< October 9 October 11 >
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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-28 07:42Z

Stunts performed in Jackass: The Movie and Stunts performed in Jackass Number Two[edit]

Stunts performed in Jackass: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stunts performed in Jackass Number Two (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a list of descriptions of scenes from a movie. It is both unencyclopedic and trivia. An earlier AFD resulted in a decision of "merge", however nobody has bothered to do so; indeed, adding these many descriptions to the otherwise good movie article seems hardly feasible. See also this. >Radiant< 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Return to Castle Wolfenstein. I created a disambiguation page to deal with the possible other uses. Yomanganitalk 18:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Strasse[edit]

Minor character that only appears in one game. Not even worth merging into parent article. Virogtheconq 00:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the extraneous-ness (is that even a word?) of the character is why I nominated it for deletion in the first place. So redirecting it to one of the real locations (perhaps a dab instead?) would be appropriate - the current content of the article doesn't matter. I have no opinion on if it should be redirected to those locations or not. Virogtheconq 00:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those suggesting redirect are pointing to something (a street in Berlin) that has nothing to do with this-here (a character in RTCW). That's what I was trying to explain. --Davecampbell 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that. It just seems a lot more likely that people entering "Wilhelm Strasse" into the search box would be looking for Wilhelmstraße than the game character. ergot 13:52, 13 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolltalk[edit]

Horribly fails WP:NOR and WP:V, among other policies. Article subject (a single story on Slashdot) is not notable. --- RockMFR 00:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 2nd (or 3rd time?) this has been nominated for deletion. The previous discussion (NO CONSENSUS) can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trolltalk

Numerous other Slashdot-related articles are currently up for deletion, for reference:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes on Slashdot
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot trolling phenomena (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot subculture (3rd nomination)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gurgen Askaryan[edit]

Notability appears to be questionable. Referred to in papers, but appeared to have published in a very limited manner, if at all. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 00:48, 10 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 redirect just redirecting but people interested can merge any appropriate content. W.marsh 22:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error Code Purple[edit]

This is an article about a non-notable computer problem that may have an impact on a number of computers made by one manufacturer if certain things happen. In response to the notability template, the creator acknowledged the questionable notability but indicated that people would think it is notable if it was happening to them, suggesting that this should be here for those looking for troubleshooting information (check talk to verify my interpretation). That isn't what Wikipedia is for. 18 search engine hits verify the very limited scope of this issue and provide no reliable coverage. Erechtheus 00:50, 10 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 Merge with and Redirect to List of Star Wars companies. -- Satori Son 13:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taim & Bak[edit]

Star Wars fancruft. The article even comes out and admits it's "relatively small". Crystallina 00:56, 10 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 Keep. Cuddle withdrawn. El_C 07:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuddle party and Cuddlebuddy[edit]

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuddle puddle - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Cuddle Party - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:22, 11 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. Sr13 01:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cobbers[edit]

I can't find any evidence on Google or Lexis-Nexis that a gang called "The Cobbers" exists in Virginia (or in Anne Arundel, see page history). Prod removed by author. Pan Dan 01:04, 10 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 keep. Please note that 'delete or merge' is self-contradictory. 'Merge' means 'keep', first so the material can be merged, then so the article can be converted to a redirect (with edit history preserved for the GFDL). AfD does not govern merges anyway. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personas of The Undertaker[edit]

Wikipedia isn't a guide to everything wrestling. An article for personas is pure fancruft. From the looks of it, Undertaker is the only one that has a personas article (for now at least). Useful information should be added to his page, and this article should be removed. RobJ1981 01:10, 10 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 speedy delete both per A7 and G11. Luna Santin 03:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure[edit]

I don't believe a public access show is notable enough for Wikipedia. Joyous! | Talk 01:16, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danica Heller[edit]

Delete. Google searches for Danica Heller, "Danica Heller", Heller murder baltimore and Danica Heller 1976 yield no search results relevant to this topic (the second only yields two search results overall). If this murder is as notable as the article claims, there would certainly be ample material available outside wikipedia, but since this appears not to be the case I am led to conclude that it is a hoax. Vectro 01:26, 10 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Clausen[edit]

I don't think Clausen is all that notable. Also, the creator of this article has repeatedly removed the notability tags I have inserted without expanding the article or demonstrating that Clausen is notable. MatthewUND(talk) 01:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that the article should not be punished for its creator's misconduct.--Húsönd 02:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. All I meant was the author's actions seem to indicate that he/she is unable to provide a reason to keep, but wants to keep the article despite this. Wavy G 02:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. But for what I found I believe that the author just didn't want to bother. If this person's notability is asserted, then there's no need to delete an article that someone else is likely to create.--Húsönd 02:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to call to your attention that René Clause clearly meets WP:MUSIC, a Google search clearly confirms that. Please do not be tempted to delete the article just because its creator didn't do a good work with it. Expand instead.--Húsönd 15:06, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prepare to Live[edit]

The article reads as an advertisement. Swpb 01:42, 10 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation of Young Free Algerians[edit]

At least one of the claims in this article was unverifiable and the subject of the claim complained about it (apparently), so I removed it. The other claims don't seem verifiable either. I found very few references to an organization with this name even existing through web searching. Someone de-proded because the article is also on the French wikipedia, however, that article is just a translation of this one (including all the dubious claims). If someone can find reliable sources then we can abort this AFD. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-10 01:58Z

IF someone can use this info to write an NPOV article then I'd say we should Keep but not otherwise. I rewrote about half the article, using references. Please improve it further if you can. EdJohnston 18:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also found this, from the UNHCR website in French [[4]]:The OJAL is a militant group that supported the army in its battle against the Islamists and which perpetrated attacks against the Islamic communities. It was founded in 1993. (My translation).Emeraude 13:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agreed with your original nomination of the article for deletion, due to lack of verifiability. Now that we have relatively good sources, and don't leave our readers stuck without any resources to click on, I think we've done our job. If the quoted people, like Samraoui, disagree with one another, we can't help that. But so long as we trust that Samraoui was quoted correctly, I think we're OK. Let our readers decide from the evidence we collected what is most likely to be the truth. A diligent person could probably collect more references just by Googling on the people's names in the current article, but this may be enough. (Another option is to search Le Monde whose archives seem to be open). I encourage the reviewers who have found more references to add them to the article. EdJohnston 22:18, 12 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 speedy delete as patent nonsense. Turnstep 13:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giantenemycrab[edit]

Original Research, Not notable, and unverifiable. Vectro 01:58, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vemo[edit]

This article seems completely bogus. No sources are cited to substantiate anything in the article. I can't find any evidence that this asserted category of music exists. Wookipedian 02:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to remark above: Funny, I tried that and I can't find any such references. I found a person whose nickname is Vemo, with no explanation of the what the nickname means, but that's about it. —Wookipedian 19:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment: Take a look at the User Talk page and edit history of the user who created the article (User talk:D4rk0). This person seems to be a persistent vandal. I wonder if they are trying to promote the term just to see if they can get other people to use it. Perhaps they plan to start adding the term to other pages with links to this page. Note that seven months ago the person was scolded there with the remark "Please stop adding your own inventions to Wikipedia". Or perhaps "Vemo" is just a term used by this person and a small group of their friends, but not a widespread and noteworthy accepted thing. I also wonder about the choice of bands that are listed as examples of the alleged genre — for example, considering the description of the term, does Seether really fit? Also note that the only "supportive" edit to the article made after its initial creation was by an anon IP address that is associated with similar vandalism (User talk:203.114.137.10). —Wookipedian 19:21, 12 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 uhhhhhhh...no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niles McKinley High School[edit]

Not notable per WP:Schools. Vectro 02:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: William McKinley, did apparently not go to this High School, so this can be struck (he was born in Niles, but moved at an early age to Poland (the city in Ohio, that is :-) ) [5]. Fram 15:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, it is never imperative that anything be kept while awaiting verification. That is, in fact, a vioation of one of Wikipedia's core policies. The burden is on the editor to verify what is written before the article is created/edited. Resolute 15:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a gross overstatement to claim "near-complete agreement" that all high schools deserve their own encyclopedia articles, regardless of how ordinary they are.Edison 15:42, 11 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 No consensus. Xoloz 01:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Van Winkle[edit]

Actor who has made single episode appearances in several TV series. BanyanTree 02:45, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia of Turkey[edit]

Defunct web project or just spam? --Peta 02:50, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of Pargon LARP[edit]

A live action role-playing clube; no evidence of notability. --Peta 02:53, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottsdale Worship Center[edit]

Church, no evidence of notability, delete --Peta 02:56, 10 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 flagged as copyvio from [6]. Speedy doesn't apply because this article has been here for months. MER-C 07:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raggademente[edit]

Article has been tagged for lacking notability for some time; talk page suggests he dones't meet MUSIC. --Peta 02:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - from where? MER-C 03:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here. T REXspeak 04:51, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propylon[edit]

No real evidence of notability provided; fails CORP. --Peta 02:58, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.M. "Moot" Truluck III[edit]

Relatively minor public servant, who I don't think meets WP:BIO. Previous AFD reached no concensus. Delete--Peta 03:01, 10 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 - consensus is that it violates WP:NOT and while there are arguments to keep, the majority centre around the existence of other similar lists rather than making the case for the continued existence of this one. - Yomanganitalk 10:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brahmins[edit]

A list with a extremely broad criterion for inclusion and no context. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection and this is just a list of names, with a few POV issues in the entries. A Category structure would make much more sense for members of this (and other) castes. Nilfanion (talk) 21:50, 1 October 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, Avi 03:01, 10 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, barely avoids being a G11 speedy nowadays. Xoloz 01:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snap survey software[edit]

Fails to assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 03:08, 10 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 Disambiguate (and I would warn against any WP:POINT nominations of other surnames as this doesn't set a precedent). Yomanganitalk 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parekh[edit]

