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

The result was semi-speedy delete. -- Steel 17:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Password Safe[edit]

Enterprise Password Safe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable product made by a non-notable company, which was deleted on afd. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Contested prod. MER-C 02:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The applicable standard is WP:SOFTWARE so I suggest reframing your argument based on that. Antonrojo 02:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under G11 as blatant ad, else delete as non-notable software. Seraphimblade 13:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Seraphimblade. I've so marked the article. Valrith 16:05, 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 speedy delete per WP:SNOW Martinp23 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Ghost baptism[edit]

Holy Ghost baptism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Somebody's warmed-over sermon. Too bad this can't be speedied. Denni ^talk 02:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, why can't this be deleted as patent nonsense, WP:NOT? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G1, patent nonesence. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:28, 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.--Húsönd 04:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pidgin coup[edit]

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

As far as I can determine this is a neologism. No relevant independent Ghits here. Da Pigeon Coup is the handle of a linguistic group in the field but not related to this definition. Fails WP:V. Delete. BlueValour 02:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No attempt made to explain origins of the term which appears to be slang among linguists. Antonrojo 02:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 04:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Missvain 04:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, neologism. SkierRMH,11:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Hello32020 16:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pidgin English is well known enough but I can't find anything to verify this. Mallanox 19:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There must be some other article on the phenomenon of hybrid languages, no? (I agree that this term is a neologism and should be deleted) Allon Fambrizzi 23:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]

• Comment - there are; Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit for example but they are specific hybrids not generic neologisms. BlueValour 23:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - This is a rather well-known term. I think it just needs citations. .V. 23:45, 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. W.marsh 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu Ota[edit]

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

Does not meet the standards of WP:BIO. Basic 'claim to fame' is that he wrote an anti-Semitic book discussed here. The book gets about 9 ghits. Ryu Ota/Ota Ryu get around 200 combined ghits. Antonrojo 02:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Encyclopedically non-notable. A single hit in international Factiva news database (I tried both versions of his name) - one line passing mention in a brief Jerusalem Post article on anti-semitic websites. One line mention and footnote in one book on google books[14] Bwithh 03:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Missvain 04:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Guiandg 03:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, NN,SkierRMH,11:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As a Japanese person, you will find more info in Japanese. 569 unique Ghits for "太田龍" and 44 unique Ghits for the book. However, his book has an unimpressive Amazon rank of 623,840th. Ohconfucius 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: His name is written "太田竜" too (竜 is the simplified form of 龍). --1523 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep more material has suddenly been added; it looks like this person has something to have an article about (even if you don't like what he represents). Translation needed. Hmains 23:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO ALREADY VOTED: More info has been added, which may change your vote. May not, but you guys should look at the article again. That being said, I would have voted delete based on the article as it stood on the 18th. With what it up NOW I say Keep. --Wizardman 18:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the rewrite.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:08, 27 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.--Húsönd 04:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HDLMA[edit]

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

• Delete: Non-notable music promotion thing. Has been deleted via WP:PROD once but then recreated. I came very close to hitting that speedy button but figured I'd be nice and bring it here first. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Should be Speedied No notability, violation of WP:NN, and you should think about giving the recreator a level 3 or 4 warning. Diez2 03:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no rule against recreating WP:PROD victims. WP:CSD#G4 only applies to articles deleted by WP:AFD (that's another good reason not to speedy - if a full AFD goes through, the article falls under the CSD G4 umbrella). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Google shows only 58 unique hits for "Horsham District Live Music Alliance" which doesn't denote a great deal of notability. If someone can present some verifiable evidence of notability, that would be good. Until then, I think Delete. IrishGuy ^talk 03:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Imola Laid to Waste Everafta Zevicon EighthNerve Wobbly Squadron" achooooo! Missvain 04:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wobbly?? WTF? SkierRMH,11:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (though I'm not sure what Missvain is on about). --Dhartung | Talk 21:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The last line, where it shows the bands that have partcipated is listed as one big sentence :) Missvain 15:32, 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; however, I've merged the content into Bay Shore, New York so this is being kept as a redirect for GFDL compliance. I could do a page history merge but it's always tricky so I'd prefer not to. JYolkowski // talk 22:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awixa Avenue[edit]

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

This article does not make any claim to notability. The houses that it lists are all in red links, and the "home of Zsa Zsa Gabor"? This should be deleted for failing notability. Diez2 03:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - 314 ghits, more expected for a notable street. MER-C 03:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It could maybe be merged to Bay Shore, but there isn't much to go on. Missvain 04:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Thought at first, like Missvain, to merge, but t'aint much to go there.SkierRMH,11:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Control city: deletion with notability problems. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 21:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete: Streets aren't notable for the most part. --Wizardman 18:16, 24 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 ]} 00:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Burbrook[edit]

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

No notability. Her most known role is in Blue Heelers? This utterly fails WP:BIO. Diez2 03:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep she had a "major role" on one of the longest running Aussie shows. But, I'm not Australian, I have never seen Blue Heelers (till I looked at the Wiki link) and she doesn't seem all that notable. But..perhaps to an Australian she might be? :) Missvain 04:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I think her credentials add up to notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No problems satisfying WP:BIO. Note, nominator possibly should not be querying about "Blue Heelers?", as the show is indeed a major Australian TV Show. Ansell 07:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The biography linked to by the article points a fairly substantial TV and movie acting career [15]. Not that it matters but Blue Heelers made it to this side of the world too. -- IslaySolomon | talk 08:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, at least marginally notable. Everyking 08:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Valrith 16:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to prominent role in major TV series. Mallanox 19:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets criteria of WP:BIO, has more than a few credited roles, and prominence on Aussie tv should count as much as prominence on any other country's television programming. Agent 86 20:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Blue Heelers was the most popular show on Australian television in the mid-1990s so she is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- notable enough for inclusion. - Longhair\^talk 04:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments above. QazPlm 00:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it was an awful show, but also very popular, and she had a major part in it for a few years. Lankiveil 00:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep per the above--cj | talk 05:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, "utterly" passes WP:BIO as an Australian actress in film and highly popular TV series. The nominator's questioning of the notability of Blue Heelers also concerns me - I'm sure this was done in the best faith, but one has to be careful not to define "non-notable" as "I've never heard of it". --Canley 09:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty notable, although expansion to encyclopedic length would be advisable. Markovich292 05:18, 22 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. Wikipedia is not a crystal-ball. Aksi_great (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fable 3[edit]

Fable 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No possible way to get verifiable sources, Fable 2 isn't out yet. Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be speedied This definitely meets the criteria of db-empty. Diez2 03:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so. Were there verifiable sources, it would definitely be included. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete speculation. ReverendG 04:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That is one of the funniest entries ever. Missvain 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The talk page is an explicit admission of WP:AUTO/WP:COI and WP:NOT a web host. Anyway this is crystall balling, unverified/original research, WP:NOT a game guide and borderline advertising spam. Kudos to young Mr/Ms. Amarkov for keeping a cool head in the face of some utterly pathetic behaviour [16][17]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The talk page pretty much admits that this is pure nonsense. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete passes the fails everything test. SkierRMH,11:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete though the talk page is rather funny. Hut 8.5 12:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. --Wizardman 17:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Don't miss the Talk page per Hut 8.5. --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Just read the talk page. DarkSaber2k 15:29, 23 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. Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Lian[edit]

Ah lian was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-30. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ah lian.

