< November 7 November 9 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in fighting games[edit]

List of characters in fighting games (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

there are already seperate articles which list a franchise's characters.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip Laurence (talk • contribs) .

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

The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenix Chronicles[edit]

The Phoenix Chronicles (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Article fails to demonstrate that the series is "widely anticipated" as required by Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Not yet published books. --Swpb 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Not only there's a clear majority for deletion, as the arguments for keeping were hardly any relevant to the policies presented for deletion, namely WP:WEB and WP:V, which the article clearly fails. Sockpuppets and the Pokémon test did not help.--Húsönd 02:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you care to provide any solid proof for sockpuppets or are we meant to just believe you off hand. If you have evidence of sockpuppets please post it, otherwise it's a dubious move. Douglasnicol 16:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spacebattles.com[edit]

Spacebattles.com (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Contested PROD with "fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable forum/website, nothing is referenced, no chance of anything being referenced", however it was contested. I wholeheartedly agree with this reasoning. I don't see any reliable independent third party sources, nor do I think there will be any. My googling has not found any as of yet. Fails the Alexa test (~190K), if that happens to be your thing. Doesn't rank highly on Big-Boards either. Delete as failing WP:V and WP:WEB. Wickethewok 01:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being the 307th forum in activity is not a good thing. I would normally use such a statistic to argue for deletion. --- RockMFR 00:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article can always be restored if material is discovered at some point, but its not like this article was just created. Its been sourceless and a violation of WP:V for 1.5 years. Wickethewok 06:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And its not like anyone was told of this violation and didn't see a need to rectify a problem that was unknown. And do note, it is easier to do then it is to undo. Trying to prevent the article from being deleted appears to be rather difficult. Getting the article restored after its already been deleted is going to be worse. So rather then give the article a chance, its condemned and then deleted making it effectively impossible for the article to even attempt to be fixed because its now in a situation where no editors can do anything to it. Alyeska 07:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If its deleted, you can always get a personal copy of it to work on in your user space until its up to WP specs. Think of it like your car getting inspected: if it fails inspection, your car isn't confiscated, its just not allowed to be on the road until it passes inspection. Wickethewok 07:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, you even have to admit that the AFD came about rather suddenly, there was no notice put up about verifying sources or anything beforehand. Some sort of warning would have been nice, and at least courteous. Instead, the AFD comes up and that gives practically no time to counter it. Douglasnicol 20:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And therefore, that cheapens the AfD process and calls into suspicion the motives of the individual who opened this can of worms in the first place. However, he is a bit of a newbie and therefore I will assume good faith.  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk to me :D 20:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may, but it seems some people just want to delete it out of hand. I'll repeat a 'warning' template giving people time to get the relevant info would be a basic courtesy, instead of just jumping in for a VfD. It shows very poor form if that happens, there should be a template warning of the lack of relevant material and then give it so long to redress that. A sudden VfD is not right. Douglasnicol 22:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a valid reason to keep an article. --- RockMFR 23:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, than someone should get cracking on getting all the other unverified pages deleted. Guess I'll have to start the ball rolling. MarineTanker 01:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear, let me help too. Then I'll just get RockMFR to singlehandedly deal with the giant mess which will doubtless result!!  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk to me :D 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's legitimate, go ahead. However, try to remember not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Also, you should note RockMFR is in no way at all obligated to take any part at all in the deletion discussions that you seem adament on creating. --Wafulz 04:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guidelines are extentions of policies, in order help judge whether an artilce meets WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR a little more quickly. Regardless, no such evidence related to these policies has been presented. --Wafulz 17:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Comment And now I want a copy of the page as promised by other people in this discussion and the admin. I want the copy located at the following location. User:Alyeska/Spacebattles.com Alyeska 06:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As do I. User:E. Sn0 =31337=/Spacebattles.com You know the drill.  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk to me :D 06:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And where is that copy of the Spacebattles page that I was promised by nearly every person who contributed to this vote? I quite litteraly need a copy because I do not have a copy on my hard drive. Alyeska 00:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20 largest cities in Nevada[edit]

20 largest cities in Nevada (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Do we need it? It's unneeded WP:LC. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 01:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Based on this list, it appears that Nevada doesn't have 20 cities that could be considered "cities". Fan-1967 19:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as redundant (to War of the Gods) as requested by the article's creator – Gurch 23:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Gods (Part 1)[edit]

War of the Gods (Part 1) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Contested PROD. Yanksox 01:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomanganitalk 13:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Covington[edit]

Contested PROD. Yanksox 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, as it seems pointless relisting this for more participation when this isn't really a deletion issue. Anyone is free to merge and redirect without AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghadius[edit]

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

Contested PROD Yanksox 01:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Los Gigantes[edit]

Los Gigantes (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Contested PROD. Yanksox 01:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewritten to shift subject from resort to cliffs.--Húsönd 02:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was MERGE into a separate section in Cledus T. Judd. There was enough of a merge desire voiced to sway me to making the least-destructive close, which is Merge rather than Delete. I did add a ((sources)) to the new section. Inclusion of the squirrel song in the Judd overloads that short article a bit with squirrel-song material... so it's not ideal. But I didn't see enough of a consensus or argument to outright delete it. Herostratus 03:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Squirrel Had To Die[edit]

The Squirrel Had To Die (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Contested PROD. Yanksox 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, his discography doesn't mention it. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 02:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It seems persuasive that as this isn't a character, as in someone that actually appeared in the show, it shouldn't be merged into a list of characters. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Nagala[edit]

Admiral Nagala (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Contested PROD. Yanksox 01:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not even a character, it's a single REFERENCE in a couple lines of dialogue. --Calton | Talk 07:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article says this character was merely briefly mentioned in an episode, but never actually appeared in any episode. Bwithh 03:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 19:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda Zisapel[edit]

Yehuda Zisapel (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Prod removed without explanation, so sending to AfD. Very promotional in tone (and to the subject's corporation rather then the subject), also may be a copyvio (a release was promised on the talk page but nothing further has been done). The bare assertions of notability speak more to subject's corporation then subject (and even that is unclear and largely unsourced), so recommend deletion. Seraphimblade 01:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, g12. - Bobet 11:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Johnson Rock And Roll Machine[edit]

Rick Johnson Rock And Roll Machine (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-Notable, Vanity. Seems to have been created by Mr. Johnson himself? Gilgamesh Rex 02:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the Userpage and it certainly seems to be... Gilgamesh Rex 02:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 04:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead nigger storage[edit]

Well, this was PROD'ed; however, we could vote though.

