. W.marsh 00:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Hernandez[edit]

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

Putting this up for debate. Councilman and candidate for forthcoming Anaheim City Council elections. I find 43 unique Ghits. He has gotten quotes in some news articles, including the LA Times and the Wahington Post, but these are only trivial mentions. Ohconfucius 05:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There's a consensus, rooted in policy (unlike the keep votes), to delete the article. If we're counting, which we don't, it was 10-7 delete, which is fairly close. However, policy trumps 'I like it'. Proto::type 13:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe's Shanghai[edit]

Joe's Shanghai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nomination for deletion I marked this for speedy deletion as an advert and it was contested by another editor who called for a stay of execution on account that the restaurant had been mentioned by a couple of blogs. Anyway, delete as subject is not an encyclopedically notable restaurant, and no claims are made for notability in the article. I've eaten food from this restaurant many times - its relatively decent Chinese food by Manhattan standards (native Manhattanites - get a grip, your average-joe-level Chinese food, while not as sketchy as Boston's "Combat Zone", is generally not great.), and the restaurant has something of a local reputation for its Xiao Long Bao soup dumplings (again, relatively decent by Manhattan standards given most places around there will serve you soggy lumps of dough). But Xiao Long Bao soup dumplings are widespread in NYC and indeed other US cities (not to mention uh, actual Chinese cities). Article consists of listing of 2 locations of the restaurant plus link to a review on a blog, plus a link to the official restaurant website. Remaining 50% of article given over to description of Xiao Long Bao dumplings. Bah, try them at Din Tai Fung (an internationally noted restaurant for Xiao Long Bao dumplings) in California/Taiwan/China/Japan/Singapore instead. Bwithh 05:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it necessarily adds any encyclopedic notability even if verified, but can you cite the new york times links that show these awards? by the way, the thefoodsection.com link you refer to above is a weblog run by one person. If you want to swap tips on where to find the "best" restaurant food in town, go to www.chowhound.com or something, not wikipedia Bwithh 09:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Best I can make out from the restaurant website is that in 2005, it was a nominee for best chinese restaurant in New York in a reader poll for AOL City Guide. *shrug* Bwithh 10:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those "extensive reviews" on citysearch are reviews and scores generated by reader reviews i.e. anyone can review and score the restaurants Bwithh 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Restaurants typically get reviewed in the local newspaper. Yes, The New York Times is a major paper, but it does serve New York and this is a New York restaurant. The New York Times would be a significant source of notability in most cases, but for New York locales themselves it is less so. The Denver Post and other Denver papers often review bars and restaurants in town, but I'm in no rush to give them all articles. --The Way 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent (UK) mentions it in a TRAVEL article about new york. The writer probably looked at existing travel guides or the dining articles in the NYTimes for ideas. Wikipedia is NOT a travel guide. There are many many local interest items in the New York Times every day which have no interest beyond the local area whatsoever e.g. crime incident reports, talk of the town, local government stories, local human interest stories etc etc etc. Bwithh 18:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh. So now you know what the author of the Independent article was thinking at the time of writing it? You're making very baseless claims here without anything but your subjective feelings to support them. Did you even read that article? The author actually writes about Joe's because he and his lady feel it is a noteworthy stop because of their food, from personal experience. Again, to reiterate, out of all the places to get dumplings in NYC, the article chooses Joe's as the best, and NOTABLE enough to suggested it to the entire Independent paper readership. This has NOTHING to do with Wikipedia being a tourist guide. This article is not saying "come to New York City for Joe's dumplings", it's just recording the fact that this restaurant has been distinguished from the rest because of how good it is. This is not just known on the local level, as Zagalejo and others have pointed out. --Howrealisreal 20:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't say that any restaurant reviewed in the NYT is notable. But I agree that, when looking at the big picture, Joe's Shanghai deserves an article. In addition to the Independent blurb, I found relevant Lexis-Nexis results from newspapers in Singapore, Boston, and Minnesota. Lots of non-New Yorkers have heard about this place, and even though most of the articles are restaurant reviews or travel section blurbs, it's pretty clear that the place has made an impact. Zagalejo 02:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, not every NYT reviewed restaurant deserves an article but this one clearly does. I overhauled the article, adding references. Thanks for your help here. --Howrealisreal 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not paper, but the primary overriding concept is that it is an encyclopedia. Google hits showing reviews and people mentioning the restaurant, newspaper coverage, awards etc are not automatic indicators or encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 19:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the only indicator of encyclopedic notability is your subjective feelings about a topic. In regard to User:Bwithh #Articles I am only not nominating for deletion out of personal sentimentality. So, things that you personally are okay with can stay, but food institution in New York City that are outside your frame of reference you must crusade against? In particular, I see one of the things on your list is Gardies, a takeaway food joint that doesn't seem to have any references or statements of notability in the article. Double standard maybe? --Howrealisreal 19:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support a deletion of Gardie's but as I say on my user page, I'm not nominating for personal sentimental reasons *shrug* - the same goes for the lollipop lady who helped me cross the road to school as a kid. I've certainly nominated or been a key arguer for deletion in articles about subjects I've personally liked before e.g.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zippie_Picnic,Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Newtonmas_(Third_nomination). I am not sure where you get the idea that my arguments are based only on subjective feelings from. So sue me if I like to write the occasional afd nomination in a conversational tone. Any more questions from the Inquisition? By the way, I live and work in Manhattan. As I state in my nomination, I have eaten food from or at Joe's Shanghai many times - probably 25-30+ times over the last couple of years, usually including their soup dumplings. Bwithh 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "guidelines" not "standards". Even high profile press coverage from major sources not necessarily sufficient for encyclopedic notability e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Allen_Smith and its subsequent deletion review which endorsed the deletion [14] Bwithh 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bottom line here is that this article was nominated because, supposedly, it didn't meet the guidelines for a notable company. There has been some discussion, the article has been improved with multiple sources that satisfy the criteria for inclusion, but the nominator still feels those sources are "not notable enough". Bwithh, you are only one person and you do not constitute Wikipedia consensus. You have nothing to back up your claim that this article should be deleted beside your subjective feelings that hold no weight. --Howrealisreal 20:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Howrealisreal, you are attempting to undermine my arguments by attacking me as someone who does not frame arguments in terms of policy and acts out of personal whim. I hope in future that you will refrain from misrepresenting other people's arguments with ad hominem criticisms, and from generally being condescending. It's not appropriate. Bwithh 00:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a Pokemon argument (sometimes it's used for deletion). Notability of that subject is not equivalent to every other. --Oakshade 04:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No its not, I was demostrating prior precedent in relation to a policy issue Bwithh
That still appears Pokemon hidden in the word "precedent "We deleted x because of ___, therefore y should be deleted for the same reason." That argument, while it might have been valid for that cited article, is not equivalent to every other. --Oakshade 02:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me try again - my point here was in relation to a dispute about a policy reading. The claim was made that "Multiple verifiable independent press coverage in major publications" is "more than enough" to satisfy the "standards" for notability. My response was these are guidelines, not standards and that actually, there are cases such as the George Allen Smith case, where "Multiple verifiable independent press coverage in major publications" existed but the article was nevertheless deleted (with deletion endorsed on review). In my response, I make no mention of Joe's Shanghai. It would be an odd comparison in any case, since the prominence of press coverage in the George Allen case greatly outweighs Joe's Shanghai. WP:POKEMON talks about the keep argument that "x should kept because y has been kept". In your exegesis of my comments, you are claiming that I am sneakily using a deletionist twist on the Pokemon test (a novel twist based on your own observations, since it's not covered in WP:POKEMON), in effect arguing that "x should deleted because y should be deleted". I am not - I am saying that (for the umpteenth time), that the assumption that press coverage automatically translates to encyclopedic notability is incorrect, and that here is an example of a case with high profile press coverage which was nevertheless judged unencyclopedic and deleted. Leaving aside the matter of whether a hypothetical deletionist version of a Pokemon test is in fact simply a mirror image equivalence of the Pokemon test, if I was making some kind of deletionist Pokemon argument, the argument would in effect be saying that all subjects with press coverage should be deleted - this is clearly nonsense. What I have been saying (until I'm blue in the face) is that Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability and in case people think I'm making this up, here's a good example of this point in action. This point is not the same as saying that Media coverage shows lack of encyclopedic notability. What it is doing is calling for a higher level of judgement to be exercised beyond blindly following whatever is in the media. I hope this has clarified things for you. Bwithh 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the long response, but it still goes back down to comparing the argument to delete on a different article and very different subject. Greg Allen Smith was/is someone who went missing during a cruise at sea and this is an article of a Chinese restaurant chain with a great amount of differences between the two and even the arguments for keeping (there's more than just "this has lots of press coverage" arguments) and deleting. If your argument was actually included in WP:AFDP, then it's valid to cite that argument as such and even in that case it would only cite a precedent, not policy. Your heavily repeated "Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability..." argument might be a good one, but it is not policy and arguably not even precedent but was just used in the discussion on the decision to delete that specific article. You even said yourself above "Even high profile press coverage from major sources [is] not necessarily sufficient for encyclopedic notability..." which correctly demonstrates that there are some instances where that might be the case as all articles and arguments for deletion/inclusion are unique. --Oakshade 04:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and just one more thing, I could easily cite the AfD of Jeffrey Ingram as an example of primarily using the "heavy news coverage" argument for reason to keep as that article was kept, as a counter to your argument, but i know you'd throw WP:POKEMON out. The same could be used in reverse. --Oakshade 04:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bwithh, in regard to your comments, if I have offended you or hurt your feelings then I must apologize. It was not my intention to say anything that could be be interpreted as un-WP:CIVIL. This is business, not personal. But, I also feel that I must defend myself from your charges. I do feel that your arguments are based on personal experiences and lack foundation in Wikipedia policies. Here are some examples: "The [Independent] writer probably looked at existing travel guides or the dining articles in the NYTimes for ideas," (speculation) or "Yes, I've had their meatballs. They're okay" (trying to undermine published works based on your personal opinion). These are just a few examples of subjective arguments that are not verifiable and not based on any guidelines. I'm sorry, but you equally tried to misrepresent my views and sources. Unfortunately, while I have evidence as to why my arguments hold weight, you have nothing to show for yourself besides the fact you think that the place is overrated. You are right, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has standards. This is why what gets put in it must be based on facts traced back to non-trivial published works outside of the subject, and ourselves as editors. If you want to express your personal opinion about why Joe's isn't good, do it in your personal blog instead of trying to destroy information that others find notable and worthwhile to include. I do hope that we meet again (as you put in an earlier version of your comment) and who knows, we may find ourselves on the same side of the argument. This is the best part about Wikipedia. Take care. Respectfully, --Howrealisreal 15:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On more thing: I made some changes to the article acknowledging your claim that it reads like an advertisement. I hope you can see this as a sign of good faith and that I'm willing to compromise. Additionally, I found Joe's in the Best Food Writing 2003 compilation on Google Books, so I cited it for a new "In literature" section as further proof of notability. --Howrealisreal 17:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What would impress me would be if it was mentioned in a medium not dedicated to mentioning food eateries. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually it is mentioned also in Five Flights Up And Other New York Apartment Stories. Chris Madak (who lives or lived above Joe's in Chinatown) talks about how obnoxious it is in the winter when the line to get in backs up his apartment stairs, and one time when a crab in the restaurant's tank got free (by standing on top of a lobster). --Howrealisreal 17:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not exactly. Have you read the above discussion? The place has gotten press in England and Singapore (do a Lexis Search, or some equivalent). And I don't think it's *blatant* spam. It seems to have a pretty strong fan base, so it's conceivable that someone would write an article about it. Zagalejo 02:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ECW on Sci Fi episodes[edit]