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

This is a Chinese street dictionary article. It describes what Ah Lian is, and then it lists external links. No notability. It's just a dictionary definition. Diez2 03:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A premise of this afd has an error. "Ah Lian" is commonly used in english language text. (Google 64k hits [18]) It originates as a romanization of Chinese. --Vsion 06:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The artices does have OR, POV, and accuracy issues. Recreating it later may be another option. --Vsion 03:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I stumbled across this one earlier when looking through the articles tagged as WP:OR. The term is notable within a fairly large area but that really doesn't change the fact that it is just a slang term. Wikipedia contains many such slang terms so that in itself is not reason enough. However the article is not sourced good enough and if you remove the obvious original research really there isn't enough left to warrant an article on its own. Delete and make a new article summing up these terms without spreading it across several articles. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Just because a word is notable does not mean it belongs in the English Wikipedia. But as I stated it is only a weak delete mainly based on the considerable number of Google hits for this. MartinDK 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR slang dictionary definition. -- IslaySolomon | talk 08:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced dictdef. Kimchi.sg 14:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wiktionary. Mallanox 19:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki or Keep, existence established at previous nomination. This appears to be largely linguistic for now, but may be expandible. Septentrionalis 22:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move or Transwiki per what's already been said. --Wizardman 18:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional delete--only if Ah Beng is deleted too. 38.100.34.2 01:02, 25 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. Technically this is not what AfD should be used for, this should just be a Keep, and leave the actual merger to someone more interested, but very little of the article content wasn't already at Undeniable, so I merged and redirected. Someone more familiar with the subject is welcome to improve my work. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Then Until[edit]

From Then Until (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is simply a re-issue of the album Undeniable, which already has a page on Wikipedia. Therefore, this article should be deleted. Rhythmnation2004 03:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. MER-C 04:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mer-C. Her eyebrows on the album cover scare me. Missvain 04:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mer-C. SkierRMH,12:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mer-C. Zaque 24 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mer-C, or redirect, either one. --Wizardman 18:19, 24 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 Yomangani. Whispering 19:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be Apart[edit]

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

• Delete, self released album from Tim Brickley, see his AFD page for reasons.Xpendersx 13:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability cited. Edison 00:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest of the Strong Deletes because the article has apparently been deleted already. --Wizardman 18:19, 24 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 Vegaswikian. MER-C 07:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreens UK[edit]

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

Delete. Speedy Delete per MER-C. This article was created by single purpose account user named Evergreensuk. It is an obvious advertisement. Lovelac7 03:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SPAM Diez2 04:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Missvain 04:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 05:05, 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 keep. John254 22:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Isilay[edit]

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

The subject of this article has only 832 Google hits, and the article appears to be an autobiography, based on the author's name. Both the author and the anon who de-proded this article have no edits outside of this article. Scobell302 03:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up links, etc. Seems notable to me. Missvain 05:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, seems to have worked on some notable productions and soundtracks, but, on the other hand, the article needs some heavy cleanup and some links to sources. —Cuiviénen 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've done a bit of a tidy up. He's worked with a lot of prominent people. I'd say his notability is sound enough. Mallanox 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep so long as the article improves. --Wizardman 18:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional weak keep, so as to extend Wikipedia's international scope. However, if it turns out that the poster is not who he says he is, then delete for reasons of privacy. 69.140.173.15 20:14, 25 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 00:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Trask[edit]

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

Not notable. IMDB only has about 5 appearances from him, and none of them being in any sort of notable role. Diez2 03:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. I have always dreamt of playing "Customer" in a film. :P Missvain 05:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. IMDB lists no notable performances nor does the article provide any more. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 11:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. nn. Do all of us who have done walk-throughs get our own page?? I'll start working on mine now! SkierRMH,12:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete maybe he'll get a break in the future but for now he's nn. Mallanox 19:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Wizardman 18:21, 24 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 to delete. W.marsh 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Deudney[edit]

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

NN professor per WP:PROF and WP:BIO generally. Although he seems to have won internal teaching awards from his university, I really don't think that kind of thing can make a prof notable. The guy sounds like a great teacher, but that's not a reason to have an article on him in an encyclopedia -- even one that isn't paper. Has published a couple of books, but (1) nothing much is said about it in the article, and (2) that doesn't make his publication record especially much one way or the other. Mangojuice^talk 04:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete mainly seen in college publications. Obviously a smart cookie, but not important enough to be included here, IMHO! Missvain 05:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A "Daniel Deudney" search on Google Scholar indicates that he's a widely cited in scholarly publications. On Google he gets 11700 hits. John Hopkins University is a top-tier powerhouse in International Relations and being Associate Professor there is notable "per se". Stammer 10:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Leibniz 15:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although only Associate Prof, so NOT "notable per se," he has 407 hits on Google scholar. Seems notable in his field. Edison 23:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Google scholar results. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just want to point out that most of the Google Scholar hits are citations, many of them in books. His single most cited work has 68 citations (1st hit), and that's a paper written 16 years ago. I don't see this as an especially long publication record, nor an especially strong one. Mangojuice^talk 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think he meets several prongs of the proposed WP:PROF (significant expert or important figure in his field), and he has been a subject in multiple independant non-trivial works. For example, his work is analyzed here, here, and here. One of his books is used as textbooks by an accredited school[19], and he has been part of the lecture circuit at major universities [20][21][22]. -Kubigula (ave) 05:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per google results
• Weak delete: I do not feel that articles on individual living people are appropriate unless either they are very notable, or they consent to their own inclusion. 38.100.34.2 01:30, 25 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 01:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abba Samuel of Dabra Wagag[edit]