  • Closing admins don't tend to do the clean up, the contributors to an AfD are the supposed experts. And in this case the edit has already been reverted --Steve 23:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who in particular do you suspect of being a sockpuppet? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formula 16 Catamaran Design[edit]

Formula 16 Catamaran Design (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This looks like it is intended to be a how-to guide and discussion group for the design and construction of a particular class of catamaran. I prodded this and suggested WikiHow on the talk page but user found it unsuitable. Because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual and Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, I am nominating for deletion. --Dgies 03:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 04:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moc Moc (band)[edit]

Moc Moc (band) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Unremarkable group Missvain 03:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE and recast as a Redirect to Florida congressional elections, 2006. That article has basically the same info regarding her run for Congress as this article - in fact, more. The TV personality stuff by itself appears not to convey sufficient notability, and no strong claim was advanced that it does. Herostratus 03:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samm Simpson[edit]

2006 candidate for Florida's 10th COngressional District. Not notable unless being the only Florida Federal level candidate to qualify by collecting signatures makes her notable. She is also the host of a local cable talk show (lived here 35 years and never heard of it) that gets

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maid in Akihabara[edit]

Maid in Akihabara (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

per WP:NN/WP:NF. Zqhenz 03:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)— Zqhenz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

--Erk 23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There's nothing to merge. Proto::type 11:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women in physics[edit]

Women in physics (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Original research Steve 03:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was CSD, fails WP:MUSIC Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wretched[edit]

The Wretched (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Unimportant and unremarkable music group Missvain 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nn-band if possible, else delete. Seraphimblade 04:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simplisticity[edit]

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

0 ghits for this, either hoax or completely made up. Seraphimblade 04:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University Mall (Little Rock, Arkansas)[edit]

University Mall (Little Rock, Arkansas) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable mall, not even defunct. John Nagle 04:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, this article was created because the mall appeared on a list of "dead malls". But it's not a dead mall; it's alive, with open stores, although in decline. See talk page. It's just another non-notable shopping mall, though. --John Nagle 04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), random dicdef created to get around speedy deletion, but the article is still about a nn website. - Bobet 11:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phone bombing[edit]

Phone bombing (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Fails to assert notability. Looks sort of like a website promotion. And no articles link to it. Anomo 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L3 LANs[edit]

L3 LANs (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Self-promotion/Conflict of interest and notability. Also in the thread [7], they laugh at the fact that they have an article present on wikipedia for such a low numbered community (100 ppl). Lincher 04:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 23:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Buonopane[edit]

James Buonopane (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Candidate for state office, otherwise non-notable (a law student/department manager). Only refs are from candidate/party sites. Calton | Talk 04:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 20:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Fashion Fair[edit]

Vintage Fashion Fair (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Seems like an excuse to collect linkspam and little else. A single incoming link: Vintage clothing, which should suffice. — Moondyne 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 08:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Aces Paintball[edit]

Pocket Aces Paintball (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Unsourced article about a paintball team. Only contribution of its author. Peter O. (Talk) 04:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete CSD G4 -- Samir धर्म 08:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Wu[edit]

Nelson Wu (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

I found this article in speedy-delete patrolling. The subject appears to not exist and is non-notable as a fictional character. Note that the previous AfD was closed early and the article speedy-deleted under CSD:G1 (patent nonsense), which does not apply to fictional entries. If the previous AfD had run its course I could have applied G4 (reposted content), but I could find no applicable speed-deletion criteria so I'm sending it to AfD. In my humble opinion (and after trying to track down this subject, real or fictional, and failing), the article should be deleted. EDIT: note that the photo of the "most respected character" is actually of Bert Williams. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 20:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big o and dukes[edit]

Big o and dukes (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

A radio duo; however, the links in the article appear to be connected with the subject and not external sources. Peter O. (Talk) 05:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete: Why the hell would you delete this? There are plenty of wiki's for radio shows. don't listen to these haters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.96.116 (talk • contribs)

Comment Err... we're not hating. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, it is, after all, a friendly AFD discussion. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 23:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of production hybrids[edit]

Comparison of production hybrids (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Page is mostly a copy of Production hybrid vehicles, otherwise gibberish. Brianhe 05:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 prejudice agaimnst recreating as an actual, you know, article. Proto::type 11:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006-07 in Turkish football[edit]

I don't think an unsourced list of (only) foreign players in one season of Turkish football merits its own article, as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, although if anyone wants to wikify and merge this somewhere, they are welcome to it. Deprodded by Kappa without a reason given. Sandstein 05:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Glen  06:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zombienose[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Non notable author of non notable book: author plus title gives 17 distinct Google hits, mostly from author's site, myspace, and amazon[8]. Fails WP:BIO Fram 05:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 23:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviatus[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC, Obviatus has less than 100 distinct Google hits[9], Obviatus + "short of the sun" returns one myspace Google hit[10]. Fram 06:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Glen  06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rejects(movie)[edit]

The Rejects(movie) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Indie movie whose only relevant GHits are from Wikipedia and mirrors. I deleted the major actors' articles under CSD A7 and bring the film and its 2 sequels (The Rejects II and The Rejects 3, Dead or Alive) here for discussion Samir धर्म 06:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the net and was unable to find any non-Wikipedia hits on any of these movies. I feel all movie references should be removed as well. Based on the description, they were a high school film project. Turlo Lomon 06:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 10:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callcentric[edit]

Non notable company, fails WP:CORP. The award received (one of the 100 best VoIP providers) is not very discerning, the best 100 is quite a large group. Callcentric Accatel (the mother company) gives only 19 distinct Google hits[11] (without the mother company, you come across other unrelated companies with the same name, like a Swiss one). Fram 06:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wandy She[edit]

Wandy She (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Subject is of dubious notability and the article reads like a résumé. Caffeinepuppy 07:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Tilley[edit]

Matt Tilley (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Delete: The page is a perfect example of unencyclopedic information. The subject is of dubious notability and the article reads like a résumé. Users who are predominantly editing this page seem to be relying on subject's agency and promotional websites as sources. --Mike121212 08:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC) — Mike121212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A lot more people are interested than phone models than Matt Tilley. They affect a GREAT deal more people. Also Michael, love the logic you use that wikipedia should be equally weak across the board. Worst.Vote.Comments.Ever. --Mike121212 02:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on, mate! Be civil! --Canley 05:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ixfd64 23:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Items in the Metroid series[edit]

Items in the Metroid series (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Wikipedia is not a game guide is my biggest concern here. Initally prodded, the prod tag was replaced with "This article is NOT to be used as a game guide. It is present merely for reference purposes. Any of the following information can be found in various strategy guides, magazines, and online articles published by Nintendo or other reliable third parties". But looking at some choice selections of the text I see things like..."Charge Beam can be combined with the Bomb: by charging up and then changing into the Morphing Ball, a five-drop bomb will immediately be released.", "...multiplayer levels, and is extremely well-hidden... except in the arena Head Shot, where it can be found easily.", and "This is the most effective way to kill many tough enemies in many Metroid games - particularly Metroids themselves..." i.e. things that would only be relevant to players of the game, a game guide. If someone wants to move to gaming wiki that's fine, but I don't think this belongs on the wikipedia. Mitaphane talk 20:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^Exactly what I was going to say. The Copper 17 11:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ixfd64 23:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LLR Recordings[edit]

LLR Recordings (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Self-described independent record label with only a few artists (who themselves don't seem too famous), I'm of the opinion that notability status is dubious. Any thoughts? Luna Santin 08:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Also the 3 myspace links are sorta suspicious as to the purpose of that page... —— Eagle (ask me for help) 08:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 23:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbying is Hot[edit]

Lobbying is Hot (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This article about a book makes no attempt to assert its notability, but just explains its contents at length, which could be done for any book. Perhaps the page creator (who seems to be a SPA) made no effort to assert notability simply because there isn't any to assert. Google finds only 6 hits for this book [12] under its English title; under the Slovak(?) title of Lobiranje je vroče the book gets 84 hits [13], none in English. (Note that spem-group.com and spem.si are domains belonging to the employer of the author, see [14].) In both cases no links point to independent reliable sources. Therefore I lobby to delete this article. Kavadi carrier 08:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, spam Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ComRent International[edit]

Openly admitted (see talk page) advertising for a non-notable company working in an incredibly narrow niche market. -- RHaworth 08:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was CSD A7 Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John and John[edit]

John and John (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Comic makes no assertion of notability. Searching for "John and John" comic -wikipedia gets about 27k google hits, but the results are obscured by references to unrelated topics. As far as I can tell, this comic isn't published anywhere except its own site. I'll vote to delete unless someone can hunt down supporting information for the article's notability as it currently fails WP:WEB. Brad Beattie (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Article's only claim to notability was that subject was "award winning"; yet, such awards were never mentioned -- Samir धर्म 09:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Costanich[edit]

Vanity / advert by user:Bryancostanich. -- RHaworth 09:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Proto::type 11:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, King of Time and Space[edit]

Arthur, King of Time and Space (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

The article makes no claims to notability for this comic. Searching for "Arthur, King of Time and Space" -wikipedia results in 591 results further suggesting a lack of notability. Furthermore, it hasn't been published nor has it recieved any awards. Delete as it fails WP:WEB.