List of ECW on Sci Fi episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A list page of a regular wrestling TV show isn't needed, and is simply fancruft. This should be put on a wrestling wiki, not here. There are no list of Raw episodes for a reason: not all are notable. Same goes for ECW, Impact and so on. RobJ1981 05:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Save Karyn[edit]

Don't Save Karyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

utterly insignificant and non-notable, despite mentions, will be forgotten; really, a link to the internet archive as a reference? doesn't pass "100 year" test —Hanuman Das 06:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Halo 2. ~ trialsanderrors 01:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons of Halo 2[edit]

Weapons of Halo 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Essentially a recreation of a deleted article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo 2. Was prod'ed, but tag removed by creator with the edit summary Removed banner as I feel I have sourced the article & made it not CRUFTy or WPNOTy.... Jabba the Hutt made it through, why can't the biggest selling game ever have a weapon's page???. Calton | Talk 06:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A similar discussion is going on at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alyeska/Battlefield 2 Ranks. --Calton | Talk 23:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer if you didn't make fun of my edit summaries, which are meant to be funny or jokey 90% of the time... Thanks, Spawn Man 00:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Major character in major series. Luna Santin 09:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Chang[edit]

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

A rather large and extremely crufty article on one supporting character in a novel. Not notable at all if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Necrobrawler (talk • contribs)

  • Attempting to place all the information contained within this article into a larger Harry Potter article would be extremely difficult, not to mention very messy.
  • This article is an important part of WikiProject Harry Potter, and deleting it would cause more harm than good.
  • A fictional character in a book does not merit his/her own article? Please see Harry Potter, Artemis Fowl, Peregrin Took, and numerous other fictional characters on Wikipedia.
  • Extensive research and work has been put into this article by many Wikipedians, and their efforts should be recognized instead of destroyed.
  • This article is actually a good example of how to write an article about an important character in a fictional novel. I may be wrong, but after being on Wikipedia for over a year, I think this is certainly better than many other articles about fictional characters. It is concise and has an active community of editors who put in time and research into the article.
  • "Not notable at all if you ask me" is not a good reason for deletion. Not notable for what? Lack of sources? The references are placed down at the end of the article. Not notable as a character? Seeing that Cho Chang played a huge role in the fourth and fifth novels of Harry Potter, and a notable role in the fourth movie, she is, on the contrary, one of the most well-recognized Harry Potter characters. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 06:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Necrobrawler is a very new user, registering on November 5, 2006. He/She has had 11 edits so far, and most are his own deletion notices on other Harry Potter articles. One link counts as possible blanking vandalism, and he/she also created a template {noob)) which I am in the process of nominating for TfD. That template does nothing more than print: You are a noob. You beg for free stuff. Will interested parties in the AfD take that into account. The lack of a signing signature when nominating this for AfD also signifies that Necrobrawler does not understand WP:DELETE some editing guidelines as well. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 07:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - assume good faith here, please. Many established users forget to sign their contributions to AfDs once in a while, but that doesn't mean that they don't understand the policy. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agree - I forget quite often, too! =) I suggest Necrobrawler spend more time on Wikipedia, and increase his/her experience first, though. It takes time. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 07:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. El_C 13:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baka Subculture[edit]

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

Author-removed prod, with a reason featuring the phrase all it needs is a name and recognition, which to me implies that it has neither and thus shouldn't be included here. In its current form, it's only a dicdef and a Google doesn't give me anything to go on regarding the existence of the subculture. The word "Baka" itself seems to be a commonly-used one in anime circles, but I can't find anything saying that it's a term used to describe the subculture here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted as an article without context and sources. (aeropagitica) 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural responsibility[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as disputed since it's fourth edit. It remains unsourced. My own google search turned up no uses of the phrase in the manner described in this page. From the available evidence, this appears to be original research. Rossami (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 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 speedy delete as a blatant copyvio (CSD G12). If someone wants to create a new version free of copyvios, go for it. cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car dealer scams[edit]

Wrong tone, unencyclopedic. Attack (but probably well justified) on the used car trade. -- RHaworth 07:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support for merge. We have to delete enough drivel, lets try to keep (some of) the pages that contain real information. Sander123 09:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R-mean[edit]

R-mean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable musician. -- RHaworth 07:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E.B. Hughes[edit]

E.B. Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not very notable bio written by user:Ebfilms who has edited nothing else. The pc merchants tell me that I must not call this vanity but can you really think of a better word for it? -- RHaworth 07:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mats Linder[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion, since there is a claim to notability on the talk page (supposedly he belongs to "the triumvirate of Swedish fan fiction", along with John-Henri Holmberg, Bertil Mårtensson, and Sam Lundwall), I'm sending this to AfD. No opinion as of now. ~ trialsanderrors 07:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Gang of four"? No- too historically charged... The correct, albeit more boring, term would be quadrumvirateSkierRMH 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacHOME[edit]

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

Does not look like it passes muster. Spotted on #wikipedia-spam —— Eagle (ask me for help) 08:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, A1. Aguerriero (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nimroid[edit]

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

Nor Google, nor the cited references confirm that a nimroid is actually a frog. Sander123 08:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There doesn't appear to be any mergeable information. --Coredesat 23:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Demo for Mac[edit]

Halo Demo for Mac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article does not describe an actual video game per se; only the demo of a video game. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCΦtalk? 09:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 01:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZVOX Audio[edit]

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

The result was delete. Nothing to merge, really (any decent info is already duplicated). I have left a redirect. Proto::type 13:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elmeda[edit]

Elmeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
OMG.. What a mess. There's a whole set of these articles. I'm cleaning them up now. The original contributor didn't even spell the series name correctly in most of them. Urgh. --Kunzite 01:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Obara[edit]

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

Article about an "actor"(or rather, a student) that provides no proof of notability, a google search on the name gives nothing relevant, IMDB gives one appearance in an episode of "creepy canada", a documentary. yandman 09:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I forget to mention that the article was created by an spa account called RObara? yandman 10:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD was vandalised by the author of the article. yandman 10:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind not all of Robert's acting contributions have been to film or television - but rather other media forms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robarakira (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 A7 + possible copyvio from their own wiki --humblefool® 10:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Tree[edit]

Space Tree (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

non-notable flash animation, does not comply with WP:WEB. Simonkoldyk 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 10:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Aguerriero. Whispering 19:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Cretan[edit]

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

Fails notability, as subject has no google hits whatsoever, plus the article has subtle bits of nonsense all over it, like Cretan receiving the Melon award for writing "melon" a lot in a publication. One editor seems to like to remove the speedy delete tag and then make minor stylistic and spelling edits to an article that is clearly not real. Strange. Tractorkingsfan 10:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Maybe I was wrong about the google hits, I couldn't find any related to this particular Nicholas Cretan. Either way I think it's garbage. Tractorkingsfan 10:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied, copyvio --humblefool® 21:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XDebug[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 10:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was CSD A7 G3 G10 take your pick - crz crztalk 12:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Mattis[edit]

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

The article seems to be nothing but a personal attack against a school media specialist. The colourful language and the claim of being the child of Adolf Hitler certainly qualify this as vandalism. Atomskninja 10:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Y.Ichiro (会話) 20:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate[edit]

Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable enough to deserve its own article Memmke 10:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Linux kernel and redirect. Memmke 09:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionists and mergists out there, help me ward off these biased inclusionists! Memmke 09:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, I just want to make it clear that I now stand for a merge of the article's content to Linux kernel, to the section (Architecture) where it is mentioned, and a redirect of this page to it. Also, I want to point out that it seems to me as if articles covering computer related topics stand a much higher chance of surviving AfDs. :-) Memmke 09:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 01:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi[edit]

Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fancomic which fails WP:WEB as well as the general notability criteria. To be specific, the article provides no evidence that the comic:

  1. "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works."
  2. "has won a well known and independent award." — I do not believe the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards is either "well known" or "independent" (since the awards are voted upon by webcomic artists).
  3. "is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators." — The comic is self-published.