Non-notable surname. Wikipedia is not a geneology guide. Contested prod. MER-C 03:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing vote to disambig as per arguments below. Vizjim 17:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coolkeg908 11:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Coolkeg908 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

  • Erm, I denigrated nobody by name. If the cap fits... Also, you say The point of deliberation shouldnt be as to whether it qualifies for here or not: our survey says "Wrong! That is exactly the point of deliberation here at articles for deletion!" Finally, I agree that numerous other articles are problematic and should be nominated for deletion. That has no bearing on whether this particular article should exist in Wikipedia or not. I think that that is all the arguments above covered. Vizjim 11:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, you might want to look at this page - WP:NOT. It is the official policy of Wikipedia that it is not a genealogical database (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory). Vizjim 11:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the point. If this article were to be deleted, then so should hundred others which have references to; or are encyclopedic articles on surnames. They are by the hundreds here, as I keep searching wiki's index. They are "Parekh", "Gupta", "Shah", "Reed", "Straley" and a whole exhaustive bunch of them. All surnames, which have encyclopedic pages dedicated to them, which are huge. And ending with famous/notable names with that particular surname as in Parekh. Parekh, I reiterate again, is a wonderful article. And in anycase, it makes no sense deleting such a well researched, well polished article--for again, if that were to be, then I'd be sorry to see hundreds of other articles,only on "surnames" go from here. Rules are rules. Rules applicable to one article should be stringently followed for the other. The Bottomline,if "Parekh" is deleted, then so should hundreds of other articles here at Wikipedia.org which list only 'surnames/end names' of people of virtually every origin.

And Vizjim, no that does take away your abusing people and fellow wikipedians here. Your calling them 'sock puppets' doesnt make you the leader of the lot. They are all important people here in this argument, leaving their valuable time and comments on this particular article as I see. Did wikipedia give you the right to call them 'sock puppets' and clearly deem them inferior doing the same. Wikipedia needs to take serious action against this particular comment of yours on other worthy wikipedians here in this discussion, as you've called them 'sock puppets'. Atleast a humble apology from your end to all users here would suffice, before Wikipedia intervenes.Coolkeg908 11:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I humbly apologise to all people here who are not sockpuppets or meatpuppets for, erm, not calling you anything. You may wish to read WP:FAITH. Vizjim 12:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a more serious vein, I promise you that if Parekh is deleted, thus setting a precedent, I will nominate for deletion every other "surname" article that you have mentioned, plus any others you care to suggest (I won't do it before this particular discussion is finished because of WP:POINT, but once the precedent is established then we can go ahead and get rid of the rest of the genealogical entries). Vizjim 12:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig as per comments below. Khukri (talk . contribs) 16:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A final conclusion to this mighty discussion. That in fair sense, "parekh" should remain, and be brushed up a little, if it doesnt meet the perfectionist wiki standards. We can all unite to brush and polish it. But in no circumstances, should it be removed, as that would lead to a mass 'exodus' or virtually every other 'surname' and 'name' being deleted from here. A great loss that to the spirit of wikipedia and these great articles created. Let "Parekh" live, the bottom line. And Vizjim thanks for the apologies to all, in future I hope you restrict yourself to open abuse of words such as 'sock puppets' in open forums and other places. They only show your airiness and your deeming of other users here as inappropriate and belittling their views.Coolkeg908 13:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: user has already voted. MER-C 14:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it calls for deletion, then so do the thousands of other 'surnames' and 'names' here at wikipedia.org , and that too simultaneous deletion of all these thousands of articles, not that this one goes first, and then the rest take ages to go, just b'cause we users would be virtually unable to point out to them.Coolkeg908 14:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: user has already voted. MER-C 14:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to report me for abusing you by calling you an obvious sockpuppet (or indeed for other imagined crimes such as saying that you are deliberately giving long replies so as to put other editors off from voting) then there are various place you can go, e.g. the Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Feel free. Vizjim 14:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: not assuming to know the way the closing admin will see this, but the current consensus among the regular editors seems to be to get rid of the current article and to replace it by one that says: "Parekh may refer to: -Link to name1 -Link to name2 - Link to name3." Please don't expect that because most people don't support deletion, this will mean that the article will just stay as it is. It will look something like Farquhar or Hannon, probably. Fram 19:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with the removal of most of the material on Smith (surname). The Clan is more of a political / sociological entry, similar to a tribe (no offense intended towards either tribes or cottish people), so I think that an AfD there may justifiably give a different result. I have nominated for deletion a lot of Indian clans (ghotra's) as well, but reached no consensus. If a name is clearly more than just who was your father and what was the occupation of some greatgreatgrandfather, but indicates a "tribe" (for want of a better word), with political, geographical, ... implications, then more people will be willing to keep the article. This is of course a fuzzy boundary, and it won't be clear on every article in which category it falls (see Habsburg for an extreme example on the "keep" side). I don't feel that this article (Parekh) has enough reason to keep it, and furthermore has a complete lack of sources (thus failing WP:V). Fram 10:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coolkeg908 08:32, 14 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del Rancho[edit]

Small resturant chain, fails WP:CORP. --Peta 03:10, 10 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11. While the company and its products may be notable, the article is too full of PR-speak and thus would require a substantial re-write to bring it close to a neutral point of view. -- Merope Talk 18:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spyrus[edit]

Appears tohave been written by the company; no independent claims of notability. --Peta 03:13, 10 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 snowball keep after expansion. No hard feelings towards nominator. The initial draft was indeed suspicious for the Western world. `'mikka (t) 00:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhomlinsky[edit]

A bizzare biography that fails to demonstrate how or why the subject was notable, delete -Peta 03:16, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Kane[edit]

A winding unverified vanity piece; delete --Peta 03:16, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Brennan[edit]

Artist and academic; notabilty not demonstrate din either field. Delete --Peta 03:19, 10 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 speedy delete under G4, A7, G11. I won't salt for now, but have no objections if someone chooses to. Luna Santin 04:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Entertainment[edit]

This article has been recreated by Mr.andrew porter after deletion following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Entertainment. Tagged for speedy under G4 but tag removed by King Chavez who was the creator of the previous version of this spam/vanity/hoax article. King Chavez is likely the same person as Mr.andrew porter or a meat puppet. I suggest speedy delete under G4 and protect against recreation. Húsönd 03:21, 10 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. —Cryptic 00:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAW Family Reunion[edit]

This is purely fancruft. The event was just the season premiere of Raw (which happens every year). This isn't a wrestling wiki that needs to list every season premiere and/or 3 hour edition of Raw. It also should be noted: the results of this are already at WWE Homecoming, since this is the 2nd year a Raw event like this has happened. There is no need for redundant pages. RobJ1981 03:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I wouldn't merge it with WWE Homecoming as all Homecoming was was the 2005 season premiere, not the general name for all of RAW's season premiere's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubhagan (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 October 2006
  • Comment Homecoming is up for deletion as well, and I'm contemplating putting the others up for deletion, though the Tribute to the Troops has been an annual occurrence. James Duggan 03:56, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Harrison[edit]

Actress who does not meet notability guidelines. IMDB shows most of her work is uncredited, and does not provide a photo either. Neither of the pages for shows she was in reference her. Vectro 03:36, 10 October 2006 (UT)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW not withstanding, this nom appears to have been made by a single purpose account unfamiliar with our notability standards. RFerreira 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxi Mounds[edit]

Was listed on Speedy Delete then removed. Requires discussion. Individual does not meet Wikipedia notability standards, is a minor pornographic star with little presence outside of personal internet site and mirrors. Recent activity may indicate article created as vanity by Maxi Mounds herself. Popular target for Josh Whedon vandals linking to Wonder Woman (film) KingCobra666 03:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — KingCobra666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 00:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiend Club[edit]

Non-notable fanclub that only existed for four years in the 1980s, would have been a possible A7 but it was founded by a notable person, the lead singer of The Misfits, and it's been around for a while. I don't think a merge is valid as the misfits article is very long already Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 03:41, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jellopy[edit]

Item in an MMORPG, delete --Peta 04:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancrufty, or transwiki to gaming if one can be found. I can't imagine how this could be notable enough for a general-purpose encyclopedia. Alba 04:11, 10 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 Redirect to Kennedy assassination theories. I have left a message on the talk page requesting anything from the original article be merged to that article. Yomanganitalk 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Files[edit]

Disputed prod. Author removed the unsourced tag as well. Article of conspiracy cruft about a living person based almost entirely on a single website with no mainstream reliable sources. Delete. Gamaliel 04:01, 10 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. —Cryptic 00:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VisualKore, OpenKore, and ModKore[edit]

Bots for playing Ragnarok Online; no evidence of notability; delete --Peta 04:05, 10 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 keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AEGIS (Ragnarok Online)[edit]

MMORPG cruft, no evidence of importance or encyclopedic valuse, delete--Peta 04:06, 10 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. If anyone seriously wants to transwiki this, list it for a temporary undelete, but transwikis to non-Wikimedia wikis are outside the scope of afd. —Cryptic 00:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sage (Ragnarok character class)[edit]

Guide to a MMORPG character class; WP is not GameFAQs, delete --Peta 04:08, 10 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter:sweet[edit]

Non-notable band, has only released one album to date. No reliable sources. Contested prod. MER-C 04:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having released only one album does not necessarily detract from the notability of a band. Take for example, the Australian band Wolfmother. --Felixir 04:26, 10 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. Although Acaosr asserts without contradiction that they might be notable, right now in the article there is only a couple of sentences here and the tracklisting of a compilation album (which doesn't really belong), so if there might be enough outside coverage and other notable bands to write a real article on them, then surely someone can do so. As he says, this deletion doesn't prejudice such an article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Scary Monsters Recording Company[edit]