Brad Beattie (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - No assertion of notability (A7) - Yomanganitalk 10:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twokinds[edit]

Firstly, the comic makes no assertion of notability. It hasn't been published nor has any article been written on it by a notable source, at least none that I could find in the 800 hits from the google search Twokinds comic -wikipedia. Delete as it seems to fail WP:WEB as far as I can tell. Brad Beattie (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was to delete. Redirect to 20th Century Fox will be put in its place. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Fox[edit]

21st Century Fox (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Article asserts no notability for the comic, nor was I able to find any. Google returns roughly 50 results for "21st Century Fox: Romantic Comedy of the Future" -wikipedia, suggesting a lack of notability. The comic's website makes no claims to having won awards or having published any materials. As far as I can see, this comic fails WP:WEB. Delete. Brad Beattie (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that a lot of reasonably long - running webcomics, with good art, have been up for deletion in recent months. Any idea what the cause of the trend is? Examples: TwoKinds(Averages about 6th on TopWebComics), 21Cf, Alien Dice(Keenspot) Bob and George, Zap!, Catharsis, Better Days... Does something have a grudge or something? And this while comics such as God mode are on the list, despite having no wikipedia page. 86.137.97.67 17:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Proto::type 11:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Town[edit]

Cat Town (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Article doesn't assert comic's notability. Would be subject to CSD:A7 if it weren't for its previous AFD. Brad Beattie (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomanganitalk 12:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research International[edit]

Non-notable market research company. No references, reads like an advertisement, fails WP:CORP — Moondyne 09:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, much better. I also found a reference to a 2006 award which the firm won and which satisfies me that the compnay is notable. I'm happy to delist this AfD. — Moondyne 14:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Panou[edit]

Salma Panou (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (people). No Google hits and even the Greek Wikipedia does not have an article about her. Also, there are no incoming links to the article.--ZeroOne (talk | @) 09:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, about some nonsense idea a schoolkid came up with one day. - Bobet 11:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaavdi Land[edit]

Gaavdi Land (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

I'll let this speak for itself: "Las Gaavde came up with this idea when he dreamt one night, about running in the forest." Wikpedia is also not a crystal ball. Contested prod. MER-C 09:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 23:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Love[edit]

Michael Love (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable. There seems to be nothing extraordinary about this soldier, or at least nothing extraordinary enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. yandman 09:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally if there is the slightest bit of encylopedic value, enough where it could possibly be useful for any kind of research, I am all for inclusion, but there just isn't anything here. Ratherhaveaheart 18:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted by Youngamerican as a 5-day prod. If you want to contest this deletion take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review where it will be undeleted and this debate will be relisted. --ais523 09:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dr David J Stone[edit]

Reason Bensonby 10:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nn person

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (in the sense that 1 pair of eyes is making the decision) close. The nominator has since simply redirected the article. The place to discuss the redirect is Talk:Merchandise to resell, of course. Uncle G 11:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise to resell[edit]

This article is inventory Octopus-Hands 09:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Gardiner, Geoff Lapaire[edit]

Joel Gardiner (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Questionable notability. Appears to be a minor actor with exposure limited to an online "mocumentary." ghits: [15] NMChico24 10:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'd like to nominate the similar Geoff Lapaire. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Graphics and Animation (PHICSAMATION)[edit]

Philippine Graphics and Animation (PHICSAMATION) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This organization probably doesn't deserve its own article unless external sources are cited for it. Maybe a merge into St. Scholastica's College is appropriate. Peter O. (Talk) 05:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 23:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star wars (fan film)[edit]

Star wars (fan film) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable fan-made remake of Star Wars IV. --Nehwyn 11:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think is article needs to be deleted just yet, but it does need a lot more information. What film organization is producing this movie? Where is its official website? Is it even listed on fanfilms.net? If these can be answered, then it could remain, otherwise, it should be deletedMaraJade85 04:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, none of those matter one bit. It still fails WP:WEB. Obvious Delete. IrishGuy talk 03:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Spam Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

View From Heaven[edit]

View From Heaven (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable website. Nine registered users. Not many reviews. By author's own admittance, a "small" following - and also website not functioning. Was a contested speedy, so it finds itself here. Got to feel for the guys, however... Delete Bubba hotep 11:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven mark benbow[edit]

Steven mark benbow (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Unreferenced, likely a hoax, and user removed prod without reason. Ansell 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit 802.11[edit]

Contested A7 speedy, but this is still in development so there are verifiability issues. Not straightforward. Guy 12:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takota[edit]

Tagged speedy A7 but makes a claim of notability. Seems a bit implausible, I can't find much evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Guy 12:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Video Games Guide[edit]

Looks like an attempt to promote a newly published book by creating an article about it on Wikipedia. Alf Boggis 12:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hackingsource.net[edit]

Hackingsource.net (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Contesed A7 speedy, looks a lot like generic forum vanispamcruftisement but that might just be because the article is crap rather than because the subject fails guidelines. Guy 12:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Tyrell, Niko (The Mask)[edit]

Not notable characters that only appeared in one film. WP:FICT and WP:NOT a plot summary applies here. Interrobamf 12:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect to Simon Garner. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Garner[edit]

Joe Garner (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Youth footballer who have never played a professional game. He is not even in the Blackburn squad. Punkmorten 12:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Ritter[edit]

Jay Ritter (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

no assertion of notability, prod and speedy removed already JBKramer 12:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Basically, those links say that: (a) his school says he's notable, and (b) he says he's notable. Not quite the same thing as independent reliable sources. -- Fan-1967 16:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think either of these sites say Jay Ritter is notable, they just list stages of his academic life in a very ordinary (and reliable) way. It's up to the editors here to say for themselves if that information makes him notable (enough) for Wikipedia or not in their eyes.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradwood Scale[edit]

The Bradwood Scale was devised by Eleanor BRADshaw and Callum WOOD, maths students at St John Fisher Catholic High School, Dewsury. Isn't easy when they say "delete me because Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day" in the first sentence? -- RHaworth 12:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

62.252.96.16 10:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this isn't a vote, so there's little point in spamming. yandman 10:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and move to Frank Lampl per MOS. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Frank Lampl[edit]

Sir Frank Lampl (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable yandman 13:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallowieners[edit]

