< November 29 December 1 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedily deleted as 'Lacks context' by Mike Rosoft. --ais523 10:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Woodstown dublin[edit]

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

non notable housing estate. 4 Ghits, including 2 from wiki, the other two not relevant. Not even worthy of a redirect. Delete. Ohconfucius 10:49, 30 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. — CharlotteWebb 10:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Carpenter[edit]

Isn't it obvious? DELETE! Debaser23 10:12, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Lodges recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England[edit]

List of Grand Lodges recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This very minor list is being misused as an advertising vehicle (causing it to have false information), and there is a growing concern that this list is non-maintainable and of too wide a scope to be useful. Were it to be pared down to its smallest incarnation, it would then simply be a rewritten copyvio of the official recognition page of UGLE. MSJapan 23:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it UGLE's formal policy to recognize any lodge recognized by those it recognizes? Can this be documented? (Sorry; with so much "secret", and thus unverifiable, information related to such organizations, and with so much false information put out over the last several centuries by Templar-hunters and propagandists, we need to be especially vigilant about citing reliable sources and checking seemingly reliable ones for bogosity.) Barno 19:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe so; as a matter of fact, there was a lodge added to the list that was recognized by the Grand Lodge in Scotland (which is recognized by UGLE), but was not itself recognized by UGLE. I would like to point out here that there's actually quite a lot of good (and verifiable) information available on Freemasonry - you just need to look at books in commercial bookstores more than at Internet sites and self-published pamphlets. MSJapan 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is only a very small number of private material in Masonry (about 9 actually), unless you believe the conspiracy theorists. Recognition isn't secret, but it's complex and heavily influenced by political machinations. In principle should one GL recognise and unrecognised GL then either the third GL would be recognised by the first, or recognition of the second should be ceased. That should illustrate the maintenance difficulty.ALR 09:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florence High School (Alabama)[edit]

Florence High School (Alabama) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Small high school. No assertions of notability. Prod contested. ReverendG 00:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All schools are notable to the immediate community and those attending them--my elementary school was the most lasting positive experience in my life. But this article does not assert notability,nor could it prove it. Many many other high schools, including some of perhaps equal intrinsic merits, are more fully done, and demonstrate the reason they're here. I do not think we have a procedure for article on probation--improve it by this time next moth but that may be what we need. In its absence, the best we can do is delete, with a suggestion that the resubmit. The school district idea is a good one, but I think the se articles are inspired by local patriotism or perhaps school projects. DGG 06:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You're not really saying "keep because it's American," are you? Shimeru 15:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps not, but that's by no means clear, particularly if the closing admin decides to ignore the profusion of WP:ILIKEIT !votes. Shimeru 17:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. Wikipedia currently has no notability guideline on schools. Highfructosecornsyrup 17:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of opinions stated there, but where's the policy? Highfructosecornsyrup 17:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to forget that policy is not static but dynamic, consensus driven and constantly subject to reevaluation and change. I find minor Pokemon characters inherently unnotable and would vote to delete them on that basis alone. I find schools inherently unnotable and vote to delete them as such. You can disagree, but as fas as I am concerned, schools default to delete unless they are clearly and substantially noteworthy. It is quite simply a logical fallacy to argue that we somehow need to justify a decision to delete based on some reference to policy, when by the simple dictates of community-driven consensus mean that the accumulated weight of opinion one way or the other is itself sufficient. The problem, of course, is that there is no such policy regarding schools, as evidenced by the failed attempt to beat out a compromise at WP:SCHOOLS. I am happy for you to disagree with me, but don't pretend you can invalidate a large body of opinion, mine included, by demanding capricious substantiation when the very essence of the question remains a matter of outstanding debate. I don't challenge your good faith, but that smacks of hubris tinged by ignorance or dishonesty. Eusebeus 19:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This article is most certainly notable. Florence High School is a wonderful school that provides excellent eduations to over one thousand students in Florence, Alabama. Anyone who has ever walked into the doors of Florence High School knows that it is a fine learning facility. It is apparent that all Florence High School students have a close rapport with one another. The percentage of Florence students who "keep it real" is astonishingly high. Florence High School is seen by its students as "extra crunk" and many graduates have been quoted as saying that they miss the days when they had the opportunity to go to Florence High School "every day of their lives." Florence High School is a top-quality high school that should be broadcasted over the internet so that the world may know of its existance.--Andrew Davis Price 21:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's not really what wikipedia was intended for - please see the encyclopedia's guidelines. If you have any questions, don't be afriad of asking.michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 21:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to say that my own view is that having "famous" alumni is not per se notable, though I recognise that some people disagree with me. Since people have to be educated somewhere, the fact that some schools produce famous people seems to me to be a random event, and thus not notable. If a school consistently produces important physicists, say, or actors, this suggests that there is something non-random and thus notable going on - perhaps the school has a special teaching process for physics, or has special skills in training aspiring actors in voice production. Something like that is notable, but just doing a job isn't. Show us how this school does something that other schools don't, and I'll gladly vote the other way. WMMartin 17:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus on some and delete the rest.
This discussion amounted to over 150K. Much of it (too much) was spent debating the merits of an AfD nominating so many related yet distinct articles in a single nomination. The prospect of 85 59 separate AfDs containing the same arguments from the same set of editors is even more frightening than the debacle that this AfD nearly became. I find no merit in the arguments against the form of this AfD other than the observation that historically these types of nominations become a train wreck with no consensus emerging after day upon day of discussion.

Fortunately, some progress has come from this AfD. Reading through this (yes, every word of it) consensus was clear (yes, clear) on several issues:

  1. The level of detail, in-universe style and sources of all of the articles fails to meet WP:WAF and WP:RS.
  2. The information is single sourced with possible copyvio issues from MaHQ.net.
  3. All of the information has already been transwikied to http://gundam.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
  4. While the Gundam series itself clearly meets the notability requirements of WP:FICT, the majority of the articles listed in this AfD do not.

Now, if this were a vote, then the result would be "no consensus". However, consensus here does not mean consensus that WP:ILIKEIT, but consensus that the material here meets established guidelines and policies that have been developed through consensus. In this regard there were strong arguments in favor of deleting everything, however, I find that there is no consensus whether the following articles meet the notability requirements of WP:FICT, and are thus kept by default:

Note that among those arguing to keep the articles, there was consensus to merge the above articles in some form. Deciding how to merge these article is left to the WP:CE project, of which 4 of its 11 members participated, albeit peripherally, in this discussion. There was no consensus to delete yet consensus among those arguing to keep to merge, delete and redirect the following into a single article:

There was also consensus that all 14 of the above articles need to be significantly edited to address the issues in points #1 and #2 above.

That leaves the following to be deleted with no prejudice against creating a single (or very limited set of) composite article(s) that discuss all of these elements as a group while addressing concerns #1 and #2 above:

The deleted articles above should be redirected either to a composite article or to some other article, in part to discourage recreation and in part to assist in locating the correct article for searches. This redirection is to be done at a later time following the completion of this closure.

You can do the math on the box below to see how long I spent reading, investigating and weighing this decision, so think about it before you come and yell at me. —Doug Bell talk 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have no stake or prejudice in Gundam—frankly, before this AfD I knew little about it.

CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series[edit]

ATTENTION: CLOSING IN PROCESS
I am in the process of closing this AfD. I am reading the entire thing (yes, every comment) and evaluating all 85 referenced articles. I expect this will take a couple of hours to do right. —Doug Bell talk 07:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To other admins: please talk to me before considering closing this AfD.
To people here to comment: you may continue to comment. I will find and read all comments up until when I complete this closing.
CLOSING COMPLETED: —Doug Bell talk 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am not only nominating this article, I am nominating every page all 84 pages in Template:Cosmic Era mobile weapons. They are all listed and lightly mentioned on Cosmic Era Mobile Units, therefore a merge is not required. All of the information has already been transwikied ([10]). The information appears to be stolen from MaHQ.net. Deletion is the only option. Before you defend the existence of these articles, please observe how these articles defy WP:NOT, an official policy.

There we have two policies that the article clearly violates. If that's not enough, here's a violation of the WP:FICT guidelines:

Now, on various articles for deletions, these points have been raised to keep:

Thank you. Please, base this on importance, not your liking of the series. Adhere to the rules, not your opinion. TheEmulatorGuy 00:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Many people in this discussion are stating that they think some of these articles should go but some should not, or complaining that individual AfDs should be created for each separate article. What they are neglecting to state is which articles they think should go and which should stay and stating their reasons. It is perfectly within process to nominate a group of related articles in a single nomination, and the above referenced template lists the included articles. That means that if your position is that not all of the articles should share the same fate, then this is the time and place to make your case for the fate of individual articles. —Doug Bell talk 12:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete only CAT1-X_Hyperion_Gundam_series until such time that all articles on template are properly AfD'd. wtfunkymonkey 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the information listed herein has already proven useful to my work as a reference/research editor" Huh? What kind of work do you do exactly? --SeizureDog 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe ZeroMig works for a comics and anime magazine, I hesitate to say more because of personal details policies. Kyaa the Catlord 08:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Lets keep the tone a bit nicer! Nothing to get heated up about - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What.the.fuck? My tone was completely fine, it was a simple question asking for clarification to a confusing statement. Now I'm pissed though because it's late and hate it when people pull that "tone" crap on me. As if there are really tones online anyways, it's all how you read it. Gao. --SeizureDog 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok! It was not meant as an attack on anybody in particulars behavior. The comment was just meant to remind everbody involved that it is not that big a deal! Yes, it all how we read it. The comment was more directed at :Who the hell made you boss?". I apolagize if you took it offensivley! Thanks for your work on AFD discussions. If you have any futher issues with my comment, you are welcome to discuss it with me on my talk page. - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not even a keep vote. I'm honestly asking a question. _dk 01:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly - The WP:OR does not extend to fictional characters that appears in an anime(Seed and probably Seed-Destiny), in manga(Seed Astray, Astray-X, Destiny Astray), in settings(Seed MSV, Seed-D MSV), Official guide books(Seed data file characters 1~4, Mechanical file 1~4), and a Gundam Mobile Suit guide book for most Gundam series instead of Seed and Seed-D dedicated(MS encyclopedia 2003 and 2006). Some even appeared in the Super Robot Series(Super Robot Wars) that is not dedicated to Gundam but almost every single major mecha anime. Yes, it is very likely that these pages will recieve a lot of fancruff and OR in it if left unattented, however, this is not a reason of deleting any article just because they may contain OR.
More reasoning could counter arguments made by the nominator:
  1. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. - No, this is not publishing an original thought, the page is not created by the author of said characters(mecha), and there are more than one source backing them up (I know not all the pages include their sources, and I have no will in doing). No, they do not have to be not dedicated to Gundam, They just have to be not dedicated to the series, i.e. not a comic retelling of the anime, not a novel written by the same author, etc. If someone published a book talking about these characters, in a different way than the story plot itself, it is justified to be a secondary source. Which actually means that the articles not just justified the WP:NOT test, but can also be written to justify the style of an out-of-universe view.
  2. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - Yes, but per WP:FICT, Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article. and The difference between 'major' and 'minor' characters is intentionally vague; the main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character. Some books could plausibly have several dozen major characters. Here, in the list of AfD, I see quite a lot of important mecha that major characters used. Therefore, at least some of the articles here should not be deleted under this rule. In fact, a citation needed is what you need in these articles.
    And yes, I agreed with the fact that There is no reason for keeping them, most of them, at least. However, some of them should be kept, but the nominator indiscriminately list everything here, and thus it is too generic to vote for a yes.
    And another yes, it does not matter which one goes first, but it should always be done in the correct way, with correctly informed voters, with correctly listed reasons.
    Also, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, Fictional characters which are cultural icons transcending their appearance in a particular work of fiction, or who cannot be neatly tied to a particular work of fiction or fictional universe deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances. This is not an official policy, but a consensus. If they appeared in Super Robot Wars and SD Gundam G Generation, than it cannot be tied to a particular work (It is not Mobile Suit Gundam Seed's Cosmic Era anymore) and thus deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances. The fun thing is, there are a few listed mechas actually showed up in series that are not related to gundam at all, like freedom in Magical Nurse Komugi and Comic Party and various units appeared more than once in the magazines Hobby Japan and Dengeki Hobby as iconic model kits. If the nominator is going to do anything similar (I mean this kind of mass deletion) to the UC timeline of Gundam, be informed here that most units in that timeline is also showed in Keroro Kunsou, Genshiken, Plamo tsuguru(TV show teaching how to build plastic models).
    I am all into deleting most of the pages listed, however, due to above reasons, this nomination did not completely followed the rules and is just too generic and took too much liberty in explaining the wiki policy, I am going to vote a:
    Keep per above reasons. However, after the voting period, if the articles are to be kept, I will be bold and merge(redirect) the ones I see that are not suitable to have its own page when I have time. MythSearchertalk 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: This is quite bluntly incorrect. If you actually read the nomination, you'd realize I linked to a template AND list of all of the articles. You seem to misunderstand the policies as a whole, and seem to be judging it from the one-liners I wrote instead of the whole policy. I'm not enjoying the lack of literacy and comprehension in this nomination. There are about two people making a FALSE decision, and then we have a bunch of sheep saying "keep per above", even though the argument is wrong. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Please do not separate my section as a whole, also, different opinion does not mean it is a FALSE decision. Some see your argument is lacking its credibility and thus voted against it. Even someone like me who is all for deleting most of the articles thinks that what you are saying here is simply your own point of view instead of what is said in the policy. MythSearchertalk 10:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That there exists a project is not a reason to keep them. Do they follow policies, especially WP:V? That is the main question, and one I haven't seen any of the keepers address yet (although I may have missed someone in this lengthy AfD). Fram 19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fram is right on this one. The fact that there is a project devoted to a subject does not mean we should start writing articles on everything that falls under that subject. We have a Wikiproject on libraries and librarians. Does it follow that we should then write and keep an article on every library and librarian in the known universe? Please, for the love of all things good in this world, recognize that the answer to this quesiton is no. Consequentially 20:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nominator (not a "delete admin", just a regular editor: anyone can nominate articles for deletion) gave numerous reasons for deletion, one of them being that these articles violate one of our core policies, WP:V. Since these articles seem to be not only not verified but actually unverifiable (from secondary sources), they are a violation of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, and should be deleted. It doesn't matter if anyone likes or dislikes the subjects (we have many articles on subjects I utterly dislike), we should only look if these articles are conform to the policies of Wikipedia. They are not, and thus should be deleted. Fram 19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their main feature, however, is the "Armure Lumiere" mono-phase lightwave shield system. This system consists of 7 emitters, one on each arm and 5 on the backpack." CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series
  • "In addition, an amphibious variant of the Forbidden was created, the GAT-X255 Forbidden Blue. It utilizes a Natural-use OS rather than OS intended for Biological CPUs, and has weapons optimized for underwater use, including torpedo pods and a photon laser energy cannon in close combat mode." GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam
  • "The Chaos is initially tested at Armory One by former Proto-Chaos pilot Courtney Hieronimus. However, before ZAFT can bring it into active service, Sting Oakley of the Earth Alliance's 81st Independent Mobile Battalion steals the mobile suit and escapes with it to the battleship Girty Lue, where it is given the new model number RGX-01." ZGMF-X24S_Chaos_Gundam
  • "For example, the Kimera piloted by Kisato Yamabuki is equipped with a large scoop-style shovel, while that of Lowe Guele mounts mobile suit-style arms, one with a conventional hand and the other with a heavy drill bit. Kimeras could also be fitted with caterpillar tracks for construction work on Earth." MAW-01 Mistral

Please, by all means, explain to me how that information is notable? Our guiding policy here should be WP:FICT, which gives us this gem of useful information:

"Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article."

These articles are written entirely in an "in-universe" style of prose, thus invalidating our first premise. They are unsourced, invalidating our second premise. They make no reference to their cultural value outside of the series, thus invalidating our third premise. In the end, they are a summary of Gundam-specific treknobabble, regurgitating plot specifics. What have we learned, then? Not only do they fail to meet any of the positive criteria set forth, they specifically violate the only negative criteria. Seriously. What's going on in here?

It has already been argued that the Gundam Wing series is a cultural staple and thus important to the encyclopedia as an article reflecting the significance of anime culture. Fine. That's why we've got an article called Mobile Suit Gundam. It covers the psychological and historical value of the franchise without vomiting up huge amounts of made-up statistics and histories for its myriad of plot-specific devices and characters. So stop saying we need an article about a futuristic backhoe to explain how the world is a better place because of the Gundam anime.