Independent record label that appears to have only made one release; fails CORP. Delete --Peta 04:18, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pitboss 2000[edit]

No evidence that this group meets MUSIC. --Peta 04:21, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Miranda[edit]

No evidence that this lady meets BIO or that her business meets CORP; delete --Peta 04:22, 10 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 Speedy delete no assertion of notability Guy 07:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oriel Harwood[edit]

No evidence of notability. Delete --Peta 04:26, 10 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 speedily deleted by Grandmasterka. MER-C 08:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fat mudflap girl[edit]

No evidence of notability. Delete --Peta 04:26, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Citizens for Constitutional Reform[edit]

This article was written the day the article was launched. Prod tag was removed by original/only author. I see no reason why this group is any more notable than any other group of "concerned citizens". Not notable and not verified by outside sources. - Che Nuevara 04:48, 10 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 redirect to Variant Magic: The Gathering formats. Mangojuicetalk 18:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reject Rare Draft[edit]

A non-tournament-sanctioned, casual alternate play format for Magic: The Gathering. I have actually played it before, but it is simply too non-notable even within the game's fan base to have an article. Andrew Levine 04:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrm. For future reference, C&P moves are generally frowned upon, as they erase the contributor history required by the GFDL; moving the RRD article would probably have been better. Oh, well, not a huge deal. SnowFire 23:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that it would give far too much weight to a single format, and that just didn't sit right with me. But heck, the article probably needs a rewrite from the top anyway. With a whole article, we can do at least a paragraph on each notable format, not just a sentence. FrozenPurpleCube 00:57, 14 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Valley Bible Church[edit]

Church, no evidence of notability; delete --Peta 04:57, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hershel Dennis[edit]

Do College footballers meet WP:BIO? --Peta 05:02, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Child International[edit]

Ad for a not-for-profit; no evidence of encyclopedic value. --Peta 05:04, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Campbell[edit]

Insignificant media coverage for incorrect spelling of you name does not satisfy WP:BIO; delete --Peta 05:05, 10 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. Mangojuicetalk 18:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silas Garfield Cool[edit]

Delete per WP:Not a memorial. --Peta 05:06, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis & Stutz[edit]

Indecipherable and probably unencyclopedic, delete --Peta 05:09, 10 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 speedily deleted by Grandmasterka. MER-C 08:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konwrath Enterprises[edit]

Appears to be an ad, Delete --Peta 05:10, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing baloney[edit]

Original research and an attempt to create a neologism, delete --Peta 05:22, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Homecoming[edit]

Pure fancruft like RAW Family Reunion. All it was was RAW's 2005 season premiere. Only thing notable was the fact that it was RAW's return to the USA Network. Anything notable coming from that show isn't deserving of it's own page and should only be with WWE RAW. --James Duggan 05:25, 10 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 merge to Little Einsteins. Mangojuicetalk 18:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Little Einsteins episodes[edit]

Partially redundant with content on Little Einsteins, data on this page should be included on that page and episode-specific pages FelineAvenger 05:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a merge, then, rather than a delete.Fitzaubrey 08:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is good stuff. Please keep it. Even if you merge it, please list the episodes. My daughter really liked the tulip episode and google pulled up this page. Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.4.140.2 (talk • contribs) October 18, 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 speedily deleted by Grandmasterka. MER-C 08:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CharityFocus[edit]

Unexceptional not for profit; delete. --Peta 05:35, 10 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. —Xezbeth 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stickman: The Movie[edit]

Prod removed be creator; article lacks context and does not explain why this movie is notable enough to appear in an encyclopeida. --Peta 05:42, 10 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 no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 20:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God: Conservator[edit]

Google search for "God the Conservator" comes up only with this page on Wikipedia. This article is written from a specific point of view and most definitely consists of original research. As such it breaks current policy and should be deleted. Vizjim 06:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you provide any evidence that it is an established term? Searches on JSTOR and google return nothing. Vizjim 08:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read it in my books about RC theology. I do not know the exact term in English because I studied it in Czech and in German, but this could be solved by moving the article, if the term Conservator is wrong. BTW the article cites its sources, so I thing that it is enough to prove that the idea is well established.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the sources cited mention the term. Vizjim 09:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but they describe the concept. I am not sure about the term in English - in Czech it is Udržovatel and I found many www references related not only to the Christian God, but also to Vishnu and other deities. In English I found this, but it does not use the title as well. - What I wish to say is that the title of the article may be wrong, but the concept is established and IMHO encyclopedic. And a bad title of the article is not a deletion reason.--Ioannes Pragensis 10:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until someone researches the issue and provides a sourced, useable title that's not a seeming neologism, it sounds as thought this article belongs only on the Czech Wiki. Vizjim 11:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, do not use too much irony against fellow Wikipedians. Wrong title is really not a deletion reason. - Now I found it - the proper English term is Sustainer and not Conservator. Try to google "god creator sustainer" - I've got 250,000+ hits. So I change my vote to "keep and move to God the Sustainer".--Ioannes Pragensis 11:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No irony intended, I do assure you: there are terms which exist in one language and do not have equivalents in another. A Google search for the exact phrase "God the Sustainer" brings up 182 unique hits [10], divided about 50/50 between Islamic and Christian uses of the phrase, so this looks like a workable article name. Nomination withdrawn on condition of article move. Now, how do I close this debate off? Vizjim 13:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for an admin unless you are one. :-) - The obvious problem of the article is that it is concentrated only on Catholic theology, but the concept of God Sustainer is present also in other Christian denominations, in Islam and other monotheistic religions, and even in Hinduism (Vishnu). It should be broadened. Greetings--Ioannes Pragensis 15:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not OR (see Google) and the nomination has already been withdrawn by Vizjim.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawn nominations don't matter once the discussion stops being unanimous. And it is WP:OR; the specific Bible quotes are legit, but the opening paragraphs and the cherrypicking of specific Bible passages constitutes original research. (It also makes it an NPOV violation. --Aaron 19:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen discussions which ended for withdrawal without being unanimous. But it does not matter much. The important thing is that this is not OR - you can find the notion about God the Sustainer in many books and articles (e.g. http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-2389.htm). And it is not a NPOV violation, because the article just reproduces the Roman Catholic POV and correctly says it. Of course there are other viewpoints which can (and should) be there, but this is not a reason for deletion.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Islam does not believe in Trinity (and Holy Spirit), but still does believe in God the Sustainer. Therefore I think that the article should be kept and broadened, not restricted to the Christianinty only.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:19, 10 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 Speedy delete a7 web. "The website is relatively unknown, but it is gaining popularity very quickly." NawlinWiki 17:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tattiche difettose[edit]

Non-notable webcomic. No ghits. Nehwyn 06:37, 10 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 Keep - discussions as to a possible redirect or merge can take place on the talk page. Yomanganitalk 11:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ventersdorp[edit]

Event described is not notable (insignificant civil march not a battle), no pages link to it. Deon Steyn 06:44, 10 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. —Cryptic 00:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relative Color Principle[edit]

A technique for enabling users to change the colours of a web (or other) page by altering just one "seed" colour. Original research. The phrase was unknown to Google until this article was written and none of the third-party refs and links propose the concept. Secondary objections are: verging towards an how-to guide and just an advert for the author's website at oxomoxo.free.fr/rcp . -- RHaworth 06:44, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling J. Smith[edit]

Tagged as db-bio but author asserts the subject is notable. A quick Google turned up very few mentions for Sterling Smith with any relevant finance keyword, but it was only a quick Google. Guy 06:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note and Question from Author of the Article: First, it should be noted that he did not write this article. The problem may be with the way in which I wrote the article. I did not mean to simply write a resume but I did not want it to be a commercial either. I wanted it to stick only to the facts of the person and give the general information which people have been interested in finding out about. Granted, unless you are involved in the futures industry, you may not be familiar with who this person is. But, due to his commentary on the subject, he is fairly well-known of in this field. Again, this is most likely my own error. I modeled it after some bio articles I found on here such as that of the new CEO of the Ford motor company, etc., as I imagined those would be properly written. Would anyone here be able to suggest what to do to change it so that it does not simply look like a CV - while at the same time maintaining an unbiased and fact-only content so as to stay in line with the integrity of Wikipedia's purpose? Or is it actually ok in it's current form?

Fair enough. Here is an example: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/20/business/main2025399.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_2025399 This is a link to a recent piece of independent press coverage. See caption under picture in bold.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UOGamers[edit]

This is just any Ultima Online-shard, like there are hundreds out there. Also this page is an orphan! just noticed it by random. --Jestix 06:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, with a lot of force, bad temper, and even a mediation request it (as well other shards) were finally removed from RunUO. The fact is, it atracts lots of l33t-kid server admins as well adding their shard. With the comment, why may this shard be here and that not. Also rising a lot of bad temper why people counting themself to the runuo development team may add their shards to wikipedia page, while others may not. And I really don't thing we want a comprehensive shard (server) listing on wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jestix (talk • contribs) .
Mmm, you're probably right. There was similar issue with Legend of the Green Dragon: People were adding random game servers, so I kind of decreed that only official servers (and heck of a notable otherwise) should be listed, and for the rest, link to LotGDnet was added. And it worked. We're not a server directory, really; Listing official servers in LotGD is alike to saying "there's the UO official shards (here, here, and here), and there's random others too, but we're not listing them because judging their worthiness is difficult." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UOGamers is a 3rd party server, not an "official" UO server. However I don't know, it might be the largest "unofficial" server out there... --Jestix 19:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I meant, as in "UO has official shards run by Origin Systems (or at least what's left of it, these days), run at (locations); there's unofficial shards that are based on things like RunUO, but we can't list them blah blah blah". Sorry if I was unclear. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:09, 12 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UOgateway[edit]