Verifiability concerns, see 1070 ghits. No assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 13:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds familiar. I'm doing some looking - first thought is that it was 1990 instead of 1989 though. Robovski 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 between merging or deletion, those who supported keeping in order to merge are free to pursue that as normal. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrens Nest Estate[edit]

Wrens Nest Estate (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non notable housing estate Quentin X 13:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep and move to -eaux. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eaux[edit]

Wikipedia is not a reference of name origins, let alone a reference for a part of a name. Nuttah68 19:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to Move to -eaux per Caknuck --Oakshade 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 13:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podiobook[edit]

WP:NOT a dictionary or directory; article was recreated after previous deletion via prod on 20 Sept. 2006. --Alan Au 22:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT AfD - I performed the first edit on this podiobook article after it was created, correcting a misspelled word. But after rereading Wikipedia's policy, I agree with the AfD request, because there is nothing of substance to be said about podiobooks other than a basic description (dictionary) and a few examples (potential link spam). I think the concept of a "podiobook" is important enough to be mentioned in the podcast article, but nothing more than that. BJ Nemeth 22:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 13:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomanganitalk 12:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaksa Cvitanic[edit]

I originally thought userfying this was probably the right thing to do, but the author - likely the subject - has made no other edits other than to create and fiddle with the formatting on this page. WP:AUTO violation by a a professor who doesn't meet WP:PROF; reads like the sort of bio blurb you find on college websites. Opabinia regalis 05:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. To be significant or well-known, the work must meet one of the following criteria:
2. The work must be prescribed as a textbook, a reference work, or required reading in an undergraduate- or graduate- level course; which is not taught, designed, or otherwise overseen by the author; at several independent accredited universities.
I only know that the textbook was taught at my school, but I am pretty sure that other schools use it because the professor I took the course with participated in an experimental shared teaching program across several liberal arts colleges where each professor at each school taught an identical course (which would seemingly require the same textbook). I am sure (based on the academic accolades) that Cvitanic may pass another criterion which would be easier to show, but for now one should suffice. -bobby 15:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 14:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity Catholic Middle School[edit]

Holy Trinity Catholic Middle School (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This article deals with a private American middle school that makes no real claim of notabilty. I know that there are those out there that feel that high schools are by default worthy of inclusion, but I have never seen it succesfully expanded to lower-level schools. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is NOT what the free in Wikipedia means. You are supposed to base your keep or delete on the policies, not your personal opinons, otherwise you could throw out notability, reliable sources, and everything else. --Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 19:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was close, move has been done, I'll kill the redirect (which is now irrelevant). Proto::type 11:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jainism and Hinduism[edit]

An editor cleaned up all the original research here a few days ago and what was left doesn't really constitute an article on Jainism and Hinduism, but instead is a fairly decent start on an article about the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Bill of 2006. My opinion is that there should be a Move to Gujarat Freedom of Religion Bill of the content that currently exists at this namespace (with expansion warrented at the new namespace) and then Delete (which is why I'm bringing this here) the redirect as "Jainism and Hinduism" != Gujarat Freedom of Religion Bill. I also want to state I have no predjudice against a new article being created at Jainism and Hinduism provided someone wants to created a neutral, sourced discussion of the religions and their history together.--Isotope23 17:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with nominator. --Fang Aili talk 18:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 15:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change name I found the article interesting and informative and fairly well scoped but not at all what I was expecting from the current name. My big question is whether this is related to christian conversions of other faiths in India. --Mike 19:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YFG Letterkenny[edit]

Contested speedy. A student/youth, local branch of a political party of no notability Nuttah68 17:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 15:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedied as a personal attack --humblefool® 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMSIN[edit]

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

No ghits for IMSIN in that context. Maybe even a speedy nonsense candidate. Optimale Gu 15:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Cummings[edit]

Rebecca Cummings (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

A stripper in Iowa. Completely non-notable. No entry in IMDB or rame.net, only Google hits are for Wikipedia & mirrors, and her home page. The newspaper story about her linked in the article is about how nobody has heard of her but she has a Wikipedia entry. Chowbok ☠ 15:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LBGT organizations can have one leader representative, but in this case, the nameless organization appears to be a small local organization or organization chapter.Bwithh 15:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I felt that the positions she held (as opposed to the ones she worked in) were notable in and of themselves. Is there a specific "threshhold" for notability of organizations? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I found a number of ghits about her, but nothing to verify her history or the info about her "presidency". This definitely needs to be cited properly. I'm keeping an eye on this and will change to "Delete" if a valid cite isn't provided. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is not an article, but a redirect whose deletion should be debated on WP:RFD if necessary. Kusma (討論) 16:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not want[edit]

Do not want (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

I revert vandalism on this page and discovered it to be nothing more that a link. The phrase "Do Not Want" is not worthy of its own article. Not to mention the beside the vandalism and revert this page has not been edited since its creation on Auguest 11, 2006 (Steve 16:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Everybodyfields[edit]

Non-notable, advertising AW 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was thanks for completing nomination, but better to deal with this in one AfD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BidClix[edit]

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

An incomplete AfD nomination by 61.7.156.24. This AfD appears to be related to the Ad-Up AfD. Scottmsg 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was thanks for completing nomination, but better to deal with this in one AfD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casale Media[edit]

Casale Media (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

An incomplete AfD nomination by 61.7.156.24. This AfD appears to be related to the Ad-Up AfD. Scottmsg 16:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was thanks for completing nomination, but better to deal with this in one AfD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PointCast Media[edit]

PointCast Media (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

An incomplete AfD nomination by 61.7.156.24. This AfD appears to be related to the Ad-Up AfD. Scottmsg 16:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was thanks for completing nomination, but better to deal with this in one AfD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising by the Seven Network[edit]

Advertising by the Seven Network (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

An incomplete AfD nomination by 61.7.156.24. This AfD appears to be related to the Ad-Up AfD. Scottmsg 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Worst, most dispirited AFD ever. Proto::type 11:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cazasoles[edit]

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

question notability Thamiel 23:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirected to List of state leaders in 1640s BC. Clear the articles linking to the redirect and then propose it for deletion on RfD or via me.. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of state leaders in 1646 BC[edit]

I nominate the following pages for deletion (or redirect):

I created these articles before realizing that a list for each year would be superfluous (all three articles are identicle). I moved all information to List of state leaders in 1640s BC. Donnie Love 02:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden jihad syndrome[edit]

Sudden jihad syndrome (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Neogolism that seems to be not all that verifiable, and one guy's WP:OR. Contested prod. Leuko 03:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep it This is a new phenomenom and it will continue and more research will be forthcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KAOSKTRL (talk • contribs)

Delete - A WP:POV WP:OR by a WP:SPA without WP:RS. =))) --Nehwyn 09:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Come on people: be bold about these things!. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vulpecula cum Ansere[edit]

Unnecessary; see Vulpecula#History Ashadeofgrey 11:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It (technically) doesn't need to be merged; all the information is in the other article. Having said that, I probably should've redirected--Ashadeofgrey 18:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fouad Riaz Bajwa[edit]

Fouad Riaz Bajwa (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Prod notice removed without comment by User:Fouadbajwa. No assertion of notability against WP:BIO. And I'd guess "conflict of interest" under WP:COI Mereda 17:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be obliged if a deletion be made with a procedure pasted to edit user page, that would be helpful for Mr. Bajwa. Regards A M. Khan 18:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (Quotes don't need merging - they're not the work of a Wikipedia author, and GFDL doesn't apply when moving them from one article to another). --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yerzhan Ashykbayev[edit]