This is almost utter nonsense. Also, the only source is in Latin, so no one can really verify it. Finally, this could be a possible violation of WP:HOAX. Diez2 04:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The source is in French, to start with; and is verifiable by a large number of Wikipedians. WP:FICTION should probably be applied (not literally, of course; hagiographies aren't usually intended as fiction), but Keep; no valid reason to delete.Septentrionalis 04:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First of all, as Septentrionalis notes the source is in French, not Latin. Second, there appear to be several articles on this person on JSTOR and there are other sources that can be found on google, though it also appears many people have had this name. The sources rely on hagiographies... Some of the text in the article is questionable and the article is terribly written, needs wikified, cleaned and better sources but these are not valid reasons for deletion. --The Way 04:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Maybe should go to Wikisource and summary here?? Khorshid 10:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although it needs to be re-written in many places and citations added. I did verify some of the persons mentioned therein, so there are citation possibilities out there.SkierRMH,12:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This seems to duplicate Samuel the Confessor. Some kind of merge should be in order. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Samuel the Confessor is 7th century, Egyptian, and son of a priest. Abba Samuel is 14th century, Ethiopian and son of a king. Please explain further. Septentrionalis 21:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come now, details like that are nothing that the New Chronology can't explain!
      As for the article itself, major cleanup is required, but the article seems likely to be genuine hagiography, not "utter nonsense" or a hoax. All we need to keep this subject is verification that the biographical details and legends match those attributed to a saint by this name, and users above are claiming to have done that already, so hopefully citations will be forthcoming in short order. — Haeleth Talk 22:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously notable Ethiopian saint. The article already has a reference. Uppland 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable. Also, why do you assume that nobody could have verified it if it were in Latin? There are many Wikipedians who can read Latin. --Charlene 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly notable and an Ethiopian saint with independent verification of existence. I have wikified the article a little to try and make it more standard (headings, links, categories) - having no idea what standard is required (my normal stomping ground is Australian geographic articles!), I've left the text almost exactly as is. Orderinchaos78 04:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  12:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A notable Ethiopian saint. It simply needs to be cleaned up. He's legendary in the sense that his acts contain implausible feats, but he is a real saint and was a real figure. I don't see how you would think this could be "utter nonsense" or a "hoax." — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I'll admit that I'm basing my opinion on what Yom has to believe (after all, his family comes from Ethiopia & he should know whether St. Abba Samuel existed), this article illustrates a problem that we will encounter more & more on Wikipedia: that there are some subjects whose veracity cannot be established with a Google search or taking a few minutes to consult an encyclopedia or other reference work. If the submitter had suspected this was a hoax, I honestly wish he had first asked at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Ethiopia; it's an active project, none of us involved in it want bad information in Wikipedia, & he would have gotten an answer in a reasonable amount of time about it -- & saved himself & others all of this work. May I suggest that in the future a check with relevant WikiProjects be made whenever someone suspects a hoax? -- llywrch 22:17, 21 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 00:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smackdown Six[edit]

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

Professional wrestling term made internet wrestling community. I put it up for prod a while back, Unfocused removed the template saying there was no reason it shouldn't be an article and that there was only a need for sources. Since the term is a term created by an internet community, it's unlikely that any information is verifiable with published reliable sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there's not much that can be said about the topic other than the definition. Article is also unlikely to be more than a stub since the "SmackDown Six" only existed for about a year. Any relevant information could be merged into WWE Friday Night SmackDown! if necessary. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete This (scroll down a bit) is the most reliable source I could find, and it doesn't seem to be either verifiable or very reliable. There are also concerns about notability and that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 04:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Missvain 05:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crufty. Sandstein 07:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Khorshid 10:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Professional-wrestle-cruft.SkierRMH,12:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per whatever. Yankee Rajput 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Edison 23:56, 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. Dakota 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shindwa[edit]

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

Nomination for deletion Fails WP:V. Can't find supporting reliable references for this on google or google books. This is the only unreliable source I can find[23]. Yes, its African, so potentially WP:BIAS issues in searching for references. On the other hand, its purportedly a sweet, edible fruit - information on which should be quite readily available unless this is an obscure slang word. Bwithh 04:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the vast majority of the ghits aren't related - here is a dictionary definition from yale; it only mentions the verb "to fail". Of course, I can't understand most of the hits, so I may be missing something. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 04:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. With sources this could be kept as a stub, but as is I'd say no. - wtfunkymonkey 05:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can give the "real" name. SkierRMH,12:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I find it interesting that the "unreliable source" the nominator cites is related to Sakeji school, given that our stub on Sakeji school (which appears to be real enough) was created by the same user as the article in question here. Here is another page which references the school and what I assume is the same fruit. This seems unlikely to be a hoax, since the school's website is verifiable on archive.org back to 2002 -- so I am inclined to believe this is true, but perhaps hard to verify -- for example, perhaps it's a local or regional term.
  I concur with other editors that we can't keep this unsourced, but I do just wonder whether it's worth not being hasty here. I have notified the user who created the article (this should really have been done before, as s/he appears to be a newcomer); hopefully s/he will be able to provide sources. Remember not to WP:BITE. — Haeleth Talk 23:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I overlooked notifying the creator. As my editing history will show, notifying the creator after I afd-nom is something I routinely do, even with new users. This article was afd'd during my first session with new page patrol, and this put off my tempo/routine rather. Thanks to Haeleth for notifying the user, though I don't see my oversight or my nom statement as a violation of WP:BITE at all. Bwithh 23:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just wanted to point out that noone has suggested that this is a hoax. Only that this fails WP:V - the "unreliable" source (the only source I could find) I cite does not help the current lack of sources, as it certainly fails WP:RS. The new link you suggest above also fails WP:RS. Bwithh 23:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Until some references is provided. Anyone could create thousands of hoax articles about unreferenced things.Edison 00:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  12:34, 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 as non-notable. Although a number of people suggested merge, there doesn't appear to be any notable information in the article to merge. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Bam[edit]