I know Afd is not cleanup, but this page is at is absolut unacceptable in style, yet it doesn't seem to get any better with time. Might even be better to make a new start one day. If the lemma is notable at all (I don't know) Jestix 07:12, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John den Dulk[edit]

Tagged db-bio but there is at least some assertion of notability. This is a nominee (not even a candidate yet). Is there an article on this particular race to which the article can be merged? Certainly does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Pictured with an elephant - very droll. Guy 07:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not so much biased in favor of incumbents as biased in favor of notable individuals, which happen to include incumbents and some, though not all, of their challengers. I see no violation of NPOV. I just want to add that significant press coverage in reliable, verifiable sources is actually an indication of notability, and is listed as such in WP:BIO, in its discussion of major local political figures. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 18:53, 13 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. Titoxd(?!?) 20:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Thrasher (politician)[edit]

Another political hopeful. No information form any source other than the man himself. Guy 07:17, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Kanno[edit]

Another political hopeful with no sources outside of his own campaign. Guy 07:20, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Jones (California politician)[edit]

Another political hopeful with no sources outside his own campaign. Guy 07:21, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Ross (politician)[edit]

And another political hopeful with no sources outside his own campaign. Guy 07:22, 10 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 Deleted above the law. El_C 07:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judges above the law[edit]

inherently POV and does not relate to any established concept Fitzaubrey 07:27, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Logan[edit]

Non-notable character that only appeared in one issue of a non-canon comic book story. CovenantD 07:33, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D Min[edit]

Not notable artist/musician, self-promotion article. Prod deleted by anon. TexMurphy 07:34, 10 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 15:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SaRenna Lee[edit]

SaRenna Lee was nominated for dleetion on 2005-08-16. The result of the prior discussion was "nomination withdrawn". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SaRenna Lee/2006-08-16.

Article lacks ANY verifiable information. Not ONE citation. Subject is a completely unnotable pornographic star with very internet presence other than her own pornographic website (with a completely low Alexa rating), and mirror sites. Only notability seems to be 1. Her extremely large breasts 2. Being one of the few neo-fascist big breast stars 3. Her heroin addiction, none of which qualifies her whatsoever under current AfD rules. Should be speedy deleted but I knew some would complain KingCobra666 07:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — KingCobra666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was keep. --Coredesat 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Whoppers[edit]

No establishment of notoriety. Website has an Alexa rating of below 600,000. Only other notability is the ownership of a MySpace. Major films include "Razor Woman" and "UFO Tracker" both B-grade films with limited releases, prints lost. More big-boobcruft. I hope people can look past their prejudices towards well-endowed women and realize this stuff is completely unnotable and doesnt belong on an encyclopedia. KingCobra666 07:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — KingCobra666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZCC[edit]

Delete based on lack of notability. Wiki article is only hit on google for Zesmo Commander Codes Antonrojo 07:56, 10 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 no consensus. W.marsh 23:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denali (band) and Maura Davis[edit]

I was about to delete this and Maura Davis but then I noticed a keep in a related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeley Davis. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-10 08:23Z

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

The result was DELETE. This is all a bit of a confusing mess of new accounts, unsigned commentary and inter-personal mini-feuding. Nevertheless, the reasoned argumentation that there is leans clearly enough toward deleting. The publications by this author are really pretty minimal also, and so there is none bestowed upon this book by transference. (I would also observe that the article is massively over-detailed and entirely disproportionate to its own needs.) I do not think it met any of the recent castings of G11, however. Someone mentions that an admin can see if it was an AOL IP or not; unfortunately they cannot see the IP underlying a logged-in account. -Splash - tk 23:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadmire[edit]

Bumped from speedy; neutral. There is relevant discussion at Talk:Dreadmire. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-10 08:31Z

Also List of Dreadmire Fantasy Animals and List of Fictional Animals in Dreadmire —Percy Snoodle 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You first, especially the latter. And throw on WP:Reliable sources while you're indulging in your amateur legal practice. --Calton | Talk 06:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. No need to get insulting. There are no lagalities involved here, just subjective Wikipedia Guidelines. Thats why we're having this discussion. --Cryogenesis 07:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read this: WP:Wikilawyering. Note the irony of whinging that "[t]here are no lagalities involved here" while trying utilize its techniques. --Calton | Talk 08:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above quote is accurate. It may seem trivial, but its a game, and no one is saying its noteworthy beyond that genre. Its certainly no better than the wrestling. You have to intimately know the genre to understand why the book is notable. If the Dreadmire entry is deleted, there are going to be hundreds - maybe thousands - of other deletions of books, campaign settings, TV shows, editors, and authors that must follow. Precedent has already been set in this genre. If its gets deleted I am sure someone else will eventually add it back without realizing it was deleted. No big deal I guess, I just hate to see all my work go to waste and someone else get to enter it. If it needs to be "cleaned up" then clean it up, don't delete it. Suggestions on cleanup are welcome.--Cryogenesis 07:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above quote is accurate I never claimed it was false, which is sort of the point: a false claim would have the virtue of being reasonable if it were true. As for "cleaning up", as the New York Times has said, if you wash garbage, you just wind up with clean garbage.All right, actually that was me being quoted by the Times in an article about AFDs. But it's verifiable! And true! And totally trivial! --Calton | Talk 08:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above anonymous IP is a single purpose account.
  • Comment This was discussed on the message board. ENnie nominations for books that were published in 1995 are nominated at the beginning of 1996. Since the book was published in December of 1995, and worldwide book distribution did not begin until Spring of 1996, there was no chance to nominate Dreadmire. It is my understanding from reading the website, that since it was technically published in 1995 it will never be able to be nominated for an ENnie, even if its the greatest D&D book ever published.--Cryogenesis 07:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dreadmire was published in December 2005 and the awards cover the time from 2005 to 2006 as the awards are in the summer. Thus Dreadmire was eligible. As an example to avoid confusion we have this winner, Mutants & Masterminds Second Edition *[13] It was released before dreadmire and had won Quode 13:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Uhhhh, as I just posted, according to Alliance Games Distribution the worldwide distribution did not begin until Spring of 2006, in mid-May. I would hardly think that is enough time for gamers to play and evaluate the book in time for an ENnie nomination. Seriously, its got 220,000 words. Thats at least 6 months of reading for me, let along playing the game and getting a feel for the campaign setting.
  • A quote from the notability link you just provided, "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources." The External Links in the article are designed to do this, providing multiple independent predominantly reliable sources.--Cryogenesis 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as I said before, precedent has been set on Wikpedia already, including descriptions of lesser known books not even published yet (Savage Tide), and obscure editors/authors/publishers of all types and genres, such as Eberron, as well as "Category:Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings" and "Category:Dungeons & Dragons books".--Cryogenesis 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestions on how to improve the article would be helpful. I would prefer these suggestions came from people that didn't hate the author or took sides in the legal issue surrounding the original manuscript.--Cryogenesis 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change my mind to delete I was not careful enough the first time around: there is no indication that the said reviews are non-trivial. Many of those are from open forums and posted by fans or, for all we know, the author himself. Some are just mentions in passing and not actual reviews with any sort of depth and it's questionnable whether these are truly independent. Moreover, the obvious sockpuppetry on this AfD is a very ominous sign and my recent arguing with Cryogenesis (talk · contribs) on the article about the author does lead me to think that he is, if not Randy Richards himself, then certainly someone with close ties to him. Pascal.Tesson 22:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suggestions on which parts to re-write would be appreciated. The only reason I added all the links was because I had to show the book was Notable and Verifiable. If the article remains undeleted, then the external links could be removed. Would that make it seem less like an advertisment? Personally I don't care about any of the External links at all, including the ones to the publisher's website. I was just copying the format of the Eberron article, thinking that was "normal" for a Notable and Verifiable fancruft Wikipedia entry.--Cryogenesis 18:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious advertising, the article clearly doesn't satisfy WP:notability .--Cliveklg

  • Comment: Probable sock-puppet. This user has never before contributed to WP except for this posting. Fairsing 04:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not Randy Richards, thankyouverymuch. The external sources are the "proof", not the Wikiepdia interlinks. Another form of proof, as someone else pointed out, is the voluminous interest in this article (number of posts on both sides of the issude). If there was little interest in this book, then the post count would be low (and posts from people not involved in petty grudge match against the author). The high post count proves its notability ad hoc.--Cryogenesis 04:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am quite sure the Admin can tell whether or not a post is from an AOL IP or not, if that helps. I want the article to stay up, but not if we have to cheat. The article can stand on its own merits and notability without "sock puppets". As to the "meat puppets", have you noticed many of the "delete" voters seem to be associated with Quode and the "Greyawk Wiki Project"? Interesting. As to the stuff about Randy (the author) and Spellbinder Games' e-mails, that is neither here nor there. True or not, it is not relevant to the Wiki article.--Cryogenesis 04:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether or not your assertions are true or false has nothing to do with the question at hand, except that it shows your continued obsession in furthering your vendetta.--Cryogenesis 04:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Credibility suffers when “facts” change while trying to discredit an observation. The comments about worldwide distribution, ENnie qualification, and the "run" of the book being over, are all accurate. The d20 market is soft. In the 1980's/90's a typical D&D book run was 30,000 books. In 2006, a game company is lucky if it sells 800 books. 1,400 book sales would be a runaway hit. 2,000 would be a blockbuster. Ask any game company, including WotC, Spellbinder Games, and Necromancer Games, if you don't believe me. It doesn't take but a couple of months to sell 800 to 2,000 books. The "run" of the book is over, as would most any game book by this time. Perhaps you should do more industry research before spin doctoring information to fit your version of the world. The only bully here is you, as your consistent hammering has made self-evident.--Cryogenesis 18:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BTW, infamy is indeed a form of notability.--Cryogenesis 15:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noting an echo in here -- Simon Cursitor
Comment I wholly agree that these should be deleted. However, it's rather bad practice to add deletion candidates to an ongoing AfD since we can't simply assume that everyone who sounded off on Dreadmire also agrees with these deletions. A separate nomination would be in order for these. Pascal.Tesson 14:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm happy to leave that up to the closing admin. If the only existence of these creatures is in a non-notable book, they my view would say that they are obviously non-notable, and going through an AfD for them is just going to be a waste of everybody's time. Cheers --Pak21 14:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For a long while these three votes were lying atop the page, unsigned. Of course all three are from editors with no other contributions to Wikipedia. 22:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Graves[edit]