Yerzhan Ashykbayev (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable individual whose article would not have been created had he not criticized Sacha Baron Cohen for his Borat performances. I would suggest merging any useful info into Kasymzhomart Tokayev, but none of this is particularly meaningful or notable, so just delete. KazakhPol 17:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the only relevant information here is with regard to Borat. I vote for the quotation to be merged into the Borat article and for this article to be deleted. -- Hux 18:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Ashykbayev is the Foreign Ministry spokesman, not the Foreign Minister. The Foreign Minister is Kasymzhomart Tokayev. KazakhPol 19:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As KazakhPol implies, US members of Congress and Kazakh foreign ministry spokesmen are not equivalent in importance. The US parallel to Ashykbayev would be Gonzalo R. Gallegos, spokesman for the U.S. Dept. of State, who does not have a Wiki article, so under your logic Ashykbayev shouldn't have one either. -- Hux 05:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Zaparojdik 23:16, 9 November 2006

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depletist[edit]

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

dicdef stub about a non-notable term. wikipediatrix 17:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under pressure (my chem & the used song)[edit]

Bad article on a cover of a previously released song, that can be covered on the original's page. --Jamdav86 17:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Symington[edit]

Arthur Symington (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Long-standing hoax article about a Scottish playright whose plays are all famous brands of cigarettes (Benson & Hedges, Marlborough Red, Kensitas). Has been tagged as a hoax before, and Colin1873 has raised it again. All relevant google hits are mirrors of WP. Mr Stephen 18:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: The Bensons' Hedge
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 + G10 + G1 + IAR. Luna Santin 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saintstephen[edit]

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

Not notable or verifiable. Could not verify existence of his books. Leibniz 18:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite verifiable, as are the slight accomplishments included in the wiki entry here referred. All of my books on this topic are currently available. I am arguably notable, as evidenced by a lifetime of dedication to the philosophies referenced within the wiki entry. And, I exist quite nicely, thank you.
However, upon review of the Wiki guidelines per entries of the sort under consideration, it is understandable that adjustments might be made. I might add that upon perusal of pages of this sort for comparison, I found mine fraught with far less of the self-aggrandizement and project-hyping so often found in vanity-type pages.
Thank you for your time keeping wiki nice and scrubbed, although as regards this occult topic, I might advise deeper research.
Thanks,
s
The wheel turns. All is grist— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadmona (talk • contribs) — Quadmona (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Saying you are verifiable is very nice. Can you provide any Reliable Sources to back up the assertion? We have been unable to find anything. Fan-1967 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanity. As if it wasn't bad enough already. Leibniz 20:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add vandalism. He just removed this AFD from the daily log. Fan-1967 20:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wow. That was fast!

Again and understand, wiki is not my "thing", and i claim no vested interest in this matter. I, "saintstephen", have basically been having fun with the opensource nature of the database, posting absolute facts as regards my life. Specifically, my life in the Black Magick Community. And why not. In this specific arena, I have few peers.

Out of habitual curiosity i went to the reliable source link offered and scanned the guidelines, quickly, regarding scholerly research and the like. It would seem that deletion, or amendment, could be appropo, even though thousands others are aware of various established facts within the short bio.

I, again, have no personal interest in supporting the facts further.

Have at it. We suckle at the teat of half a`dozen ivory towers.


Oh. Sorry about the snip AFD from the daily log or whatever. i dont even know what the hell that thing is. it looked like a demon at the gate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadmona (talk • contribs)

I totally agree. It is pointless, vile, and borders on subversive.

delete now.

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audiograbber[edit]

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

Article gives no indication of satisfying, WP:V, WP:RS or WP:SOFTWARE Whispering 19:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk[edit]

A complete mess of an article, POV, lies.... The 'sources' appear to be dead links Armanalp 16:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HWE Wrestling[edit]

HWE Wrestling (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

PROD removed without explanation by the articles creater. Non-notable backyard wrestling organization (which is already grounds to delete), with only 6 employess. No assertion of notability either. TJ Spyke 19:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Team Real Estate[edit]

First Team Real Estate (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

The article makes no claim of notability Abeg92 19:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Workbook, Inc.[edit]

Workbook, Inc. (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Company does not satisfy WP:CORP AW 20:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also pretty much a Vanispamcruftisement --AW 20:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Nations Gameplay[edit]

Cyber Nations Gameplay (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Completely unsourced game guide for a non-notable online browser game that was deleted at both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Nations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Nations (2). I'd have speedied it based on those afds if it weren't a contested prod. —Cryptic 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep the game. This is a very good guide, by the author himself to a relatively popular game. It's not full of garbage, nor pointless, it should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.0.111.154 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organlegging[edit]

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

An article on a fictional crime from a novel, which would seem to be non-notable. At best, this should be merged, but I would say this is fan cruft. Harro5 21:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedied per csd#a7.  Glen  21:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan cannon[edit]

Jordan cannon (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Prod removed by anon. Homemade video (made on a Playstation 2) that has, per the article, been seen by "over 50 people". Not in the same galaxy with a notable movie project. Fan-1967 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wisla vodka[edit]

Wisla vodka (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Not notable - google search shows wiki mirrors, search for Polish string "wódka Wisła" doesn't show anything notable. Seems like a hoax or an ad for some minor product, and the language is very 'addy' (much loved as a highly-regarded export vodka and a sought after drink by Poles the world over). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fully unsourced. --Nehwyn 09:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, I'm not saying it's non-notable because my teacher doesn't know of its existence. There's no verification of notability. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 01:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with a number of suggestions to move or merge. Please defer renaming and merge-related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of pubs in Balmain[edit]

List of pubs in Balmain (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Please could someone explain the important of this list to me. In my opinion, it is not notable (and nor are the vast majority of articles it links to) Computerjoe's talk 21:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battleball[edit]

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

Non-notable and unverifiable topic. Fails a Google test. Also violates WP:NOT, in that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Slowking Man 21:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (continue cleanup though, obviously) W.marsh 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nas vs. Jay-Z[edit]

Nas vs. Jay-Z (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Completely uncited and mostly unverifiable. The article consists largely of song lyrics which probably violates a bunch of copyright standards. Reads a lot like original research. I don't think this is even that encyclopedic even if it was cleaned up. Metros232 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted, at least the whole thing should be moved back and merged with original article. But it's too lumpy there. It is uncited as-is, but it's a rap lyric. How do you cite a source of rap lyrics and it's metaphor?dooly00000 02:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilva Liepiņa[edit]

Ilva Liepiņa (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable person. No evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 22:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was userfy (already done) and delete. --Coredesat 03:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Ann Crecente[edit]

Jennifer Ann Crecente (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Murders of this type are lamentably common. Even the existence of memorial funds/scholarships does not confer notability Robert A.West (Talk) 22:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. West appears to have had his feathers ruffled. Because I deigned to question his continued removal of what I considered to be relevant information regarding the Daniel Brandt article he has decided to attempt to delete an article of mine.

Fact: This article is of consequence because it has since become the basis for a charitable organization with 501(c)(3) status that was created in order to inform young women about potential abusive relationships.

Fact: This article is of consequence because the Texas State Legislature will be creating a law in January '07 in her name and memory to award diplomas posthumously to students that died during their Senior year of High School.