This debate needs to focus less on how much of a dick the nominator is (whether he is or not), and get to the crux of the issue: do these articles meet current Wikipedia policy for inclusion? I don't care how tight you twist your knickers up and wish it to be so, they simply do not. Consequentially 20:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said, and I completely agree. -- Ned Scott 22:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was forced to be a "dick" because of the general stubbornness of people voting to keep. I have seen one person give any sort of source to any of the articles, but the mentions are in a trivial matter and don't warrant an article for each robot. In any case, the matter has become out of hand, so I'm not going to bother anymore. I'll nominate some of the individual articles when this discussion is closed (if need be). --TheEmulatorGuy 23:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, we're just saying that if you were a dick or not doesn't matter. User:Consequentially is supporting your position. -- Ned Scott 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Personally, I don't think you're being a dick, you're just frustrated with the inane and misguided rationales for keeping these articles. Those kind of opinions aren't really relevant here, I think. We're here to talk about the article, not the people. If this debate is closed with anything other than "delete," then I suggest you go to the articles one by one and nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure, after all. Consequentially 02:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Screw that. If the discussion is closed with "keep," which it should be given the nature of the AfD, the opener should leave well enough alone. Going back against the consensus that evolves is the very definition of bad faith. If the nominator has NO intention of abiding by the result of the AfD if it goes against his desired result, he should NEVER have made the nomination in the first place. Iceberg3k 03:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it results in keep, it will only be because of the blanket nomination. Because of that, nominating individual articles would not be bad faith and it would not be going against consensus. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, if you're truly concern about quality of article, not just having bad faith. You would wait for some period to see if we manage to improve these articles after this AfD nom or not. L-Zwei 04:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The articles has existed for a year, they've had a WikiProject dedicated them, and they've been nominated for AfD over three times, and yet there's been absolutely NO improvement. I'm not going to waste my time waiting for nothing to happen. --TheEmulatorGuy 04:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irony, you appear to have self-confidence at moment. I'm not part of WP:CE (and in fact, hate it for narrow scope that limited to CE instead of whole fanchise) but the project seem to inactive. Many idea for improvement pop-up in this nom discussion, don't get overconfidence, but I think this AfD just drive people to improve their content, something previous AfDs fail (due to moronic element of previous AfDs). So I think it may worth to wait (AfD a soon-to-be-merge artcle is pointless anyway). L-Zwei 05:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This depends on who know their exsistence and who voted. There are unfortunately too many Cosmic Era fans who just walk by and do random edits. There is no method in stopping these. I can foresee these pages be recreated again and again after every deletion if there are no redirects that led them to a list(At least that's what happen to a lot of similar page in the Chinese and Japanese wiki). Actually, this is already a sign of what level of impact those things are influencing our real world. MythSearchertalk 05:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they are recreated after deletion, the proper response is to delete them again, and salt the earth from whence they rose. The fact that a lot of people edit an article is not an indicator of real-world impact, but rather an indicator of fan base. This was one of the major criticisms raised against Wikipedia in its humble beginnings: it was biased towards popular culture and current events articles because no one was interested in writing an article on hard science or math theory. The standards in WP:FICT go beyond "real world impact," also, a fact which continues to be ignored in this debate. Despite the "hundreds of editors" who've worked on these articles, not a one of them has bothered to put any non-fictional context into the article. You tell me how big its fake guns are, how fast its fake engines can go, and how long its fake legs are, but there is absolutely nothing about the artist who designed these units, or how they play into general themes of the anime, or how they've influenced the realm of anime-robot-drawing. The reason for this is simple in some cases -- the subject of the article 'just hasn't done any of those things. Consequentially 05:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is you POV, not wiki's. People say this people say that. Your argument based on a lot of elements that could be called original research, without a source, and violate the NPOV rule. Where on earth does wiki policy states that wiki should be only hard science, math theory? (though I really like those, too) I agree they should have some level of real-world context, they should have information on who designed them and by the influence of what (of course, sourced information). Again, I must tell you that these articles just did not have anyone with the knowledge and sources to edit them, you cannot just coin that to they can never be improved. And face it, popular culture is a real world impact, and I have already included sources that show how some of these articles can be improved to show real world impact. MythSearchertalk 05:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first half of your response, my friend, is a straw man, and I'd appreciate if you represented my positions accurately. I never argued that Wikipedia should include works only on math and hard science. I'll repeat myself.

The fact that a lot of people edit an article is not an indicator of real-world impact, but rather an indicator of fan base. This was one of the major criticisms raised against Wikipedia in its humble beginnings: it was biased towards popular culture and current events articles because no one was interested in writing an article on hard science or math theory.

Show me where I argued the point you refuted. Now, after you realize that you can't, lets move on. Wikipedia policy does not require "some level of real world context;" it requires the entire article be written in an out-of-universe context. This is from WP:WAF.

Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself.

For further explanation, lets look at what they suggest for information that meets an out-of-universe perspective.
  • the author or creator;
  • the design;
  • the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative;
  • real-world factors that have influenced the work;
  • for fictional characters in dramatic productions, the actor who portrayed the role and his or her approach to playing that character;
  • its popularity among the general public;
  • its sales figures (for commercial offerings);
  • its reception by critics;
  • a critical analysis of the subject;
  • the influence of the work on later creators and their projects; and
  • a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional.
Your sources do not address these concerns, nor do the articles that are currently being nominated for deletion. They are written entirely from plot summary and technical detail. Even if you want to argue that the treatments are "summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition," you have no basis to claim it is "treated briefly, and clearly defined as fiction." Consequentially 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you have introduced this new term to me is ironically true that it can be used on yourself. You have strayed the discussion on saying how people critized wiki, without source, and expect me to say nothing about it? Back to the discussion. Face it, what I have listed are enough to write a good article on how some of these fictional characters made a real world impact, they have at least impacted someone to write a book on how to 3D model them, they have impacted people on writing published articles on teaching how to model using them as a reference. Even published POV critics can be included in wiki's article, therefore, a third party company publishing magazines and books referencing these fictional units, not talking about the plot, but just using them as a good tutoring material that a lot of people are familiar with, is a good source of indicating real world impact. If only I can scan a fan poll listed in magazine on which of these are more popular, there will be even more real world context, I do not have the magaizne, and I have no interest in finding one, therefore I never said anything about using it as a source. However, for a show having that kind of popularity in Japan, compared to any other anime, they always put up polls just to do a marketing research on which unit they can make a model kit and gain profit on.
No. A straw man fallacy is when you take someone's argument, and reconstruct it in a weaker, more-easily disposed form. I said, historically, there has been a bias towards popular culture instead of hard-science, and that caused criticism. The bias existed because people wrote about their interests, and not necessarily on what people deem academically "important" for an encyclopedia. That there are a lot of people interested in a topic does not make it important. Somehow, you transformed that into me saying, "we should only have articles on hard science and math," which is not only disingenuous, but flat out wrong. Stop it. Even if you're only misusing the term straw man and instead arguing that I'm shifting the debate, it's still a non-responsive argument. I'm probing deeper into why these articles violate WP:FICT and WP:WAF, and you're regurgitating the same word-vomit that you have been all thread: "it's notable and important because people make models of them." What you have yet to address is the fact that, despite the hundreds of edits and dozens of eyes that have passed over these articles, no one has taken the time to meet the criteria for writing on fiction. No matter what might be, we're here to deal with what is. And unless you can prove to me that each of these cartoon fabrications has single-handedly reshaped the way people think about drawing 3D stuff, you can't slap a blanket on them and say, "They all belong."
Hell, the fact that they wrote a guide on how to model a Gundam isn't a very strong argument in the first place, because not a single friggin' article talks about how these robots significantly affected the world of 3D modeling. "So what?" you say, "People wrote about it in a third-party publication, so it's automatically noteable enough to merit an article." That's bunk. If we grant your premise that the Gundamspooge has rocked the world of 3D modeling -- which I assure you, it hasn't -- that's information that needs to go in the article on 3D modeling. Stop dodging the question and answer me: which of the eleven characteristics of out-of-universe writing do these articles demonstrate? Consequentially 05:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question where on earth do you see a policy saying it has to shake the whole world of 3D modeling before it can be said that it got some impact? Given, if a third party published a book of using it to teach 3D modeling, it means that it got enough credits and popularity that someone actually paid the copyright in order to use the designs for their books. No, it can never be so shocking that it moves the whole 3D modeling community, and thus it is not suitable to be mentioned in the 3D modeling article. However, a book written is a verifiable source of its popularity among the general public and the influence of the work on later creators and their projects. A third party publishing a book about these units is a very good demostration on how these units influenced the work of later creators and their projects. These articles currently contains none of these is a sign of they needed to be improved, if any of the fans cared to do so. Not a sign of deleting them. I have provided the sources, and the argument, and already said that if no one is changing them, I will merge them into a list. I never said anything about they should be kept as they are, and this is why I said the term you have introduced to me is ironically suitable for yourself, while I never said it is not suitable on what I said earlier about your unsourced argument on how people think wiki is biased towards popular culture. MythSearchertalk 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity is not notability. From UncleG's essay on notability:

The concepts of fame and importance have implicit in them the notion of a target population — a subject is famous amongst a group of people, a subject is important to a particular set of people. Notability has no such implicit notion. Notability is independent of specific groups of people. To understand this, consider that the primary notability criterion makes no mention of readership. A subject is not notable under the primary criterion if it is widely read about. It is notable by dint of people writing about it. It is the source writers, not the target readership population, that is relevant to the primary notability criterion.

I'm not saying that Gundam stuff doesn't have a large target audience, I'm saying that outside of that target audience, the importance of these vehicles drops off significantly. Your sources are written from within the anime community, from sources that center on the Gundam universe. These aren't articles from main-stream press or industry trade journals. Beyond that, the criticism that Wikipedia is biased towards popular culture is hardly unsourced. From Criticism of Wikipedia:

In an interview with The Guardian, Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica, noted that "people write of things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. In the past, the entry on Hurricane Frances was more than five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on Coronation Street was twice as long as the article on Tony Blair."

While those specific examples aren't valid anymore, the bias still exists, and is a topic of great import to a lot of editors.Consequentially 14:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I have said, having books published satisfy the idea of It is the source writers, not the target readership population, that is relevant to the primary notability criterion., while you keep ignoring. Yes, they are not of a mainstream press, in America, but do I have to tell you that wiki is an international page, and the publishers are at least mainstream in Japan, if not Asia. The Magazines I have quoted are not Gundam or Anime based. Half of Hobby Japan talks about real world machine models, like cars, aeroplanes, ships and such. And your hatred in Anime does not take away the credibility of a magazine focusing on Anime is not a mainstream publisher and is biased on Gundam. Dengeki Hobby is more figure related than Gundam related. Yes, in your view anything that you have no interest in is not mainstream, because you simply do not need to pay any attention on it, and thus I have the idea of no matter how many sources I can include, you are just going to be able to say they are not notable, not mainstream. From the original Arguement of the nominator of having sources not dedicated to Gundam, you have moved the level higher onto an argument of needing to have sources not dedicated to Anime, and probably you will yet try to raise the bar to any sources dedicated to any sort of fan base, including models, anime, comics, novels, games, and any other thing you cannot name of but have a certain group of fans, and maybe just in case some star war fans are interested in Gundam, too, should not carry enough notablity as they are not mainstream, because you simply hate the fact that they are a source countering your argument. Oh, and I can add it up for you, a newspaper becoming immediately not mainstream if they have said anything about any of these Gundam mechas, why? because they are fan based, they are anime based, and center on the Gundam universe. Face it: Dengeki Hobby Magazine is a mainstream modeling and figure magazine that is even translated to 2 chinese version(Hong Kong and Taiwan), Hobby Japan only have Gundam as one of its nine sections, with at least 3 sections not related to Anime. And if you wanted to say that the section itself is not maintream publishers, anyone could have the same argument on anything, because you can even ignore any sources from CNN or BBC if you say that particular news is written by who is biased towards that topic. And No, wiki never states its sources have to be mainstream, if it got published, by a third party company, it is good enough as a source. It doen't matter if it is anime oriented or not, it is available on the market, people can read it and learn about what is written in it, it is good enough to be listed as a source stating how anything impacted anyone on writing that article of that particular thing. As a matter of facts, the Tokien Companion is a perfect source for books of J.R.R. Tokien. And thus a third party publisher writing anything on a topic should be a perfectly valid source.MythSearchertalk 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, we're continuing our parade of bad arguments, and the next stop on your tour is a ignoratio elenchi. I'll play along and grant that these articles demonstrate a significant interest in the Gundamgoo that we're talking about. I'll do you one better, and say that it shows a notable real-world impact, and is thus meritous of inclusion. I don't agree with either of those statements, but we're pretending here, mmkay? Now, tell me what that has to do with the fact that the articles don't meet any of the burdens presented by WP:FICTION and WP:WAF? I'll give them to you again, since you must've missed them the first time. An article on a fictional topic should cover the following:

". . . the author or creator; the design; the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative; real-world factors that have influenced the work; for fictional characters in dramatic productions, the actor who portrayed the role and his or her approach to playing that character; its popularity among the general public; its sales figures (for commercial offerings); its reception by critics; a critical analysis of the subject; the influence of the work on later creators and their projects; and a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional."

The thrust of my argument has, since the beginning, been that the articles you defend do not meet the criterion established by Wikipedia consensus in reference to writing about fictional topics. Along the way, I've had to defend against the notion that model kits inherently equal notability, but you'll notice I end each response with a return to the original question. Tell me, dear sir, how these articles meet the expectations placed upon them by the guidelines of our encyclopedia? Consequentially 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I have answered it many times. I never said anything about keeping all of them, and I never said all of them are important, I am just saying the ones that recieve out of universe treatment, like having a model made and appearing in another anime not made by the authors and company of the original anime, and appearing in a published magazine, serveral times, satisfy having influenced the work of later creators and their projects. Since these are not real human acting, the people who design them(including original design and finishing and redesigns) should be listed and replace the point of the actor who portrayed the role. The real world factors that have influenced the work can be found in an interview(listed in the Official website) of the director and two other interviews of the mechanical designer(listed in Data files) who said the designs are influenced by some of the previous Gundam productions not designed by him. Reception by critics can be sourced from the model magazines which over and over stated these designs reference too much from the previous Gundam series and some even referenced non-Gundam series. More could be found in Game Express Magazine published in Hong Kong that Critically analyze by Jeto(similar pronounciation) the series of main mechas(in separate issues) about how the main characters use auto lock on instead of real piloting skills in massive genocide and how the other mechas are being just paper boards without even moving and aiming.(The last one I never state because even though I totally agree with him, I know that that critic does not recieve much credit for his articles of constantly bashing on new series and is being criticised for that) How some of these articles can meet the expectation of our encyclopedia is simple. It cannot cover every single point, but at least some of the articles can have enough coverage on how much it was influenced by previous productions and how much influence they have on the real world modeling, 3D modeling, and anime production of later creators. And sources are posted over and over again. And no, I keep saying the articles at their current state does not meet any of the guidelines and must be improved, and I am assuming good faith on people who are interested in them with the sources I have provided will do a good enough job. MythSearchertalk 02:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If any of that information appeared in the articles in question, I'm sure things would've gone a lot differently than they have so far. But until those statements, sourced and correctly applied, appear in the articles, then they stand to be deleted. Which articles specifically will benefit from those additions? Not trying to attack you, just wanting to know which we'll be deleting. Consequentially 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am constructing a list of what to do down there, I think if it is passed, we we have some sort of consensus dispite this trainwreck. However, I will use the word merge(and redirect) instead of delete. If they are redirected, it is highly likely that people that can find their information will not create a new page by copyvio from mahq or something like that. MythSearchertalk 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, having real world context is essential, but an article not having them maybe just needed to improve, especially sources indicate they can be. You can always assume bad faith, but the deletion guide suggested a merge for these kind of articles instead of a delete. I know 1.3 states WP:NOT as a may be needed for deletion, however, again, I must say that this is only a straw man's explanation on the WP:NOT policy. The WP:NOT#IINFO have nothing stating about these kind of articles and obviously a lot of list articles here falls into Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article This is why the nomiation is doomed to fail. It should not have started anyway. The nominator should just be bold and started merging them in the beginning(and no, a transwiki is just different from having a list on wiki unless we can redirect people to there without using an external link). Now it is listed, no one can do so because it is like blanking the pages. MythSearchertalk 01:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If no one can show real-world impact for the articles on an AfD, then that is an extremely clear indicator is has no real-world impact. He's not coining the term "never be improved", he's showing it through evidence - evidence being that no one has shown any importance of any of the articles whatsoever. The sources you have given are NOT proof of a real-world impact. I have already explained it, please read it. You're giving me clear proof IQ is not an indicator of common sense, comprehension or intelligence itself - and no, that is not a personal vendetta or attack. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keep ignoring the sources, everything that indicate they have an impact is dedicted to Gundam and should not be used, should not be listed and should not carry any notability since they are against your argument. Face it, the series is made by Sunrise, the models are made by Bandai, which are two different companies, that is enough prove of every single model made is an impact on the real world. The magazines are published by different companies, the books are published by different companies, anime made by other companies with no relationship to Sunrise that may infringe copyright problems are also shown as a proof and your common sense is ignoring anything that is against your argument, you have shown clear prove of ignorancy and yet you try to use personal attacks, POV and bad faith just to try to hook to your own nomination without even trying to link all of these together. Like I have said, I am not against deleting most of the articles, I am only against deleting them all blindly. MythSearchertalk 06:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Ignoring this sources? I clearly explained why the sources do not give leniancy to separate articles. This is because the "model kits" for each robot are part of a SERIES of model kits - it's not just this one little robot, it's all of the robots - they're not uniquely important - that is why a keep vote is complete nonsense in reference to those sources. --TheEmulatorGuy 21:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AllBut condense the information... However, I think the whole premise of this motion is outrageous! Many of the points that the main person opposed to these articles (EmulatorGuy) has raised are vague, personal opinions which seem to have been raised on the basis of a personal vendetta. I like the way this material is called "useless" - useless to whom? It seems only to be useless to the people nominating the article and there are evidently plenty of people who find it quite useFUL. If we apply his model to the whole of Wikipedia: there will be no articles remaining for anyone to discuss or do anything with. It is obvious that many people want these articles to remain. This is supposed to be an open, public contributed resource of information, regardless of what spurious guidelines you care to spout out, (which seem more inane to me than most inclusions in these articles). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.18.135.215 (talk • contribs). — 195.18.135.215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Summary of votes[edit]

Yes, polling is evil, but this afd is getting to the point that we need to see how the issue is split.
deleted list to save space and confusion

Please do not misrepresent my vote. I am Keep. Also, the nominator does not count. You seem to have completely mixed up your "votes." — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a listing of "votes" from what I read:

Revised listing, italics indicate disputed votes, normal are those we both agree on:
Delete (15 to 18)

Keep (15 to 17)