Few other articles link to this article, which underscores this lack of notability.

Furthermore, the article lacks reliable sources for most of its content, meaning that the article is unverifiable. It seems to consist mostly of original research and other unencyclopedic content, such as character analyses and plot summaries.

This article was previously nominated for deletion on May 1, 2005; the result was no consensus. Since the closure of the debate, the article appears to have improved little in terms of encyclopedic content or sourcing. --Slowking Man 11:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about similar fan works created by the same author, and have the same lack of notability, verifiability, and encyclopedic content:

--Slowking Man 11:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "has won a well known and independent award." Whether the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards is 'well known' is up for debate, but I'm pretty sure it's an 'independent' award. Just because other webcomic artists vote doesn't mean the awards are dependent, just as I would consider the Oscars an 'independent' award despite the fact that it is voted on by people in that industry.
  2. "is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators." The comic is published on Snafu Comics, which has a traffic rating of 12,440 from Alexa, which is owned by David Stanworth. Mr. Stanworth decided to host all of Bleedman's comics and is not directly related to Bleedman in anyway that I know of. They weren't buddies like Fred Gallagher and Rodney Caston. Bleedman doesn't own the hosting or the domain. I think that makes Snafu Comics independent of Bleedman. I'm not sure whether it's well known but it does have an Alexa rating of 12,440.

I'm not sure how either comics violate WP:V as stated by Andrew Lenahan. It would seem to me the best source of material for an article about a comic would be the comic itself.

Ivvan Cain 17:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So basically the push atleast for webcomics is to cite information from other people writing about the comic as oppose to the comic itself? That's hard for most webcomics to do. Ivvan Cain 19:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why most webcomic articles are deleted. --RoninBKETC 21:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So under that one can could essentially delete all the "web comic" entries as they are all Self Published and the majority of the Source content comes from the Subject themselves. Heck why stop there Why not delete all of DC/Marvel/Archie/Dark Horse/etc's Individual Comic entries also they are Self-published with the majority of the Source info coming from themselves also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.196.224.71 (talk) 21:25, November 14, 2006 (UTC)
Except DC/Marvel/Archie/Dark Horse Comics and so forth meet criterion one, in that they have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works." Many of them would probably meet criterion 2 as well. Not to say that many of the comics articles could use some work, but there's little doubt about the notability of say, Superman. --Slowking Man 22:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're a little bit confused. Marvel (etc.) are not self-published, and there are plenty of reliable sources that cover them: Wizard, Comics Journal, Comics Buyer's Guide, and many others. I don't think trying to compare a powerpuff girls fan comic on the web with Batman and Spider-Man is really helping your case any. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that this isn't true (the self-publishing part and the sourcing part). There are plenty of webcomics that are not self-published, either in web form or in print, Megatokyo (Dark Horse Comics), American-Born Chinese (First Second Books in book form and Modern Tales in webcomic form), Chasing Rainbows (girlamatic), etc. There are also many webcomic articles which can be sourced from reliable sources; Megatokyo (New York Times) and American-Born Chinese (San Franscisco Chronicle, it was also nominated for a major literary award, no small feat) from above, American Elf (Boston Globe), The Perry Bible Fellowship (The Guardian). I don't want to disappoint you but webcomics are being covered by reliable sources. ColourBurst 04:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to elaborate upon why you think the article's subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. --Slowking Man 23:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The comic's notable. Simple. You don't see it as popular (the dA pages, the Alexa traffic) then you're blind. Blacklist 00:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SET#Bias in the Alexa test and WP:NPA. Thanks. GarrettTalk 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A) So... the page views could be LESS. That doesn't actually help your argument, it helps the fans. And B) People of Wikipedia need to grow a backbone and allow for some criticism here, ffs. Blacklist 05:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the entire 'Bias in the Alexa test'? It said that the webmaster can install the toolbar and visit the site themselves, INCREASING the pageviews. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly but Bleedman does average a lot of page views daily which cannot really be artificially inflated. http://bleedman.deviantart.com/stats/pageviews/ Almost 12k daily. Though to be honest this debate really isn't getting anywhere.
Ivvan Cain 21:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards is notable. No one's ever challenged this, but I don't see how it meets WP:WEB. --Slowking Man 10:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fasttranslator[edit]

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

Probable self-promotion/advertising for NN website. Alexa rank of 629,923 [21]. 194 ghits [22]. Some assertion of notability and not irredeemably spammy, so I don't think this is speedyable. IslaySolomon | talk 12:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. attack page, patent nonsense, take your pick. Also did some blocking. Morwen - Talk 12:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush cottaging controversy[edit]

George W. Bush cottaging controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This incident has not been WP:V, and even if true, may be unencyclopedic. Dryldram 12:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Its obviously not true since no news is cited a quick google search yields nothing. Gdo01 12:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayla Rubinelli[edit]

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

Non-notable losing game show contestant from America's Top Model, was prodded by User:Mikeblas, however, article survived an earlier mass AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caridee English, which technically means it must be listed here, rather than prodded (I think). The conclusion of the previous AfD was "train wreck" -- essentially, too many articles nominated at once. However, since then, many of the articles have been deleted individually, including Kari Schmidt, Bre Scullark, Catie Anderson, Sarah Dankleman and many more. Others have been converted to redirects, such as Tiffany Richardson. (But the majority have simply been deleted.) Might be speediable under A7. Otherwise, should be merged or deleted as per ample precedent. Xtifr tälk 12:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on individual seasons of the show do list all the contestants for that season. Xtifr tälk 12:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you should always check the history before prodding, although if you overlook a previous AfD or prod, it's no big deal, as, in the worst case, the admin will probably just go ahead and convert the prod to a new AfD. I just thought I'd try to save time. As for "train wreck", that was just the closing admin's wry assessment of a discussion where people were listing individual articles as keep or delete, and there was no way to pick-and-choose a clear consensus out of the mess. The important part is that he said, "This closure is not a judgement for or against any one article, please re-list seperately where appropriate." Which is what we're doing now. Xtifr tälk 23:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thamesbank[edit]

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

Propaganda piece, almost certainly self-promotion. No references to help us judge their notability. -- RHaworth 05:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway to the Sphinx[edit]

Gateway to the Sphinx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unnotable book written by a high school teacher. Fails the proposed test at WP:BK Eusebeus 12:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Page (Ruamrudee International School)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Page (Ruamrudee International School)[edit]

Tony Page (Ruamrudee International School) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unnotable high school teacher. Could be speedied since there is no assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO See Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gateway to the Sphinx. Eusebeus 12:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Notability discussions aside, the promised sources were not forthcoming. If the various claims to notability in the original version are sourceable, get in touch with me for a reevaluation. ~ trialsanderrors 03:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Pan[edit]

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

Questionable notability, no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Unreferenced. Contested prod. MER-C 12:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the ChynaHouse/EMI partnership, I'm trying to remember where I read that. So far I can only find an Ad Age article preview [23][24]. Working on other subject specific refs. --Oakshade 02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article should have been reduced to stublength to get rid of the sourceless and copyvio material and then speedy deleted for failing to assert notability. If this AFD nom fails, I'll verify whether it is proper to speedy an article after a AFD and, if so, nominate it. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be now noted that this user's "Speedy" change due the article failing to assert notability came after they deleted the version that asserted notability [25]. --Oakshade 22:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a basis for deletion. Someone could have released only EP's, or even just a single, and be notable. --Oakshade 18:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's true. I was simply stating that the criteria she was asserted to have met was not, in fact, met. In order for her to properly be found notable, she needs to meet at least one of the criteria found in WP:MUSIC. The article itself does not assert notability in this way, and neither has anyone here. Simões (talk/contribs) 20:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC also states "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country." Breaking Free was a charted hit in several countries, even making the top-10 in a couple, but I don't have the info if the specific Asian version performed by Alicia Pan charted in conjunction with those. --Oakshade 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the clincher, isn't it? I or Alicia Pan don't get a Wikipedia article for merely doing a cover of a charted hit. Simões (talk/contribs) 21:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If she is credited for the charted hit, whether it was covered or otherwise (WP:MUSIC doesn't excluded covers), that would be a direct qualification. --Oakshade 23:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if the cover itself charts, then this qualifies her. Is there any evidence for this? Simões (talk/contribs) 02:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Breaking Free article, it made #4 in Singapore and we can assume that is the Asian version. I would like to find verification of that but so far I can't find a directory of historical Singapore music charts, even from the last few months. As for the honesty of the editors of that article, I will assume good faith. --Oakshade 03:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can assume that. It says #4 for "U.S., Singapore." The Asian version obviously didn't hit #4 in the United States. So it is either saying that the original version achieved this position on both charts, or that the original and the Asian cover both happened to peak at #4 on their respective charts. It is not a bad faith assumption to think that may not be true (we needn't doubt the editors' honesty, only their accuracy). This is really reaching for elusive smoke signals of notability. If this article is going to stay, we're going to need something to cite. Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles may not be cited as sources. And as a final side note, the Breaking Free article no longer gives any chart positions.Simões (talk/contribs) 03:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you just deleted it [26]. Here's pre-Simões-slashed version for anyone interested [27]. --Oakshade 04:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be my point. Simões (talk/contribs) 04:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you truely question the accuracy of chart positions cited in song articles and not trying to single this article out for deletion since this artist was listed as the singer of a hit song, better get to work because most song articles don't cite references for chart positions. --Oakshade 04:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate? The entire article was free of sources. Four out of five of the external links were probable copyright violations. There is no policy or even guideline that states an article should not be edited while undergoing an AFD discussion. Your claims an inappropriateness completely baseless, and your restoration of the deleted content is in violation of policy. Be more careful in the future when flinging around accusations like this. Simões (talk/contribs) 09:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All information that was deleted is varifiable. I leave it to the administrators to decide what actions during this AfD were inappropiate. --Oakshade 16:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion In response to the request at WP:3O, WP:RS says it all:
"The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to challenge and/or remove it."
Links to YouTube are generally being removed as so many YouTube videos are a copyright violation. If it could be legitimately shown that the copyright holder placed or authorized the placement of those particular videos, that's fine, but even then 4 or 5 links would be quite excessive. Finally, there is no prohibition against anyone editing during an AfD-in fact, if you examine the AfD template, it encourages editors to carry on editing. This edit does not appear to be any form of bad faith-anyone may remove unsourced claims, anytime. Seraphimblade 21:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Hospital[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Only 55 ghits, once one removes the ghits caused by a more notable hospital in Medan with a similar name. Dead end. Unreferenced. Contested prod. MER-C 13:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Irons[edit]