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

There is no reason this needs to have its own page. If this information MUST be included on wikipedia (I think it is trivial at best) then it can be merged to the Bam Margera page. Ocatecir 04:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - wtfunkymonkey 05:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Missvain 05:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Useless info. Khorshid 10:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Random information. Doesn't meet definiion for a notable location.Obina 13:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The location is not notable for an encyclopedia, Merge relevant parts into the Bam Margera article. Dimitrii 16:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete but this does not need it's own article. What is next, Tom Cruise's boat, Al Pacino's car? Simply being owned by a famous person does not make the subject notable enough for a dedicated article, as the lack of content here seems to indicate. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into CKY crew or CKY (video series). 38.100.34.2 00:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Viva la Bam. Known for being a location in series. Afaik no CKY filming has been done in the house. Deizio talk 23:35, 27 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 attack page. Kimchi.sg 06:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Braun[edit]

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

Obvious vanity/nonsense page. Previous attempts at speedy-deletion and prod have been unsuccessful, so moving to AfD. --Elonka 05:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as an attack page. It's subtle, but the second paragraph gives it away. So tagged. MER-C 05:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources, obvious WP:VAIN, should Speedy Delete by WP:BULL and WP:SNOW - wtfunkymonkey 05:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it didn't start as an attack page, but it doesn't meet verifiability or notability guidelines. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 05:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the medical information discussed on this page is fascinating :P Missvain 05:35, 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. Dakota 00:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abida Kabir Mart[edit]

Abida Kabir Mart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nomination for deletion Fails WP:V, and even if verified may fail WP:CORP ("one of the" largest supermarket chains in India but only manages US$1.5mm in annual sales?). Zero relevant hits on Factiva (which includes several leading Indian English-language newspapers) for Abida Kabir Mart, AKM and A King Mart. Can't find any relevant hits on google. India has a large and vibrant English language media industry, and English is its main language for internet use, so sources should be available online if this chain really is prominent (sources need to prove prominence of course). No Apu jokes, please. Bwithh 05:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:CORP. Demiurge 10:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, in addition to failing WP:CORP, appears to be original research and is unverified. Also reads quite like an ad/prospectus-and a poor one at that. Seraphimblade 12:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete $1.5 million might sound like a lot of money, but in business terms that's quite small, especially considering that that number is sales rather than net profit. To put things into perspective, the US grocery industry makes about $1.2 trillion each year, so if this were an American chain its market share would be approximately 00.00001% That isn't much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just the latest in an epidemic of Indian commercial spam. Is someone getting paid to put these up? --Aaron 21:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- STTW (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but I would like to point out that because of the conversion rate of dollar/rupee, $1.5 million is actually 75 Million Rupees or 7. Crores. Point two. Please don't equate between countries while voting for deletion  Doctor Bruno  21:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'd actually to look at the currencies on a purchasing power parity basis for everyday food, not the simple conversion rate - though whether its US$1.5mm or INR 7.2 crore (actually its more like ~6.7 crore; typical rule of thumb conversion is 45 rupees to the dollar), it's still a drop in the ocean given the size of India's food retail market (US$180billion or ~INR 8.1 trillion in 2004[24]) Bwithh 23:33, 23 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Crack[edit]

Mr. Crack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:BIO - crz crztalk 05:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Geez, nowadays you can't take a second to finish a nomination without someone else doing it for you :-) Assertion of notability not clear in the article. Article was speedied deleted under A7, but restored after suggestion of minor notability. Only notable reference appears to be this one. Published a book, "Mr. Crack", but official site can't be currently accessed. -- ReyBrujo 05:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Based on two blog entries [25][26], he seems like a local character but I'm still not seeing any evidence of notability. The article is still original research. "Sorry mum and dad, no crack for me today, I'm cutting down". -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Interesting guy, but NN. Gzkn 08:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable at all. Sr13 09:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Even though we all should be cutting down on our crack today! SkierRMH,12:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided Google shows some blog coverage and such, but Google News Archive brings just a couple of very trivial mentions, not enough to qualify as realiable sources. If anybody can come up with a good source I'd probably keep this, but as it is it isn't verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No assertion of notability = speedy delete. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Authoring a book is an assertion. - crz crztalk 22:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as insufficiently sources and likely OR.-- danntm ^T _C 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Interesting article, but not encyclopedia worthy. RichMac 23:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Anomo 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Interesting article, of probable local interest. 69.140.173.15 21:13, 25 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. --humblefool® 05:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhood Parks Council[edit]

Neighborhood Parks Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like some park organization. My question I want to ask, is it notable enough in the sense of an encyclopedia. And if so, we need to cleanup the external link frenzy... and the article. Note, most of the citations come from the organizations own website. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 09:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Neighborhood Parks Council is environmental organization representative of over 100 parks groups in San Francisco. There are many other environmental organizations listed in Wikipedia, so I don't see how this one is any different. I am new to Wikipedia, so any feedback is welcome. Maybe I'm trying too hard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolframald (talk • contribs) 09:50, November 12, 2006

I live in the San Francisco area (San Jose to be precise) and have never heard of this council. It's suprising, since I see billboards for things such as the BAAQMD daily and have been to many of the parks listed. Golden Gate Park in particular is very notable in my book and to San Franciscans in general, so I'd have to say conditional keep. So long as the article is seriously wikified, I see no problem keeping it, especially if we're talking CSD A7. thadius856_talk 04:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - looks notable to me: [27] shows google presence and it has a physical address and physical phone. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 04:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Please consider the following:

The Neighborhood Parks Council is ten years old, and just celebrated its ten year anniversary. The organization is actually a coalition of several hundred park and green open space groups in San Francisco. Isabel Wade, founder of the organization, has been one of the most important green leaders in San Francisco, and is one of the founders of the Friends of the Urban Forest and also the National Aids Memorial Grove located in Golden Gate park. The organization is located at 451 Hayes Street in San Francisco. The phone number is 415.621.3260. With regard to content of the Wikipedia entry, efforts were made to use original language and not to replicate information available elsewhere on the web. Numerous links are now included in the article to other parks and relevant topics that are central to the work of this organization. Yes, the folks who created these entries are Wikipedia newbies and would very much appreciate feedback with regard to style, content, and linkage.

• Keep - The organization's existence is verifiable and it looks notable enough to me. Problems with the article can be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardamon (talk • contribs) 11:54, 14 November 2006

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Please provide suggestions on how to fix/improve problems with the article. Thank you.--Wolframald 14:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article badly needs references to reliable external sources (i.e. not just the organization's own website) which can verify the information in it. Books and journal articles would be ideal; magazine articles are okay. Government websites, websites of grantgiving foundations, and links to newspaper articles that are expected to remain available for a while are better than nothing. By the way, are you a principal of the Neighborhood Parks Association? Cardamon 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Thank you for these suggestions. Yes, I am a principle of NPC; my name is Wolfram Alderson, and I am Deputy Director of the Neighborhood Parks Council. One challenge with regard to external citations is that NPC is one of the leading sources of information with regard to neighborhood parks. There are many newspaper articles I can cite, and NPC is listed on the San Francisco Recreation and Parks official government website. I must admit that I am not too knowledgeable about how to create citations in wikipedia, but this is a welcome challenge.--Wolframald 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I have added some of the requested references to external sources. I want to be cautious and not overdo it--the first comment in this discussion seemed to be concerned with the idea that there were too many external links. Again, any feedback in this reqard would be greatly appreciated.