Fact: This article is of consequence because the Texas Psychological Foundation has created a memorial grant in perpetuity of $5000 / year for Graduate work related to studying violence against women.

Robert A. West's feathers aside, it is absurd that Wikipedia articles be so capriciously and callously deleted. Drew30319 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Although a memorial fund has been created and a scholarship will be created in 2007, neither of these are primary points in the article. This murder has been covered by all major networks in addition to AP and UPI. Drew30319 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thanks for the constructive comment. Addhoc 17:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated."
Clearly this is not an assassination, but the event was newsworthy and the memorial fund that has developed as a result gives Crecente a certain amount of renown. Based on the path this debate is taking, it is fairly clear the article space won't stay, but by userfying the body we can give the author a chance to find enough news sources to satisfy notability by the aforementioned guideline. →Bobby← 14:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, although it does not matter with respect to the apparent direction that the article is headed, it is not just a memorial fund and scholarship. There is an actual charity that has been created. The organization is incorporated and has received 501(c)(3) status by the IRS.

Again, this isn't stated to change any minds, but for clarification.

I feel comfortable with waiting until the legislation passes to be able to add the relevant info. Thanks for the constructive information. Drew30319 02:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it for you, here. For future reference, just copy the content to a subpage of your user page. -Amarkov blahedits 02:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish Jennifer Ann's Group well: I can think of several friends (two now deceased) who desperately needed that sort of advice. Objectively, however, it is not notable, and cannot confer notability on Jennifer. Simply getting 501(c)3 approval is not notable. Any competent attorney can shepherd any reasonable proposal through the process. The routine publication of a press release or interview announcing the organization is termed "trivial" press coverage, and doesn't really count. I've served on the boards of a few organizations with more press coverage than this new org -- none of which I believe are notable enough to merit their own articles. There is a strong recommendation (WP:AUTO) not to write articles about yourself, your family members or organizations in which one is involved. The idea is that, if the person or organization is really notable, someone else will write an article in due time, and that you cannot really be objective about it. Any strongly-notable organization has critics. Even Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama have them. If an organization has not yet attracted critics, it may be too early for an article on that subject. Robert A.West (Talk) 09:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Churches Hollow Road[edit]

non-notable county road Brianyoumans 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 10:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drugware[edit]

Non-notable protologism. Very few instances of the term on the web, and these point back to this page or the one page linked from here. Worse, there are no examples of "drugware" on either this page or the other webpages.Calbaer 22:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 concern is reliable sources to demonstrate notability, and none have been presented that satisfy guidelines for inclusion - neither forum posts, passing mentions, Google hit counts nor Wikipedia editors qualify, as Wickethewok and Yomangani have adequately explained. Consequently there is no reason to discount the arguments that came before Bones' posts, and consensus and policy are for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BZPower[edit]