This article was an expanded radio bio stub, in which major inaccuracies were reported, as a means to defame the subject's character. There aren't any factual or verifiable pieces of this biography. This was edited by someone that is trying to libel this subject. Californiawikisooth 08:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editor's sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to try and remove this article, has been warned for page-blanking it. The other editors involved are serious contributors. Not sure about the notability of the subject, though. yandman 09:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend also including in this listing the following additional articles related to Paul Graves:

--AbsolutDan (talk) 12:52, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawn of Chaos[edit]

This is a WarCraft III mod that has yet to be completed. The author is more than welcome to recreate this article when the mod is out and see if it passes muster, but right now it violates WP:NOT. Previously created at Dawn of chaos. Danny Lilithborne 08:40, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-luc paquet[edit]

Non notable, 42 google hits, of which 3 on Wikipedia, and most of the rest aren't about this one. yandman 09:14, 10 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. No evidence has been provided to counter the lack of notability claims made by those advocating deletion. If it is indeed notable the article can be recreated with appropriate references. - Yomanganitalk 11:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Language Evaluation Forum[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username)).

Non-notable event. Contested prod. MER-C 02:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm not. That's why I've called question to this nomination. We need someone with familarity with the subject to make that call. —Mitaphane talk 05:21, 7 October 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, Keitei (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article does not have cites; all of its links are in the "external links" section, which are not supposed to be references in accordance with WP:CITE. I'd like to see at least one article that's specifically about CLEF; none of the external links point to what CLEF is except the official site. ColourBurst 19:31, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Howard[edit]

Seems like self-promotion and advertising for this person and his businesses. Note that this is a different Christopher Howard than the subject of the prior AFD. NawlinWiki 14:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: Willymora (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.. yandman 11:39, 10 October 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, Keitei (talk) 10:23, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invest Sign[edit]

Non-notable software Nehwyn 10:35, 10 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 Redirect - Yomanganitalk 11:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Away from keyboard[edit]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better Markup Language[edit]

Of the 100-odd unique Googles, none appear to be reliable sources. If this is a significant enterprise I have yet to see any evidence of it. I don't see much evidence of it replacing PERL, PHP or ASP, which is its intended purpose. Guy 08:59, 4 October 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 11:38, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Stephenson[edit]

Non-notable political hack. Possibly autobiographical --Michael Johnson 11:55, 10 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 speedy delete as non-notable group. Turnstep 13:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epicka[edit]

Delete. This is a social networking site that "has just started", according to the article. [Check Google hits] A web search for "Epicka" brings up the site as the first result, as well as a bunch of pages in Czech and Polish. Alexa ranking of "no data". Therefore, does not meet criteria of WP:WEB. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 12:06, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy german guy[edit]

Seems fairly low in the notability stakes, certainly by internet meme standards (compare ~500 GHits for "Crazy German Guy" video to >1,000,000 for "Numa numa" video" or >400,000 for "Star Wars kid", which I suppose are somewhat comparable internet phenomena). This shrieking, hamming-it-up-for-the-camera kid was of minimal note at best when I first encountered it some months back, and I see nothing to suggest this has caught on in any major way, nor that this will be remembered years from now. ~Matticus TC 12:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can't have done an exact phrase search there - "Crazy German Kid" video (note the quotes) gets 13,400. Better than 500, certainly, but still fairly low for a supposedly widespread internet phenomenon. Numa Numa has had mainstream TV coverage, as has Star Wars Kid, while I see no evidence of anything like the same level of penetration into the mainstream from this. ~Matticus TC 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Yeah, better move to "Crazy German kid".--Húsönd 18:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my stance to Neutral. The popularity of these videos is likely to be ephemeral.--Húsönd 18:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can just copy the current contents of your article and paste it onto notepad (or equivalent), if you're worried about the article being deleted. If you want to move the article (and I don't recommend you do it until the AfD period is over) then you can use the move button at the tabs on top of the page. But seriously, all of the information comes from the video or from your own keyboard, so it's pretty much original research. ColourBurst 01:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also add that transcribing subtitles directly from another source of which you are not the author is a potential copyright infringement, so would probably have to be removed from the article in any case. If you want to preserve your work however, you could copy it over to Encyclopedia Dramatica, another MediaWiki-based project which thrives on internet memes and the like. ~Matticus TC 07:39, 11 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 Keep - has been improved during AFD process. Yomanganitalk 11:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamar.com[edit]

A tad too notable to be speedily deleted, but it's still close to wikispam and non-notability per WP:CORP. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 12:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you let me know what I need to do with it to stop it being deleted? Lots of our competitors have pages, such as AKQA - I just want us to have one too...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henweb (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry I failed to notify you of this AfD. First of all, the question is if you should write an article about your own company in the first place. Articles on wikipedia should be neutral, and it's very hard to remain neutral when you are involved. The important this is whether the company is notable enough for wikipedia. The basic notability guidelines for companies can be found at WP:CORP. That is what articles about companies are judged on. We don't have articles because "competitors also have pages", or because the company would like to have an article. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 12:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's too notable to be speedily deleted and it could be a reasonable article if the author can change it to a neutral point of view. I'd say it's too heavily focused on promoting the company and listing acheivments instead of providing a user useful, impartial information on the company. AA Milne 12:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but I checked the guidelines and it looks fine to me. The guidelines state "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" - we are frequently mentioned in the press, we are mentioned in the current issue of Revolution for instance, and Marketing Week. Can you clarify why you think we don't qualify? I can give you some examples if you like? A quick look at our client list should show we are a pretty big player in the UK industry, though I appreciate what you mean about not writing our own entry.

If you could perhaps highlight a few examples of my sales talk, it might help - I thought I got rid of it all! :)

Response: I'm working on all of this, trying to get some citations and also tone the article down a bit. Henweb 12:17 GMT, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Response: I have added some citations and references, and slightly changed the wording to be less contentious. Am I on the right lines? Henweb 09:32 GMT, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a very good improvement. Another issue is the pr language that sometimes shines through the article, in words like "conversion-focused design". But I suggest withdrawing/suspending this AfD to give Henweb the time and the opportunity to clean this up. Any thoughts on this? Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 08:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. This discussion should be closed shortly, and will remain archived. Assuming the page is kept -- and I believe it will be, at least for now -- the notice will be taken off the page, and you'll be able to expand and clean it up further. It doesn't mean it won't be nominated again in a couple of months, but if it continues to improve, that shouldn't happen. If you want to read up on the process, WP:AfD covers it, and the most relevant guidelines in this case are at WP:CORP, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Shimeru 18:54, 16 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 REDIRECT to TRIZ. -Splash - tk 23:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Algorithm of Inventive Problems Solving[edit]

Was ((prod)) tagged for 5 days, but I'm not sure that was appropriate. Listing here for wider audience. UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 10 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. Apparent single-purpose accounts disregarded. --Coredesat 21:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Ludington[edit]

Being a candidate in municipal elections in Ottawa doesn't meet WP:BIO. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Leadman and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicky Smallman. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 13:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: That's some press coverage, but all mentions of him seem to be only passing references. I don't think it's significant enough to satisfy WP:BIO. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 13:47, 13 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. Titoxd(?!?) 20:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Valley[edit]

NN pornstar, fails WP:PORNBIO. See also AfDs on Colt 45 and Maxi Mounds created together with this article. Pavel Vozenilek 13:38, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Index of hypothetical future technologies[edit]

WP is not a crystall ball, cruft, targeted for categorization anyway, etc. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:58, 10 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 keep. Titoxd(?!?) 20:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Images (second nomination)[edit]

Delete nn-company/advertisement. This was previously listed on AFD, but speedy deleted as spam before a discussion could proceed. It was then restored as part of a batch due to a larger challenge of the deleting admin's speedy deletions. So here it is again; let's give this one due closure. Postdlf 14:13, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God's School[edit]

Non notable school. Prod tag was removed, so I'm bringing it here. cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:23, 10 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 Keep -- Longhair\talk 03:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passion Pop[edit]

Delete unencyclopedic product description, with no hope of expansion. Perhaps its parent company deserves an article per WP:CORP, in which case this can simply be listed there and redirected, or if there is a list of alcoholic products sold in Australia it can be listed there. But there's no basis for this having its own article—it was created pursuant to college student vanity and all attempts to explain its significance have been totally worthless original "research" ("Passion Pop is extremely popular amoung [sic] students, for its price and ease of drinking. It sells particularly well in Victoria, and is frequently purchased from the discount liquor outlet Dan Murphys."[17]) See also this edit. Postdlf 14:24, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of nazarene prophecy[edit]

This is a POV fork for a topic that doesn't even have its own article yet. If anything, there should be a Nazarene prophecy article, with a section on criticism BEFORE you fork out content like this. Andrew c 14:31, 10 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 KEEP. However, given this 'museums' ephemeral existence, probably a redirect-and-mention somewhere else is all that is really need. -Splash - tk 23:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B-36 Peacemaker Museum[edit]