In addition, a number of non-voters have expressed the opinion that this AfD is against Wikipedia policy. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had some human error in my counting, but you made you biased your list in the opposite direction. Ben's redirect should be considered a delete (since you have to delete to redirect) and SidiLemine and Kerochan no Miko only said keep unless it was transwiki-ed. So that's at least 18 to 16 17. wtfunkymonkey's vote probably shouldn't be considered, as it's both a delete and keep statement, so I say the voting stands at 18 to 15 16, delete being the majority. --SeizureDog 01:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind everybody of an official wikipedia policy, WP:IAR. That is the foudnign of my argument, I feel like these articles at least have some value and should not be deleted, per WP:IAR. I think that IAR, is for situations like this, when somebody, so badly wants something deleted, that they try to cover all of there bases. I think that AFD's should be for the people participating to do the resaerch and make a decision, not attempt to innoculate the voters by squasing every keep argument! - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That all depends on what you think "improve" means. Because the encyclopedia is intended for normal people, not Gundam fans (no offense), the rule would not apply. Only a fan of the Gundam series would ever find that information helpful. Regardless, that policy itself seems to have problems. It seems to imply that I can upload an image that violates copyright laws just because it would make Wikipedia better. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (Stupid locked datebase lost my first post!)This is not something that everybody knows about. If it were an article on Food, it would be something most people know about. If I had a child or a good friend interested in this, I would come to Wikipedia to research, learn what I could. This is why I feel that WP:IAR applies here. IT is not something that is bad faith, like blatant uploading of copyright images, it is an area that most people dont know about and should get some coverage. In my opinion. (I dont even know what it is, I am not an advocate for whatever this is. but reading it, it seemed intersting enough to not be deleted. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's information on quaternary robots of an in-universe fictional Japanese-created television show. Now explain why it should have coverage? I could apply the same defense to my foot. In your own words: This is not something that everybody knows about. If I had a child or a good friend interested in this, I would come to Wikipedia to research, learn what I could. It is not something that is bad faith, like blatant uploading of copyright images, it is an area that most people dont know about and should get some coverage. In my opinion. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At least we agree! It is not a bad faith edit! I am all for that. The foot analogy was pretty good. If your foot had a fan club, and there was something unique about your foot. (perhaps you have 123 toes) or your toes look like a star wars character or something, I would probably support keeping the article. If there was a TV show about your foot, I would be all for it! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they are part of something popular does not mean they are notable themselves. An even more popular series like Star Wars doesn't have a page on every droid. They are listed here, and what's more ridiculous is THE LIST is being accused of non-notability. Really, if that article is deleted and these aren't, that's hypocrisy at its best. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody in this AfD has yet to prove that every single article linked to is non-notable or otherwise not worthy of a Wikipedia article. Until such proof is given, this entire AfD is meaningless: a blanket nomination is not an excuse to nominate articles for deletion without explaining why they should be deleted. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated the policies and their violations, and the only way for that to be proven is for you to actually look at the articles. I should mention that no one has given a reliable source, nor have they disproven the accusations for ANY of the articles. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick of defending every argument here. It just isn't worth it, no one wants to accept it and keeps ignoring logic. From here on I'll just stop and let the nomination get a "no consensus", which was clearly going to happen from the start. It's beyond me why anyone thinks these articles are notable, have reliable sources etc. etc. etc. I shouldn't bother, regardless of any of my arguments, Wikipedia administrators will base it on amount of votes (like they always do) and not the integrity of votes. I give up, you can have your articles if the administrator says so. If the nomination results in delete, that's fine, but it's just not worth pointlessly arguing with ignorance. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your problem, you are being ignorant with my comment.
What is missing here? A list of what articles that are going to be deleted on this page.
It is important to tag a AfD on every page you want to include, but it is also important to let people know what is going to be deleted on the nomination page.
Yes, linking to the template works, to a certain point. However, it is not effective enough, especially the title of this page is Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series.
Another note: You have totally twisted Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
per WP:NOT#OR,
  1. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion.
    Yes, there are sources, I have cited them in this page, I know they need to be in those pages instead, but I really have no interest in defending Cosmic Era related stuff.
  2. Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day!
    No, those are not invented by writers of wiki. And in fact, there are magazines published in Japan as secondary sources reporting their exsistence. Your lack of knowledge on those is not a good excuse to ignore it is there.
  3. Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  4. Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  5. Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  6. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer firsthand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See Current Events for examples.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
    Then per WP:NOT#IINFO:
  7. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
    These pages are not FAQs.
  8. Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  9. Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  10. Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  11. Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  12. Textbooks and annotated texts. These belong on our sister project, Wikibooks.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  13. Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
    Like I have said above, some of the listed page for deletion actually impacted Other anime and manga by appearing in them, Some of these anime and manga are not produced by Bandai or Sunrise or any branch of them.
    Stop defining the policies to serve your own purposes, and cursing with ofending language like saying the Gundam wiki is an absolute cruft hellhole is not going to help either. MythSearchertalk 03:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: You make so many claims to sources, but where are they? :) --TheEmulatorGuy 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
機動戦士ガンダム MS大全集2006―MOBILE SUIT Illustrated 2006 published by Media Works, not Bandai, and thus it is a secondary source.
Primary source official guide book. Which is a inclusion of data file and mechanical files, I have mentioned as a source above, into one book. (I give no credits for the title of it since I am not a fan of Cosmic Era and hated it to be even called Gundam)
GUNDAM A (ガンダムエース) 2007年 01月号 and previous issues, published by 角川書店, not story based magazine.
Hobby JAPAN (ホビージャパン) and 電撃 HOBBY MAGAZINE (ホビーマガジン) model based magazines, not gundam specific but with a lot of information about what are the models used for in the plot. If you want to ask me for the issue date and number, I will tell you every single issue contains Gundam Models, I do not have time to go through each one to modify the articles about which issue they are from.
Newtype Magazine with more detailed articles about mechanical and character data that are not just plot summary.
More real world impact includes GUNDAM CG WORKS―MODELING TECHNIQUES FOR MOBILE SUIT, Magical Nurse Komugi series by Tatsunoko, not Sunrise, [11] series by Leaf, having a Freedom Gundam and Strike Gundam appearing in it. In the Game Super Robot Wars alpha 3, most of the Mecha piloted by main characters and rolled out as mass production units are present.
I am only listing these to support the exsistence of some articles, not all of them. I do know a lot of them do not deserve their own page. Like I've said, I would have follow the WP:FICT and delete/redirect most of the pages without going through this AfD process if I'd knew these pages exsisted. The chinese wiki entries like these are so much simplier, we just merge and redirect everything without even putting up something like this. If fans can find enough data in the list of mecha, they will not create new page for every single one of them. MythSearchertalk 06:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpreting the guts of WP:FICT. The fact that some of these things appeared in another anime about big robots does not mean that they significantly impacted said anime. These big robots haven't significantly affected anything. The television show, perhaps, has made a dent in the Great Big Timeline of Stuff, but I'm willing to bet, when it all comes down to the line, no one is going to say, "Thank God for the ZGMF-600 GuAIZ. Were it not for this twenty-meter-tall, eighty-ton mass of metals and guns, my life would be completely void of meaning." WP:FICT makes the argument for real-world reference and analysis because Wikipedia is not a Gundam fan site, and the sum cultural value of the Gundam series is not going to be that Pilot X stole it from Evil Nemesis Q, who was going to use it against Innocent Population T, but instead managed to defeat Otherworldly Monster N, and is the reason for the ring of space debris floating around Planet U. The fact that someone else has devoted time and webspace to listing these facts does not make them worthy of encyclopedic apotheosis. Consequentially 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While certainly nothing in this AfD (which hits a swathe of over 85 articles, which when the related AfD for the non-mecha vehicles of this same series is added, tops 100 articles all told) is of life-shaking importance, there are several articles in here which are at least as notable as, say, X-wing or USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D). Iceberg3k 21:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't read the X-Wing article until now. Having done so, I'd say it's pretty crappy, and a poor example of writing on a fictional topic. Only three or four of the paragraphs relate to real-world content, with the other 4/5 of the page devoted to Star Wars treknobabble. That article needs cleaned up, purged of irrelevant and trivial knowledge, and polished, but I digress. Since I'm not familiar with the intimate details of Gundam stuff, I'll trust you that some of the units mentioned are of value to the series. Could you give some examples of the ones you think should be kept, and provide a rationale for them? I don't mean that as a mean-spirited challenge: I'm not attacking you and demanding you come forth like some kind of deletionist McCarthy. Just help us sort the wheat from the chaff, so we can make something productive out of this. Consequentially 02:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already conceded that the "grunt" units should be compressed into summary articles by nationality (ZAFT/PLANT, Earth Alliance and Orb are the relevant nationalities). The "star" units - the Gundams (such as the GAT-X105 Strike Gundam and ZGMF-X09A Justice Gundam) - should absolutely be kept and revised to an out of universe perspective, as they're piloted by major characters, have a lot of screen time (for the five GAT-X series units from the first show, over 10 hours individual screen time each). Iceberg3k 03:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in complete agreement with you there, and I think that's an acceptable compromise between the two extremes being presented in this debate. As I know only vaguely of the Gundam world, I'm not in a position to make those changes, but since you seem to be on the ball there, I think it's a solution that you should pursue aggressively. Consequentially 04:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind everyone that AFD is not a vote, it's a debate please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. It doesn't matter how many people voted and what they voted for--it's the quality of the arguments that matter. May I also remind everyone that adding tally boxes to AFD is listed in the "what not to do section. --Kunzite 05:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While MAHQ copyvio issue are solid on several articles, several other aren't. Many article existed long before MAHQ upgrade their profile into Burke's type. These articles only borrow general info like spec, which state at MAHQ that it's free-use. Some articles was translated from Japaneese article. In short, if you made seperate nom on each article, the copyvio issue will be solid. But for all of them? Nah... L-Zwei 06:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, those spec fall into the category of factual data and thus any use of them will not hinder any copyright problems. It is just like listing out how many times a soccer player had scored in one particular season. MythSearchertalk 06:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot believe how uncivil the original nominator of this AfD has been on this page. He's also threatened that if this does not pass that he will be giving the "administrator a refresher on AfD". I'm shocked and appalled by his behavior and I certainly hope I'm not the only one. Kyaa the Catlord 11:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've never seen any Gundam, but I have a strong feeling that most, if not all, of these articles are about things that only appeared briefly in an episode or two. Any character/etc. that does not have at least ~30 minutes worth of focused airtime is too minor to have an article about. Can it be established that any of these weapons have had enough focus within the series that they need to be kept? It just gets worse outside of the nominated articles. I mean, Missile truck? Come on, it doesn't even have a name. --SeizureDog 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree that some of these articles deserve AfD-ing, but the majority of them do not. This was a bad nom period. If TheEmulatorGuy wants to have them deleted he should have done so on an individual basis. It is terribly unfair to judge the primary mech which are included in the template on the same level as your mentioned Missile truck. Kyaa the Catlord 11:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replay Those this format of nominating work for you? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Era vehicles Even grouping them together is a major hassle: doing them one by one would be even worse. Plus, I think it's best to keep them together and not scattered about. --SeizureDog 12:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Its better, but I wouldn't suggest making mass deletion noms out of principle. For example, the Skygrasper in this new Nom is one of the more featured air/spacecraft of the show and some of the main characters involved in the story fly them. A lot of those articles I agree should go, or at the very least be merged together. I wonder if there was originally a large article that was split.... Kyaa the Catlord 12:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get people to review them seperately, but I think most of the keepers are just giving a blind support. I'm welling to accept some of the articles being important enough to stay, but people have to point out which they are.--SeizureDog 13:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that I've become aware that there is a wikiproject dedicated specifically to these articles, I'm more in favor of informing them of the problems and letting them fix them period. Kyaa the Catlord 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see in the series, its worst. The mass-production models appear in the series as paper boards and have probably less than 5 actions each. They fly out and get destroyed by the main characters without even having the need of dodging or aiming(aiming is done by an automatic fire control system, much less powerful than the F-22 onboard FCS). The same sequence keep on and on just to show how powerful the main characters are(failure attempt to most people with normal level of judgement, i.e. that are not blind). That is why I am really into merging those into one big list. As per WP:FICT. No voting is needed according the WP:FICT for minor characters to be merged into a list, if there isn't already a AfD tag on the page, I would have done so when I knew pages like this exsisted. I only followed a vandal's path of vandalism and figured these mecha have their own page and someone tagged AfD on it so that nothing can be done to blank them, yet. MythSearchertalk 14:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm in favor of merging for most of the "grunt" suits, may I suggest merging them by national affiliation? A general "Mecha of Gundam SEED" article that possesses large enough descriptions of each mobile suit to remain useful would actually be well beyond the size of this AfD discussion. Iceberg3k 17:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, one big list is too long, it should be shortened by nation or series(like the list of RGM-79 GM) if the list became too long. That is what we did on the Characters of Negima page. MythSearchertalk 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there are fancruff, and thus they should be improved, not blindly deleted. MythSearchertalk 14:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there ought to be a WikiPolicy to explicitly ban mass deletions, myself. Each article submitted for deletion deserves a complete, thorough and individual investigation, and mass deletions strike me more and more with each one as a deliberate abuse of the rules. If the deletionists think that's a pain in the ass, that's too damned bad, you can't just say something is useless and needs to be deleted just because you don't like it. A lot of mass AfDs are attempted, most of them fail. For very good reason.Iceberg3k 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep allthe article does hve element from mahq with there primission given on the site faq. there info may have been lifted from here. but if we remove this article hat's next are we removeing all cult scifi like doctor who or are we removing anything not north american i say wee keep it and let the fans fix it - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.124.3 (talk • contribs) — 128.118.124.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Also note that this is the second keep all registered by this IP.

The fans had a chance to fix it. They had a whole year in fact, but all of the articles are still highly confusing, in-universe, full of trivia, and have no sources. Nothing is going to change. --TheEmulatorGuy 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not for you to decide. WP:CE exists for a reason. Iceberg3k 20:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the birth of WP:CE, which followed many of the formats found in WP:DIGI. That project never really got off the ground, which is too bad. This AfD might be what is needed to start the project back up again in order to do this large scale cleanup. My point is, WP:CE.. really isn't a project right now. Currently, WP:CE does not exist for a reason, and isn't a functional WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 00:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Alliance

ZAFT

ORB Union/Clyne Faction/Terminal

Other

It's a rough outline of how each article should be merged, but at least it's a start regarding how to consolidate this mess of articles into a more streamlined construct. WP:CE just might find something to set its sights on after all this time.--Kira Matthews 03:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To all inclusionist (Keepers)[edit]

Anyone who actually wanted to keep the pages, at least show some motivation in using the above listed source(by me) in the articles (make a template, it would be much easier) to reduce the number of people coming here saying the articles should be deleted because they are unsourced. 機動戦士ガンダム MS大全集2006―MOBILE SUIT Illustrated 2006 and This is Our Gundam, Seed-Destiny version should serve as a secondary and primary source(respectively). I am no fan of the Cosmic Era, only someone who dwelt in the Gundam Community long enough that I know what sources contains information for them so I can win arguments against Cosmic Era fans without any sources backing them up and still try to say bad things about other series. I have no motivation in contributing in Cosmic Era series related pages unless they contain major error like fans saying there are Newtypes in Cosmic Era when I know no sources can back them up. Thus you guys have to do the job yourselves if you are to protect any page you like. I hate people who sit there and say that what services need to be provided but keep sitting there without any actual work. Be warned, if I ever got the motivation to go through those pages, I am going to be bold and redirect most of them to a list instead of adding sources to them. MythSearchertalk 18:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I've got some work to do. I'll attempt to correct some sources to be more accurate, dig through my pile of magazines and books as well ASAP.--216.186.174.146 00:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — 216.186.174.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Anime(GS, GSD, GS Stargazer) by Sunrise
  • Novel and Manga(GSA, GSAB, GSDA, GSAR, GSXA, GSDA) by Kadokawa
  • Manga(GS, GSD) by Kodansha
  • Anime(Gundam Evolve) by Bandai
  • Model by Bandai, note: GS and GSD series model kits are dedicated to the series itself and is not notable here, I only refer to the MG series kits and EX model series kits where Bandai made kits not only for Gundam but also Patlabor, Dunbine, L-Gaim, Ace Combat and Yukikaze.
  • Game(Alliance VS ZAFT, Alliance VS ZAFT II, Never-Ending Tomorrow) by Bandai
  • Game(SD Gundam G Generation series, Super Robot Wars series) by Banpresto
  • Anime(Magical Nurse Komugi) by Tatsunoko
  • Book(MS Encyclopedia 2003, 2006) by Media works
  • Book(GUNDAM CG WORKS―MODELING TECHNIQUES FOR MOBILE SUIT) by ビーエヌエヌ新社
Keeps:
CAT1-X1/3 Hyperion: GSXA Kadokawa, Evolve Bandai, Game Bandai, Model Bandai, Book Media works.
5 G(Strike, Duel, Aegis, Buster, Blitz): Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondansha, Book Media works, Book ビーエヌエヌ新社.
ZGMF-X10A Freedom and ZGMF-X09A Justice: Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondasha, Manga Kodogawa, Book Media works, Game Banpresto, Anime Tatsunoko
YMF-X000A Dreadnought: Anime Bandai, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Game Banpresto, Manga Kodogawa, Manga Kondasha, Book Media works.
Merges that should not be merged into the big list due to notability in the overall importantness of them in the series and some level of separatedness of them and other Generic Paper board targets:
TMF/A-802 BuCUE and TMF/A-803 LaGOWE, Merge these two, due to their design impacting the design of Gaia in GSD anime and also their oddness of the Gundam series of non-humanoid MS appearance: Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondansha, Manga Kodokawa, Game Banpresto.
ZGMF-X19A Infinite Justice and ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom be merged to Justice and Freedom, they are not very notable other than being the mecha main protongists pilot, esp when they are just kinda like upgrades of those two: Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondasha, Manga Kodogawa, Book Media works, Game Banpresto.
Astray Red, blue, gold frame, separated from main list due to all the manga story are based on the Astray series(and thus all of them carry the name Astray in them): Anime Bandai, manga Kodogawa, manga Kondasha, model Bandai, Game Banpresto.
Arguable items
The GS and GSD both have a team of three piloting three different Gundam units that the main protongist fight against, these units mainly appeared only in the series and games by Bandai, they are not even a main element in the plot(none of them stayed in the series for more than half of the series). They recieve a little more treatment by having models in the GS and GSD series but not much in the Bandai regular series like the MG models. (Almost all important ones have MG models). I do not view them as having any appearance in the model because it is only one of the GS and GSD series models which are named as dedicated to those two series. Even if they exsist outside the main lists, they should be merged to the three in the team instead of having their own page.
MythSearchertalk 14:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are also, IMO, four articles from GSD that should be kept: ZGMF-X56S Impulse, ZGMF-X42S Destiny, ZGMF-X666S Legend and ZAFT Armored Keeper of Unity (though this article namespace ought to be changed to "ZAKU (Gundam Seed)"). These ones are the main character suits from GSD that aren't sequel units to the ones in GS.
Iceberg3k 22:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knida oppose keeping these, since they don't even have their own model kits out of the series(like MG and MIA). MythSearchertalk 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good example to work from. Those articles are [mostly major] characters in World of Warcraft, not [mostly minor] weapons in Gundam. They're different situations. You haven't explained why these articles need individual consideration - it would help if you gave PROPER real-world impact (not obscure model kits) to ONE of the articles in order to separate them from others. As an administrator has commented at the start of the page, blanket nominations are not improper at all, unless you have GOOD reason - so far you've just stated your opinion with no reasoning. --TheEmulatorGuy 22:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emulator, all you have done in this whole discussion is continued reassertion of your initial premise. It's already been firmly established that you believe there is no viable content to be had from these articles, which is debated by other posters (including posters who are not fans of the Gundam Seed universe), so further reiteration of this argument is pretty well pointless. If by this point, where viable post-AfD plans have been mentioned and posted, which satisfy the requirements of policy, you are still sticking to your original premise and demanding that the entire article complex be thrown away, in spite of all apparent evidence that contradicts your original argument (which was based on a pretty twisted interpretation of policy to begin with), you simply have nothing meaningful to contribute to this conversation from this point on (really, you have contributed nothing meaningful since the initial nomination). The consensus appears to be keep some, merge most, and that is probably what the discussion should be closed on. Iceberg3k 23:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? Ahahahaha, oh dear, ahahaha. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I linked to that debate was for the opening. I don't care what the subject of the AfD was, merely the following lines:

"The result was USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE. This isn't going anywhere, as far too many articles were bundled together into a single AFD.
If someone wants to open a much smaller (not more than four articles at a time, please) AFD on one or some of these articles so that the individual merits of specific articles can be discussed, feel free to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)"

It doesn't matter what the subject is, you've constructed an AfD that is fundamentally impossible to evaluate because it presently requires every editor read 84 articles in order to give a valid opinion. I'm not reading all those pages, you doubtless didn't read all those pages, there's no way we can expect the rest of the voters to read all those pages either. Because of this, any conclusion made as a result of this AfD will be invalid. --tjstrf talk 23:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, fine, have it your way. If you require 7 months to get rid of the articles (that's how long it's going to take) instead of 2 weeks just for "individual merit" reasons, that's fine, I give up. I've claimed to give up many times, but only because the constant ignorance infuriates me to keep coming back. I'll let you ignore the fact ANY separate article for a weapon in Gundam is against policy, because obviously we need fucking "individual merit". Before this bastard of a debate closes, just tell me one thing - A FUCKING VALID ARGUMENT TOWARDS THE POLICIES GUNDAM WEAPON ARTICLES VIOLATE. It hasn't happened yet, and I don't think it will. Congratulations, you've won. Who knows why you wanted to win. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I hate mass AfD noms, essentially. They generate these utterly massive deletion discussions that ALWAYS close no consensus, which means the nominator just wasted hours of numerous peoples's time. And if it takes 7 months for you to merge these pages, you must type really slowly. Also WP:CIV, swearing doesn't help anything. --tjstrf talk 07:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could pick 84 Wikipedia articles at random, and some of them would be good-quality, while others would be tripe. I'll bet the situation's the same with these ones. The nest is well and truly stirred, now let's all take a deep breath, and find a place to discuss which articles are good and which ones need work. AfD is NOT the place for that discussion. I did quite like the citing of TRAINWRECK precedent, though. Made it worth the read. Quack 688 10:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply comment I guess it is because it happened that all the 84 randomly selected articles are not of good quality? lol I must admit the work going into these articles are towards a not very good direction. Most of them are just going for 1) plot summary of what happened to that unit(or the series of them) and 2) the settings spec of them. While little can be found on what they have impacted, even with the handful of sources I can just pull up that should be included into the articles long ago. (I have not read any of these articles before, even if I made like a little edit on them, it is most likely that I am tracing a vandal's path of vandalization and only revert those without actually looking at the articles.) Most of them could be improved, at least the lot of Seed mecha can be said to have impacted the Seed-Destiny mechas and have appearance in Super Robot wars. However, little was included in these, and I have no interest and time in improving these because I have an even longer list of Universal Century Mechas to work on, before some deletionist list the few hundred mechas AfD, I have to do what I can to either merge them or improve them to a point where it is good enough to meet any policy creep keeping criteria. MythSearchertalk 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact of requiring so much discussion is evidence that the subject is worthy of presentation in WP, There would not be so much heat over a truly non-notable group of characters.
And there is so much heat that an outsider must wonder whether ther is some subtext about this particular series. Anime AfDs come up frequently here, and do not get anywhere near this attention. Why this one? DGG 06:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not so. The only reason why this has generated so much heat is because of the sheer size - this would set a massive precedent if all of the articles were deleted. So all of the editors are jumping into this melee, inclusionists and deletionists alike, to put their two cents in. "Intense discussion =/= worth of inclusion." GNAA had to go through 18 nominations and dozens of talk page archives, but it was eventually deleted because it did not adhere to the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. Those two policeis overruled all discussion about the "notability" of the topic. Hbdragon88 06:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply In this case, the original poster should not have used the afd process in this manner. This is a clear case where these articles need work, in some cases they need to be tagged for cleanup, in others they need merging, in yet a few more they need to be deleted. This is a bad case in which to try a mass proposal. Kyaa the Catlord 07:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Kyaa. The only situation in which a mass nom will work is if you run two-three test case pages, then nom the rest and cite the previous debate. Also, the GNAA should never be cited as a precedent for anything, ever. --tjstrf talk 07:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been aware that mass noms have not worked since watching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles go down in flames. Hbdragon88
Not that the Warcraft AfD was the first attempt at such a thing, of course. It was just the most memorable one, what with AMiB's flair for drama and that trainwreck line. --tjstrf talk 08:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only way it would work is probably listing items out like in the other mass AfD for the CE vehicles. Never treat every article listed as generic, because they are not the same, especially to fans, they are never the same and thus treating them the same is only going to make things worst. I have learnt that lesson long ago. MythSearchertalk 09:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep, User:martin_00792 Important anime, I can argue that most of the articals could infact be CHARACTERS THAT INFLUANCE PLOT, and they are present in more that one medium.

Whee! Section Break![edit]

For the sake of all that is non-flamewar-causing, let us do some editing and merging before any new AfDs go out. This AfD is a train wreck because the initial poster was so goddamned determined to get the whole mass AfD deleted without any sort of compromise that he was willing to ignore policy to try to get it done (recall that he threatened to immediately re-nominate the whole thing if the result came up "no consensus" and to "teach the administrators a lesson" if the result came up "keep"); emotions need time to settle before further delete action should be taken, IMO. And I don't think ANYBODY will benefit from a precedent that shows that a huge group of articles can be summarily, collectively deleted by somebody with an obvious axe to grind. Iceberg3k 16:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Also, he didn't "threaten" to simply repost the AfD; he said that if it came up no-consensus for being overly broad he'd make individual delete nominations, which is exactly what should be done. BCoates 22:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out somebody's bad behavior isn't a "personal attack." Please learn the difference between criticism and fallacy of attack ad hominem. Bad faith has been demonstrated, I don't need to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. Iceberg3k 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent hours going through the debate and looking at the articles, I can only say that the nomination is correct in every respect. Delete Emeraude 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VERY STRONG KEEP As one has already stated, Gundam is a very notable anime. Besides, from what I've seen, those who want it deleted...you're not doing so well...only one article is gone...so, I think I've made my point. GrievousAlpha95 4:09 PM, December 4, 2006.

I say KEEP as all these mobile suits have a part in the sotry although some are lightly listed like the hyperion and why dont we seperate some on the same page (except for the Duel gunam with assault shroud our should that be split... anywho we need to keep this even STRIKE FREEDOM is listed for deleton i mean come on im using this page for specs on the gundams--Spartan117009 03:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Restate, reword suggestions, hoping for a consensus[edit]

More and more people pop in and say keep, I hate to say this, but if we can say we have the least consensus here, it is merge, not keep, most of the articles. If you only want spec data for something, go to [www.mahq.net MAHQ.net], or the trans wiki link posted somewhere in the middle of this trainwreck. Or if we merged the pages, the spec will still be there. Here is what I propose, and is probably closest to people who actively participated in this discussion want. (I do not count the people who just come out and drop down a sentence without actually wanting to contribute and wished a blind keep).

Keeps[edit]
Reasons - Influenced at least 2, if not 3 later design in the sequel of the series, the only Perfect grade model of the series, used as the front page of a 3D modeling teaching book about all Gundam, not Seed only. Said to be one of the more realistic military based design of the mechanical designer Kunio Okawara by Dengeki Hobby. Been a featured topic of a model convention in Japan by Hobby Japan.
Reasons for merge of others - they are of a subdivision of Strike, either mass-production or special unit. They have not recieve any special treatment from the company Bandai, and thus are generic enough to be merged, if not deleted.
Reasons - Influenced said merge mecha in the sequel, recieved treatment of having a Master Grade model of its own and the same series only have Strike Gundam having the same treatment. Featured in the Game Super Robot Wars along with a lot of well known mecha in Japan, and have a cameo appearance in the anime Nurse Witch Komugi, produced by Tatsunoko productions, which have no relationship with Bandai and is actually sort of a rivaling company.
Reasons for merge of others - Strike Freedom is more of an upgrade of Freedom, although it is going to have its own Master Grade model soon(December, 2006), more have to be shown in a keep since it does not influence anything, yet. I see no reason for keeping it for now, if it can recieve more attention by publishers and the company, it could be split back out at any time.
For Strike Freedom and Infinite Justice: Not quite usual upgrade. Not even a variant. That why we place F-15 and F-15E, F18 and F18E/F, separately. They are quite distinct, they have quite a story (Though original Freedom has more). Though they take much previous design, it is quite different, except some source say so. I never see any source which say they are upgrades. This may be only speculation, however, Freedom, Justice, Strike Freedom, Infinite Justice, receive different code (X10A,X9A,X20A,X19A respectively). I may agree if asked to merge Infinite Justice, but not the Strike Freedom based on notability. Draconins 12:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keeps[edit]
Reasons - First appeared in MSV, influenced the author of the manga to include them into the manga(which is not a retell of the anime), no out of the series model kits have been made for it, but it is featured in Gundam Evolve, a series not dedicated to Gundam Seed or related series, the only other appearance of a Seed series mecha is Strike. I would like to say merging them but having only 2 in a list without any relationship in the design plot is kinda wierd. Hoping for a better suggestion here.
Reasons - This one influenced the designer of the sequel Destiny to design ZGMF-X88S Gaia Gundam and another sequel Stargazer the TMF/A-802W2 Kerberos BuCUE Hound (which is, fortunately, already under this page) One of the rare non-humanoid Mobile Suit of the Gundam series. (Stated by Degeki Hobby and Hobby Japan magazine model reviews.)
Reasons for merge of others - A comander type of an exsisting mecha is not notable enough for a new article, please, by all means, merge them.
Any source that this mecha is only commander type and just mere upgrade? Draconins 12:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested Merges (special)[edit]
Reasons - They are pretty much the same thing, but the model recieved a bit more attention for the Gold frame is an event limited item in a Japanese model convention not dedicated to Gundam. Also for the new technology in modeling in hiding the cut between the useful pieces and the backbone of the injection moulding piece. It is not the first to have such treatment, but the second of the Bandai modeling series, after Hyakushiki. And since the other astray articles should tag along, I'd say merging them to a page for the Astray series is not a bad idea.
Other Merges[edit]

I would like to say the others should be deleted, but redirects to big lists would greatly reduce the chances of them being recreated by randomly dropped by fans. Since merging everything left into one page is definitely going to exceed 32kb, I propose 2 methods of merging:

  1. Merge by fictional nations
  1. Merge by series
Last notes[edit]

I will not work on the above articles until I have finished a major part of the Universal Century mechas having similar pages like this one. I have provide sources and what I have listed in this page should be enough to improve the articles I have listed as keeps to a point where they meet wiki's policies. If nothing has improved for some while (like more AfD pops up), I will not back up those pages any more. Because it is obvious enough that nobody cared to improve those pages. However, I see that there are people who seems to be willing to do so in the above discussion and I am assuming good faith on this. MythSearchertalk 07:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm fully supportive of these proposed merges and shuffling. Kyaa the Catlord 07:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support merge No. 2 for out-of-universe reasons.--SidiLemine 10:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are we having consesus?[edit]

So.... if we are having consensus which either keep or merge, let's propose ini the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gundam. Or may be still a deletionist to argue? Draconins 12:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelchair Organizations[edit]

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

An entire article isn't really necessary; possibly turn into a category. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 00:48, 30 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 – Gurch 05:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A dark beginning[edit]

A dark beginning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable Youtube movie. Prod was removed by the author, possible vanity Mallanox 00:50, 30 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 – Gurch 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksmas[edit]

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

Obvious hoax. WP:NFT. A few Google hits, but it appears to also be a slang term some people used on their blogs as a Thanksgiving/Christmas combination. No organized holiday. Deprodded by anon, without explanation. Grrr. eaolson 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 07:57Z

Leonard Hentiu[edit]

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

Utterly irrelevant and vanity-induced. The most this person has directed is a late night tv show. Dahn 01:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:01Z

Kirk Beattie[edit]

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

Fails WP:V -Nv8200p talk 02:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:02Z

Cambridge University Student Alliances[edit]

Cambridge University Student Alliances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nomination for deletion I somehow overlooked this in my recent sweep of ucam societies. Wikipedia is not campus info booth. This is a recently formed anti-global poverty student group that makes no claim of encyclopedic notability. The society website seems to be largely inactive. ~55 google hits. Zero Factiva news database hits. I would have speedied/prodded except they list some prominent advisors and have sort of connection with a UN campaign (rather tenuous link and no obvious evidence for encyclopedic notability) - how much these people are actually involved, its unclear. There doesnt seem to be much at all in the society's calendar Bwithh 02:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:04Z

Estonian Orthodox Church Pilgrimage[edit]

Estonian Orthodox Church Pilgrimage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Blog or something like it. A few obscure entries from Gogle but nothing notable. -Nv8200p talk 02:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article is a good example of a religious event. Why is it any less significant or notable than anything else? Bebuddley1 14:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:15Z

Jesusry[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. Original prod reason: NN neologism. 17 Google hits for "Jesusry". – Gurch 02:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:16Z

Portuguese breakfast[edit]

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

Dictionary definition, dubious verifiability (we don't need articles about things from Urbandictionary, which has a worse credibility record than Wikipedia itself), nowhere near academic.Djcartwright 03:21, 30 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goatse.cx 2

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

The result was Delete. Appears to be a neologism. El_C 03:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roadway blogging[edit]

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

This article is clearly useless. It is a page probably written by the creator of the "roadway blogging" idea and was added here to further his agenda. This "roadway blog" theory is only apparently used by one blog and is therefor obscure. Wikipedia is not a place where anyone can stick up whatever they feel is worth knowing about.--Amanduhh 03:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google references do not mean it is an automatic keep. Zezima has millions of Google references, yet it doesn't warrant its own article. --Fred McGarry 11:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- this account appears to be a voting sock-puppet. Jmax- 02:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete: use the category. Proponents of keeping say that the list can have structure that the category cannot; however in this case the category has structure (American adoptees, Welsh adoptees, etc) and the list has not. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:23Z

List of adoptees[edit]

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

Tagged for speedy deletion but doesn't meet criteria. Relevant discussion on talk. No opinion from me. – Gurch 03:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:26Z

MacEdition[edit]

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

Previously speedy deleted as spam. Recreated by same author with fewer external links. Tagged for speedy deletion again; author contests this on the talk page. I'm not sure whether the site is notable, though the author asserts this is the case. I've decided it's probably best to decide the matter here. No opinion from me. – Gurch 03:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If sites such as Gawker, Weblogs Inc, Metafilter, ThinkSecret and Slashdot are to be excluded from deletion, then so should MacEdition. Would marking the article a stub prevent the speedy deletion? There are ex-members of the MacEdition staff and of the Mac community who are likely going to be adding value to this article in the near future. -- Tomierna 04:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron - for the main reason why MacEdition is notable enough to have its' own article (which will be expanded), please read the History section of Apple rumors community. -- Tomierna 04:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. What part of this article is unverifiable? -- Rbellin|Talk 23:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:29Z

Brian M. Palmer (second nomination)[edit]

Brian M. Palmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (second nomination)

I came across this one by dumb luck. This article was given a very generous second chance eleven months ago by Deathphoenix, who closed it as no consensus (despite a 3-0 delete !vote) with the note "The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep (and cleanup). I am giving this article a chance to be cleaned up, but I have no objections to this article being AfDed at a later date if it doesn't get a better assertion of notability." [13] Except for the addition of a single line and a spelling correction, it hasn't been touched since the first AfD was closed, so its time has come. NN, tagged as failing to assert notability since June and as needing cleanup since January without action. Aaron 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having published work does not by itself make a person notable. Being published merely means a person has succeeded in having a job. Authors and writers are not inherently notable. --- RockMFR 19:28, 30 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 deleted by Morven. Whispering 15:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeside livingroom studio[edit]

Lakeside livingroom studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:CORP, WP:ORG and WP:V -Nv8200p talk 04:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:31Z

Unfadeable E.R.G.[edit]

Unfadeable E.R.G. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article created by subject, does not establish notability. "He is considered by many to be a driving force in bringing real music back, in using real instruments in his creations." silsor 04:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clone article created after AFD listing. silsor 07:03, 30 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 Woohookitty. MER-C 10:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klueless[edit]

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

I speedy deleted this as an article about non-notable web content. The author has complained about this and insists I bring it here. – Gurch 04:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Salt": Wikislang for preventing recreation. From the expression to salt the earth, which I think is from The Simpsons ;-) Tubezone 10:10, 30 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. Agent 86 00:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Gleave[edit]

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

Model on a few shows an in a magazine, but never with a plot-involved role. Not notable, as far as I can tell. Mikeblas 04:29, 30 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 to MacEdition —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:37Z

Spork Boards[edit]

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

Multiple speedy attempts. Does not meet WP:CSD, so I'm starting an AFD as the proper place for this discussion. Perel 04:33, 30 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 (just needed a second opinion) – Gurch 04:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FragArcade[edit]

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

Non-notable website. – Gurch 04:36, 30 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 Gurch. MER-C 06:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JEMS[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Unreferenced and buzzword laden. Contested prod. MER-C 04:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete for the reasons given below and in the deletion log summary. Uncle G 12:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nour Malas[edit]

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

Extreme verifiability problems, with a grand total of 11 ghits. Unreferenced possible hoax. Contested prod. MER-C 04:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Tyrese Gibson in lieu of deletion —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:40Z

HQ Pictures[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Companies aren't notable only because of their owners. Contested prod. MER-C 04:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:42Z

The Tortoise and the Hare (film)[edit]

The Tortoise and the Hare (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No sources to support anything, all of the information seems to be bogus (the IMDB pages for all of the people mentioned say nothing about this project). I think that this was originally supposed to be about the Aardman project called Tortoise vs. Hare (IMDB link). That film was first cancelled to make way for Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit back in 2001, and then postponed again until Aardman's 3-film contract with Dreamworks was complete. Now that the Aardman-Dreamworks contract has been called off, the film that was supposed to be made before this one (Crood Awakening) seems to have been cancelled as well. In short, there is currently nothing to suggest that the film is being made, and the article doesn't seem to contain a single accurate thing anyway, and hasn't since its creation. This seems like a case of crystal ballism. I would normally support salvaging any article which has usefull information, but this one has no accurate information in it in any case; it shouldn't be very hard for someone to recreate it if the film actually does enter production, and nothing will be lost if it is deleted. Esn 04:44, 30 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. See also List of FM stations in Kalamazoo, List of AM stations in Kalamazoo. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:45Z