• Keep. The organization isn't of general importance, so I've removed the link in the Park article, but it's important enough within its context, Parks in San Francisco, California. JamesMLane t c 14:28, 18 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 05:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Basically an ad for a local organization. --Aaron 21:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A local organization with about 22,000 google hits. On checking, it seems that almost all those hits are for the NPC that we are discussing, and not for other organizations. [28] Cardamon 01:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Firstly, I'd just like to say I'm impressed at the response to this AfD: Wikipedia conventions are always convoluted for those unfamiliar with the system, and Wolframald is showing an admirable willingness to address concerns. Secondly, while I don't personally have an opinion on whether this organisation meets the criteria to have an article of its own (though I would say that notability could be established easily enough by the addition of some press citations), if the final consensus is that it does not then I would suggest that at the very least a summary be merged into Parks in San Francisco, California, since this organisation does seem to be of some note in that context. (To avoid unbalancing the latter article, it would need expanding with summaries of the other organisations involved with SF parks; actually, it would rather benefit from that anyway...) — Haeleth Talk 23:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Thanks for the nod from the latter contributor that acknowledges that we are trying to create a wikipedia entry of value that meets the standards of the wiki community. The comment from Aaron that states basically an ad and the the comment from JamesMLane that the organization isn't of general importance seem harsh to me. Please explain how our entry about an organization that has dedicated itself to greening the City of San Francisco for the last 10 years is less relevant (or more of an ad) than the entries in Wikipedia for the the 7-11 retail chain, Charmin toilet paper, or the World Toilet Organization? The Neighborhood Parks Council is considered a model for urban efforts to unite neighborhoods around their urban assets. We work tirelessly to bring resources and support to run-down urban parks in underserved neighborhoods. I am truly impressed at the level of democracy involved in the wikipedia community, and I am a willing and eager student with regard to bringing the NPC entry up to standards. Please note that I have added press citations, and can easily add more, but still feel gunshy from the comments that suggested there were too many external links.--Wolframald 01:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "general importance" was the wrong term. I meant only that the organization isn't important enough, in the context of parks worldwide, to be linked to from the Park article. That article is about parks in general and shouldn't link to every organization anywhere that has anything to do with parks. Please note that I voted to keep the article about NPC, and that I edited it to bring it more in line with Wikipedia style conventions. JamesMLane t c 07:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Keep The organization seems to exert notability, but I'm never to kean on people pushing any agendas through wikipedia, noble or otherwise. Wolframald is nearly the sole contributor to the article. RichMac (Talk) 04:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Neighborhood Parks Council (California) or Neighborhood Parks Council (San Francisco), or even Neighborhood Parks Council (San Francisco, California). 38.100.34.2 23:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ReplyWith regard to reply by RichMac, there are nearly 150 member groups under the Neighborhood Parks Council and 14,000 folks actively on our mailing list, many of whom, I'm sure, would like to contribute to the Neighborhood Parks Council wikipedia entry, but are unlikely to do so while the article is scheduled for deletion. Highlighting me as the "sole contributor," seems diminishing and hardly rewards an earnest effort being made to rise up to the standards of the community. There is a learning curve here, and the sheer element of time involved, so if you seek a diversity of points of view that will strengthen the NPC Wikipedia entry, then simply approve it, so we can move forward with improving upon the article. BTW, my "agenda" is (a) to be passionate about a topic (related to preserving, sustaining, and developing green open space) and (b) creating a wikipedia entry that is worthy and meets the standards of the wikipedia community. There are thousands of entries in Wikipedia that portray much more of conspicuous agendas than this entry being submitted by park/green open space advocates in San Francisco (see Wikipedia entries: Young Republicans, Pro-life, the Revolutionary Communist Party,or the asphalt entry that provides links to the National Asphalt Pavement Association. The Asphalt Institute).--216.102.91.242 14:40, 25 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. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Snyder[edit]

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

Nomination for deletion Fails WP:BIO Resume-spam for daytime soap writer. Two-time Daytime Emmy and Writers Guild of America Award nominee. Bwithh 05:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Two-time Daytime Emmy nominee sounds good enough for me. - crz crztalk 05:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, that is notable! Expand/Stub perhaps? Missvain 05:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Daytime Emmy nominations prove notability. Needs wikification though. Crystallina 05:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:yrgh 19 Nov. 06: DON'T DELETE: Snyder has been writing on soaps since the late 80s; almost 20 years now. This is NOT spam as suggested by another user. Snyder IS notable! Her current position is on B&B, a show seen by at least 6.4 million adults in North America! (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]])

• Keep contra to nom. --Dennisthe2 08:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Utterly fails WP:BIO. Nominations don't grant notability. Further, having no WP:RS writing about her, there can be no WP:V and this will never be more than a resume. Valrith 16:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Head writer on multiple very popular television soap operas, in addition to two Emmy nominations. --Oakshade 16:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable in her field though the article is a stub. User:Dimadick
• Weak keep although better sources seem hard to find. Probably write-ups in offline soap-culture magazines, though. --Dhartung | Talk 21:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Valrith. Mere Nominations do nothing for notability; only wins do. And I'm not sure she'd pass WP:BIO even if she'd won. --Aaron 21:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite. Her nominations make her notable enough for mine but it reads like a CV at the moment. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notableXpendersx 20:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-write. As written now, looks like a resumé. 38.100.34.2 00:53, 25 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 weak keep. The article needs to be cleaned up. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Schmidt Confections[edit]

Joseph Schmidt Confections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deletion nomination San Francisco chocolate maker of questionable encyclopedic notability. Fails WP:CORP. Possible corporate spam too. Bwithh 05:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Actually, they're well-known enough to have opened a Tokyo outlet (no reliable source yet, but you'll have to take my word for it as I bought some truffles from it a couple of Valentine's Days ago), but I'm horrified to discover that, like Scharffen Berger Chocolate Maker of Berkeley, they were bought by Hershey last year (see 7th graf of this story. This explains why I can't find the damned outlet any more. --Calton | Talk 09:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I believe you bought the Schmidt chocs, though perhaps the Tokyo outlet is a franchisee or perhaps its been closed down? The Schmidt website currently only lists 2 retail stores, both in California [29]. Bwithh 09:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I KNOW they're closed down because they weren't there LAST Valentine's Day, damnit -- though every other confectioner in Belgium and France seemed to have a store in the neighborhood, I swear. My point is, they WERE, at least briefly, international. And as for franchising, that's pretty much the only way into the Japanese market, as I understand it. The Japanese branches of the Doughnut Plant -- yes, the New York City doughnut maker -- and Nathan's Famous, for example, are clearly not run by native English speakers, given the prose I see at their locations: the menu at Nathan's describes the chopped onions with the phrase "you can enjoy hard" -- as opposed to the soft grilled onions, is what they presumably mean.