Since the B-36 that was the whole reason for this museum's existence has been transferred to the Pima Air & Space Museum, this institution is no longer notable rogerd 14:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was a bit of exaggeration, but the point I was trying to make is that if the museum previously met the criteria for notability, then it's notable. Period. The primary reason for its existence has been transferred, but its notablitity doesn't change. It's just historic. Encyclopedia articles are not rooted in the present. -- Whpq 17:40, 12 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 as original synthesis. El_C 07:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suffering servant as Israel[edit]

This article was up for AfD last month, but was withdrawn. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instances in which isaiah uses the word servant to mean israel (the page ahs been moved since. You can read the page creator's reason for making this article. It is clearly a POV fork. If anything, a page on biblical prophecy should cover multiple POVs, instead of creating individual pages for the Jewish POV to respond to Christian claims (and then do we need to create individual pages for Muslim POV, scholarly POV, atheist, hindu, etc? of course not.) On top ot that, this article violates WP:NOT a primary source. The vast majority of the page is text copied out of the bible, mixed in with unsourced interpretations and WP:OR. Fails the big three policy points. Andrew c 14:51, 10 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 redirect to Sydney Bristow. —Cryptic 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Hecht[edit]

Character is not notable or significant enough to warrant a separate article. He appeared in one half of one episode and even though he's the motivation for Sydney's turning double agent his situation is more than adequately covered in Sydney Bristow's article. Otto4711 14:46, 10 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. —Cryptic 00:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha One Airways[edit]

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 00:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beneluxcar[edit]

This page should be deleted as it has no useful information on the company, appears to be self promoting, and I don't believe it is worth the time to edit all of the grammatical errors that are present. Put a cleanup/advertisement template on the site for 2 weeks to see if the author or someone else cared to edit. No additional edits for the author on any other pages. Puchscooter 15:02, 9 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. This deals with two Congresses which already have proper articles. It wouldn't make sense to redirect this to any individual Congress, or House, and it's not useful on its own. If completed, it would be a truly gigantic exercise in duplication. -Splash - tk 23:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Members of the United States House of Representatives[edit]

I have proposed that this article be deleted because it it is a partial duplicate of the 109th United States Congress article. --TommyBoy 08:04, 9 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 Redirect to Powerbomb. Yomanganitalk 11:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Ride[edit]

This article is completely uneccessary. It is a move that is already fully covered in the Powerbomb section and is not singly notable enough to merit it's own article as it doesn't even have any variations Sevenzeroone says: Poopy is not fun! 02:01, 10 October 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: obviously and unfortunately no consensus. Cleanup or merge would seem to be good compromise choices. - Yomanganitalk 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon Ball special abilities and others[edit]

Similarly, having a page for one attack is just plain silly. Thus, the following will be deleted too.

Hydromasta231 18:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add this, don't just vote, add a full and valid oppinion; remember: voting is evil, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. (By valid I mean give your oppinion on why you support your position.) (Justyn 04:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • I would hardly classify the statements as biting any newcomer. Newcomers do not come straight onto Wikipedia to propose deletions, spam user talk pages, and generally try to make a point. If this were actually a new user, and not just a new username it may be correct to use WP:BITE as a reference. The statement I made did not assume any bad faith, it simply pointed out the behaviour, and its less than accepted way of going about it. Being a long-term contributor, they would know these things. Ansell 09:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge I've considered this for a while and feel that it'd be best to make a single attack list and use it as a sort of reference for the other pages in the Dragonball article.--Marhawkman 11:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Fancruft" is not a reason for deletion, don't nominiate things for deletion because they are "fancruft".

(Justyn 14:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

What do you mean they are unverifiable? If you look in various media about Dragonball (magazines, comics, video games), they describe many of the attacks outright. See for example the various books by Pojo. FrozenPurpleCube 17:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the well-written comment below by A Man In Black. Anything from "direct observation" counts as original research and isn't usable. Also Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which the list is a prime example of IMO.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I watch a movie or a television show, and I note that a given star was in it, playing a given character, that is original research? Sorry, but no, that is not OR. Now concluding that a given star is making a comeback, or has hit rock-bottom, that would be. However, you don't seem to realize that I am talking about books and other media that are the ones who have done the observation of the Dragonball series, and as such, this content is clealry derived from that, so your first objection does not apply. To your second, well, I don't think it is a prime example of that, as this is all relevant information to the Dragonball series, which is itself a notable anime. If you think it's indiscriminate, please try to convince me without referring blindly to policies. FrozenPurpleCube 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are clearly verifiable facts in these articles. However, without a single source in any of the articles and just 2 external links to sites which may not be reliable, nothing is actually verified. I'd strongly suspect that a fair chunk of this is indeed OR and so unverifiable, if there are verifiable facts here - give a source so they can be verified. I feel it is indiscriminate in that it lists every attack, no matter how minor, the Kamehameha is important to Dragonball but can you really say that of the Gekiretsu Kōdan? My view is the stuff which should be said on these attacks would be best served in the other DB articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Gekiretsu Kodan doesn't have its own article. If you want to remove it from the collated one, I suggest you take it to that article's talk page. But since it is apparently used in some video games, presumably by name, perhaps someone with access to them, and their manuals can provide useful sources. I can't do it, as I'm not knowledgeable enough of Dragonball or Japanese to do it, I don't own any of the games, even the card game. Can others? Maybe. But an AfD like this one is unlikely to make it happen. Especially not when you mindlessly focus on one minor entry. FrozenPurpleCube 02:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "It's Gokus signature attack," the Kamehameha is actually the signature attack of the "Turtle school" of Martial arts, and used by Muten Roshi, Goku, Kuririn, Gohan, Goten, Cell and various others. Explaining it in the Goku article is silly.
I volunteeer to give this article group some cleanup attention if necessary. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 18:00, 11 October 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, tjstrf 15:47, 17 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 keep and move to non-capitalized title. — CharlotteWebb 14:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical Discussion of Rangekeeping[edit]

Insufficient data in which no one can improve on. My suggestion is to merge delete this article with another suggested article. Sr13 03:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep after rewrite, though I am not certain that that is the best title for this article. Resolute 19:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after excellent rewrite. Sandstein 19:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move as the title is capitalised when it needn't be. Mathematical discussion of rangekeeping would be better, would it not? J Milburn 15:40, 15 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 keep. —Cryptic 00:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online music store[edit]

"Online music store" article is only advertisement, also with illegal mp3 shops like mp3sale.ru. Should be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djprezes (talk • contribs) 11:44, 10 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Sea Brothers[edit]

Non-notable vanity page. Fightindaman 16:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may click at them, and search for Singapore Sea Brothers + it is notable due the early record of the early 80's 150 kilogrammes of Stingray. PS: for more on the rating do visit my site @ the Singapore Sea Brothers

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD G7 (author request) Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore sea brothers[edit]

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

The result was DELETE. -Splash - tk 23:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InstallAware[edit]

This was ((prod))'d for a time, but I think it needs a wider audience for deleting it. UtherSRG (talk) 15:04, 10 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. Not (nor professes to be) an encyclopedia entry. El_C 07:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Islam Bibliography[edit]

This is a list of published works on Islam, and self-professes "to compile a comprehensive list of introductory books on Islam written in English anywhere in the world". It does not fill any normal definiton of an encylcopedia article, it's not even properly a list by the Wikipedia definition i.e. it does not contain information, merely data. None of the books or authors on the list (bar one or two) are demonstrated to satisfy the relevant notability guidelines. In short, this is a pure data-dump, not knowledge. Delete Zunaid 15:20, 10 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 keep. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirouline[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [24]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:27, 10 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 keep. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna's Swedish Thins[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [25]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:29, 10 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 keep. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breakaway (food)[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [26]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:31, 10 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 keep. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels cookies[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [29]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:34, 10 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 Keep, but since there is some interest in merging I will add the merge tags. Yomanganitalk 11:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choco Leibniz[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [30]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:35, 10 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 speedy keep. — CharlotteWebb 07:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chips Ahoy![edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [31]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:35, 10 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 keep. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chips Deluxe[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [34]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:37, 10 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 keep. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunk-a-roos[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [36]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Do we anticipate a separate article on every cookie/biscuit from every manufacturer? If this one is unique or otherwise notable, keep it. If it isn't, delete it. In the UK, I've never heard of it, so cannot comment on its notability or lack thereof. Emeraude 16:48, 10 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 - no evidence has been provided that they are notable. Yomanganitalk 11:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duberry cookies[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [37]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:38, 10 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 keep. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Panda[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [38]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:40, 10 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 keep. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HobNob[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [39]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Do we anticipate a separate article on every cookie/biscuit from every manufacturer? If this one is unique or otherwise notable, keep it. If it isn't, delete it. Being in the UK, I've heard of these and the company, and the article is fuller than most of the other biscuit articles being discussed, but I still do not feel that every biscuit in the world deserves an entry just because it is a biscuit. Emeraude 16:53, 10 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 Redirect to Keebler. No evidence of notability provided. Yomanganitalk 16:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic middles[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [40]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least indicate how expansion might demonstrate the notability of this particular cookie? Keebler is certainly notable, but does that mean it confers notability to every product it puts out? GassyGuy 15:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as a matter of whether this cookie is notable, because it's encompassed by an undisputedly notable topic. I think the better way to look at it is how substantial is it as an independent topic, such that it isn't enough just to mention it in a list of Keebler products. Is it expandable in a nontrivial way? George W. Bush is notable, yet George W. Bush in December, 1978 does not merit a separate article, nor does Hairstyles of George W. Bush (I will nevertheless be in awe if anyone makes a genuinely encyclopedic attempt at such an article). Postdlf 15:42, 11 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrox[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [41]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:42, 10 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 keep. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Cookies[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [42]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:44, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Rose[edit]