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

Contested prod; article makes no assertion of notability. Subject does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Edit history suggests this is a vanity page. shotwell 13:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 08:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geek rock[edit]

Delete Superfluous Article Threatis 13:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lack of sources is not, however, a reason to delete an article. There is a difference, after all, between verifiABLE and verifiED. Yes, the article as it stands has no sources, and yes, it needs them. But a quick Google search will reveal that everything in it can surely be sourced given some time and work (which I'm willing to put in). This makes it different, therefore, to an article that is simply pushing original research. Seb Patrick 17:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually lack of sources is a perfectly legitimate reason to delete an article. There is a difference between verified and verifiable; right now this article is completely unverified and when I did something more than a quick Google search (I actually followed some of the links, etc.) I didn't see anything that met reliable sources or provided verification, so at least on the surface this isn't verifiable either (at least not from reliable sources). Again I'm not suggesting that sources don't exist at all (that's the reason my above statement was a comment and not a deletion opinion); but the important thing is to find WP:V sources for this article. I wasn't able to find any, but I'm hoping someone does because I am interested in seeing this article retained.--Isotope23 18:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not according to the deletion criteria, it isn't. If an article appears unverifiable, the solution is not to delete it outright, but to find sources wherever possible. If such sources cannot be found, then deletion may be possible. But I could point you to a hundred articles on Wikipedia that wouldn't in a million years be deleted, yet don't have adequate sources or citations. Seb Patrick 18:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting off topic, but I'll just leave it that yes I agree with you, there are a number of unverified (and possibly unverifiable) and poorly verified articles that never will be deleted. It's unfortunate, but consensus can trump policy in some cases. In this case however I'd like to see this kept for now sourced if possible (and I've tagged it for needing verification), which looks like where this is headed. If it doesn't get sourced in a few months then that can be dealt with at that point. Besides, I'm the only one grumbling about sourcing... the original deletion reasoning makes no mention of it...--Isotope23 19:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 00:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SATEK[edit]

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

Seems to be a student project with no further ghits. External project link is one page in Turkish Optimale Gu 13:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. yandman 15:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 23:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McCabe (rugby player)[edit]

Vanity Article Angolon It's cold out here, and there are wolves after me. 13:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC) — Angolon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The result was Speedy delete a7. NawlinWiki 16:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeMorgan's Theory[edit]

DeMorgan's Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable band, could not find any references to any recordings, or articles or similar to assert notability. Not mentioned in all music guide either, the only relevant things I found was a coupple of links to the drummers myspace page. Delete Bjelleklang - talk 13:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dice Wars[edit]

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

Browser game with no real claims of notability or sources. Fails WP:WEB and doesn't seem to have any independent sources about it either, failing WP:V. Wickethewok 13:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, o.k. but ... to the extent that discussion is allowed in RfD ... isn't it true that the purpose of "verifiable sources" to ensure accuracy & NPOV, two characteristics that are not at issue here? There are things about Flash games that such that they do not lend themselves to dead tree publication, yet it can not be true that the entire category of Flash games is not encyclopediac. rewinn 20:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't understand where you get the idea that accuracy & NPOV are not issues when dealing with flash games (they are issues in every single article, including and especially ones on flash games). RuneScape, for example is a browser game (though not a flash game), and it's (gasp) full of reliable sources. Using other articles to justify this one is not a sound plan - other articles may be deleted for the same sourcing reason, but we haven't gotten around to it. ColourBurst 05:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I was unclear. By "not at issue here" I don't intend to assert that accuracy and POV are not important; merely that in this case there are no claims (at this time) of accuracy or POV issues. The assertions in the article are trivially verifiable. rewinn 01:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "playing the game and verifying the game does what it's purported to do" is considered original research. (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source.) In addition, the only things in the article are rules and strategy (not allowed by WP:NOT), and once you remove those, you're left with around 1 line, and that line isn't verified by a third-party source. ColourBurst 23:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Reilly (NUIG)[edit]

Paddy Reilly (NUIG) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sole claim to fame is that he was president of the students' union at National University of Ireland, Galway. Student politicians aren't mentioned in WP:BIO or Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#People, but the lack of external published works makes him non-notable in my opinion. Demiurge 13:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they're in wikipedia because of what they did afterwards, not for being student politicians. yandman 11:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"national" here means "relating to the governance of the nation". Or else I could be included as being a member of an international organisation yandman 13:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
right. so you just want ure friends on here, yeah? typical.being an elected member of the Senate of the largest university in Ireland is worthy of note in itself,nevermind it being paddy reilly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.7.37 (talk • contribs)
If Mr Reilly really is that notable, then you should have no difficulty producing the "multiple independent non-trivial published works about him" specified by WP:BIO. Demiurge 14:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Proto::type 13:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moorkanade[edit]

Moorkanade (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Stub about a place in the city of Trichur; the article only states a family lives there that appears to have no claim to notability. --Nehwyn 17:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following the WP:LOCAL guideline, article such as this should get their independent page when their mention in the mother page becomes too large. This is not the case, as Moorkanade does not appear to be mentioned in Thrissur at all. Ordinarily, the info in this article could be merged into the mother article, but in this case, there is nothing to merge, as the article merely states a particular family (with no claim to notability given and no GHits) lives in that place. --Nehwyn 18:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I know whether you have proposed this AFD thinking that Morrkanade is a place in Thrissur City or a place in Thrissur District.  Doctor Bruno  02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that something exists does not confer automatical notability (WP:NOT an indiscriminate list of all information) and do not automatically deserve their own article (WP:LOCAL). --Nehwyn 20:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what about the articles about American places with less than 1000 population. Should they all be deleted  Doctor Bruno  12:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, keep to the article in question. We're looking for a reason why this particular group of building should evade WP:LOCAL. --Nehwyn 16:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. How many people should live in a village to make it notable to appear in Wikipedia  Doctor Bruno  20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stick to the article in question. This is not a village, and we're not here to discuss villages in general. We are discussing this particular place within a city. --Nehwyn 20:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Particular place within a city, which has more population than 1000s of places in America which have individual articles. The definition of "city" and "village" differs from America and India. Places in India have more people than towns of America. How are you very certain that this is a place within a city and not a village. Can you prove that. Have you been to that place. If you can't prove, then it is a bad faith comment  Doctor Bruno  02:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are evaluated based on their content. The article itself states this is a place within a city, not a separate community (such as a town or village), and therefore we treat is as such. As for your remarks about nationality, the current nomination is not based upon them, but simply states that no claim to notability is made in the article. Please, keep to discussing that. --Nehwyn 06:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the claim to notability with Albion, Illinois and Aledo, Illinois. They are called as cities. Can anyone confirm whether this is a place in Thrissur District or Thrissur Town  Doctor Bruno  16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think those articles are not notable, feel free to propose them for deletion. But on this page, please keep to the article in question. --Nehwyn 16:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, express your opinion explicitly as to why WP:LOCAL should not apply. This is a debate, not a vote! --Nehwyn 16:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should this article be kept, if the present article in nominated for deletion. The village I work has a population of 20,000, which is almost 7 times as this place, but unfortunately that will not be mentioned in Google and hence is not notable where as a village with just 3000 people is notable if that is in America  Doctor Bruno  20:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, keep to discussing the article in question. We're not talking about villages here, and nationality is not the issue. Lack of claim to notability is. --Nehwyn 06:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Albion, Illinois and Aledo, Illinois are cities. They are county seats and pass WP:V. utcursch | talk 12:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This also passes WP:V  Doctor Bruno  16:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. The motivation for the deletion nomination is indeed not "unverified", but rather "makes no claim to notability". --Nehwyn 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