As for media mentions, they seem to be name-checked frequently (is in this New York Times travel article, "Where to Get a Chocolate Fix" -- the third place mentioned is very good, by the way -- or this LA Times story.) --Calton | Talk 01:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Torn on this one, because the article reads like a blatant advertisement, and the article's author also contributed some pretty ridiculous spam to the chocolate truffle article (crediting the company's founder with the invention of the chocolate truffle(!), accompanied, of course, by a link to their website). However, they do appear to have some notoriaty [30], and are somewhat in line with the Scharffen Berger Chocolate Maker company, which (obviously) has an article and doesn't appear to be any more or less notable, and they have both been recently bought out by Hershey. Wavy G 14:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, the Los Angeles Times story above claims, in passing, that "Joseph Schmidt set up shop in 1983 in San Francisco and popularized the 'American truffle,' big, egg-shaped chocolates differentiated from more traditional confections by their bold, bright designs", so the claim as actually rendered in the chocolate truffle article ("Joseph Schmidt, a San Francisco chocolatier, and founder of Joseph Schmidt Confections, is credited with the creation of the 'American truffle' - a half-egg shaped chocolate coated truffle") doesn't seem too off-base -- subject to verification, of course. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I kinda see what they're saying now--He created (or popularized--still fuzzy on that one???) that particular type of truffle. It just came off like your typical, run-of-the-mill "So-and So is credited with the invention of teh Intarnets, w00t!" Afd nonsense to me at first. I retract that from my comment. Wavy G 02:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand/clean up AfD is not cleanup. They sell these at my local gourmet grocery store. They're actually good, but the article needs improvement too. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 21:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, do you have an argument for keeping the article? Bwithh 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The implication, I believe, is that they have distribution outside the two retail stores. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Wavy G and Calton. --Oakshade 00:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Company has no independent existence, and wasn't notable when it did exist; at most, merits a couple of sentences in the Hershey entry. WMMartin 18:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Kiwi, Playtex, and Brylcreem have no independent existence, either (all being owned by Sara Lee), and yet, blue links. And inventing the American-style chocolate truffle, if verifiable, is no small thing. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep please the company is notable and invented the american chocolate truffle Yuckfoo 02:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Wavy G and Calton. bbx 09:13, 28 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 02:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-wording[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

E-wording (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable, unreferenced neologism. Does not meet WP:NEO. Elonka 05:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 10:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. e-neologism? hmmmm... SkierRMH,12:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. E-yew. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-Delete for what reason? not partisan, doesn't promote any particular company. needs more background info and detail, though. User:Linguelle— Linguelle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Unsourced, unreferenced neologism as above. Fan-1967 21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-Delete Source and reference are its use in industry jargon. May not be mainstream term, but is a valid term used to describe a service. K2Ked 19 Novemeber 2006)— K2ked (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Saying it's industry jargon is insufficient. Sources are needed to Verify that it is in widespread usage. Fan-1967 21:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could someone research or provide relevant personal knowledge here and explore exactly how widely-used the term is in the communications industry? If it is widely used, then it shouldn't be deleted. If it truly is an obscure term, then get rid of the article. Aaron2wiki 21:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)— Aaron2wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • We don't accept personal testimony, here. Please cite sources. The requirement for sources was pointed out in the nomination. Uncle G 07:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No-Delete, I guess To answer Aaron's comment, I work for a Canadian marketing firm and I've come across the term several times, but had no idea what it meant, so I actually searched for it on Wikipedia and came across this debate. That's just my two cents, though. K2Ked 06:25, 20 November 2006
  • Read what Uncle G said just above. Personal testimony ("I've heard this term") is not an acceptable substitute for citations from Reliable Sources. Voting repeatedly, without offering sources, is pointless. -- Fan-1967 13:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not verifiable. Wickethewok 15:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep it up, you deletion nazis. In fact, why don't we delete everything that isn't already universally-known and has 100% consensus among all wikipedia users? Then we'll ensure we REALLY have great content. Linguelle 00:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. ColourBurst 05:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Linguelle's point, in perhaps more respectful terms. We can't be too eager to delete every new thing that's posted, especially when it's clearly an informative article or has the potential to be. So I would say hold onto it and try to get more contributions from users who are familiar with the subject. Jofan 05:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Except that doesn't actually agree with the actual policy WP:NEO which says neologisms are to be avoided unless they're in widespread use, as documented by reliable sources. The reliable sources are missing. ColourBurst 17:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment--I learned something new, and the topic is notable, but the article seems to be original research. Can the content be verified? 38.100.34.2 23:18, 24 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lewis (philosopher)[edit]