List of TV stations in Kalamazoo[edit]

List of TV stations in Kalamazoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article violates standards set forth in "What Wikipedia is not"; also, this list is redundant, as it already covers information set forth in the Grand Rapids TV template. azumanga 04:53, 30 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 the one with utterly no content. W.marsh 02:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one hits (U.S. Hot Latin Tracks)[edit]

List of number-one hits (U.S. Hot Latin Tracks) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Number-one hits of 2006 (U.S. Hot Latin Tracks) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is just a placeholder, not an encyclopedia article. I have nothing against an actual list of this name, but it's simply ludicrous that a page that contains nothing but a category tag should be kept around. Salad Days 13:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the full debate, and I see no entries on the "list." OH ITS A "LIST" OF "LISTS" EVEN BETTER Salad Days 04:47, 22 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 05:21, 30 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. Referencing appears to have improved greatly since article was nominated for deletion. W.marsh 17:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Ring Clock[edit]

Iron Ring Clock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

nn clock, vanity article written by clock's engineer, zero non-wikipedia/mirror Google hits. Deprodded by anon, so you can take your five days here instead. Delete. Fethers 05:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you didn't even nominate the article correctly. And second, you still have not contacted the original owner for your intended deletion. Keep 203.218.207.20 05:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: I fixed the double-indent. Mr. Anonymous Reverter, since you're here clearly I nominated the article correctly, and I have no need to contact "the original owner" of the article. I'd suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion and WP:OWN. Fethers 05:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you I am not the owner of the article just a random user like yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.207.20 (talk • contribs)
I did a Google News search and a straight Google search, like I said up above. I didn't get anything that wasn't this article or a mirror of the content. I mean, if I found SOME sort of external anything about the clock, I'd mention it. As it is, it just looks like it's...well, a clock. Fethers 07:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Edison, please check the article's talk page for a longer response to your comment there re the use of the term iron ring; I would have responded here but I saw your post to the talk page first. The term 'iron ring' as used in the article does not refer to just a ring made of iron, which is (I believe) a justified use. Please see the article on iron ring for more. If you have a citation for a larger iron ring, then please put it forward. I have already mentioned my opinion on google hits in my response above. Burtonpe 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, one small addition to the above - I am not one of the subjects of the page, the page is on the clock. My name is mentioned once, at the bottom, as one of the creators. Burtonpe 16:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vandalism - I've reverted vadalism by User:219.77.82.186 who changed WMMartin's "Delete" into "Keep" -- Whpq 01:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Basically see what Uncle G says below, to whom you people should have listened. You guys have provided a tremendous deal of argumentation but no actual sources!!! about this guy other than some blog and entries on CDBaby and IMDB, which aren't terribly hard to get. This AfD debate has, bizarrely enough, had evidence of reliable third party coverage presented about it, while none could be found on Matthew Dallman himself beyond the blurb in the Washington Post, which doesn't really constitute non-trivial coverage on him. Since this is a high profile AfD, I really suggest people read and understand what Uncle G says below before jumping to any conclusions about systematic bias on Wikipedia. If reliable, published sources unrelated to Wikipedia or Dallman had been presented with information about him, this article would have been kept. But those sources don't seem to have covered him yet... so any beef should be with them for not writing about him, not with Wikipedia for merely enforcing our established policies. If you can't be bothered to read Uncle G's full comment, at least read the summary: "So if you wish to make an argument, please cite sources. Sources work. "I'm notable. I've done X, Y, and Z." does not." And the latter was all that was presented. W.marsh 17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dallman[edit]

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

No references to establish notability. One entry in IMDB for Matthew Dallman, but no way to link the two. Fails WP:Notability. Hatch68 06:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catchpole 21:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that the fact that this debate has now been referenced in the Washington Post is a successful example of media capture, as it will contribute to the blurring of the lines between notability and non-notability. Hatch68 is correct when he says that this does not make Dallman notable. We need to nip this sort of thing in the bud. WMMartin 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The need to counter systematic bias[edit]

User:Hatch68 mentions that no one seems to be able to come up with reliable, verifiable sources to demonstrate notability (for Dallman).

And this is my counter argument, that what Hatch68 has said re the Dallman bio applies in a much broader manner, and reflects an unavoidable and non-intentioned bias among Wikipedians, every one of whom has the very best of intentions. After all, how does one define notability? Who sets the standards? And how do we avoid these standards simply perpetuated the already established bias and over-emphasis in certain (albeit very worthy) subjects and perspectives, to the detriment of other (equally worthy) subjects and perspectives?

I'll give an example. I wrote a stubby bio page on David Grimaldi, co-author of Evolution of the Insects, an important textbook and definitive popular review of Paleoentomology. At some point this page seems to have disappeared. What were the reasons why he was considered non-notable?

Yet at the same time there are entries on every detail of pop sci fi franchises (less so serious SF). I'll pick a page at random: List of Star Wars comic books. Every comic book and every author listed. Now, mind you, I strongly support this!!! I think it is way cool the way that Wikipedia does list every character and detail and comic book, no matter how non-notable they may be to anyone outside that particular area of geekdom!

In fact, this was one of the main things that inspired me to write entries on Paleontological authors like Grimaldi, on Integral artists like Dallman, and on Integral theory critics and sceptics like Geoff Falk, in the first place. Surely all these people are at least just as notable as an obscure planet or character in the Star Trek or Doctor Who franchises, say. btw, ST and Dr Who rock!, I'm not dissing these shows, I grew up watching the original series of Star Trek and the early Doctor Whos, there were among the things that really got me interested in SF; but i'm just trying to make a point. I could draw similar examples from anywhere in Wikipedia. And what all this means is that Wikipedia is essentially a biased coverage, and that to Wikipedia's credit this is recognised. I argue here that the Dallman page should be kept, and the Grimaldi and Falk pages restored, as a way of helping to balance the unavoidable and unintentional bias that this vast and magnificent project has. M Alan Kazlev 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument has valid points, but it does not belong on this page. This discussion is simply to reach a consensus on whether the Matthew Dallman article has enough verifiable references of notability to maintain its inclusion on Wikipedia. I would suggest you make your arguments on the discussion pages of WP:Bio or WP:Notability. Hatch68 22:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if your Grimaldi article got caught up in this conflict which appears to be in regard to a different David Grimaldi. — goethean ॐ 22:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M Alan Kazlev appears to be attempting to argue that to govern an encyclopaedia in a manner that ensures that it is encyclopaedic is to show a systematic bias against subjects that are not encylopaedic. This debate has nothing to do with bias and everything to do with notability. Perhaps he is not aware of the other wikis which may more suitably house this type of information. He may also wish to think about the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - the presence of sf pages in wikipedia does not make Dallman notable. An RS would do but there isn't one. --Backface 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep an obvious bad faith (several oned by the same anon ) `'mikkanarxi 20:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Carroll[edit]

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

Article flagged for Non-Notability quite a while ago, but AfD stalled as IP editor who placed template could not complete AfD page setup --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 02:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chayathirai[edit]

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

Because Chayathirai and The Coloured Curtain only get 12 distinct Google hits when combined with "-wikipedia" and those were for booksellers. In addition, the author himself his name only gets 175 Google hits in total, this article included, of which 61 are sufficiently distinct from one another to merit listing. At least one bookseller-hit only mentioned it in passing as a "similar item", and there is at least one "this only appeared in links pointing to this page", and then, of course, there are the Wikipedia clones. Only one version of Amazon.com has it according to this Google search, and it appears that no one from anywhere has cared to review it in all this time. Also, Chayathirai "best novel" tamil nadu gets me 8 hits from Wikipedia, its clones and some blurbage from three sites that are selling the book. One site even tells you that that's just what the publisher says (that it won the "Best Novel Award" from the Tamil Nadu Government). I am beginning to doubt that the Government of Tamil Nadu actually bothers with such things, because of the results of "best novel award" tamil nadu government 2/3 Chayathirai (the Wikipedia article and a website that sells the book) and 1/3 clear reference to the Best Novel Award said to be given by the Académie Française. Rmky87 06:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 07:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : Please note that Indian Authors are Books are not represented fully in Internet. Just because something is not found in Google (or in many occasions, it is not properly searched) it does not make an author or work non-notable. When Google cannot be used to determine notability for Indian related content, nominating an article based on Google Hits alone does not augur well for the Encyclopedia project. Please note that "non-notable" in not synonymous with "I don't know" The author is a well known person in literary circles and the book has been included in the syllabi of many universities here This books satisfies the WP Guidelines for Inclusion  Doctor Bruno  15:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Comment I am beginning to doubt that the Government of Tamil Nadu actually bothers with such things No need to doubt. Tamil Nadu government gives awards for best books. Hope your doubt is cleared now. it appears that no one from anywhere has cared to review it in all this time As already told, Indian languages are underrepresented in Internet. Also most of the Websites and reviews use hundreds of fonts and that is not searchable.[reply]

Comment Believe me, I'm aware of the "not-searchable" thing, after trying to search http://www.indiatodaygroup.com for "POMMEELEAN"'s review. I have not yet found evidence that this "POMMEELEAN" ever won anything from the Sahitya Akademi and I have to go. There isn't another way to transliterate that, is there?--Rmky87 17:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only five Google hits for "Pommeelean" are Wikipedia and her clones. And the Sahitya Akademi website is Google-searchable. And I've finally found the part where it talks about the "TAMIL SANGA PALAGAI - KURALPEEDAM".--Rmky87 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, and no one cared to review "Cupraparatimaniyan"'s The Coloured Curtain on eBay, Shopzilla, Rediff (whose tagline is "India's online books and gift store", by the way), and that last hit is just a place that helps people find places to buy books.--Rmky87 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one last thing: India Today may be members only, but it is very Google-searchable if you know what you're doing. And you know what else? There was absolutely no mention of Chayathirai in any of their pages! The same goes for Subrabharathimanian! Isn't that interesting?--Rmky87 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm impressed! And since no-one has found verification of anything positive, like Dr Bruno saying the book is on university syllabi, I'll switch my view from weak keep to delete. (By the way, looking for Tamil book awards in English, I set up a new stub yesterday on Mu Metha. The Google results for him and his Tamil Nadu state award were thin - but they do exist.) Mereda 07:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I spend more than Rs 1000 per month on books, but I am yet to buy a book from Amazon or write a review there for a Tamil Book  Doctor Bruno  12:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But don't you find it odd that no one cared to do so at any of those other places? Or that Dr. Prema Nandakumar has apparently never written anything for India Today? The article says that the English version was published in 2003 and vedamsbooks.com says it won an award from the Government of Tamil Nadu in 1999. India Today was up in 1997...um, when was this originally published?--Rmky87 15:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmm, it appears that India Today's archives don't go back farther than 1997, and that the first edition of Chayathirai was published in 1994. In any case, I find it odd that Dr. Nandakumar would review it there instead of The Hindu, given that she wrote for them (her name gets 342 Google hits on hinduonnet.com) or on Boloji, where she is a contributing writer. Hmmm, it seems that The Hindu's online archives only go back to 2000, and their literary review archives only go back to 2001.--Rmky87 16:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course, there's the fact that Prema Nandakumar was never mentioned anywhere in the pages of India Today from 1997 onward...--Rmky87 17:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having read some of Dr. Nandakumar's work, I have come to doubt that she ever wrote the quoted review for this book: her English is better than that. I'm not just talking about the inappropriate spaces between the last word and the period after it; I'm talking about the parts that didn't make sense.--Rmky87 20:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Ortega[edit]

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

Non-notable candidate, lost in GOP primary. Nothing else in his rather extensive bio suggests notability. Montco 06:14, 30 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. A merge could be discussed further but AfD is not needed for that. W.marsh 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword Project[edit]

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

Obscure software product, does not assert notability in any way. Demiurge 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating these subprojects for the same reason:

Demiurge 15:48, 21 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 05:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"This software is among core products of a notable software developer." This particular developed is notable in it's field, as argued above.DGG 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speak for anyone else, but I think new people are what keeps the entire WP project alive. All you need do to keep your article about Tepexi de Rodriguez from deletion is to make sure it prominently says that it is significant because of the fossils & make sure there are at least two good published references cited to the fact that it is notable. Then just link it to the appropriate palenontology pages, add links from appropriate paleontology pages to it, for example from famous species unearthed there. And I hope you will stay and do some more. DGG 22:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to create your article; in all likelihood, it won't be deleted; most small towns are afforded their own articles (e.g., Stormstown, PA). BTW, feel free to vote keep if you'd like on this article, especially if you feel this link was helpful, and the software notable. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, but please cite some sources in the actual article. W.marsh 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EcoTalk[edit]

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

Delete This page is nothing more than an advertisment for a show. It needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theichibun (talk • contribs) 13:37, 21 November 2006

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 05:40, 30 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. W.marsh 03:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global powder metallurgy property database[edit]

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

This article appears to be spam. It was created by the user EPMA and references only epma.com. —Ben FrantzDale 13:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am, incidentally, a little alarmed atthe tendency to list articles for AfD when the reasonable step would be to place a warning --whether a template or personal. Editors who do inadequate articles about significant organizations deserve help, not censure. They are often earnest and sincere and just need to know how we do things here. If it turns out there's nothingthere, then that's another matter. DGG 04:58, 28 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 05:35, 30 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. I'm only closing the debate; someone else performed the delete. →Bobby← 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Noble (politician)[edit]

Mark Noble (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable political candidate/student. Ran for OH Lt. Governor as a Libertarian and lost. Currently a student with nothing else suggesting notability. Montco 06:19, 30 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. I'm only closing the debate; someone else performed the delete. →Bobby← 18:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Katz[edit]

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

Non-notable candidate. Soundly defeated in his only run for any office. Nothing else in bio suggests any notability. Montco 06:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7. NawlinWiki 15:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian R. Thomas[edit]

Brian R. Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable one-time candidate for US Congress. Soundly defeated. No other claim to notability. Montco 06:29, 30 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. Sandstein 06:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Zone Fisher[edit]

Peggy Zone Fisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete as non-notable person. This may end up being a little controversial though. I simply can't believe that wives/daughters/politicians are inherently notable. Some, like Chelsea Clinton or Laura Bush are notable. But this one certainly would not be notable on her own. Montco 06:34, 30 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 20:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Mahoney[edit]

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

High school athlete. No claim of notability, no sources, sub-stub. Edison 14:33, 30 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. Sandstein 06:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dovilla[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable one-time candidate. Took only 34% of the vote in his only race. Nice background, but nothing that really makes this gentleman notable. Montco 06:38, 30 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. Sandstein 06:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Downey[edit]

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

Non-notable one-time candidate for office. Finished fourth in the Democratic primary with 13% of the vote. Nothing else in her background suggests notability. Montco 06:43, 30 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. Sandstein 06:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Minamyer[edit]

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

This was nominated more than a year ago and closed with no consensus. Now that the election is well in the past, I would like to give this another shot. This person has run once for office. He finished fifth in the GOP primary with less than 5% of the vote. Other than getting some attention for making some unfair charges against an opponent, he has nothing else to suggest notability. Montco 06:52, 30 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. Sandstein 06:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie J. Spaeth[edit]

Leslie J. Spaeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominating as a non-notable political figure. This one is a little tougher than prior nominations as this person actually holds an office. However a state committee seat is a party seat and there are literally dozens of state committee people in OH. Also a party chairman for a middling county in OH. No evidence that he has been elected to any government position. Montco 06:58, 30 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 from Wikipedia. I note that most of this seems to exist on Wiktionary already, at the extensive category listing, and a completed transwiki is reported on each article. W.marsh 16:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of idioms in the English language (B)[edit]

List of idioms in the English language (B) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of idioms in the English language (C) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of idioms in the English language (D) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of idioms in the English language (E) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of idioms in the English language (F) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This afd found that there is strong consensus that lists of idioms violate WP:WINAD. Additional concerns are that they are unsourced, and that there are problems sourcing them and that they contain original research. The only defence put up was the non-argument that these lists are useful. Also nominated are the lists of idioms for the letters C, D, E, and F. Transwikiing to Wiktionary, for the ones that aren't in wikt:Category:Idioms is optional. MER-C 06:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you want the rest to be userfied to your userspace instead of being subject to deletion debates? MER-C 04:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes - but I don't own the articles - I can't speak for all other editors. What I'll probably do is take a copy while the AfD debates are going on, and let the proper process take its course. Summarily deleting them and putting them all in my userspace doesn't seem like proper process to me, convenient as it may be. WLD 09:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a fair question to me, see above. If WLD is willing to work on/marshal others to work on transwikiing these, I don't see a problem with userfying them all at once. Breaking them up into separate discussions is useless in any case, except as a test of whether you'll get the same result nominating the same thing for deletion six times. Opabinia regalis 06:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The large and unwieldy main article was split into 25 sub-articles recently, so the edit history of the sub-articles A,B,C... do not reflect the level of effort that has gone into this collection. If you look at the edit history of the main article List of idioms in the English language, you will see it is not just someone's work. The article has been in existence since 11 November 2003, and a small amount of content existed before then in other articles. That is not meant to make you change your mind, simply to correct a possible misapprehension. WLD 10:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until properly tranwikied The content represents a lot of research, and while lacking references, is definitely of encyclopedic value IMHO.--Ramdrake 20:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep as disambiguation. El_C 12:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suman[edit]

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

no verifiable sources for claim of notability Edison 07:03, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yakoo Boyz[edit]

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

Anyone heard of ' Pipe Dreamz '? Minor defunct Canadian band. Except for the claim of having had it as a massive hit, there's nothing which would indicate it would pass WP:MUS. No entry for the band on gracenote or allmusic, so I cannot establish exactly where or when it may have been a hit. It appeared on 5 compilation albums per Gracenote Ohconfucius 07:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 03:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subrabharathimanian[edit]

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

The article was prodded due to less number of Google hits (55 for Subrabharathimanian and 21 for "Subrabharathi Manian"). I unprodded it because I believe that Google hits do not indicate notability or non-notability of a Tamil author. (Update: User:Mereda has pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chayathirai that the author is alternatively spelled as Cupraparatimaniyan, which gives some more Google results.)

User:Rmky87 believes that the subject is not notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia. The author is mentioned mostly on the sites which sell his book Chayathirai. User:Rmky87 has pointed out that Katha Award is not given by the President of India[25]. Also, there is only one site that tells he has won the "Best Novel Award" from the Tamil Nadu Government, and it belongs to the publisher.