If some persons from England, Africa or Mumbai or Banglore says that this place is non notable, how can I agree with such foolishness since I'm a native wikipedian. If this place were in America or England, everyone will say that this place is highly notable.(Even smallplaces in England with a population of 1000 are included in this encyclopedia).But News report from Malayalam Newspapers are not available in google. That's why no google hits..!I'm ready to scan and upload hundreds of news report in Malayalam about this place. Since I'm a Malayalam Language journalists it's not a big task to me. But howmany of u know Malayalam...? I think it's a great challenge to create Kerala related or Malayalam Language related articles. Google hits are not available even to notable places. My humble request in this context is that Google hits must not be taken as a yardstick in Asian related AfD's. Newspapers of Vernacular Languages may have millions of readership. For example, in India every state has its own language. There are more than 20 widely speaking native languages in India. But the news reports from the newspapers of such languages are not available in google search.Take the case of Malayala Manorama Newspaper. Currently this Malayalam language newspaper has a readership of over 9 million, with a circulation base of over 1.4 million copies according to Audit Beureu of Circulations. Manorama is one of the India's largest selling and most widely read news paper. There are more than 50 such newspapers in India. News reports from such dailies are not available in google eventhough it have millions of readership. But news reports from English dailies with 1000 or 2000 copies are available in google search and wikipedians consider it as big big google hits..! Articles from English speaking places will easily pass verifiability test and notability test because of this reason. Is it really misleading..? In this context of notability tests based on google hits may be a worthless, foolish effort. In such circumstances we must consider the words of native wikipedians with more importance in Asian related AFd's. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 11:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - you make some interesting observations. Clearly, google hits alone are no indicator of notability, and there are certainly challenges in covering non-english speaking countries in the english wikipedia. However, there have to be objective tests and standards for notability, verifiability and the rest. We can't accept the words of "native" wikipedians any more than we can take the words of any other wikipedian. There must be sources. -Kubigula (ave) 05:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - as the editor is struggling to get the article to meet notability standards it can be brought back to AfD in a while (or prodded if the author admits that it doesn't make it). Yomanganitalk 15:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A New Ascension[edit]

Prod tag removed, so I'm bringing it here. This band does not seem to meet the guidelines at WP:MUSIC, therefore I recommend deletion. cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have several news articles (hard copies) from local papers about this band. I cant find the same articles online. How can I show that this band is notable? What about ASCAP check stubs? There music was just purchased for "Undercover starlet"(sp?). A very small reality show in N.Y. Its easy to find on the web though. They're negotiating an instrumental mix for a new horror movie being made. If I could get something from the band, should I send it to Wikipedia to show its authenticity? I spend hours a day on this site (just as a reader) and I just want to add to it. Please help me imporve this page. I think this band deserves to have one...I just cant figure out how to show their notability. Should I list quotes from news papers?

...at the very least, they could be linked with a number of other more prominent pages.

Sorry for being a stereotypical noob.

I cant even post correctly. Sorry.


I was uncertain of the deletion policy for bands but tried to clean up the article all the same. I just checked out WP:MUSIC, maybe you should see if you can fill any of the criteria? If not then save what you have and once they get in the horror movie or on the reality show you can repost .
Good luck,
Markco1 15:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot. I really needed some help with this. I appreciate all your work on the page.

I've been reading non-stop. The more I read about "Notability" the more vague it seems. But I'll keep trying. They have the reality show already, I just dont know how to show that. There music is used in episodes but how do you prove that. The individual would have to actually watch the show, ya know. They also have pay stubs from ASCAP for liceasing deals and radio plays.

If the people who want to delete this page just check out Beatpick.com (easiest to navigate) they would see that they're professional, not some random garage band. Although they're no N'Sync and they havent gone platinum from their first CD...ha. Beatpick is just one publisher. They also scored deals through indie911, and other companies as well. They hooked up w/ MTV through T.J. Rising. Beleive me when I say that I'm no fan of MTV. However, even I understand that its a big deal when MTV accepts everyone of your songs for their catalog. They have done all this without a label--completely on their own. It just goes to show you, unless you sign with a label, people will always think your nothing.

How do I show all this though...Argh!

If their music is on an episode can you cite that in the article and point to an external website throught the cite. I assume there should be some sort of credit for that? To do a cite you can check out Nantucket ship that I cleaned up with some citing - it is pretty simple. I believe you just need to fill one of the criteria not all of them also I think that TJ Rising's connection to MTV is notable - Can you show that connection via a an external link? The more external links you can get to viable sources such as MTV the better you can prove their notoriety. My belief is that not being an "N'Sync" is a positive thing - lol.
Markco1 16:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much- I dont know how to do the links so I'll have to read up about it. Im def going to take your advice and check out your work on that page. Also, I'll go to the web site that plays the episodes of the reality show online. I'll see if they have credits at the end to show (in writting) that A New Ascension music was legally purchased and used. Its going to suck watching every episode...haha. If there are none, I guess I'll still make a link so that, at the very least, those who are familair with the music will recognize it when/if they here it. Linking to T.J. Rizing is a great idea too...you just have all the answers...ha. I was curious...should a put a picture, or their Logo (or whatever you call it) up? Maybe a link to their myspace and purevolume...??? Also, They have the same Web Desginer as TakeOver Records(Ben Harper's-[formerly from yellowcard]- label)...is that notable? haha. I'm looking for anything, anything at all. Ricky Spoons, drummer (A.N.A.) takes lessons and is friends with L.P. (drummer-YellowCard). John Wilkes is a close friend of the band (Drummer-Red Jumpsuit-Virgin)- i mean geeze...theres so many little obscure things about them...haha they KNOW famous people.. does that count?haha

ok time to work. thanks again. If you have anymore suggestions please do not hessitate.

BTW-"Notable" should be defined as any band that is not N'Sync.

Thanks-I'm going to add the sources and reviews when I go home. I'm currently at work. I have stacks of articles at my place. I hope I can remember how to cite work properly.


Give it a shot and we will help you out as much as we can. BTW four tildas will give your user name and date of your entry.
Markco1 22:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jmylar 20:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)I didnt get a chance to cite anything yesterday. I hope i get a chance to before anything is deleted. Like i said i have a ton of info. Also, if the fact that Mark (bass) was signed to Virgin makes the band more notable, then It might also be notable that Jared Boice was signed to Vision sound (who discoverd The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus[Virgin]+Escher[no more])...they happen to be a Virgin Records affiliate. Its also where the band records. Plus, the band is professional. The deals they sign are equivelant to those a "Major Label" band would sign. They just make more profit (percentage) then a "major" band would. I dont think they should be over looked just because they MAY (or may not) have more sense then some bands that rush into a major label contract. The "May not," comes from the fact that they might be turned down by Wikipedia simply b/c they've Turned down majors/indie's in the past. Btw-like my SN? Im going for the forum-trendy "rip off" M.Shadows SN. Accept im doing it for J(Jordin) Mylar (we have the same first initial...ha)! yeah- I know I'm lame![reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defendant_(Rock_Band)[edit]

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

Autobiographical content that fails WP:MUSIC. In addition, the article was originally misplaced under Defendant and was regenerated after being removed. --Sigma 7 14:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. - crz crztalk 15:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Borromeo (Indian athlete)[edit]

Charles Borromeo (Indian athlete) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notability evrik (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirected and closed. --humblefool® 21:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angels of Dunkirk[edit]

DELETE This article has already been merged as per the merger suggestion. There is now no reason to keep this article. As it relates only to characters within one part a computer game there is no real need to redirect. --Dave 00:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I'm changing it to redirect as we speak. (what do you mean 'theres no reason to redirect'?) Armanalp 16:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 23:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie Ivancich Dunin[edit]

Elsie Ivancich Dunin (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable (if only every college professor was notable to be on Wikipedia), see Wikipedia:Spam. Youngster of Germany 02:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can assure I am no sock puppet. I have about 75 edits as an IP address. In truth, I did make an account to create some AfDs. Vanity article really grind my gears. Youngster of Germany 00:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why you think I'm a sock puppet, but okay. A sock puppet is another users second account right? YoG 05:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct. As I noted above, someone would eventually say this. I don't see any evidence that one user is posing as two in this discussion, so it really shouldn't be an issue. Regardless of what one might think the motivation of the nom was, the deletion proposal is fairly sound, even if that is not our conclusion. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ned, you are in a prolonged and bitter dispute here with Elonka Dunin right now, the daughter of this article's subject. That, combined with the SPA nature of the nominator and your frequent commentary here, makes me feel that this is a retaliatory AfD, and it should be dismissed out of hand. -- PKtm 19:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know the nom, I am not the nom, so I do not know the motivation for the nom. Regardless of any disputes at this time, the deletion rational is valid on it's own. I'm not the kind of person who would make a sock puppet and try to delete such an article just to "attack" another user. At the same time, I do not believe in avoiding a discussion that I know about in order to not hurt someone's feelings. I am confidant in my ability to separate the two situations and comment on them appropriately. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Green Party of Canada Shadow Cabinet, no consensus on the rest, so they will be kept by default. Yomanganitalk 15:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party of Canada Shadow Cabinet, Bloc Québécois Shadow Cabinet, New Democratic Party Shadow Cabinet[edit]

Green Party of Canada Shadow Cabinet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Bloc Québécois Shadow Cabinet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), New Democratic Party Shadow Cabinet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Much of this, I feel, falls under WP:NOR. This isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, and is really original research. It's also unencyclopedic. GreenJoe 05:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[33] so that is not the issue at all. −What personally makes me a trifle nervous is that the nominator, who supports the Green Party (based on his user page [34]), and who has edited Green Party of Canada Shadow Cabinet, first tried to PROD the BQ and NDP pages but not the Green Party page. The same reasoning about NOR was used that time. I am glad to see that all the minor parties are here now though, so perhaps I am wrong to be a bit concerned. I think the information is very useful and should either be kept as is or merged into the NDP, BQ pages as Eusebeus suggests. --Slp1 01:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 01:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viola Thomas-Hughes[edit]