Peter Lewis (philosopher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article does not demonstrate that the subject yet meets our generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies. He is a published professor but all professors publish. There is no evidence that he passes the "average professor test".
Note: This article was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lewis (philosopher). That decision was closed in Aug 2005 as "no consensus". The article remains essentially unimproved since that time. Rossami (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I added that he is Assistant Professor. This is a weaker criterion for inclusion than full professor at a major university. He publishes actively (as the quest for tenure encourages). I do not see awards and honors listed, but it is interesting to see someone outside the physical sciences and mathematics analyzing the philosophical implications of the paradoxes in modern physics. Edison 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as insufficiently notable. There are no published works about the subject that are from sources independent of the subject itself. -- Satori Son 05:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep He's a prof, and he publishes real research. This is a lot better than the crackpots that usually come up on AfD. HEL 16:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, but without third-party sources, we cannot properly verify the importance of his work. In fact, much of this article looks like original research. For example, there is no source for the statement, "Lastly, Peter Lewis has shown formal inconsistencies in the conspiracy interpretation of quantum mechanics. While such interpretations are universally rejected, such a formal debilitating blow had yet to be stuck against them." We have some fairly serious WP:V issues here because of the lack of notability. -- Satori Son 16:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional delete: for living persons of uncertain notability, I lean towards deletion in respect of the subject's personal privacy. Then again, I seem to recall an extremely controversial Peter Lewis in academia; if he is one and the same, he is very notable, but as I see no mention of any controversy in this article, he is unlikely to be the person whom I'm thinking of. 69.140.173.15 17:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sometimes it is not the person but the theories that are notable. That requires the person to be mentioned.Rough 21:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: But as I said above, we don't have any reliable sources that confirm even the theories are notable, much less the article subject. -- Satori Son 22:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely strong keep His interpretation of quantum mechanics is a notable one, & not in the current mainstream, but taken seriously. At least 7 out of his 11 primary works are in the leading journals in the subject. The only thing lacking is that the editors of the article in question didnt put it strongly enough & give enough sources. There have been many comments in academic and other journals. They should be sent a message to that effect. The last thing I'd worry about is personal privacy. DGG 04:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Will those arguing to keep this page commit to improving it or will this sit for another year unimproved? If someone will start working on it, I'll withdraw the nomination. (One editor has made some minor changes but the fundamental questions of sourcing and demonstration of notability within the article remain untouched.) Rossami (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Who says the 'average professor test' has any standing - I'd like to know? If this has been to AfD once, why bring the same article back? Charles Matthews 08:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This first AfD ended with "No Consensus", which resulted in keeping the article only by default. Looks like déjà vu all over again. -- Satori Son 14:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep legitimate philosopher, but the article needs work, especially the waffle in the "Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics" section. Stumps 09:07, 28 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 00:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bad Habits[edit]

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

Non notable band. Missvain 05:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 09:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 10:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails Glorified Garage Band test. SkierRMH,12:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, possibly speedy. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chisrule 01:55, 21 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 due to withdrawn nomination. No idea why I couldn't find anything. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Four-Hour Fugue[edit]

The Four-Hour Fugue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable short story, I can't find any references. Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Google seems to back up the idea that it was nominated for a Hugo Award. Where these fall in the world of creative writing I'm not sure (and neither am I sure whether a nominee is as notable as, say, one for an Oscar), but it could well scrape over the line. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Hugo is one of the most prominent awards for fiction in the science fiction genre. Receiving Being nominated for one makes this noteworthy within the genre. Shimeru 07:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: If it was nominiated for a Hugo then it's notable. The Hugo is one of the most prestigious awards in science fiction, even being nominated is a big deal for them. Ben W Bell talk 08:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hugo Award nomination. Could do with a bit of expansion though. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's not too surprising that there's not much on-line, since the story is from the seventies, but the Locus Magazine link confirms the Hugo nomination. The article is weak (didn't even name the author, a detail I fixed), but the story seems to be notable enough. Xtifr _tälk 10:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This story appeared in a magazine in 1974, and was selected for a "Year's Best SF" anthology too. I have no view on whether it should stay, because the criteria for keeping a work of fiction are not clear to me. However, in the absence of criteria I would say only rarely does a story justift an actual article, rather than mention in context; nothing in that way makes it notable. By the way, Hugos are as close to an Oscar as you can get in the written science fiction world, and only 5-6 items per category make the nomination list. Notinasnaid 10:44, 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 keep, perhaps bordering on no consensus. The outcome is the same regardless. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter cast[edit]

Harry Potter cast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Listcruft U15896 06:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC) — U15896 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

• Delete What is this? I got kind of confused reading this. This table is not really necessary. One could just look for the character and find the exact information. I say delete. As much as I love Harry Potter, delete. Kyo cat^meow! 06:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRUFT. Nothing new of value in this article. MartinDK 08:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I'm never completely sanguine about new users whose first contribution is an AfD nomination, but this does seem redundant. Shimeru 08:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changing my mind after Fbv's overhaul. Shimeru 09:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. --Dennisthe2 08:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant...per nom. Sr13 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete superfluously redundant... SkierRMH,12:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. - Mig ^(Talk) 14:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Going against the general consensus here, just becuase that's the kind of radical I am, but I also think this list would be extremely convenient to anyone who wants a quick reference of who's in what movie. Sure, it is "redundant" in that each character page says which movies they are in, but it seems much easier to come here if you're wanting to look this all up at once. I don't know the first thing about Harry Potter, and it makes sense to me (well, until you scroll down half-a-screen and can no longer see which movies the actors correspond with). And whoever created it, it looks like they put lot of hard work into putting this together. Good work. Wavy G 14:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not clear what this is redundant with. Is there another list? If so, this should be merged in the usual way; if not, this is certainly a useful and encyclopedic addition to Wikipedia's HP coverage. Also, I must note that the nom provided no grounds for deletion. -- Visviva 15:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No problems with verifiability or reliable sources, and I could see how it could be useful to see at-a-glance who played who in what movie, especially since some of the roles have switched actors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redundancy is not an actual reason to delete, and this page does seem to serve a useful list in terms of looking at the information at a glance. Since this series is a book to movie, this may be useful to some folks who want to look at the appearance of a character in a movie versus the books. It could use a little fixing so you could keep better track of the movies/books, but that's a minor edit. FrozenPurpleCube 15:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I would say this falls outside the realm of cruft, as it could be of interest to non-Potter fans. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant with the presence of character articles. Interrobamf 18:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Move to List of Harry Potter movie cast members. Useful and encyclopedic, and certainly too large to include in Harry Potter. —Cuiviénen 18:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I'm curious to know how a user in his first three edits nominated an article for deletion and was aware of the term "cruft." I don't think I learned the meaning of that word for at least two months into my Wikijourney. While I admit that I'm biased towards this article since I edit the page frequently (and gave it a complete make-over from when it was really a mess), I must say neutrally that this list serves a purpose just as any other. For those who suggest to merge into the film article or look at character entries, you aren't seeing the purpose of a list: to gather the information in one place, rather than having to diverge and get it at each individual article. Additionally, it is helpful to track the changes over time of a character (like Andrew Lenahan said), which is more difficult to do in a character article. I agree that the page should be renamed and that it could be cleaned-up to reflect differences from the book, but that does not merit discussion here. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree with the good points you make here, but I would like to point out that cruft predates Wikipedia. It appears in Eric S. Raymond's Jargon File. I was aware of the term "cruft" before there was a Wikipedia. --DavidConrad 02:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Update: I followed a few links, and I found this 1959 edition of the dictionary of the Tech Model Railroad Club by Peter Samson which shows that the word was in use among the members of the club at that time. Wow! --DavidConrad 02:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that so? You learn something new everyday… Anyway, since it's not part of colloquial speech (unless you're nerdy and you talk in Wikitalk ;D) -- at least not from what I hear daily -- it struck me as unusual. I certainly learned it on Wikipedia, but I see that's not always the case. Thanks! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per all above "keeps". Cbrown1023 23:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and possibly rename. I was honestly expecting to vote delete on this one, but it isn't actually particularly crufty: it's a good way of presenting the information. Not sure about renaming because it isn't exactly a "list". — Haeleth Talk 23:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as interesting synthesis of info from various articles, though technically unreferenced since all its info comes from Wikipedia articles. Edison 00:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just gone through and referenced all the material, something I've been meaning to do for a while but was inspired by this AfD. Since movies 1-4 have been confirmed as completely on the IMDb, I cited that for the first four columns, and proceeded to copy and paste each individual ref from the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) article, so that everybody appearing in the fifth column is cited after their name in the table. I hope this meets with approval. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article provides a very convenient glance at all the characters. Jamesino 02:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no other article that tracks the changes of casting througout the series. I think it's useful to many people to be able to see this. --ctachme 18:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per above. This is the kind of listing that not being limited by paper allows for. Markovich292 05:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep — per User:Wavy G. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Harry Potter. 38.100.34.2 01:32, 25 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 02:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hubies[edit]