Neutral as of now, although I am tempted to vote Weak Delete. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chayathirai. utcursch | talk 07:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 07:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have provided us evidence that this award exists. Now prove to us that he won it. I hope you can upload the evidence if you have to. I know for a fact that Katha Awards are not awarded by the President of India as the original author claimed (that person isn't even mentioned as having the job of handing it over! Who first made that claim? The publisher?). Where would I find out who really won a Katha Award in 1993?
Yes, I remember that Wikipedia is for a global audience. I also remember that the existence of those other novels needs to be verified (and that internet evidence may be in Tamil script). Perhaps a search of for them using the original script is in order (it wasn't given in the original article). He is said to have written five other novels. I've looked more closely at the article and it appears that one of those novels I couldn't even find a seller for was already translated into English (Pinaingkalin Mukankal (The Faces of the Dead), I believe it was allegedly called). All four of the Google hits for that were Wikipedia and her clones.--Rmky87 17:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Cupraparatimaniyan" yielded 11 distinct Google hits, almost all of which only mentioned him in connection with The Coloured Curtain. He had no results on Amazon.co.uk except through Google (see what I mean here at the very bottom), and his entry, Appa (what on earth is that?) is very spare, devoid of reviews of any kind, illustrations of any kind, and they can't even offer users this particular title. Amazon.com didn't have him either, nor did they have anything by a "Subrabharathimanian" (Amazon.co.uk didn't have him either). Oh, and no one cared to review "Cupraparatimaniyan"'s The Coloured Curtain on eBay, Shopzilla, Rediff (whose tagline is "India's online books and gift store", by the way), and that last hit is just a place that helps people find places to buy books. This PDF of a Sage Publications journal article looks very promising, but I can't access it from my University. I found it on a search of anything that contained "The Coloured Curtain" and also "edu". There were no article citing it on Google Scholar.--Rmky87 19:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is much evidence that "Prema Nanda Kumar" exists, however. The hit count is sparse because apparently this is not the most common rendering of her name. Prema Nandakumar is, though. She's from India and there are only 142 distinct hits but they're along the lines of this and this. The pages containing "subrabharathimanian" "tamil" (I wanted to see if he was also mentioned on Tamilnation.org like Nandakumar is), on the other hand, go like this:
page 1: Wiki, wiki, bookdealer, bookdealer, clone of older version of our Tirupur article, bookdealer, infuriatingly inaccessible Journal of Commonwealth Literature article, redirect to the homepage of the (apparently) defunct bookdealer K. K. Agencies, bookdealer, and another bookdealer
page 2: clone of Chayathirai article, a piece of unreadable garbage with the word, "blog" in the URL, bookdealer, the German Wikipedia's version of our "List of Tamil writers", a Nationmaster.com article on Vietnam (seriously, WTF?), bookdealer, Italian version of "secure.hospialityclub.org"'s Tirupur page which contains a word-for-word copy of a passage in our old Tirupur article including the typos, a poorly typed message on a message board connected to Rice University (which seems to indicate that Subrabharathimanian wrote in Kannada?), bookdealer, and another clone article;
page 3: bookdealer, clone of our old Tirupur article, deadlink to K. K. Agencies, bookdealer, answers.com clone of Tirupur, customtoolbarbuttons clone of "List of People from Tamil Nadu, Enpsychlopedia article on Tirupur (yes, it's a clone), Enpsychclopedia article on Martin and Lewis (?), Reference.com article on Tirupur (clone), startlearningnow.com clone of our article on American freightways (WTF?);
page 4: bookdealer, clone of Tirupur article, bookdealer, clone of Tirupur, clone of "List of Tamil language writers", clone of "List of Tamil language writers", clone of "List of people from Tamil Nadu", clone of "List of people from Tamil Nadu", and a clone of "Category:Tamil writers";
page 5: clone of "Liste tamilischer Schriftsteller", the actual German Wikipedia' "Liste tamilischer Schriftsteller", another version of the same poorly typed forum post from the Rice University board, answers.com's clone of "List of people from Tamil Nadu", MadDig clone of "List of people from Tamil Nadu", list of books from Japanese website that includes The Coloured Curtain, repeat of previous page (there is a link on both pages to a page on same Japanese website which appears to be selling The Coloured Curtain), two more clones "List of people from Tamil Nadu", and another clone of Tirupur;
page 6: clone of Tirupur and a clone of "Category:Indian writers".
Oh, and by the way, Tamil Nation doesn't seem to have heard of him. And a Google search of just his name turned up only 8 more hits than "subrabharathimanian" and "tamil". And that St. Joseph's College link is a dud; he's only mentioned in links pointing to that page.--Rmky87 00:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one last thing: India Today may be members only, but it is very Google-searchable if you know what you're doing. And you know what else? There was absolutely no mention of Chayathirai in any of their pages! The same goes for Subrabharathimanian! Isn't that interesting?--Rmky87 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So if you cannot "find" an article about a vernacular author or book on Google, they become non-notable inspite of winning an Government Award. Amazing !!!  Doctor Bruno  12:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For notable authors, they can totally be found. By the way, he is also said to have written a book that was translated into English and yet the Google hits for "Pinankilin Mukangal" and the Google hits for "Pinaingkalin Mukankal" all go to Wikipedia and her clones—absolutely no bookdealers! And the the Google hits for "Pinankalinmugangal" are nonexistent. By the way, you have never given us proof that he won a state award of any sort. Let's face it: real award-winning Tamil authors get their names online without Wikipedia's help.--Rmky87 17:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you refuse the fact that there is a Govt Award or the fact that this person has won the award.  Doctor Bruno  17:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You've proven that there is in fact a governmental organiztion in Tamil Nadu that awards the authors of very good novels and translates them into English. Now prove to me that that first thing really did happen to Subrabharathimanian in 1999!--Rmky87 20:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good Question. His works have been published in Kumudam. Does that answer your question. I am very sure of the fact that he won the foreign trip for his novel. There was a story in Kathaimalar (the saturday supplement of Dinamalar years ago) called as Singapore Pancha regarding that.  Doctor Bruno  03:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your evidence is that "his achievements are not found in Internet" We too agree with that. How can we refute that. That is so simple. Is it clear. Our argument is that "just because you are not "able to find" something in Internet, that does not mean that he is non-notable" for the simple reason that Indian Vernacular languages are under represented in Internet. Now if you can give some points against this, that would be interesting discussion.  Doctor Bruno  03:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Cupraparatimaniyan" yielded 11 distinct Google hits, almost all of which only mentioned him in connection with The Coloured Curtain. So the fact that he has written that novel is Verified. He had no results on Amazon.co.uk So waht. Most tamil authors have no entry on Amazon. Amazon is not a source for measuring the work of Tamil Authors and his entry, Appa (what on earth is that?) is very spare, devoid of reviews of any kind, illustrations of any kind, and they can't even offer users this particular title. So what Amazon.com didn't have him either, nor did they have anything by a "Subrabharathimanian" (Amazon.co.uk didn't have him either). Oh, and no one cared to review "Cupraparatimaniyan"'s The Coloured Curtain on eBay, Shopzilla, Rediff (whose tagline is "India's online books and gift store", by the way), Can you please tell me the number of reviews you have had for Tirukural or Ramayanam at those sites and that last hit is just a place that helps people find places to buy books. 0.01% of Indian books are sold through Internet. There were no article citing it on Google Scholar. How many articles on Google Scholar you have for Indian authors. My simple question. How many novels in Indian Languages have you so far read. ........ தெரியாது கற்புர வாசனை  Doctor Bruno  03:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to ask a question to all those who want to delete this article. Will you agree to keep if it is proved that he won the award in 1999, or will you guys, to satisfy your ego of not having to revise the vote, invent new criteria for deletion (as it usually happens)  Doctor Bruno  03:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - won a notable award.Bakaman 06:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Question. His works have been published in Kumudam. Does that answer your question.

Of course not! The least you could do is give me the titles of those works (I want bibliographical citations or links if you can)! Oddly enough, many of their links to other parts of their are in English for some odd reason, even though the target audience speaks Tamil. Another "Logins Only" place. Anyway, what exact sort of work did he publish in there?

I am very sure of the fact that he won the foreign trip for his novel. There was a story in Kathaimalar (the saturday supplement of Dinamalar years ago) called as Singapore Pancha regarding that.

I can't find "Kathaimalar" anywhere on Google. Dinamalar can be found. "dinamalar" "saturday supplement" cannot be found. I searched for "kathaimalar" first on the off-chance that it might have a separate website or that there was a non-Google URL with that word. Your "Singapore Pancha" turned up zilch. Mousing over the links at Dinamalar turned up no similar words to "Kathaimalar". I did turn up their "Sunday Special" archives (which can also be found through Google), though. Their "sportsmalar" could be found just by typing in "sportsmalar". Is "Kathaimalar" still in print? Is there anything about him in the media that anyone can show me?--Rmky87 20:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathaimalar was the Saturday supplement of Dinamalar years ago and is not in print now. It is obvious that you cannot find Kathaimalar anywhere. It is either because you do not know to search properly or because it is not in internet or because it is there with some font (one of hundreds) that cannot be searched. By the way their Sunday Supplement is Vaaramalar (வாரமலர்) and their Friday Supplement is Ciruvar Malar (சிறுவர் மலர்)
My point is that IF SOMEONE COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT KATHAIMALAR DID NOT EXIST BECAUSE HE COULD NOT FIND IT IN INTERNET, His mental acumen has to be questioned.
Tirukural is not reviewed in Amazon. Ramayanam (Kambar) is not reviewed in Amazon. That shows that only someone who does not have the slightest idea about the presence of tamil literature in internet (as of today) will use this as a benchmark in fixing the notability. The penetration of Tamil Literature in Amazon on 3/12/2006 is such that even Tirukural and Ramayanam are not reviewed. Just because they are not reviewed does that make these books as non notable. Any one can not see as to HOW USELESS IS TO USE AMAZON REVIEW TO JUDGE NOTABILITY of a TAMIL BOOK.
Award or no award this person is a notable person in Tamil Literature. Full Stop. Please don't try to use useless means to justify your decision about something regarding which you have no idea or knowledge.
The least you could do is give me the titles of those works You have enough of his titles already in the article.
I want bibliographical citations Kumudam does not have Bibliographical Citations. You seem to be TOTALY IGNORANT ABOUT TAMIL LITERATURE. No way arguing with you :)
or links if you can SO there is no world outside Internet for you. You believe in only links. Common. Wake up !!
Anyway, what exact sort of work did he publish in there? Novels and Short Stories. My God, we are talking about an novelist. Do you expect him to give explanations for Ramanuja's theorms or uncertainty principle. He is not a scientist to publish research articles, nor is Kumudam the Tamil equivalent of Nature  Doctor Bruno  18:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Why have none of you bothered with this, instead of making almost completely unsourced assertions? For the simple reason that tamil works are under represented in Internet. There is no use in killing a Horse because it does not lay eggs. Chickens are supposed to lay eggs and horses have their own use. Since tamil works are not represented in Internet (Even no one has reviewed Tirukural and Ramayanam) there is no use in proving or disproving notability through internet. Is it plain and simple. Do you atleast now understand your futile attempts which are totally useless as for as Tamil Literature is concerned  Doctor Bruno  18:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though in no way related to this article, My next point is to support my claim that AN IMPROPER SEARCH BY SOMEONE WHO HAS NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE SUBJECT IN DISCUSSION can turn a well known entity into "non-notable". For example [26] [27] By the way the Singapore Pancha was a story written in Tamil making fun of the prize schemes of announcing Plane tickets for literary competitions. Hence there is nothing special that it does not turn up in internet.
Is there anything about him in the media that anyone can show me? Good Question
  1. From The Hindu
  2. [28]
  3. [29]
  4. [30]
  5. [31]
  6. [32]
  7. [33]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, as withdrawn by nominator, and without controversy. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 11:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

801 (band)[edit]

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

Appears to be a band with no claims of notability. Made a couple of albums but no claim of them being massive sellers or in any way groundbreaking. Played a couple of gigs. My current view is that there is no notability here despite Wikipedia's low threshold for music notability and pop culture relative to everything else. I came across this page as a result of the Lloyd Watson page that I tagged for references some months ago and is itself not especially notable. MLA 07:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions, it appears that I am not in line with wikipedia beliefs on this. The notability threshold for Music appears to be particularly low in my opinion but the consensus is that this article passes purely on the grounds of containing people who were notable elsewhere so no further debate appears necessary. A withdrawal of my nominiation is in order. MLA 07:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jungjangbi Plaza[edit]

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

per WP:SHOP, WP:CORP. Pqozn 07:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Costume. Agent 86 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dance costume[edit]

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

Reason:Essay or original research. No sources cited. Edison 07:53, 30 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. Agent 86 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George R. Harker[edit]

George R. Harker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable outside of a particular group Pigman (talk • contribs) 07:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn, reasons no longer valid). Kusma (討論) 07:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality in older age[edit]

Sexuality in older age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a speedy candidate per WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#A3, as it is just one sentence (which is not even defining its topic) and an external link. However, it miraculously survived VfD as "keep" last year (see here for the debate) but has not been expanded or cleaned up since. We should encourage creation of a real article on the topic and replace this speedy candidate by a good red link - chances are that a newly created article will be better than this. Delete unless completely rewritten by the time the AfD ends. Kusma (討論) 08:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that people are actively expanding / rewriting this article, it can be kept. Kusma (討論) 13:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Twice as big now... 2 x 0 = ? --T-rex 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm not convinced by your expansion. Kusma (討論) 07:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loraine Jarblum[edit]

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

Non-notable editor who does not meet WP:BIO. Related article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William (Bill) Jarblum. There are also WP:COI concerns. Eluchil404 08:28, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Movie Studio[edit]

Virtual Movie Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

half not notable; half vanity article Shallowminded 09:16, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ant Simulation Video Games[edit]

Ant Simulation Video Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hopeless non-notable original research. Basically a list of 3 games and an attempt at original research. The fact that someone found enough excitement in Simant to write an entire article about it is disturbing enough. We don't need yet another article trying to analyze this niche of video games. MartinDK 09:20, 30 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. Agent 86 00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island Music Hall of Fame[edit]

Long Island Music Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speedy deletion for spam was overturned at WP:DRV [34] and is now here for full consideration. Procedural listing, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 09:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was already planning on updating it per my comments in the DRV. Proving you wrong was just a fortunate side effect. *Spark* 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 20:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World (language)[edit]

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

Estoeric computer programming language based on Brainfuck invented by a 16 year old. Previously deleted in AfD. Delete per precedent. Doesn't even warrant a redirect to Brainfuck, if you ask me. Ohconfucius 10:30, 30 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. I'm only closing the debate; someone else performed the delete. →Bobby← 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Capel[edit]

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

Vanity article by non-notable editor, article name same as author name. Fit to be speedied, but following process... DeLarge 10:35, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Words (P!nk Song)[edit]

Words (P!nk Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the old days of the 45 RPM, this would have been known as a "B-side". In itself not notable. Delete per WP:SONG. Ohconfucius 10:36, 30 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' - clearly the one thing that is shown from all the below, is that there is no consensus to delete - thus keep.  Glen  19:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia[edit]

Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article fails Wikipedia:No original research, and is fancruft. A collection of conjectured aspects. The article has (cough) "references", but the references are merely points to mentions in fancruft, or spin off fiction (perhaps an author mentioned a rank of "Master Chief Petty Officer of the Starfleet" in one book, and that's therefore justification for conjecturing a rank, where the rank lies, and designing a badge for the conjectured and non-canon rank). The article even states, in one section that "The following are several variations of Admiralty insignia, as proposed in fanon sources of the Star Trek Expanded Universe". It's full of weasel terms and original work (classic weasel phrases such as "... it is plausible that ...", "... may be explained by ..." and "It has been also speculated that ..." Completely original research, much of it badly referenced (if at all) and unverified. Delete. Proto::type 11:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is not a RS if we cant source the fiction that created the subject then why even ever have an encyclopedia? If a user does not do some research how can an encyclopedia be written? without research we have two options for creating articles, 1. copypaste then from some where else. 2. just summarize one other page. I agree that this article needs a re-write, but since when is an article that needs help deleted? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to bury the hatchet with some of these users but I have to say I kind of agree with you, Beta. The original nomination really sounded to me like :I dont like this article so lets delete it" and thus ignored the work and sourcing that has gone into it. I am *trying* to do a rewrite but it will take longer than the 5 days this article has. Thanks, though, for telling us how you feel. -Husnock 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second Betacommand “If a user does not do some research how can an encyclopedia be written”? By deleating such things you are no better than the rabble rousers who burned books simply because they didn’t see any value in them. KEEP KEEP KEEP Mystar 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - agreed. And moving the page has obscured this to some degree. The current artcile is "alternate" ranks and insignia, but the original title made it too obvious that this was all orignial research with the name conjectural ranks and insignia. -- Whpq 02:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary edit point[edit]

  • They use the Cc-by-nc-2.5 license (attribution non-commercial). Not entirely fair use, since you don't need to rationalise use of the material if you're not making a profit off of it, but not free enough for Wikipedia. Which I believe was a major factor in choosing the licence, since they didn't want to be just another Wikipedia fork. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 09:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Admiral's insignia section: conjecture on an outside website is still conjecture.
- Ranks made by a pin company: If such insignia haven't been shown in a comprehensive work like the Star Trek Encyclopedia, I'm suspicious... it seems like Krusty-branding something for a quick buck.
- Costume errors: I do NOT want to see that level of detail in Wikipedia articles. Would you want a Wikipedia article on a certain war movie to show a picture of a background officer's decorations, then spend a paragraph describing how certain ribbons are in the wrong order?
Those sections do not meet the article's own standards of "have been mentioned so frequently in literature and fan sources". Some of the other ranks and insignia in the article have a certain level of authenticity, being mentioned in novels or official publications. But leaving the bad sections there brings down the credibility of the whole article. Quack 688 12:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does the ST Encyclopedia really have four different versions of original series flag officer insignia? Sounds damn messy if it does. Re: those fan sites (refs 18 & 19 in the article) - I had a look there, and didn't see any mention of their sources - but if they're from the ST Encyclopedia, that's what should be listed as the reference. Since you've got the images in the table here already, there's no need to reference fan sites which show the same insignia.
Based on the comments made here, you'll need to remove all the speculative content if you want the page to survive in any form. (I've known abusive commissioned officers and warrant officers - Kosinski's "disrespect to superior officers" isn't enough to base any claims on where he fits in, or what the next insignia above and below him are. ) Quack 688 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain. I believe there are different competing sources. There are three versions of star trek encyclopedia. Each updated and sometimes existing data is altered. There are also star trek tech manuals and etc. I believe it is from that kind of citation. I do not posses all the books linked there. Husnock owns all of the books (including the ones I do not have) but unfortunately he is currently deployed and is far away from all his resources. If anyone else has the cited books that would make it easier.
Yes, well... I really want to keep article related discussion at its talk page... Can we please do that :) Afd is an unconfortable place to discuss this.
--Cat out 17:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Lee Green[edit]