Viola Thomas-Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prod tag was removed before the election of this local politician finished. I am bringing it here since she lost rather handily, and doesn't seem to be notable outside of the House race. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, so kept by default. Yomanganitalk 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aang Serian Drum[edit]

Notability of this media center not established. Prod tag removed previously. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw: that's an info box not frame around an image. hence it has a 'web' entry, obv needs filling in (hence someone reverted change as vandal/mistake). please check before such claims.  ⇒ bsnowball  11:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep. --Nyp 00:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Action Heroes[edit]

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

Appears not to meet WP:MUSIC: only cites given are to music-db.org and an article in a blog. The Anome 15:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bosco Seva Kendra —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-20 02:04Z

Anuragam[edit]

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

Admirable organization but according to Google unfortunately non-notable. Full of Original research MartinDK 15:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep - nileena's logic strikes me.Bakaman Bakatalk 05:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thelibertines.org Forum[edit]

Lucyhmm 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thelibertines.org forum has been crucial to the success of both The Libertines and the British music scene over the past few years. Arguably it's importance has waned over the past year or two, but as has been stated on the discussion page the forum has been mentioned in many music books and magazines, as well as other wiki pages and therefore it seems common sense that it should have it's own wikipedia page. It seems to me that those requesting it's deletion are doing so because they have little awareness of the subject's importance. One of the key uses of wikipedia is to educate and so it is illogical to delete this entry because of a lack of knowledge about the forum and it's associated subjects. As has also been previously mentioned, I'm sure that the page will be cleaned up, with references and the such added. 87.86.104.115 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Sarah[reply]

As you can see from above I clearly stated (and others have done in the discussion page of the actual wiki entry) that it has been crucial to the music scene in this country over the past few years. This is undeniably true when you consider the bands that have had success as a result of promotion/discussion on the forum (see actual wiki article for mentions of these bands), and is supported by the books and magazines in which the forum has popped up - notably the NME and Anthony Thornton's 'Bound Together' bio of The Libertines. The forum stands out as being one on which the members of many bands (Razorlight, Thee Unstrung, Babyshambles, etc), club promotors, music journalists and photographers have frequented. 87.86.104.115 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Sarah[reply]

  • Note Please sign your comments. Otto4711 22:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, help or advice would be much appreciated. I have not contributed to the page in discussion myself, and have never contributed or edited a wiki page so I have no idea how to go about adding citations and references, but I understand that those who have contributed to the page are making every effort to add the missing info SarahRoe 23:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Protologism. El_C 13:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mx. (gender-free title)[edit]

Mx. (gender-free title) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable protologism. Deprodded. Weregerbil 15:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That may well be true, but one user is still not even close to notable. Googling your suggestion yields a mere 238 pages total, of which most seem to be false hits; there are precisely 4 sites yielded by your suggested search in Google's top 10 of them that actually are about the term, and one of those sites is Wikipedia. SnowFire 02:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No evidence of notability outside the reality show has been presented. --Coredesat 23:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Staricha[edit]

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

Non-notable losing contestant on a reality television show. (Though, this article calls it a "dramality t.v. show".) Hasn't done anything notable since losing. Didn't do anything notable before losing. Mikeblas 16:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That and I'm pretty sure she started the page herself. Delete, non-notable Missvain 17:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, then dab —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-20 01:52Z

Chem[edit]

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

Article is full of WP:OR. Very confusing situation as the talk page says the correct word is Kemet. Article may have been started as a misunderstanding of the whole subject. No sources given, notability rather unclear MartinDK 16:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn after the article was re-written. utcursch | talk 06:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarvadhu[edit]

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

Unsourced original research. Link under "resources" is not working, no relavent G-hits, reads like a POV essay Akradecki 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete, A7. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acephala (band)[edit]

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

Non-Notable band Missvain 17:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afformance[edit]

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

After much research, this band is non-notable Missvain 17:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Dynamite[edit]

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

Non-notable. Guy features a link to his own personal webpage and the band showed no notability via-search engines that I could find Missvain 17:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Andrew Levine 20:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neem Karoli Baba[edit]

Neem Karoli Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non-notable and non-verifiable miracle worker, maybe a local celebrity, but evidently not notable enough to deserver a Wikipedia article Skobelief 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable band, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black and White (trance duo)[edit]

Black and White (trance duo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable, from what I can see. Small reviews and super-indie released label. Nothing that impressed me enough to consider them notable, but, thats just my opinion! Missvain 17:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anililagnia[edit]

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

Apparently unverifiable: seems only to exist in lists of rare words which don't appear to cite any reliable sources as evidence for this usage. -- The Anome 17:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Steel 22:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CUBAN B[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Information on wiki page is copied directly from their own website. Missvain 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A1/A7) while AFD was in progress. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diemona[edit]

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

Non-Notable band Missvain 18:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted as recreation of an article about nn-band (A7) while AFD was in progress. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Nerd Special[edit]

Early Nerd Special (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a very non-notable band! Missvain 18:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - reliable sources haven't been provided. No reason it can't be recreated should such sources materialize. I think the effect on free speech will be minor enough to allow deletion to take place. Yomanganitalk 14:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Buddy" (Paranormal creature)[edit]

Non-notable parannormal creature. Only source provided by the author of this article appears to be 2 user submitted reports to a the Weird New Jersey website -- No Guru 18:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 while AFD was in progress. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coral (gambling)[edit]

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

It's a one sentence article and the subject is dealt with in the parent company article Gala Coral Group --Starrycupz 18:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-20 01:45Z

Tree Gnomes[edit]

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

((prod)) was removed, then readded. Since re-adding the tag is not allowed, I've moved this here. I agree with the initial prodder, this is fancruft and should be deleted. Original prod reason: Per WP:FICT, not substantial enough for an article. UtherSRG (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Association of Foreign Title Holders in Malta[edit]

I don't see that the subject of this article meets notability guidelines. Notablility is not asserted in the article (which is not properly referenced and not written in a neutral manner incidentally). Imperfect tool though it is, Google only returns 45 hits (!), Wikipedia mirrors in the most part[35]. Delete --SandyDancer 19:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a glut of similar articles on "Maltese nobility" created by the same author, in much the same style. Considering the clear "delete" vote here, is there any way to speedily list a number of related pages for deletion? --SandyDancer 20:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See here [36]. --SandyDancer 20:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3, vandalism. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic t3h fucker/pervert[edit]

Sonic t3h fucker/pervert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vandalism much?

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

The result was Delete as unsourced. Setting a redirect seems to be ok, I just don't know where. ~ trialsanderrors 06:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitō anime[edit]

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

non-notable anime genres. Azump 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The extended ō is often written as 'ou', especially by people that have not formally studied Japanese. There are a handful of relevant hits on a google search for "kaitou anime" if you use quotes, but not enough to convince me that it's in common use (as an anime fan myself, I've never heard the phrase used). Ironfrost 04:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playstation 3 launch titles[edit]

List of Playstation 3 launch titles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is redundant (duplicate of existing information) since this list is already present at PlayStation 3. - Tutmosis 19:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree for the redirect, so long as the launch titles remain on the main PlayStation 3 page. Sincerely, --164.107.92.120 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as per restrictions on the actions of banned users, by Cholmes75 and (aeropagitica) 23:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch of Beacon House pages[edit]

Beaconhouse Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beaconhouse International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For all the same reasons discussed in a similar AFD last night and on its related MFD, I am nominating these two pages. They should go away too, provided a banned user started both. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 substantially similar content deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved. — TKD::Talk 17:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M6d pistol sidearm[edit]

M6d pistol sidearm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a gamesguide - a fictional pistol does not require a page of it's own - a sentence on the main article is more than enought Charlesknight 19:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article has been speedied once already and recreated. A prod notice was added, but removed without comment, hence this AfD. Gwernol 20:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kissa[edit]

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

This article refers to a non-existent Norse hero by referring to a non-existent Norse saga. Berig 19:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a hoax, written to entertain friends. Please delete. - the author

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

The result was Delete. Dicdef. El_C 13:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenacity[edit]

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

Dictionary definition Alksub 19:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 00:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexei Borodin[edit]

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

Delete as nonnotable young professor. In his CV there is a big section "Awards", which are actually various grants, no biggie. No eponymous laws, theorems, no sex scandals, etc. I.e., nothing to read or write about. mikkanarxi 14:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 00:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forum raid[edit]

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

Complete original research with no mainstream references Naconkantari 19:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, userfy on request if reliable sources can be provided. No verification of even basic claims of fact or notability has been offered, either in the article or in this discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon mysticism[edit]