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

A web forum that seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:V. I asked for sources on the talk page awhile ago and haven't received any responses. Googling only brings up a few dozen hits not from the BZPower itself. Was previously nominated but was kept as apparently users back then didn't need to present any sort of logical argument. Anyway, the lack of independent coverage means it fails WP:V and it doesn't look like it meets WP:WEB. As is, the entire article is original research. Fails the Alexa test @ ~156k ranking if you're into that sort of thing. Delete for the reasons listed above. Wickethewok 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to the "As is, the entire article is original research" claim, see this part of that policy: "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about... An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." Seems this is being ignored by you--just want to make sure this is brought up. As far as I can see, being a primary source myself, there is only a tiny amount that qualifies as OR, if anything. The basic facts of the site are easily verifiable, are correct, and are provided by a primary source, myself and others. Again, the issue is that more citations are needed, and as shown below, they can be. And let's not lose sight of the main reason the site is notable, as I stated in the last AFD, which concluded it should stay: "But I beleive that every site of note in the Bionicle community deserves reference; we're talking about the fan community of LEGO's most successful line, that helped save the company, and it is also the company that is more in-tune with its online fan community than virtually any other. There is just plain no justification for any arguement that sites like BZP or MoD do not deserve their own encyclopedic reference, unless you want to argue that the LEGO company is not noteworthy. I see nobody arguing that." --Bonesiii 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, Wickethewok, you asked for sources 5 days ago. Do you expect things to just fly up within 5 days? Two weeks, perhaps is a fairer time, but you didn't even allow for a week.
Second, you say it fails the WP:WEB critieria. Then explain how BZpower was once linked to on BIONICLE.com, the official BIONICLE website, and has been noted in many online articles and such, yet you say they still fail?
Third, I'd like to comment in this SPA rumor. I am a pretty well respected BS01 staffer, and BZP member. I know most of those who said "yes" to keep it, and they were not SPA's by any means. ~U— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.11.63 (talk • contribs)
  • Short on time so hope I'm close to following procedures for commenting here, lol--my comments on this are summed up here: [[31]]. The opening comment on this page states "I asked for sources on the talk page awhile ago and haven't received any responses." -- I've been watching the talk page over the past month and this request came only last week. Not sure how wikipedia's policies define "a while" but that doesn't fit my definition. ;) (All due respect.) And just a summary reading of these policies that BZP supposedly doesn't fit shows that yes, it does--the evidence just isn't cited yet (how could it be within a mere week?). Got real life to spend time on now, so must go... For starters though, BZP is often mentioned on other websites, and has been mentioned in print journals such as the AFOL magazine (adult fan of LEGO), so those citations shouldn't be that hard to find for anyone who has time to search... And of course, it has been very relevant to the LEGO company, so at least by my definition of "relevant" no sound arguement can be made that it isn't (I thought this was cleared up last time, lol). Keep --Bonesiii 04:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5 day waiting period with 5 days for AFD. If the information can't be verified in 10 days, something ain't right. And really, its not like there hasn't been warning - I mean, the article has been nominated for AFD 3 times already apparently since its creation 1.5 years ago. I could've even just nominated the article with no warning, but I figured that giving people twice the amount of time that is required by deletion process would be nice. If someone comes up with some sources, like, a month from now, the article can be reinstated, albeit with the removal of all the OR. Wickethewok 06:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[D]eletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks)."
Assuming there's any merit to this claim, here's some evidence real quick (that can be added to the article) as per the guidelines claimed not to fit the article:
1) Google search: 77,900 hits. 18000 or so without the BZP domain name; admiddetedly a few of those are just the bzcommunity old domain name, but just browse the list yourself; that's a minority: http://www.google.com/search?q=BZPower+-site:www.bzpower.com&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&start=0&sa=N And as mentioned before; fifth hit on Google search for Bionicle, topped only by Bionicle.com, Scholastic's Bionicle page, and of course the wikipedia entry for Bionicle: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=Bionicle
2) Coverage on other websites not affiliated with BZP? BZP is the most-covered Bionicle fansite there is. A few examples: http://forums.maskofdestiny.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=10 http://www.mnonlinev3.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1181&st=240 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0211/S00055.htm http://www.lugnet.com/cool/
3) Also, as far as "previous warning" the past AFD nominations are hardly surprising--BZP has many enemies (see the Criticism section of the article), and from my experience, that's what motivated those proposals, not wikipedia policy. By the way, wiki policy did come up, and according to the first AFD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BZPower BZP does meet Alexa standards. No idea why that is now taken the opposite way, but something seems inconsistent here?
4) The vanity accusation is certainly a fair concern, and I of course am a staff member there, so you'd be correct to be cautious about what I say. However, that also means I know what I'm talking about, and as I stated, the policies being linked to appear to qualify BZPower for inclusion. And as I said in the last AFD, we don't need wikipedia advertising. ;) We became the most popular Bionicle forum long before wikipedia ever had an article on us (and we did not originate this article, as stated in the first AFD). And finally, if I was interested in having an article for advertisement's sake, why exactly would I be leading efforts to include a fair criticism section?
5) It appears that there's a tendency here to discount anything an expert on a subject knows--this is a little disturbing, and I hope that will not be the case with my logic; the guideline at the top of this page makes the claim that it's the logic that the decision is based on, not a head count. And for the record, I may be a staff member now but I had no idea BZP existed for 2 years after it was founded, so I would consider myself to be partly an independant source (and if you want actual independent sources, see the google search :)). This "original research" guideline appears to be questionable, as stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28web%29#Expand_The_Criteria.21.21 , though the basic idea makes sense to me. But the facts listed on this article are well-known and often mentioned on sites outside of BZP, such as Mask of Destiny, Mata Nui Online (again, see the google search); they are hardly "original" research. They just need cited better, admittedly.
7) Also note; much of the notability claims made were stated by Greg Farshtey, the author of the Bionicle books, though he didn't print the statements, lol. He is not affiliated with BZPower, but LEGO company instead; many of the citations in the article already cite his statements, so this would count as well as independant sources, as I understand it, and is easily verified simply by asking him (member name=GregF at BZP, he's also on Mask of Destiny with his own forum division). It appears possible these citations are being discounted merely because they are posts on BZPower, which to me would be invalid since they were not posted by BZPower staff but a LEGO employee; and not just any but the author of the books, the comics, lead member of the Bionicle story team, etc. Also probably worth noting that two BZPower members had the published Bionicle Encyclopedia (see Amazon page: http://www.amazon.com/Bionicle-Encyclopedia-Stickers-Greg-Farshtey/dp/0439745616) dedicated to them for their help in providing the content of that book (Crystal Matrix, founder of Biosector01 reference and my fellow BZP Reference Master, and Pekel, current owner of half of BS01 (note that that site has ongoing issues with a technical glitch that is still being resolved but was online at the time the encyclopedia was being written; details here: http://www.bzpower.com/forum/index.php?showforum=45), one of the BZP reference keepers and forum assistants, and a contest I ran on BZP, incidentally, decided a small part of the content to that book ( http://www.bzpower.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=29&t=156654 ). You can see the discussions ongoing currently for the second edition of that book on BZPower here: http://www.bzpower.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=229663
8) So again, my conclusion: logically I see no need to delete the article prematurely. The "Trivial coverage" and "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators" criteria can be met under WP:WEB, as can the WP:V verifiability requirement (and part of that has already been met). If citations can't be provided later, say in a month, that action would make sense; either way, I am willing to take the time later to make sure a re-added article has appropriate citations. It just wouldn't be very helpful to delete the archives of the current article. ;) Heck, just in this comment alone I've got tons of citations; will try to find time to add them this weekend to the article. --Bonesiii 13:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I humbly request an explanation of why ten days currently is plenty of time? Besides the beginnings of fulfilling that request cited above, I'd point out to you that since the people the request was directed at are currently very busy with other things, this would be an "not always" instance. ;) This AFD was proposed during that time; that is why a mere five days wasn't sufficient. Your comment seems rather subjective... --Bonesiii 13:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fan sites and advertisements are not reliable sources of information. Wickethewok 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lugnet one is, according to the policy you yourself linked to: "Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria... The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." [Bolded emphasis mine.] Also note: "The content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the site... This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books..." See #7 of facts listed above {bolded emphasis again mine]. The advertisement in the Brickjournal issue was only part of the citation given, remember--two articles were also submitted, as well as other references. --Bonesiii 17:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out that BZPower is not the subject of the the LUGNET article at all. Its only mentioned a few times by the author, who also happens to the webmaster of the site in question. Wickethewok 22:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you check out page 82 of the the issue ;). How can you read that and say BZP is "not the subject... at all"? Also, how does he "just happen" to be the webmaster of the site? You really think that Binky would be considered for the job of webmaster for LEGO.com if he was just another AFOL on Lugnet, not an accomplished admin of BZP? That is called being a subject. Not the main subject, sure, but the term "main" does not appear in the guidelines. In fact, your comment actually backs me up even further if you look at the exception, trivial mention. Obviously, Bink's mention of BZP was not trivia. I really don't see why you are still arguing here--the policy says that if any one of the requirements is met, the article qualifies. So BZP does, does it not?
Again, no disrespect, but I'm not seeing any recognition made of the large amount of evidence given above, just a shaky arguement made against one of the many points... You wanted a logical arguement--well, I'm a logician, so doing my best to provide that--hopefully you can see the logic here. :) --Bonesiii 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I did notice that was the only line that was marked--and that's the one line in the article that appears innaccurate, actually. I didn't add that, not sure who did, but the correct statement, as far as I know, is that Greg is a member of both BZP and MoD, no other fansites. If that one line is what this debate is really about, then there really isn't a problem here--it can easily be corrected. --Bonesiii 19:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just cleared up the mess over the lack of citation on GregF's accounts elsewhere. He has joined Mask of Destiny and MNOnlinev3. I have linked to both of his accounts; they are genuine. I do not see why this article should be deleted because of a lack of that citation; it has been cited now. 69.15.24.122 21:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Rockymountains[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Wonders of the Medieval World[edit]

Seven Wonders of the Medieval World (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This article is about a list with no historical origins and is not and cannot be quality encyclopedic content.

I don't really see any good reason this article should exist. First of all, there is no evidence that such a list existed in any historical context. Secondly, there is no definitive list--it's basically a compendium of top sights lists in various travel guides. Third, many of the sites listed are not of Medieval origin (i.e., the Taj Mahal, Stonehenge, The Catacombs of Kom el Shoqafa, most of the Great Wall of China, the Hagia Sophia and the Leaning Tower of Pisa--the bulk of the list).