Deborah Lee Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable Dasternberg 11:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Individual appears to be non-notable. Search engine results show very few that match the individual, the large majority of edits to the page come from one non-member, thus this appears to be a vanity article. I found one page that mentioned the subject's name in a list of nearly 100 "good sopranos" today, otherwise there was nothing to be found. In addition, as has already been noted at the top of the article itself, very few Wikipedia articles (perhaps none?) link to this one. Strong delete.[reply]

I don't know too much about opera, or the classical music scene in the USA, but this certainly reads as if it is describing an accomplished and notable performer. Unfortunately, it also reads as if it is a magazine/newspaper profile and I'm concerned there may be a copyvio here. I will hold back from voting until someone else can attest to notability (for example, are the orchestras named notable?) Emeraude 12:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For information: Just googled Deborah Lee Green -Wikipedia: 7 unique hits, including 1 wikipedia clone, 1 that merely says she is from the state and 5 apparently irrelevant. Emeraude 12:31, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mookin man[edit]

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

A musician of whose albums google hasn't heard of[42][43] and whose most famous work was a single distributed on a magazine sampler CD. Doesn't appear to approach WP:BAND, no sources, no google presence[44]. Deprodded. Weregerbil 12:16, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sea mallow[edit]

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

This page is a hoax at best. google:"Tunnocks+Sea+Mallow" produces 0 ghits, "Walter+Pinkerton"+mallow & "sea+mallow"+scotland are all single figures)) - Tiswas(t/c) 12:22, 30 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet ranks and insignia (third nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD G11 - blatant advertising, heavily external-linked, to chain of unrelated and non-notable local businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mengyuan[edit]

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

Blatant Spam Euwetr 12:36, 30 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 20:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Are The Dish[edit]

We Are The Dish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

nn album Ladybirdintheuk 12:39, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strathycruise[edit]

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

Not notable website, article more advertising in tone JamJar 12:48, 30 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 17:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Large pathetic galaxy[edit]

Large pathetic galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Informal definition; Practically the only references I can find are mirrors of Wikipedia and a single news story. Rampart 13:26, 30 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 (article + category).--Húsönd 20:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serb war criminals[edit]

List of Serb war criminals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Voice your opinion (19/0/1)

Part of soapboxing crusade by User:Ancient Land of Bosoni (supposedly the same as User:Bosoni?) A racial POV-fork of List of ICTY indictees, obviously with a strong political point. One way or another, it is accompanied with Category:Serb war criminals so they should go or stay in pair. Duja► 13:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ICTY-list contains all ethnicities, although serbs make up 95% of the list. We need to recognize that the serb army was much more systematic in killing and crimes than the other armies involved in the conflict - because of this the war criminals belonging to the serb army deserve a list of their own, if nothing else at least because of their huge quantity. Ancient Land of Bosoni

....Correction:Serbs are Gods, they can practically do anything and get away with it, including killing the swedish minster of foreign affairs, Anna Lindh - and have the guts to call it menatl illnes when it was clearly a case of political murder. So what I'm trying to say is, since the serbs are our Gods and all mighty I've realized that it is okey for them to delete this list. I vote for strong delete, and I've had it with you =) Ancient Land of Bosoni

This is all nonsense an to a great deal POV from the users who want to delete the article.

The users who are pro-deletion know that the ordinary "Joe Smith" does not know how o access the categories and overlooks it. Deleting the article for the list is abusrud since less people will look at it.

Now you may ask why a list if we already have a category? Besides the point I stated above looking at a list is easier. Also it is easier to come to the page and easier to search.

You may say that it is repetivie, then tell me why so many other articles are like this that start "list..." on many different language wikipedias.

Looking at this, then Wikipedia has too many redundant articles. It is a shame so many have to get deleted now.

Deleting this based on that it is repetivitive is nonsense. So far no one has stated a good reason for the deletion. Why would anyone try to hide the truth if they are criminals? This has nothing to do with their nationaility. The point is to put out the men who did these attrocities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is a positive motive. Thank you, Vseferović 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aldux they have been indictied and most of them sentenced. This list is neutral and not POV. No one is trying to put in false information. Unless you do not believe in the "world", as some do, justly accusing them for war crimes. Thank you, Vseferović 19:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if you guys are simply trying to do is to vote in order to get your points out trying to convice others like these users. Can't you see that no one has tried to moblize votes against the deletion. The point is votes so not work as Estavisti has shown when we tried to vote against the redundant template Municipalities of RS. He told me Wikipedia is not a democracy. If we take his point into consideration then voting does nothing. (It stated in Wiki policy). Simply being inflamatory is not a reason. Explain how it would offend anyone? It states the war criminals it is not implying that all serbs are criminals. (A lot of military generals did cause autrocities). Please explain further. Thank you, Vseferović 21:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree that Wikipedia is not the place to launch a crusade deleting this list will not make it go away. This is one of the things that will pop up again and again. We should have a guideline that controversial and inflamatory information of this type should be only published under peer revision and edits be suggested to a neutral committee who approves or disaproves the edits prior to be on public view. Alf photoman 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before I'm accused of being partisan one way or the other on this issue, let me say that I'm simply concerned with the encyclopaedic nature of this entry. Firstly, there is only one page which links to it, Bosniak a word I had never heard of until now so I would never have gone there and so never followed the link. If I was interested in finding a list of Serb war criminals, I certainly wouldn't start by typing in "List of Serb war criminals"; I'd try Serbia, or Bosnia or some such easy title, and still not get there. This is one of the problems with Lists of any descritpion - attached to an article they can be useful. As stand alone articles, they are not going to be found. For this reason, I am voting to delete. If someone wants to merge the information into a more suitable article, that's great. Emeraude 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Svetlana Miljkovic 01:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be a number of categories covering war criminals, including List of war criminals, War criminals, People convicted of war crimes, People convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, People indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. There appears to be some duplication here - what's the difference between a War criminals and People convicted of war crimes? I think the War criminals and People convicted of war crimes categories need to be merged with List of war criminals. I also think using ethnic tags in a war criminal category would be a dangerous precedent. iruka 06:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Serbs are Gods, they can practically do anything and get away with it, including killing the swedish minster of foreign affairs, Anna Lindh - and have the guts to call it menatl illnes when it was clearly a case of political murder. So what I'm trying to say is, since the serbs are our Gods and all mighty I've realized that it is okey for them to delete this list. I vote for strong delete, and I've had it with you =) Ancient Land of Bosoni

Bosoni, give it a rest.Osli73 19:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really care anymore whether the list is deleted or kept. However, Osli73 you have serious mental issues yourself. I mean I am not a doctor, but go check yourself out for your own benefit. I think Wikipedia is actually getting to you. Just look at your comment, it is absurd if you are not Serbian (which of course you have stated numerous times)... Thank you Vseferović 05:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum, Kseferovic. Thank you. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I neither vandalize nor attack users, but how can someone write a comment like that. "Serbs are Gods...", if he was trying to be sarcastic then he failed at it. I mean people have been giving constructive suggestions and arguments over whether or not to keep or delete the article, and then Osli writes an absurd comment like that. Several users have left comments above that do not fit the constructive encyclopedic goals of wikipedia. Thanks, Vseferović 19:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you check, you'll see Bosoni wrote that. I've indented Osli's comment to make it clearly separated. --81.132.189.183 00:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 20:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vennis[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 14:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Original Research being done to determine the true history of the sport
  2. At least one originally researched paper written or being written to be published on the sport
  3. Rome was not thought of one day at school and neither was Vennis
The first two go right out the window as original research, and the third can be dismissed by the following clarification: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. As the guideline states, "it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it". →Bobby← 14:46, 30 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. W.marsh 16:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaSara FireFox[edit]

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

Appears to be insufficiently notable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:37, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Jourdan[edit]

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

biographical article on an unreleased book, failed on criteria for notability for people or for book Janarius 14:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 03:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underthrow the Overground (album)[edit]

Underthrow the Overground (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

nn album, as per We Are The Dish Ladybirdintheuk 15:12, 30 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 but due the incoming links I am going to redirect this to Power metal. Someone with more knowledge about the topic should look at the articles listing a band's genre as "Epic metal" and address appropriately. W.marsh 18:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epic metal[edit]

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

Not a notable subgenre, totally unsourced original research, badly written and confusing (what is the difference between "trapitional epic metal" and "power metal" epic metal?!), contains no information that isn't already in other articles (power metal for example). Article was previously nominated for AFD, result was no consensus (5 delete, 4 keep). IronChris | (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Agree that Epic Metal is not its own subgenre. Bands are often listed as "Epic Power Metal" or "Epic Heavy Metal," but very rarely (or consistently) as simply "Epic Metal." The characteristics listed on the page are too vague too constitute a seperate subgenre. More of a 'sub-subgenre' than anything else.

"Epic" is used as a frequent descriptor for styles of metal, but I've rarely seen it by itself or even associated with power metal.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism per WP:CSD#G3. -- Merope 16:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chanhassen High School[edit]

Chanhassen High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; unbuilt high school, article blatant speculation Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Chanhassen High School is going to have many unique features. Every desk in the school is going to have a platinum trimming with 40 inch rims on the side. The desk has been voted "most likely to be a wheelchair" according to www.district112.org. Every student will also be designated a customized grill."
And:
"On top of the suspended building, there will be a herd of Big Angry Male Flamingos. "They will increase school efficiency by 2000%" says the district survey analyst."
It could probably be speedied as patent nonsense, but I guess we can let the debate run its course. →Bobby← 16:16, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Time Scale[edit]

Technology Time Scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Civilization Time Scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete. Original research? Google turns up answers.com (the first time I've ever seen it appear above the Wikipedia article). RobertG ♬ talk 15:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Should Civilization Time Scale and Category:Civilization Time Scale also get the axe? Same author, same lack of references or substantiation. --DachannienTalkContrib 17:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, I'm adding Civilization Time Scale above. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:48, 30 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 20:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmaceuticals (Pakistan)[edit]

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

This article is just a list of companies, it does not even deserve to be turned into a list - as there is nothing especially note worthy of listing all pharmaceutical companies in Pakistan or any country, though maybe of the world. If you look at one of the blue links (there are hardly any) most link back to articles on non-Pakistan based companies anywayLethaniol 16:05, 30 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. Sandstein 06:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lang[edit]

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

Delete. He may be notable: I hope he is, but the article does not establish it in my opinion. RobertG ♬ talk 16:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The game exists, for sure, but there's not enough verifiable information on Lang to construct an article. Trebor 23:36, 30 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, merge/redirect still possible. Also, the bulk of this article is a copy and paste job from their official history, which I will remove. W.marsh 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

130th Glasgow Company, The Boys' Brigade[edit]

130th Glasgow Company, The Boys' Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article paraphrases the parent - Boys' Brigade, without claiming any specific notability for this chapter. - Tiswas(t/c) 16:11, 30 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 20:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Reality 2[edit]

Kill Reality 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While reverting Kill Reality 2's repeatedly vandalized page, I attempted to verify the information to be sure I did not revert good information. Searching for a second season of Kill Reality resulted in no results, except those here at Wikipedia. Sources I checked included http://www.imdb.org/, http://www.tvguide.com/, and http://www.eonline.com. (the producer of the show's original season). One reference indicates that the show was cancelled/ended after its first season. There are only three Wikipedia encyclopedic articles linking to this page, along with a few user pages (including warnings about defacement of the page). I have no problem keeping this page alive if the information is true, but otherwise it seems to be a breeding ground for vandalism. (P.S. This is my first afd request, so please be kind if I did anything improper or un-Wiki-ish. Thanks! :-) --Willscrlt 10:39, 30 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. Sandstein 20:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Samsa (band)[edit]

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

This oft-speedy deleted page was restored by A DRV consensus citing evidence of notability, for which, see the DRV. The version here AfD'ed is the most recent, but gems may be found in the article history. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:32, 30 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, single purpose account discounted. Sandstein 06:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interreality[edit]

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

This article appears to be original research. The user name leads me to believe that the author is the same person as the originator of the theory, as stated in the article ("defined by Dr. Jacob van Kokswijk"). LittleOldMe 16:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: - It might be possible to recreate this article later, if/when verifiable, reliable sources can be provided. Until then, this is definitely unsourced original research, hence not properly encyclopedic. Doc Tropics 19:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I recommend that the above request to keep the article be discounted because it is the user's one-and-only contribution to Wikipedia. LittleOldMe 14:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry User:LittleOldMe: Is a WP user only a serious user when he/she has an ancien WP record? Or don't you have arguments against my amazement? I still don't understand nor get clear why this word, used since the 60ties, in many different context, also in peer reviewed science, even in a popular television programm, should be neologism or original research... What I read in this article is an impressive and interesting encyclopedic (hi)story from cartoon phantasy to criminal behavior, with links to a lot of excisting WP data and other sources. What do you know that I don't know? Please convince me or remove your comment! --00hara 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing against newcomers, in fact, a review of my postings will show that I have welcomed, assisted, and defended newcomers. However, I made the recommendation to discount your argument because I suspect that you are engaging in sock puppetry because your entire focus is on the this one article. Your posts show all the characteristics of a sock puppet, as such I have created a suspected sock puppet entry. LittleOldMe 10:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but it seems to me that you sink your teeth into a virtual suspect, or play the wise shot, in stead of looking objective to the text. BTW, I don't like to discuss your defective suspicions, because you ruin more than you welcome. Discussion closed. --00hara 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Haven (CDP), Connecticut[edit]

North Haven (CDP), Connecticut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

CDP is identical to the town of the same name. All information on CDP article is already in the town article. --Polaron | Talk 16:37, 30 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, nowhere to merge to now. W.marsh 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exstreamer[edit]

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

nn software, and I'm unsure A7 applies to software Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?) 16:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Joely Bear Appeal[edit]

The Joely Bear Appeal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod from way back when. Little known charity. The page is clearly contradicting Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Pascal.Tesson 16:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tried to do a bit of cleanup. Not much more than a stub now (well... it wasn't before either), but obviously the "calendar of events" thing had to go. --DachannienTalkContrib 17:06, 30 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. Mr Fruitsmaak, you are welcome to do the explaining you suggested. DGG, it's allowed (per WP:CSD#G4 e contrario) to recreate this in an encyclopedic fashion, with reliable independent sources attesting to the department's notability. As pointed out by Pan Dan, a redirect would be of questionable value. Sandstein 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systems Engineering Department, KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia[edit]

Systems Engineering Department, KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I gather that most university departments are not notable enough to have their own articles, and nothing indicates that this one is an exception. Spammy besides. Speedied as copyvio, recreated with some paraphrasing, prodded and deprodded. Pan Dan 17:04, 30 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. W.marsh 06:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Stanford[edit]

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

This article was speedy-deleted under CSD A7. A DRV consensus overturned, finding the cited sources sufficient evidence of an assertion of notability. This matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work."
While Stanford is indeed published. I can find no evidence that the biography he penned received multiple independant reviews. It has no sales on Amazon, and I can't find much about it on google. That being said, I did find an article which suggests that Stanford is working on creating a televised bio which could boost his notability. If anyone can throw some more sources in the article, I'll be happy to revisit this issue. →Bobby← 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the lack of sales is because your link is to the 1994 biography. The 2003 biography has the title The Outcast's Outcast. There are reviews of some of the books on Amazon (please see my comment below). Alan Pascoe 20:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, forgot I wasn't signed in. Barnabypage 18:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, gaming clan. NawlinWiki 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Own and Bone[edit]

Own and Bone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No other pages, aside from a redirect, link to this page. It seems more of an advertisement for the clan. Mwutz 17:20, 30 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. By A7. →Bobby← 17:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collin McCarver[edit]

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

Doesn't state it's importance, possible vanity. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:21, 30 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 already moved elsewhere. Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Nikolić (war criminal)[edit]

Dragan Nikolić (war criminal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As per the other spelling above. POV title, unneeded with a non-pov titled article that exists Localzuk(talk) 16:30, 30 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 20:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Nikolic (war criminal)[edit]

Dragan Nikolic (war criminal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The redirect is a POV and useless redirect. The original article is suffice, no redirect is needed. Localzuk(talk) 15:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The original article refered to by the nom is Dragan Nikolić (commander). Doc Tropics 17:16, 30 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 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ediê[edit]

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

Contested prod. This article is about a non-notable, madeup language, with no reference except a page at a social networking site. WP:NFT. --Elonka 22:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, about a language which does not yet exist. -Elmer Clark 04:22, 30 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 Let's do it this way... find reliable third party sources (see WP:RS, WP:V) with information on this then we'll keep the article. W.marsh 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Goo Girls[edit]

German Goo Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is inappropriate for anyone to be viewing on Wikipedia. There is also some vanity involved with a user on the discussion page stating he owns the rights to the production of the German Goo Girls. Debaser23 10:49, 30 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 18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hajj passport[edit]

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

Reason The article does not cite any evidence that a "Hajj passport" exists. It is possibly total fiction.

The one reference I can verify (the claim that a Hajj passport is issued by the United Kingdom) is untrue, the British Passport Office does not issue different types of passport. To issue a document only persons of a specified religion would be considered discrimination.