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

original research -999 (Talk) 19:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide examples to back this up, the only edits I see in the history since this was put up for deletion are requests for sources, copy edits, and my own removal of a weasel-worded paragraph and external links which seemed inappropriate.[41]
Labeling those who vote for deletion as a "cabal" or accusing them of "abusing procedure" seems to fit into the "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" guideline of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Remove your attacks or back them up. --Lethargy 02:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge about any other editors' 'affiliations', just that it's the same old bunch that seem to work together often to promote the same POV. Duke53 | Talk 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"it's the same old bunch that seem to work together often to promote the same POV." you do realize you just did it again, right? --Lethargy 04:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If by "affiliations" you are referring to the fact that you are LDS, you should know that I share that same affiliation and I also see the pattern that 75.18.4.148 mentioned. --Tsuzuki26 03:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By affiliation I was referring to Duke's assertion that we are a cabal. As far as seeing the same pattern, please put your money where your mouth is and link to instances where "those voting to Delete are systematically deleting the article part by part already" --Lethargy 04:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The links were a target for systematic removal. The one who suggested the deletion of this topic was doing that a lot, and s/he didn't even touch the talk page. --Tsuzuki26 08:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, I removed blog and discussion group links once and reverted to it once. Where I come from twice is not a lot. -999 (Talk) 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who was JoeSmack then? --Tsuzuki26 18:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not me. And it is uncivil to imply otherwise. I don't use socks, I don't need them as I am usually right and fully supported by Wikipedia policy. :-) -999 (Talk) 18:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Don't you know how to look at a user's contributions? That user has been here longer than I have (since 2004 in fact) and couldn't possibly be confused for a sockpuppet. -999 (Talk) 18:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"11:25, 14 November 2006 JoeSmack (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 87810661 dated 2006-11-14 19:09:19 by 999 using popups)"
"11:44, 14 November 2006 999 (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 87814018 dated 2006-11-14 19:25:40 by JoeSmack using popups)"
What's that? --Tsuzuki26 19:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its another user reverting the article to a version by me. Take it up with JoeSmack who, as I said, has been here for some time. Thanks. -999 (Talk) 19:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I was unfamiliar with the notation. --Tsuzuki26 20:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am re-reading the references, and they do in fact discuss mysticism within Mormonism. They do no describe a group of people who practice such mysticism. In other words, this article is about a club that believes in mysticism. If you want to start an article Mysticism in Mormonism then that is one thing, but to create a wiki page for every yahoo group seems a bit extensive. Bytebear 03:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a stub about mysticism within Mormonism. If you would like to help with content, please be my guest. --Tsuzuki26 04:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oak, can you please define "movement" for me? Also, a movement of what: young people, individuals, or Mormons? If they are Mormons, could you please point me to the evidence that convinced you of this position?
I have always interpreted a movement as something that is something that is measureable, observable within society, and definitive. Tsuzuki claims on his referenced blog to support this article that he is LDS and is the president of the Mormon club in his educational institution (high school?) and president of the Pagan club. I assure you, from an LDS doctrinal standpoint, this is not acceptable or recommended; it is a significant conflict. However, he/she is free to choose whatever he chooses, but it is not a choice of a Mormon, but as an individual. Storm Rider (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vice president of the pagan club, actually, and I'm only a member of the LDS Student Association through my activity with the Institute, though I attend the leadership meetings as often as I can. --Tsuzuki26 20:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word "movement" can be subjective, but in this case, from what I can deduce from the sources cited in the article, it seems to be at least a segment of LDS practitioners embrace some aspects of what is defined as mysticism and that can arguably be considered a "movement." I value your perspective on LDS as I'm not a member, but what I do know is that the LDS, like many religions, is varied and has many different perspectives (I'm Catholic and believe me, most Catholics aren't even aware of the literally hundreds of difference branches and philosophies that fall under just the "Roman Catholic" umbrella). It appears from the specific reliable sources (I'm choosing to ignore the sources like blogs and focusing on more standard ones like the Salt Lake Tribune articles), the existence of interest, both scholarly and lay, in Mormon mysticism appears real. --Oakshade 20:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this discussion I would also add WP:SPAM as a reason to delete the article. Please also consider the edit history for Tsuzuki26 (talk · contribs), the creator & primary proponent of the article — this is really the only article edited by that user, and that user appears be playing a PR/advocate role for this obscure topic. -- FishUtah 16:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure - I have edited the article in question as 71.35.41.92 (talk · contribs) -- FishUtah 18:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added more references. This isn't spam. It's a work in progress. --Tsuzuki26 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References should never be placed in an external links section, they should be in the references section. --Lethargy 20:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If mysticism has a distinct flavor within a Lutheran setting, then by all means create the article. --Tsuzuki26 08:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My vote for keep is in no way a "Mormonism is a cult" POV as I, and I'm assuming most non-Mormans, don't view Mormanism in that way. Christian mysticism has a very long history and there seems to be some recognition of this branch of it. --Oakshade 08:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are correct that Christian mysticism exists as a significant topic -- however the "me-too" tact taken on this article does not support it's notability, just as any other article about |Fill in the blank with a denomination| mysticism would not without good, solid references demonstrating it is significant as a distinct topic. I'm also not saying that the article as currently written is inherently anti-Mormon, though I feel that it is an article with an agenda; I'm just warning that it is likely to be hijacked for "Mormonism is a cult" POV purposes. First and foremost this article is Original Research about an obscure topic that doesn't have the support of references that are generally acceptable on Wikipedia, but there is also additional reasons for removing it based on unwarranted POV forking, both within the Mormonism topics, as well as with Christian mysticism, syncretism, comparative religion topics. -- FishUtah 17:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 00:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moaya Scheiman and Culinista[edit]

Moaya Scheiman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Culinista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Blatant self-promotion by a chef. Culinista is a term he has invented to describe himself. -- RHaworth 20:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also wondering why the Bio page has been flagged? I am trying to do a straight bio of a radio host,food writer, food historian who is well known in this part of the world. Before he was a chef he was a film director and published author. He is the Son of a famous American lawyer and would seem to be someone to be included..I thought...let me now before I go further here...thank you! JT — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterTexperience (talk • contribs)
Comment. I am his doing his PR - translated into Eglish = yes, I admit that it is spam! -- RHaworth 21:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand what you are saying, and would like to say that I was not aware that adding a bio of a person of interest was spam. I had been given the task of doing several bios only one of which was a chef. But this was my first article and I am now worried about contributing anything for fear of it being marked as spam-despite the belief that we are contributing encyclopedic copy. Since I have been asked to do this, will all my work be considered spam? and any Biographical material on Mr Scheiman also be? When this was flagged I had not got to his filmography and other particulars. is there a place in here for newposters to learn how to post, What am I missing? "I am doing his PR" should not preclude or eliminate useful encyclopedic information, should it? Is there a way that this information can be edited to adhere to guidlines?

I really think that being someone's PR representative is incompatible with writing neutral-voice, encyclopedic material about him. I don't think that you can contribute on articles that you have a financial interest in. - Richardcavell 23:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow me to politely disagree. People do decent work for money all the time. This is how the world runs. As long as a person follows the wikipedia rules of notability/verifiability/"neutral point of view", following policies WP:CITE WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc. his contribs are OK. The major idea is that fo ar thing to be notable and information verifiable, it must be discussed in a reputable and independent source. Mukadderat 16:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The God Delusion after rewrite. ~ trialsanderrors 00:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit[edit]

Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unencyclopaedic pro-creationist rant against science. Hopelessly and irretrievably POV. Far too small and specific a topic for an article anyway. Gnusmas 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Changing my position to straight merge. As edited, the content now clearly justifies merger. -Kubigula (ave) 17:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Factual correction Dawkins says (op cit p113) "My name for the statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit." NBeale 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case I stand corrected (I do not have the book to hand) - but you cannot then say that Dawkins' statement "in its entirety" is as you quote in the article. That dismissive "in its entirety" is another clear demonstration of the article's bad faith and its status as an attempt to push one particular POV. Gnusmas 14:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually quite relevant - the Bible was written by many people, cobbled together willy-nilly and has internal inconsistencies. It can be picked apart because of this organic construction. The God Delusion is a single book written by one person and intended as a coherent whole. I've changed my mind now to Merge/Redirect too. Ttiotsw 20:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be a little content worth explaining in a sentence or two back in the main The God Delusion article, but that could be done without a merge or a redirect. Edhubbard 23:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kassemann[edit]

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

The article refers to a bogus concept with bogus references Berig 20:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21 Lavitts Quay[edit]

21 Lavitts Quay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about an unremarkable building; does not assert notability. (CSD-A7 does not cover buildings, that's why I'm not speedying it) Demiurge 20:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 02:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squick[edit]

Squick (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

A dicdef, and a dicdef attested from questionable sources at that. Guy 23:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does, but Wiktionary has already marked it for deletion unless verified. Clearly, if unverified, it would not belong here, but if it is deleted both here and there, where will researchers of the future look ? -- Simon Cursitor
The RFV page for the entry says:
Citations added easily enough. It's used as both a verb and a noun. bd2412 T 03:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, much better. --Connel MacKenzie 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
So, it will stay. Rpresser 15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to wiktionary seems like a perfect solution. However, I read some of the Redirect information, and I don't think these kind of interwiki redirects are done. I suppose that too many connections between the projects could create problems if entries got deleted, moved, etc etc. -Kubigula (ave) 16:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come back when the Guardian has published it then, Wikipedia will still be here in six months time. Demiurge 15:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 02:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Pistol[edit]

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

Nominated for a speedy. Author keeps removing the speedy. No way that the subject of the article meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Just another vanity article. Dipics 21:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - copyvio - Yomanganitalk 14:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uk work permit[edit]

Uk work permit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Copyright violation which hasn't been cleared up by only author. Topic is already covered by Immigration to the United Kingdom article. Cordless Larry 21:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio, then recreate as redirect to Immigration to the United Kingdom (since it sounds like it could be a valid search term). Confusing Manifestation 00:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technical point: title needs to be 'UK', not 'Uk' (which would be the abbrevaition either for 'unknown' or 'Ukranian') -- Simon Cursitor
Yes, I would have corrected that, but I didn't see the point unless it survives nomination. Cordless Larry 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misa Hylton-Brim[edit]

The notability of the subject is not asserted here, and the article does not read like an encyclopedic one either, but, either way, whether it has any value here is questionable. SunStar Net 21:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian (title)[edit]

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

Non-notable definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cuñado - Talk 21:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medical humor[edit]