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

Non-Notable band. Pretty sure they fail WP:MUSIC. Missvain 06:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any chart topping songs, no gold or platinum records, or anything in WP:MUSIC. It could be fixed, but would still fail the criteria. Don't think I've ever even heard of them.Kyo cat^meow! 06:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• New band, and their sole claim to fame is their page on Myspace?! Um, no. Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Delete. --Dennisthe2 08:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Allmusic guide doesn't have the band or the one album claimed in the article (which strongly suggests it was self-published or, at least, never found a distributor). No claims of notability in the article, and no external evidence of notability. I've tagged it for Speedy Delete. Xtifr _tälk 10:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. TheRealFennShysa 19:32, 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 keep. Good work, people. DS 18:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hutber's law[edit]

• del thoroughly nonnotable neowitticism. withoiut wikipedia, [31 unique google links`'mikkanarxi 23:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Delete - per above

• keep -- a widely known concept, cited in Hansard, the Guardian etc. Article is referenced. A better google search is: [31] --mervyn 13:30, 14 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 06:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as currently non-notable. Take heart, though - I suspect even Murphy was non-notable at one time. --Dennisthe2 08:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep very well known amongst people who know what they're talking about. Dave 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Based on lack of widespread use, I guess most don't know what we're talking about. May catch on like Murphy and Parkinson. Hasn't yet. Fan-1967 14:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete extremely small number of Google hits suggest that this isn't very widespread. I guess it's hard to call this a neologism after so many years. Didnt-catch-on-ogism? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For a coined term to be included, references the term itself are needed. Not simply references to the use of the term. If this can be demonstrated to meet WP:NEO I may change my vote. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per danntm's citations to multiple sources discussing the meaning of the term, seems to meet WP:NEO. Those should go into the article if they have not already. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep -- Restating my keep comments made before the relist: this is a serious article, with ref. There is a clear citation in Hansard with Sir Geoffrey Howe crediting the phrase to Patrick Hutber: "I am glad that my hon. Friend still remembers with affection the inventor of Hutber's law, the late Patrick Hutber." --mervyn 17:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that confirms that it exists and that atleast one person reffered to it's inventor, that is a long way from demonstrating notability, I don't think anyone is denying that the law exists. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely that exactly demonstrates notability -- a phrase used in Parliament by a cabinet minister is just what Wikipedia should be explaining and commenting on. --mervyn 18:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that all? Perhaps WP:NEO is pertitnent here, it says To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. I don't think a cabinet minister simply making reference to an expression satisfies this guideline, but then it is a guideline and you are welcome to think differently. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per HighInBC. Henning Makholm 22:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Neutral in light of new citations. Still unclear to me whether the law is supposed to mean that decisionmakers will consciously use "improvement" as an euphemism for for reductions, or that honestly intended improvements will inevitably end up as deteroriation for unforeseen reasons, or both ... Henning Makholm 00:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just ran a LEXIS search, and it turned up 28 news sources using "Hutber's law," most of which use refer to the specific law. For example:
  • "Not a Credit to the Banks," Daily Mail, 12 April 1992, p. 6: referring to a problem with an upgrade to ATMs "What a fine example of the operation of Hutber's law - that improvements invariably make things worse."
  • "Leading Article: Figuring it Out," The Guardian, 15 April 1994, p. 21: "'another case of Hutber's law, that 'progress brings deterioration'".

Hopefully, I can bring forth a few more later, but I have to go right now.-- danntm ^T _C 22:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Appendix: Here are a few more citations to consider:
  • The Scotsman, 13 Sept. 1994: "One of the immutable laws of business, according to the late Patrick Hutber, one of the best regarded financial journalists, was that improvement meant deterioration."
  • Tim Satchell, "Patience is the hardest virtue: Tim Satchell explains why it took two years to secure the money he was owed," Daily Telegrah, 20 January 2001, p. 06: "[The] Woolf [reforms to the legal system] went the way of Hutber's Law, that great truism revealed by the City commentator Patrick Hutber who said, 'improvement means deterioration'"
  • "Pay any price to beat poverty," New Statesman, 26 November 2001, "Hutber's law, coined by a now deceased journalist, states: 'Improvement means deterioration.'"

I thus believe, Hitber's Law is well used in British news media, and satisfies WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:CITE.-- danntm ^T _C 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather weak keep; while hardly a term on the tip of everyone's tongue, danntm's citations do establish a certain amount of currency over a significant period of time. — Haeleth Talk 23:39, 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 delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 14:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SheezyArt[edit]

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

Not notable company, seems a bit spammy. I prodded it and it was removed by an anon IP. My nom is Delete Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 06:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as it is, it qualifies for ((db-web)), no assertion of notability. Original research from start to finish. In the case of web forums this points straight to WP:AUTO. However, it does have a fairly respectable Alexa rank [32]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 08:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. It has its fanbase. --Dennisthe2 08:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Islay. So tagged. MER-C 10:11, 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.