Non-notable bio. Nehwyn 15:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the db tag was repeatedly removed by author. --Nehwyn 15:51, 10 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 keep. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milano (cookie)[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [43]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:45, 10 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nilla[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [46]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:44, 10 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin biscuit[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [47]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random quote: "A Penguin biscuit (the towering treat of the Seventies)" from this article [48] (The Guardian Unlimited). There are stacks of them. What about this one? [49], apparently it's published in 'Marketing magazine' (!?) and gives some sales figures (that site is a solicitor's site, with the material taken from that mag). There is stacks of material available. QuagmireDog 23:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first example you gave is already in the article under "Further reading". Yomanganitalk 23:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, here's more on the Puffin/Penguin lawsuit between Penguin's manufacturer and the supermarket chain Asda [50], direct from the Marketing magazine website. There's 49 results on 'penguin biscuit' on that site alone [51]. QuagmireDog 23:55, 10 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. —Cryptic 00:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top Of The Pods[edit]

Delete: No evidence of meeting WP:WEB (contested prod)  — Tivedshambo (talk) 15:50, 10 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nutter Butter[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [52]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:51, 10 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 Merge to Girl Scout cookie. Yomanganitalk 16:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagalongs[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [53]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:53, 10 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Grahams[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [54]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:54, 10 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 keep. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Teddy[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [55]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:57, 10 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 Speedy keep, the contested speedy deletion of this article on 2006-10-03 already came to AFD on 2006-10-05 and was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Tam. Uncle G 16:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Tam[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [57]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:57, 10 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.
Note. The article which was the subject of this discussion is now at Toll House cookies. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was procedural speedy keep. ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toll House[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [58]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:58, 10 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 Speedily keep. Kilo•T 18:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wagon Wheel (biscuit)[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [59]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 263,000 Google hits for "wagon wheel biscuit" ([60]) --Dweller 16:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a bit like someone slapping an Afd on Oreos --Dweller 16:34, 10 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 Keep. Myles Long 21:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whippet cookie[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [61]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 16:00, 10 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnott's Biscuits Holdings[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [62]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 16:03, 10 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nestlé brands[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [64]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 16:03, 10 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 keep. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi (chocolate)[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [65]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not everything on disambig pages needs to be linked. Pavel Vozenilek 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. This, however, seemed to be a valid article. -- Natalya 16:03, 11 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Amos[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [66]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 16:03, 10 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 Speedy keep, no question that this meets WP:CORP. NawlinWiki 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pepperidge Farm[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [68]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 16:03, 10 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Wurly[edit]

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [69]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 16:04, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pugna[edit]

Completing a nomination. Rationale was provided in the talk page: "I'm not very knowledgeable with Wikipedia's policies, but I'm certain that DotA Allstar's current status does not warrant individual hero pages. Furthermore, the information displayed here is insufficient and ambiguous to users unfamiliar with the game. I doubt this article has its place in an encyclopedia." Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 16:04, 10 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. —Cryptic 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme phpBB[edit]

Incomplete nomination started by Esptoronto. Reason given as: Extreme_phpBB is not noteworthy and now discontinued. Yomanganitalk 16:49, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gazzo K[edit]

Completely unsourced; author has a history of nonsense edits; probably a hoax. See original author's comment at [70] after I added the "hoax" template. Demiurge 16:17, 10 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 - Yomanganitalk 14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Stein[edit]

Article about a person who writes about wrestling on the Internet, which really isn't enough to make a person notable. I've come upon the article by reverting edits by sockpuppets of an indef blocked user a couple of times, but that doesn't change the notability either way. - Bobet 16:37, 10 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 Speedy delete a7, group/website with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 17:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradleyfans[edit]

Non-notable fan group for Bradley Univerity. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:40, 10 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. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Merchant[edit]

Article is entirely based upon one non-noteable individual (a video game merchant). Furthermore, the name "Tom Merchant" does not appear in any official RE4 documentation and appears to be Original Research. Thirdly, the base text itself contains numerous errors. While someone proposed merging it with the base RE4 article, the "Tom Merchant" text is so inaccurate that to add this section to said article would not benefit it. Ex-Nintendo Employee 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering(talk/c) 16:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure why you relisted this. It's quite obvious that the entire article should be deleted- there's never been any evidence that the merchant in RE4 is named Tom, there's no noteability for this character (he's just a merchant in a video game, out of thousands of merchants in video games), the list of quotes attributed to him is full of errors and none of the article follows the manual of style. Ex-Nintendo Employee 17:09, 10 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. - Bobet 09:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Service concept[edit]

Non-notable, little context provided. Akradecki 16:44, 10 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. Nonnotable. El_C 08:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North West Pedestrian Crossings Appreciation Society[edit]

This society appears to be a hoax, unless evidence can be provided of its existence. Cfrydj 16:45, 10 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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Personality Syndrome[edit]

Unsourced original research. Contents can also be found at Dissociative identity disorder, Multiple personality controversy, and DID/MPD in fiction. I suggest to turn it into a redirect to the first of these articles. Nehwyn 16:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I've been bitten in the past for that.  :) --Nehwyn 20:06, 10 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 speedy delete as copyright violation of copyrighted ("©2006 optimumnutrition.com, All rights reserved.") non-GFDL web pages. The two warnings presented whenever one edits pages "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." and "Copyright infringements, attacks, and nonsense will be deleted without warning." are abundantly clear on this. There is no need to waste AFD's time on a matter that belongs at User talk:Cleanupman. Uncle G 17:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optimum Nutrition Inc.[edit]

Corporate spam. Speedied twice per the new spam directives; author requested an "admin review", so here it is. NawlinWiki 16:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an ad it is the Official site of Optimum Nutrition taken from their about us page http://www.optimumnutrition.com/aboutus/about1.html

same as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_computers

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_and_Applied_Sciences

This is not corporate spam and if so it can be cleaned up if needed. I have listed two above articles that are just company articles. I am not sure were the differences are but it seems to me if this is the new policy there are going to be allot of Companies considered as corporate Spam.

Help me out here as I am willing to add take out change the article to come into guidlines with Wki. It is kinda hard to do when the article is deleted before I have a chance to review it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cleanupman (talk • contribs) .

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

The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 10:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kolb[edit]

Non-notable quarterback, fails WP:BIO, his lepidopteraphobia notwithstanding. Eusebeus 15:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering(talk/c) 16:59, 10 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 CSD G11 as tagged - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How Not To Make A. ... Movie[edit]

Deprodded. A YouTube series of two videos and 1 in production (according to the article). Not notable, also vanity which you can easily see by the original authors image descriptions on their Special:Contributions/Humorbot5 - "Picture Taken Directly from a film I made". Apparently no media attention so not notable. Andeh 17:14, 10 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 KEEP. The article embodies all that is worst about this kind of topic, however. It's one long stream of thought without structure. -Splash - tk 23:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum evolution (alternative)[edit]

((prod)) after a long time needeing ((cleanup)). Perhaps a wider audience can agree to delete it or save it. UtherSRG (talk) 17:26, 10 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 - Yomanganitalk 14:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Dramatic Life (album)[edit]

The title of this album hasn't been announced, so this is just unsourced speculation and rumour. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 17:43, 10 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 - Yomanganitalk 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The All Out Show[edit]

Show is broadcast on Sirius radio, but gives no mention of any notability. Does a show being broadcast on Sirius automatically make it notable? Wildthing61476 17:46, 10 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 keep as disambiguation page. -- nae'blis 15:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lettow[edit]

Non-notable and more suited for the Wookieepedia. Should be turned into a redirect to Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck. Olessi 18:00, 10 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 Keep. (aeropagitica) 21:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sofiur Rahman[edit]

Proposed deletion tag removed by author Tarif Ezaz (talk • contribs). Brianyoumans (talk • contribs) wrote: "Not notable; this man was merely an innocent bystander who happened to be shot by the police; I think mentioning him in the language movement article would be more than sufficient. Brianyoumans 12:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

I agree with him so I've sent this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. A Google search for ("Sofiur Rahman" -wikipedia) returns no mention of this person at all. Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (people) --  Netsnipe  ►  18:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep - A banglapedia article (national archives of Bangaldesh) should cement notability.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:40, 12 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. (aeropagitica) 21:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Manulis[edit]

Good-faith submission. After someone copied text from the Hebrew wiki a month ago, I translated it from the Hebrew, and put a notability tag on it. Since then, there has been no improvement. I just don't think it's notable. In essence, he is a past president of the Israeli Astonomical Association (not known how many astronomers in Israel) and he has an asteroid named after him (not known how precious that really is). Delete? - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:12, 10 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope Talk 18:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip John Basile[edit]

No claim to notability. No doubt an upstanding citizen, but does not seem to meet WP:BIO. Attempted to speedy delete, but article creator "disputed" it by removing the tag, so I'm bringing it here for consensus. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:15, 10 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ligon Middle School[edit]

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Speedy tag and prod tag have been removed previously. cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:16, 10 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 per WP:V.