List of jokes. No attempt to approach the field systematically. Unsure if this topic is worth an article. Delete. JFW | T@lk 21:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family Reunion (Rugrats)[edit]

Family Reunion (Rugrats) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugrats episodes are generally not notable or encyclopaedic; there is little to say on them other than to provide synopses. If this debate succeeds, I plan to nominate all other articles in the category for deletion, aside from All Growed Up, which is (in my view) notable enough. CNash 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streamload[edit]

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

Has somehow managed to survive since June 2005, yet doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB, and if it does, it doesn't assert its notability very well. Seems a little spam-ish. Your thoughts? --Czj 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 02:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Winger[edit]

Doug Winger (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

There are very few Google hits for this person (under 600 excluding Wikipedia), and none of them are reliable sources. No reliable sources are cited in the article. There are no hits at all on Google News. So: formally unverifiable, neutrality cannot be proven from reliable independent sources, in short: not notable per WP:BIO. Guy 23:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guy did animation for Nickelodeon, surely that makes him notable.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the trouble is, not even the Nickelodeon claim is verifiable. There isn't much hope of bringing this one up to code, I'm afraid.--Rosicrucian 23:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Verifiability is policy.--Rosicrucian 03:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. If you feel an article is inaccurate or nonneutral, feel free to edit that article accordingly. If you feel an article's title is inaccurate or nonneutral, feel free to propose to have it renamed. But do not circumvent the normal editorial process by creating compeeting version/s of the same entry. Incidentally, this entry could use a lot of expansion: for ex., that many IDF commanders, including the division commander responsible for the firing the shells, were resolutely against using artillery fire precisely due to the likelihood of these type of incidents, but the Regional Command(?) General Staff/MoD/PM thought otherwise; or operative details, for ex., 12 shells being involved in the incident; or that the death toll is now up to twenty. In other words, no shortage of work, but keep it all in one place, without forking and without employing AfD as an editorial mechanism. El_C 22:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident[edit]

Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NPOV version of Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun. The other article is better sourced and neutral.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burgas00 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 14 November 2006(UTC).

  • That a user would abuse process like this is inexcusable and I urge this be speedy rejected. RunedChozo 22:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason it's older by 9 hours is that after its creation, POV pusher User:Striver created the other one as a POV Fork to try to get around NPOV, inserted blatant propaganda, and then "suggested" a merge as a shoehorn to try to force POV material into the real article. RunedChozo 22:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've corrected the format to properly reflect the nominator and make sure it's listed appropriately. Hopefully now that people can see the AfD this should be a fairly easy speedy keep.--Rosicrucian 22:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russia as an emerging superpower[edit]

Russia as an emerging superpower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article violates WP:NOT (crystal balling), WP:OR, WP:V. Basic premise is not sourced, nor are any of the various statistics. Entire article little more than duplicate material from Russia and its associated articles. Xdamrtalk 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that no notable neutral source has been provided for describing Russia as an emerging superpower. As it stands, this article is one person's OR. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the first admin who sees this (not directly related to AfD discussion): You may want to speedy-close the erroneous double-nom. All of the comments have been moved here. --Czj 23:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, the long-term trends are not good. As a result I very much doubt that any editor will be able to provide reputable sourcing for the basic premise, which should lead to deletion. The only aspect that presents potential cause for optimism is the 'energy superpower' argument - essentially Russia turning into a petro-state. This may or may not come to pass, but either way, 'energy superpower' is a slipshod journalistic term, it does not equate to 'superpower' proper.
Xdamrtalk 21:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Russia is not the same as the Soviet Union. Russia was the primary constituent part of the USSR, however a pretty hefty and strategically/ economically important chunk of the former USSR is now independent, outwith Russia's direct control.
Xdamrtalk 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay john solomon[edit]

Ajay john solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several issues with notability (although claimed, not verifiable), can't find anything on the dude, also autobiographical. In short, hoax? Delete Bubba hotep 22:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (done). I've left a soft redirect. Proto::type 14:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voltaire's views on race[edit]

This is a set of quotations, thinly larded with original research. Transwiki to Wikisource. Septentrionalis 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of these are relevant to his history, but would be too much to merge back into the Voltaire article. Still if we transwiki I think some of these quotes should be placed in the main article.--T. Anthony 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can a series of quotes possibly be 'original research'? I strongly oppose deletion for this -- GordonRoss01:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The handful of words between the quotes are strongly opinionated and completely unsourced. I also agree with Tonywalton's objection: we have no way of knowing that these quotes are representative of the Essai sur moeurs, much less Voltaire's whole body of work. Septentrionalis 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quickview pro[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable software product. Previously PRODed, but tag removed. Hawaiian717 23:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more information about it, and since there was no reasoning why it should be removed I removed that tag. And what do you mean by non-notable? It's the primary mediaplayer for DOS users and still being actively developed. Wermlandsdata

The articled doesn't establish that this software is notable. The notability guidelines for software can be found at WP:SOFTWARE. If you can add to the article verifiable claims of the software's notability, then great and I'd withdraw the nomination. -- Hawaiian717 23:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to an article from an online magazine. Other than that i don't know. It's mentioned all over when you ask DOS users how they listen/watch multimedia but there aren't that many magazines that cover DOS anymore. Wermlandsdata
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of placental mammals[edit]

List of placental mammals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page, as its title suggests, was apparently meant to be a complete list of all mammalian species, except for the marsupials and monotremes. That's crazy! The page is already at 138KB, and isn't even half complete --- probably more like three or four percent complete. The solution is to split it up into one article on Placental mammals in general, and numerous articles on Felis, Canis, and so on. This has been done; probably it had already been done before the List of placental mammals was created. What's next, a List of plants? List of living people? Quuxplusone 23:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, notability demonstrated after referencing. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Lund[edit]

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

Appears to be an article about a TV news anchor for a local Los Angeles news channel. Not sure if this meets notability standards or not. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Why did this go to AfD within only a few minutes of this article's creation [54] and not even prodded? --Oakshade 15:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stan Chambers does have an article. It could use some Wikifying. --Oakshade 03:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for the 2nd time in the last week. cholmes75 (chit chat) 01:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Gallego[edit]

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

Non-notable. Recommend Speedy Delete, although I think it fails criteria A7, as he does assert notability.Todd(Talk-Contribs) 23:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as unsourced. Arguments that hold no water in XfD discussions: 1. "It has a huge fanbase." 2. "It ran for X episodes/years/seasons." 3. "It is somehow linked to something that is notable." 4. "We have a project on it." I think we had them all here. Arguments that hold water in XfD discussions: 1. "Here is a news article that prominently features the topic of this article." I don't see any of them here. ~ trialsanderrors 05:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus Stage[edit]

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

The article was undeleted by W.marsh (talk · contribs) as a contested prod. The article does not assert the notability of the subject per WP:WEB anywhere. I suggest deleting the article unless and until the notability is proven, not just asserted by blatant assertion on the talk page. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn per nom, and recreate as redirect to Bonus stage. Confusing Manifestation 00:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a notable webtoon, as the last episode was sold for a dollar and is on KeenTOONs, a notable website. The fansub being done in Japanese is also another reason why it's notable. ChunkyKong12345 01:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, not effort to prove notability; lots of Pokemon arguments on the talk page; but, no real proof as to why it should be kept. --Simonkoldyk 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, Mukadderat 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are nearly 90 episodes, and daily/weekly awards whenever it's been submitted to Newgrounds. The former alone is no small feat. --Frankenroc 16:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It's one of the longest-running webtoons out there, with a very large fanbase. It even had its own wiki at one point. How is that not notable?~Shippinator Mandy (For best results, use twice daily.)
Keep If it's not notable, how did it get such a cult fanbase? If anything, you should mve it to Matt Wilson's Bonus Stage, to keep it less ambiguous. --BSCozzaThe something and only...
If it's that notable it should be asserted in the article. There's no reliable third party coverage, the See also's are redlinks, etc. If you are correct about the subject's notability, this article still falls in the category:Subject is notable but the article doesn't make that clear. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 10:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should make it clear, then. ~Shippinator Mandy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.26.39 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Just because the article is part of a Wiki project dosen't mean it is saved from deletion. --Simonkoldyk 01:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:WEBA is not a policy, so your statement holds no water, Joelon. --FireV 18:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Supertask —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-20 01:40Z

Ping-pong ball conundrum[edit]

Ping-pong ball conundrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is an unreferenced duplicate of a section of an identical paradox called the Ross-Littlewood Paradox. The only difference between the two is that the Ross-Littlewood sub-article uses marbles, while the Ping-pong ball article uses ping pong balls. Therefore the Ping-pong ball article can be deleted as duplicate material, with a redirect to the Ross-Littlewood Paradox. Dugwiki 23:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McSharry[edit]

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

The article is self-written and thus a conflict of interest. Futhermore, there doesn't appear to be anything in the article that would meet WP:PROF although author makes a stronger claim in the Talk page. The article was first ((userfied)) but the author reposted it. Delete as vanity. GringoInChile 23:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluff City Miracle[edit]

Bluff City Miracle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think this article may have notability problems: making hail mary passes isn't that unusual. Also, WP:NOT a newspaper. Wasn't this speedied or on AfD before, maybe under another name, like Memphis Miracle? Article prodded twice. Tubezone 23:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-19 21:26Z

RuneScape locations[edit]

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

The result was keep after referencing, notability demonstrated by sources. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Kibiwott[edit]

Francis Kibiwott (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

So he won a Dutch road race twice. Nothing indicates that this sportsperson meets WP:BIO guidelines, though. Punkmorten 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article expanded, should be notible enough right now. SportsAddicted | discuss 04:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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