I recommend deleting this list to avoid further confusion. Phil Bastian 22:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize:
  1. Just because a list has many vicissitudes doesn't mean it can't have an article. Magna Carta has this same problem, there is no single Magna Carta. It's really more of a type or genre than a single list.
  2. The list is probably real from either the Enlightenment or Romantic eras, based on word etymology of "medieval", the choice of sites, and what is known about other "wonders" lists - making lists of "wonders" is a common genre that has been on-going with every generation since the ancient Greeks. Romanticism in particular is defined by its fascination and "romanticizing" the Middle Ages.
  3. The way the article is worded now may be original research on my part and should not preclude that there really are some scholarly sources that discuss this particular wonders list.
I hope others might take an interest in helping further research it, and refine the wording of the article. Also I would not be adverse to merging it into a section of the Seven Wonders of the World article, at least until it could justify a split with stronger sources. -- Stbalbach 02:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm.. at Wikipedia, not only are we allowed to write about other people's POV's, we are encouraged to do so. Verifiability, Not Truth. See my comments above about when this list was created, and what "medieval" meant to them. It is a modernism to hold this very old list up to current professional standards and then tear it down as inaccurate. Inaccurate to who? It's probably not even an academic list, more akin to the tastes of popular culture sometime between the late 17th and 19th centuries. -- Stbalbach 22:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the article, it should better be titled Late 17th through 19th century views of what constituted the seven wonders of the medieval world, and the article's text would have to be significantly altered to buy into that proposition, and the sourcing should be of material or quoting material of that vintage, rather than late 20th and early 21st century travel guides. Since none of that is the fact, I stand by my position that this article is an uncomprehensive POV attempt by the editors here to identify 11 "wonders" without particular regard to time or place and label them the Seven Wonders of the Medieval World. That is POV, not writing about POV. Carlossuarez46 06:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Uncomprehensive" is not a reason to AfD, that's called a Stub, Start-class or B-class article. As for being "POV", please do delete or change anything you believe to be POV, we can work that out on the article talk page. The article makes no claim to being an authoritative list of the Seven Wonders, in fact just the opposite, it has many qualifiers. Nor are the sources just recent travel guides. Have you read the article lately? -- Stbalbach 02:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice use of a straw man argument, Stbalbach, no wonder your keep arguments cause delete votes. Oh, and by the way, I'll edit whatever I please. Your protectionist stand combined with a keep just confirms that the article is meant to be POV and any POV that conflicts with yours should not be included nor yours deleted. Seeing what seems to be the keeper's best argument, there is no argument that will likely change my mind: changing my vote to Strong Delete above. Carlossuarez46 05:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to working with you on improving the article. -- Stbalbach 05:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguing of Stbalbach isn't a reason to AfD, seeing as how I argued for a Keep. Also, what "seven wonders" list was ever not promotional in origin? -- Stbalbach 03:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst I can't be arsed to look for links it's definitely something I've heard about before and so seems notable to me (please don't turn this into Elvis' Policy however, I'd never live it down.--ElvisThePrince 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedied. --humblefool® 23:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Moor[edit]

Josh Moor (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Appears to be hoax article with no basis in fact Scott Davis Talk 22:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GovBenefits.gov[edit]

Created by user:GovBen who has only done edits relating to this article. Looks like a clear case of WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Also, I suggest, not particularly notable to users outside the US. -- RHaworth 22:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was self-promotion by itself rationale for deletion? -Amarkov babble 03:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very often. See also WP:VAIN. Although one could ask Can the US government ever be thought vain as an entity? One requires no answer. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it is. By the way, WP:VAIN is merged into COI now. -Amarkov babble 22:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pearl River Memorial Pub Crawl[edit]

The Pearl River Memorial Pub Crawl (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Contested speedy. No assertion of notability (and not notable-sounding on its face) or citation of any sources at all; if it weren't for its claim to be several years old, a fairly clear WP:NFT. Only google hit is several entries on someone's blog [Check Google hits]. DMacks 23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 original research argument is persuasive. A trivial glance at the list shows that they are overwhelmingly not verifiable by watching the episode, despite assertion to the contrary. "Jonathan tells Clark "you were meant for much more important things than winning football games". Glen Ford's Jonathan Kent, in Superman, says very similar dialogue." That presumably requires watching the episode and another film; same with every other allusion that is to another film or the comics, they rely on original research by synthesis between two primary sources. "Clark is almost always seen wearing combinations of red, yellow and blue" would require watching, well, every episode in which Clark wears one or more of the three primary colours, if not sourced to a secondary rather than primary source. This is why encyclopaedia articles must rely predominantly on secondary sources; this article is clearly reliant on primary sources and not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Smallville allusions[edit]

List of Smallville allusions (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

The content of this page is not encylopedic or verifiable as other than opinion. It is definate crystal ball work, as little of the content is documented as other than the editor's observations. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Slavlin 23:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I wasn't sure. I know if you go there the topic was about this page as well. Bignole 01:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them should be removed. A bunch of them were removed a couple of months ago. It may be time for another house cleaning. - Peregrinefisher 05:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (CSD A7) by Herostratus. Kavadi carrier 02:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armagetron Lovers[edit]

Armagetron Lovers (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Article is an attempt to contact fans of a game and direct them to a website. The website does not appear to meet WP:WEB. (The game itself does not appear notable per WP:WEB and its article is currently prodded.) This is a recreation of an article that was previously speedied; it was tagged for speedy this time, too, but that tag was removed by the author, who further added: "PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS, UNLESS YOU HAVE GOOD REASON TO (i.e. typos, grammatical errors, etc..)" -- which shows rather a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Probably still speediable, but bringing this to AfD just to be sure. Shimeru 23:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 10:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starbuck (Battlestar Galactica)[edit]

This is a redundant disambiguation page. Both examples listed below are included on the main Starbuck disambiguation page. "Starbuck (Battlestar Galactica)" is an unlikely search term. Users already mariginally familiar with either series would use Lieutenant Starbuck, Kara Thrace or a derivative as their search terms and find what they wanted, or be sent to the main Starbuck disambig page. BlueSquadronRaven 00:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. hateless 00:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Use the main "Starbuck" disambiguation page. Wavy G 00:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect, likely link term. Kappa 05:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can certainly understand why one might like this page delted, as it is redundant, but it is important, as if we do delete it, people will just recreate a page for one character or the other as they search. If we redirect, which one should we redirect too? I say keep it as it is, its not doing anybody any harm, and is helping people who may be searching... EnsRedShirt 10:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the main disambiguation page for Starbuck; there's no need to keep this page separate. Just take the already-extant two BSG links in the Starbuck disambig page and separate them off to highlight them. If I hadn't been dinged before for altering content under AfD discussion I'd be bold and do it now. Alba 14:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom, and due to redundancy. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I know 2-item dabs are a no-no, this is a reasonable one. It is conceivable that someone writing an article on either version of BSG, or the actors involved, could simply do their own dab on the fly, leading to possible confusion. 23skidoo 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Starbucks Starbuck. --Nehwyn 18:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Starbuck, but not Starbucks like Neh said. That's the coffee place. Anomo 03:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. =) --Nehwyn 06:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — 23skidoo states it well. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 11:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was listed as copyvio. If someone wants to rewrite an original article on him that asserts his notability, they can use the temp subpage. Kavadi carrier 02:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Esack[edit]

Farid Esack (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Run of the mill academic. Most of the article appears to be a copyvio from http://www.jhfc.duke.edu/ducis/civilizations/_esack.html and http://www.quran.org.uk/out.php?LinkID=134, the latter not appearing to be a reliable source. The rest is pure WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, Very Weak This man is by no means a "run of the mill" academic, but the copyright issues are a big problem. And the article is poorly written. Sources? Terrible. POV? Yikes! My preference would be to prune this article alllllll the way down to a stub, because that's all the available source material can justify. I am persuaded that good source material is out there, but someone has to actually go out there and get it before posting the article on Wikipedia. How long will it take? Better still, if someone with good research skills will pledge to work on this article, maybe they can userfy it for some intensive work and then re-post. I would really like to see a good article on this man. Notability is not the only criteria (not that any real evidence of notability has been presented at this time.) Another option is to place this man's name on Requested Articles. OfficeGirl 01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio, but notable - crz crztalk 02:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, website with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 03:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Search For the Magic Bunny Ears[edit]

The Legend of Zelda: Search For the Magic Bunny Ears (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable webcomic posted by its author. 3 Google hits from two websites; doesn't meet WP:WEB. Feezo (Talk) 00:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 01:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Search for the Magic Bunny Ears is written by Grundo a 12 year old homeschooled boy" - yikes. This is more suitable for Comixpedia. Speedy delete as no assertion of webcomic's notability. Kavadi carrier 02:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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