Judaic Christianity[edit]

The article says about this religion, called also Commemorative Christianity or Experimental Judaism: "However, since it is new, resources are not yet available for this particular religion." - Therefore I think that this violates both notability and verifiability. Speedy deletion contested, so AfD Ioannes Pragensis 18:28, 10 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 keep. - Bobet 09:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multi Theft Auto[edit]

Non-notable game modification. -- Merope Talk 19:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll withdraw the nom if these citations are worked in - they clearly establish notability. -- Merope Talk 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we will have a look at how we will do that, i've spend the past hour collecting various bits i remembered and combined them on our own wiki : http://www.mtavc.com/docu/index.php?title=Press_Coverage . I'll see tomorow where we can go from here. btw the unsigned comment was mine, never was a big editor on wikipedia so this is all fairly new to me -- Blokker 1999
  • I have just edited the page to include our top moments in press coverage. Blokker 1999 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merope, are you happy with this now? Can this AfD be closed? EAi 23:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that we just have been featured on some forums. We have a couple of articles in the written press that take more then 1 page, the major gaming sites (IGN and GameSpy) compared games like True Crime and Saints Row with MTA. Fileplanet has placed us on it's frontpage, for a mod that's rare. And G4TV did a feature about us on TV. We even received an e-mail from Rockstar itself stating that they took an interest and will keep track of our progress. When your project is well known by the biggest editors in the bussines then it's difficult to call something trivial imho. Blokker 1999 04:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you did read everything you would have noticed that that was me who posted that. And the reason is simple (even though a discussion has been held in the past). When i did research on why our article was put up for deletion i noticed that to establish notability you have to include indipendent sources, something the sa-mp article does not do even though it was put up for deletion months ago. And while we get nominated over it they only get a warning and probably only after reading what has been said here. Now that looks to me as having two standards. Further more we and SA-MP try to avoid flame wars ourselves. Anyone trying to start one in our forums or IRC sees their post removed or gets warned/kicked/banned from the channel. We have a healthy relation, hell i even warned Luke (one of the SA-MP devs) about the warning on top of their article. Blokker 1999 06:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue under debate here is the MTA article, it has nothing to do with SA-MP. Bringing the SA-MP article into question serves no purpose and contradicts your stance of neutrality between the two communities. What happens on IRC or community forums is of no relevance to Wikipedia, the issue I was referring to in regards to relations between either community and Wikipedia was the issue of vandalism that intermittently happens to both the MTA and SA-MP articles. Also realise, the SA-MP article received a similar nomination and has had a similar discussion under AfD, it was not simply a 'warning', you are not receiving some sort of injustice. - Jaqel 19:53, 15 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Quake[edit]

Article was first up for deletion over a year ago here during that time no one has put any reliable sources noting how this mod is any more notable from the countless other mods that never made it to fruition. So delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Whispering(talk/c) 19:02, 10 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 Redirect to List of United States Presidential pets - Yomanganitalk 14:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Timahoe[edit]

Delete This page is an advertisement for the blog it links to. flipjargendy 19:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i would agree with that, although that info is already in the List of United_States Presidential pets. That blog stuff is clearly advertisement though. That's the only reason this is up for deletion. - flipjargendy 23:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States Presidential pets, then. Andrew Levine 00:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Redirect would make more sense now that i think of it. If someone does a search on "King Timahoe" and it is redirected to the List of United_States Presidential pets it would then be obvious that "King Timahoe" is a pet of a president. i see no need to have an article or even a stub about this pet. - flipjargendy 21:20, 11 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 Keep. Catchpole 20:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Toler[edit]

Contested prod; article is about a television personality. No evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 20:23, 10 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. (aeropagitica) 21:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PHPAjaxTags[edit]

Delete, no evidence that this piece of software meets the criteria outlined at WP:SOFTWARE. --Kinu t/c 20:37, 10 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. The argument raised on the paucity of verifiable sources for notability of the zine holds and has not been refuted -- Samir धर्म 04:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HeartattaCk[edit]

Self-published punk zine. This article was recreated as response to a contested speedy deletion and now asserts notability. Procedural listing, I abstain for now. ~ trialsanderrors 21:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know where you expect to find these kind of things when we're talking about a subcultre that keeps itself deliberatly marginal. Sorry, I would find it disappointing if articles about something like this were deleted for "technical" reasons while there are 10,000 articles about pointless aspects of TV shows, videos games, websites,etc. I vote for keep, is everyone voting to delete at least familiar with the magazine?Dan Carkner 02:51, 11 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. Punkmorten 21:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DisplayConfigX[edit]

Ad for software, no independent verification of widespread use/notability provided.--Peta 02:35, 27 September 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, Mailer Diablo 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 21:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisting one more time. I think if there are no more !votes, this AfD should default to no consensus. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:18, 10 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. (aeropagitica) 09:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under Pressure (magazine)[edit]

This magazine seems completely non-notable. Less than 500 Ghits. Prod removed without comment. Picaroon9288 21:21, 10 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. (aeropagitica) 09:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable power pop songs[edit]

No actual assertion of notability; no criteria specified as to what makes a given power pop song "notable", so it violates WP:OR. Aaron 21:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A worthwhile topic, so long as the above concerns are addressed, and self-promoting bands or show-offy "favorite songs" are marginalized. 64.131.196.248 21:52, 10 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 no consensus, so keep for now. (aeropagitica) 08:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Holocaust Memorial Award[edit]

No hits in Google, except in Wikipedia. A possible hoax? Kjetil_r 21:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, apparently there's no publicity at all at the moment for this major future award Bwithh 00:48, 12 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. (aeropagitica) 08:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tolkien Forum[edit]

No assertion of notability. If evidence of such notability exists, this deletion discussion ought to drum it up; if it doesn't, we should delete the article. Masamage 22:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I meant the addition of websites to a7--Fuhghettaboutit 12:21, 11 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. (aeropagitica) 08:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferguson's Disease[edit]

Probable hoax. I can find no medical literature referring to Molluscum Contagiosum as Ferguson's disease and the symptoms are different. There is no entry in the On-Line Medical Dictionary or the MedlinePlus: Medical Dictionary on Ferguson's disease. NORD - National Organization for Rare Disorders database has no entry of this name. No Google news stories relating to Ferguson's disease or a case of a rare disease in Clifton Heights. TimVickers 22:10, 10 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. (aeropagitica) 08:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notaku[edit]

Was originally prodded and prod2'ed for "Insignificant neologism seemingly created for self-promotional purposes." Prod contested by original article author. Wikipedia is not for creating memes or being a soapbox. Delete -- Ned Scott 22:20, 10 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Provan (student)[edit]

Article was nominated for speedy deletion under A7 (no assertion of notability), but doesn't qualify, because the notability was asserted. I'm putting this up for AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 22:24, 10 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 keep. Please defer merge-related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howling Laud Hope[edit]

No noteriety independent of the Monster Raving Loony Party. Stood in a few elections seems to be a rather weak claim considering that he always comes last. JASpencer 22:28, 10 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 wasDelete. (aeropagitica) 08:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotel chains[edit]

Has criteria for WP:NOT, the list could be endless, mainly a collection of internal links (not a disambig. page), not all hotel chains are notable. Luke! 22:32, 10 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 Speedy Deleted by admin NCurse (It is blatant advertising for a company, product, group or service that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. (CSD G11)) without closing AfD. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 11:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LASIK MD[edit]

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

The result was Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. (aeropagitica) 08:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He-Man Tennis[edit]

He-Man Tennis seems to be a made up game/nelogism created by an author who has only contributed to one article, this one. There are no references cited wgh 22:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Delete if you wish.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 rewrite. (aeropagitica) 08:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public transportation in San Diego County, California[edit]

Incomplete nom started by 75.213.215.118. No reason given. Yomanganitalk 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The San Diego, California article specifically discusses the biggest city in that region, not the county. This is about the transportation network of the county.--Chicbicyclist 06:45, 12 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 Keep. (aeropagitica) 08:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overtaking[edit]

Deletion is indicated under WP:NOT, which includes includes dictionary entries and instruction manuals.Verklempt 23:05, 10 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 as per crystal ball comments. (aeropagitica) 08:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Middle East conflict[edit]

This entry was originally created as a collection of OR crystal-balling about the future of the then concurrent 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict and 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. As the initial fervor in the press died down rather quickly, and no greater "2-3 front conflict" has materialised, I see no reason to maintain a page with summaries of these two distinct events. I believe its first AfD failed due to the fluid nature of events at that point, but the delete argument is still valid. TewfikTalk 23:07, 10 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. (aeropagitica) 08:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feranimism[edit]

Content is not properly verifiable. Zero Google hits for feranimism or feranimist. Five Google hits for "mary spencer" telepathy, none of which confirms the content of this article. While I am aware that not every source is to be found on Google, when there are zero hits on Google for something non-technical like this, that's almost certainly an indication that no sources are to be found anywhere. See also Talk:Feranimism. Prod removed by anon, possibly the author. Pan Dan 23:09, 10 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 as a non-notable software, WP:SOFTWARE refers. (aeropagitica) 08:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hobix[edit]

Blogging software, used mainly by the author itself. No notability asserted (Ruby & YAML is nice but nothing earthshaking). Freshmeat is the proper place for this text. Was PRODed, deleted and recreated from Google cache. Pavel Vozenilek 23:18, 10 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. consensus is clear. Mangojuicetalk 20:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merlinscape[edit]

An article (mostly advertising) a game illegally stolen off the copyrighted game RuneScape by Jagex Ltd. The game has no "private servers" - all servers are run by Jagex, and some individuals decompile and copy the game's source code, creating illegal copies, such as the one advertised in this article. Agentscott00(talk contribs) 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I accidentally typed CSD A7 as A11. Sorry about that. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:35, 11 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. (aeropagitica) 08:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enfield Brass[edit]

Was PROD'd and then deleted with "self- declared C-grade community suburban band" as the reason. I later received a message from a user who had worked on the article asking for it to be restored, so I thought AFD would be the best route. No opinion from me. Wickethewok 23:20, 10 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 as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (aeropagitica) 08:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double Dutch (film) (2nd nomination)[edit]

This article was previously deleted after this discussion. While it appears that this article is a recreation, I do not know if it is "substantially identical" to the deleted version (and thus not eligible for CSD G4), although I suspect it is. Whether it is or not, it's still unsourced crystal ball gazing. Agent 86 23:55, 10 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. As the article stands, it's a speedy A7 anyway. -Splash - tk 23:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Prison Experiment (band)[edit]

Stub regarding a non-notable defunct band, per WP:NN -Markeer 02:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References abound, such as this, this, or this. This band does seem to meet WP:MUSIC.--Húsönd 18:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main purpose of keeping records is to make sure that things that were once notable do not fall into oblivion.--Húsönd 13:46, 13 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.
More