A google search for Hajj passport finds only this article and mirrors. TiffaF 16:45, 29 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew family[edit]

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

No references or sources to were this huge amount of information has come from, there are barely any links to this page and this page hardly seems relevant to anything either. Debaser23 10:09, 30 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. Merge still possible. W.marsh 17:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mount Waldorf School[edit]

Michael Mount Waldorf School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Come on guys this is a waste of space. We are an encyclopedia not a list of schools. Debaser23 10:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think "The nomination also lacks an apparent understanding of punctuation and sentence structure" is completely pointless towards this debate. Considering I am new here I am still a little bit confused about all of the policies so at least try to be a little bit considerate. I just thought it is a little irrelevant if we put every so called 'special' school on here. Debaser23 20:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (reply to Highfructose) "Special" and "unique" do not equal "notable," unless outside publishers have taken note of the school's uniqueness and decided to therefore publish things about the school. But it doesn't look like they have in this case. And, association with a non-notable (or even notable) recording artist, youth conference, or organic market, do not imply notability of the school. Pan Dan 00:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 20:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel O'Connor[edit]

Nigel O'Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is just a vanity page. This person has probably made it of himself to show off to his friends. He has clearly achieved nothing so why the hell make a Wikipedia page? Delete... Quickly. Debaser23 11:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks I'm new here so I don't really no what I'm doing. I'll get the hand of it eventually. In otehr news I'm extremely surprised this page doesn't have more people wanting it deleted. it should have speedy deletion is anything.Debaser23 19:49, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron_Gunzburger[edit]

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

Mamma mia. This crap is mind blowing. This guy is known for nothing other than a blog and was clearly written by the man himself. I hereby decree this wiki page "nominated for deletion". Amanduhh 03:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable band, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 21:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fool (rock band)[edit]

The Fool (rock band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Basically a vanity page repeatedly edited by the same people. The only link is to the bands Myspace page and they haven't released an album. The article basically just explains were they have played. All in all these seems a pretty pointless waste of space. Matthewbarnard 09:21, 30 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 move but article needs to be revised. W.marsh 04:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kruse (inventor)[edit]

Tom Kruse (inventor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pure vanity page clearly created to promote commercial interests. Bruceberry 17:04, 29 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley William Moore II[edit]

Stanley William Moore II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears non-notable: I could not find any reliable source that is independent on the subject and backs up what's written in there. Tizio 17:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect is what we typically do here. W.marsh 04:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June Child[edit]

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

Delete. NN, beyond being the wife of Marc Bolan. Ckessler 17:41, 30 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JR King[edit]

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

Twelve-year-old author just published first book, first in a trilogy. Bully for him/her, but not notable. Book's sales rank on Amazon.com is higher than 85,000. Further, the publisher of the book is Reagent Press, heretofore known only to publish Robert Stanek novels, and there has been plenty of controversy here about him and his notability (See Talk:Robert Stanek). —Wrathchild (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also including the following in this AfD:

Also note: Category:Skyhall

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tetralectic constant[edit]

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

Utter blithering nonsense. "Tetralectic" is a theological term (see these google results) which has nothing to do with mathematics, and may be a neologism even in theology; and the content is gibberish. Septentrionalis 18:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only non-religious Google hit on "tetralectic" appears to be [48] and copies of that text. I don't know Spanish but my machine translation gave no verifiable sources and looked like non-notable hype to me. It mentions "Javier Ruiz", who must be the discoverer of the "famous result" in Tetralectic constant (and possibly also the author). Apart from mentioning "tetralectic" and primes, I see no relation between the Google hit and the mathematics of the article. I haven't examined the Spanish Google hits on "tetraléctica".
I guessed how the poorly explained columns in the article are defined.
Let the left unnamed column be x.
F6 = number with x-1 3's followed by one 4 = (10^x+2)/3
PRIMES = pi(10^x) (number of primes below 10^x)
COMPOSITES = F6 - PRIMES (why use F6 here instead of 10^x?)
C/P = COMPOSITES/PRIMES = (F6 - PRIMES)/PRIMES = F6/PRIMES - 1
Dif Major-mInor = (C/P in next line) - (C/P in this line)
log is the natural logarithm.
By the prime number theorem, PRIMES = pi(10^x) is approximately
(10^x)/(log(10^x)) = (10^x)/(x*log(10))
Then C/P = F6/PRIMES - 1 is approximately
(10^x/3) / ((10^x)/(x*log(10))) = x*log(10)/3 - 1
Dif Major-mInor for the line with x is approximately
((x+1)*log(10)/3 - 1) - (x*log(10)/3 - 1) = log(10)/3 = 0.76752836...
I guess from the article that the so-called "Tetralectic constant" is the article's mentioned "constant c < 0.767661013369489", and that this c is intended to be the limit of "Dif Major-mInor" when x tends to infinite. Then we simply get c = log(10)/3. This c value is the result of (apparently arbitrarily) choosing to define F6 = (10^x+2)/3, and PRIMES = pi(10^x).
Once the meaning of the undefined terms has been guessed, this is elementary mathematics. I see no value in it. I guess the author just played around with prime counts and thought it was significant that a constant emerged from some arbitrary choices.
A lot could be done to clarify the article but I think the end result would be uninteresting and useless statistics and observations. I see nothing notable which isn't already placed much better in prime counting function and prime number theorem. And the term "Tetralectic constant" has no reference and no Google hits, so there is no reason to redirect. PrimeHunter 02:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per PrimeHunter. Note also that the F6 column (among others) was obviously generated on a computer (without understanding of what it means), because of the trailing 0s. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Carver[edit]

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

This is a hoax. There are no relevant hits in Google on any variation of this name or "Enrico Pauli"; neither man is mentioned in our comprehensive History of television article; and neither man is mentioned in either of these works:

I also checked the Dictionary of Scientific Biography and a couple other scientific biographical dictionaries; no mention. The "inventor of television" should be considerably more prominent than this; therefore this article seems to be patent nonsense and I'm moving to delete it as untrue. --phoebe 18:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...And that's at best. Delete. I wish there was a speedy criteria for blatant hoaxes. -- Kicking222 20:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Wright[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:BIO. This is a footballer who has never made any senior appearances (see soccerbase) and is not even attached to a club. Gasheadsteve 19:36, 30 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. Sandstein 06:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping e-mail abuse[edit]

Stopping e-mail abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A tips guide masquerading as an encyclopedia article, and failing at both. Possibly it could be moved to Wikibooks Dtcdthingy 19:53, 30 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 zapped per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 21:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ICT Class of 2007[edit]

This is simply a class roster Class projects, author has removed speedy request & prod SkierRMH 19:55, 30 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. Sandstein 06:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rockford masters commission[edit]

Rockford masters commission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nothing particularly notable about this group. It's written like a sales pamphlet. No sources other than the group's own web page. [Check Google hits] Ghits number 558 but only 29 are "unique" and none of them are very useful. Contested speedy. ... discospinster talk 20:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Rockford Master's Commission was the second Master's Commission program to become an affiliate of the Master's Commission International network. Their director, Jeremy Deweerdt, sits on the board of the MCIN and is head of the European Master's Commission Network. The Rockford Master's Commission is one the premier Master's Commission programs in the entire world and many other Master's Commission programs look to them as a solid model for what a Master's Commission should look like.

The Rockford Master's Commission is a model that other Master's Commissions, Churches, youth groups, and non-profit organizations, look to for direction. Someone who does not know about the Master's Commission "world" would not understand the purpose of this article. However there are 10s of thousands of Master's Commission students and alumni worldwide as well as members of the church who would benefit from this article.

Jamesbarlow143 20:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesbarlow143 21:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references added are all to the Rockford masters commission's own sites. You need to provide reliable external sources as evidence of notability. ... discospinster talk 16:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted by admin per (CSD A7). Agent 86 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointed Sticks[edit]

Non-notable band, only together 3 years, won one contest, nn persons list at end of article SkierRMH 20:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Harris (footballer)[edit]

James Harris (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non-notable footballer, never made a professional appearance, appears to be without a club fchd 20:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. So tagged. Simões (talk/contribs) 20:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected to Activism per WP:BOLD. Aaron 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social activist[edit]

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

This article is simply a list of names. The list is subjective, similiar to other opinion categories like "List of gay icons". Bytebear 20:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the topic should be kept, but not the list, shouldn't the article be Social activism or as Simoes points out, Activism? (Note: Social activism redirects to Social activist currently.) Bytebear 22:03, 30 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 an unsourced noelogism slang term, this would likely have been an uncontroversial speedy. Given that, and the discussion below, I've deleted. Friday (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsbad grimple[edit]

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

Original nomination wound up as no consensus; Deletion Review narrowly endorsed that result. However no meaningful improvement/reliable sources have been added to the article since that AFD, and I believe both discussions were compromised by the disruptive comments by now-banned user Billy Blythe. So I'm bringing this back to AFD for a second look. Delete as neologism/hoax. -- nae'blis 20:47, 30 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 Withdrawn by nominator. --Rory096 21:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional rooms[edit]

List of fictional rooms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete - What makes these rooms notable? That they appear in any kind of fiction? Couldn't every work of fiction set inside a building appear on this list? This is not well defined enough. --Vossanova o< 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect seems harmless. If anyone wants to merge the content that would probably be okay. W.marsh 04:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Morrison[edit]

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

Article about a non notable scout camp. Nothing distinguishing at all Nuttah68 21:06, 30 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 ViridaeTalk 07:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q the band[edit]

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

Page has been admittedly created by members of the band, who I do not believe understand the purpose of a band article or the WP:Music notability guidelines. See User talk:MER-C for what I mean. Contested prod, but still does not assert nobability. Tractorkingsfan 21:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 04:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuckpaypal.net[edit]

Fuckpaypal.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I beleive Article meets the criteria for Wikipedia:speedy deletions as very little has changed since T-rex gave initial deletion warning on date of article creation. It has been suggested by JoshuaZ to have an open debate before deletion.

I see Many reason for Fuckpaypal.net's deletion. They include:

Hu12 21:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (emphasis mine)
The mention in this hacker magazine, the article in which is not actually given in the link (that I could find) doesnt constitute multiple; even if we include the "trivial" link from a slashdot post. Also, Alexa.com rank (I know I hate them too) is over 1 million... delete  Glen  21:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about merging or renaming this into an article Criticisms of PayPal. I would note that buyers and sellers routinely have beefs with PayPal, Ebay, Mastercard, Visa, Amex, etc, and buyer and seller fraud is a big problem. Ebay even has a "Dispute Console", indicating that they expect disputes. The only thing notable about this dispute is that he put up the fuckpaypal.net website. Large companies deal with larger disputes and buyer fraud regularly, spammers and phishers scam the public for millions. A $600 gyp is not notable, unless it happens to me, in which case you will see a WP page on it. Tubezone 08:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alabaster Reem[edit]

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

Alabster Reem does not exist Pontificake 21:29, 30 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 per WP:SNOW. This was a procedural nom and no valid deletion rational has been given at this point and the subject meets WP:BIO. As the person who brought the procedural nom I am withdrawing it.--Isotope23 14:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Phil Hine[edit]

This ariticle has undergone an incomplete AfD, PROD, PROD removal, and re-PROD; all without the editors commenting on this. I'm bringing this to AfD so this can go through an actual community review. The original PROD reason was "notability", which I assume is supposed to mean the PROD'er finds this person non-notable. The article is completely unverified, but I'm not convinced it is unverifiable and the subject may meet WP:BIO. Regardless, I have no real opinion here, this is just procedural so an actual consensus can hopefully be reached.--Isotope23 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No policy-based argument for keeping has been submitted. I would have speedied this as blatant spam (WP:CSD#G11). Sandstein 06:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zapak[edit]

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

This was originally prodded by User:SkierRMH with the comment "Spam, even with extensive re-writes this article is simply a long ad for a bunch of softwear". The prod was removed without comment by User:220.227.55.18 (talk), an apparent single purpose account. In 220.227.55.18's defense, he left a comment on SkierRMH's talk page (since blanked) asking how/if the article could be saved. SkierRMH re-added the prod tag, which is not the right thing to do, so I've taken the article to AfD instead. It does smell somewhat spammy, and I think it's a not-yet-launched portal, which would fall short of our notability guidelines, but I'm not entirely sure, and I'm a little concerned about the prodder's peremptory behavior (and his spelling), so I'm not sure of my own position on this yet. Therefore, this nomination should be considered procedural (although I reserve the right to choose a side later after further study). Xtifr tälk 21:52, 30 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. Text available on request for any moves. Sandstein 05:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Ice (wrestling)[edit]

Fire and Ice (wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fire and Ice were a short lived team in WCW. The article can't be expanded much more, and doesn't serve much purpose. There is many wrestling articles like this, so this is just the start of teams nominations. Just because they have a team name doesn't make them more notable. RobJ1981 22:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn; consensus to keep in any event. Agent 86 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Eaton[edit]

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

Still not notable Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:17, 30 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. Agent 86 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samethanahalli Rama Rao[edit]

Samethanahalli Rama Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Possibly notable but I don't find him in my copy of Britannica 2007 and he has only 42 google hits, most of these being Wikipedia mirrors Mikker (...) 22:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or maybe stronger. At least some of his books can be verified at [52], including plays and the autobiography. --Mereda 11:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC) And it's not a good source, but [53] credits him with a book that became a TV miniseries by G. V. Iyer. Mereda 13:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InsurgentSort[edit]

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

Not a widely recognized (or performant) sort algorithm; clearly intended as a joke. Milyle 22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— 30sman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I know of two commercial products that utilize this algorithm.

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

The result was delete Feel free to recreate once reliable third-party sources are found, but mere promises that they will appear someday aren't enough. W.marsh 17:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrews University Conservative and Unionist Association[edit]

Delete - although a branch of a national political party, this club itself isn't notable. Otherwise we would have articles on every major political party's branch in every university and in every town. See the debate on the St Andrews' SNP branch here for further discussion. The content of course leaves a lot to be desired too - a huge chunk of quoted text plus a list of student committee members. The unsubstantiated and entirely unconvincing claim of notability does however save it from a speedy, I guess. --SandyDancer 22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, to a large extent. However, perhaps, in its establishment in the 1860s it may well be amongst the oldest Conservative groups at any University; considering there were only three universities in England at this time; Oxford, Cambridge and Durham, I do believe. I think this ought to be looked into. If not then, true, it is not notable.--Couter-revolutionary 23:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But St Andrews is in Scotland and there were more than three universities there. Also from the article it is clear that groups from Glasgow and Edinburgh universities were older.Catchpole 08:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per deletion of similar articles on student associations. Catchpole 08:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment longetivity = notability? I think not. And where are these "good references"? There isn't one, apart from the huge quote from an old newspaper which makes up most of the article. --SandyDancer 21:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, longevity often equals notability. As for the good references, I have no idea where they are. I was hoping somebody who cares about this article would rise to the challenge and produce them. Upp◦land 21:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well that would be good, yes. "Multiple non-trivial references" are needed. --SandyDancer 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep This should be a notably sized branch and thus worth including.DGG 23:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity does not seem to constitute notability, see the Oxford Monarchists, recently deleted, which was one of the oldest Societies in Oxford.--Couter-revolutionary 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is no precedent. As the comment of the closing admin makes clear, it was the lack of cited sources that was the problem, and that seems to be the problem with this one too. Upp◦land 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 05:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once a month cooking[edit]

Once a month cooking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Somebody's trivial freetime activity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OAMC (talk • contribs). — OAMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: The AfD was added by a new user 5 minutes after account creation with account name that matches article acronym. —Doug Bell talk 19:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imperar[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 22:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy McIntyre[edit]

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

The mine mine might be notable, but this prospector most certainly is not. Mikker (...) 22:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 03:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Misshapes[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable and looking for consensus. Article placed by PR team. AKeen 22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tannin Schwartzstein[edit]

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

Reason the page should be deleted: non-notable --Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 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. Sandstein 05:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional rooms[edit]

List of fictional rooms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was recently AfD'd and withdrawn before I could add my input, so I prodded it and it was removed citing the reason being that it is "no different from any other fictional item list". This is an unmaintainable, unsourced, unencyclopedic, potentially endless list. What makes this subject notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Who set the criteria to only include fictional rooms in real buildings? I don't see the usefulness of this list. VegaDark 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and Change Title to something like fictional rooms in real buildings. The problem is the scope of the article is too big as it currently is. I feel like it could be useful and interesting, in case someone wants to know if a room they saw in a movie actually exists in reality. Sourcing is the problem, but that might be fixable. --Tractorkingsfan 23:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(AMA) 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure you can so easily cite precedent in cases like this. Does the existence of an article on Tom Hanks create a precedent for an article about me? I think the comparison is fair. Also, just because we have X doesn't mean we automatically need Y.--Dmz5 09:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument would make sense if you believe that the War Room of the White House or the Basement of the Alamo is less significant than anything in, say, List_of_fictional_brands_in_South_Park. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More to your point; yes, I do abhor inconsistent application of principle. If there is not a need to remove other fictional list articles, especially those with arguably equivalent or lower notability, there should not be a need to remove this one. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those who can't be bothered to read the articles they are voting on, the intro paragraph indicates the following scope: This is a list of fictional rooms or accessible spaces in structures or establishments that are or were otherwise real, but the rooms/spaces described do not and never did exist. (boldface mine) - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 06:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you're (at least partially) talking to me, why the attitude? The reason I put "change title" in my vote is because, though I read the article and am capable of understanding the scope laid out there, I think the article could still do with a title change, I often think its a good idea for an article's purpose to be clearly understandable from the title. That way you know what's going on right away. The way it is, the title makes you think you are going to be reading about any fictional room in any fictional locale ever imagined, and then the first paragraph narrows it down. Why not have the scope defined from the get-go? Sorry to activate your condescencion reflex. --Tractorkingsfan 17:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In a way this distinction makes the article even worse; any conceivable angle of minutiae could be fair game in such a list, and you could create "list of famous people who did not own dogs but who starred in movies in which their characters owned dogs" and "list of fictional people with first names that are the same as names of delegates to the United Nations."--Dmz5 09:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are examples of coincidences; this is an entirely intentional story device. BCoates 00:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Alright, I hear that. Your ninja-like reasoning has convinced me. Let's delete it. I was just kind of focused on the wrong thing here. Delete --Tractorkingsfan 09:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • In that case you may want to cross our your original "Keep and change title" comment at the top to avoid confusing the closing admin. VegaDark 20:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused. You're advocating deletion because the article title you want is too unwieldy? - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think this list is finite?--Dmz5 09:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The number of "rooms or accessable spaces" mentioned by a WP:RS is large and very slowly growing but finite. The fraction that are fictional rooms in non-fictional buildings is a tiny fraction of that, both finite and reasonably small. If filled out and sourced, this could be the starting point for a nice little article on the literary device. BCoates 11:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This raises a POV issue, because who is to say what "well known" means? Yes, a climactic scene of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure takes place at the Alamo, but is the "fictional room" in which the scene happens notable?--Dmz5 09:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30k ghits, pretty good for a four-word phrase describing a place that doesn't exist.[54]. Lots of usage not directly related to the movie as a general piece of pop culture. BCoates 11:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the main character spends the majority of the movie looking for it, I'd say, uh, yes. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasspeedy delete —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junjdy[edit]

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

Probable hoax, google traces the term only to the "Australian Yowie Research Centre", not the most reliable source. -- Shunpiker 23:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Happee[edit]

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

No indication of passing WP:MUSIC. A Google search shows no non-trivial reliable mentions, and two albums on Amazon with unlisted labels. Speedied four times, prodded, deleted, and recreated. Pan Dan 23:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When curiosity met insanity[edit]

When curiosity met insanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable webcomic, speedied already as db-web; prod removed by author. Danny Lilithborne 23:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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