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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 10:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson Steward[edit]

Seems to fail WP:BIO. Buried in the wall of text are a few cases of what seem to be assertions of notability, but they're mainly that he wrote drafts of unpublished books, that he was the CEO of a company that doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP, and that his friends really liked him. Crystallina 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete We need a new policy at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not such as "Wikipedia is not an obituary". This is the second article I read tofay of a guy who died of non-natural causes whose only claim to fame was that someone (probably the author of the article) new him and liked him. a google search turns up 96 occurances of the combination of the words "Robinson Steward" and NONE of them are about this guy (save this wikipedia article and an answers.com article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-12 05:31:19
  • "Wikipedia articles are not memorials" has been there for years. Uncle G 09:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To wit, delete Eusebeus 15:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per nom -Ladybirdintheuk 11:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per nom Avalon 07:20, 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 speedy delete by NCurse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): "The given reason is: it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)". — TKD::Talk 06:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olympique Energetik AFC[edit]

Completely non notable student team Dodge 02:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Dodge 02:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonnotable non-varsity college team, founded summer 2006. NawlinWiki 02:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - amusing but has to go as failing WP:CORP and with no claims to notability a CSD A7. BlueValour 03:21, 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 Speedy delete, db-group / company, no assertion of notability. Deizio talk 09:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being There (magazine)[edit]

Online music magazine, arguably asserts notability by interviewing notable entertainers, but no other indication of notability. NawlinWiki 02:13, 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. Dakota 04:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Christison[edit]

NN. Only real assertion of notability is from her book, which gets only 150 Ghits [14] [15], practically all of which are blogs. Aaron 02:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She's written a book and some articles that have been picked up in leftist and Arab publications some of which are notable. If she were writing about just about any topic other than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict she would easily fail notability guidelines. She gets some pretty big google numbers but I think that has more to do with the topic she's writing about than what she has to say. However, if we adapt the academic notability test and consider all of the people who regularly write about this issue she is certainly not more notable than the average person writing about the topic. GabrielF 02:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable author, spook. Eusebeus 15:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Crockspot 16:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is more of a 'Duh'-lete as it's pretty obvious. --Tbeatty 00:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Endless reserves of conspiracy cruft advocacy stuff out there I guess. Violates WP:BALLS, WP:SNOWBALL, and Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. GiveMeAF___ingBreak! Morton devonshire 02:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Peephole 02:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not notable to warrant article. --NuclearZer0 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability not established.--Jersey Devil 04:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Are you kidding? There were very few (less than 200) CIA case officers worldwide during her tenure. That alone makes her story notable. Her political position is not what makes her notable. --Blainster 21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Neutral Oops, found out the Christisons were analysts, of which there are many, not case officers. --Blainster 21:37, 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 delete. Dakota 04:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GamePlasma[edit]

Gaming website, no evidence that it meets WEB provided. --Peta 02:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It sounds like a good website, but no evidence that it passes WP:WEB. TJ Spyke 03:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Very, very weak claim of notability (competing with GameSpot and IGN) probably keeps it out of the realm of ((db-web)), but no evidence that it's actually in the same league. — TKD::Talk 09:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Markovich292 03:38, 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 delete. Grandmasterka 10:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Kean[edit]

Won one national award. I don't know if a high school teacher award is notable enough. Nishkid64 03:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into a new article on National Preserve America History Teacher of the Year Award and delete. If people are notable only in the context of the award, then information about them should go in the article about the award. --Hyperbole 05:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete HS teachers are almost by default non notable. I know, I am one. The assertion that she is a "historian" is unverified. a google search of her name turns up 906 hits, though MANY are for other people with the same name. The only references to her come from a) local newspapers that note she's a cool and fun teacher and b) she won an award from Laura Bush that acknowledges that shes a cool and fun teacher. No hits come up that cite her work as an historian, either her original work or others that cite her work. --Jayron32 05:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A teacher who wins a national award presented by the First Lady is much more notable than a working whore who has been given a "year's best blowjob" award by two dozen guys who watch porn all day and blog about it [and that's all that WP:PORN requires for notability]. VivianDarkbloom 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply Let us know how you really feel. The analogy does not hold water. Notability criteria is NOT based on what is "good" for society at large. This person, I will assert, is far more important to us vis-a-vis her positive contribution to society, but that is not a criteria for inclusion in WikiPedia. The fact that a wider audience is aware of a Porn Actress than of a Wisconsin High School teacher means that the Porn Actress is actually more worthy of inclusion by the basic notability guidlines. Being a good person is not the baseline notability guideline for inclusion. If it were, important figures like Pol Pot and Jeffrey Dahmer would be unworthy of inclusion, while some of my buddies that are also High School teachers (some having won national awards even) would be worthy of inclusion. That's just silly. We don't have to like that people are notable for doing things that we find abhorrant. Do I think that Porn Actresses should be notable for what they do? My opinion doesn't matter. Society at large shows such an actresses notabilty, and wikipedia's inclusion of the subject matter is a reflection of that. Award-winning high school teachers are not as notable in the society at large. Is that right? Probably not. Is it the place of a document like WikiPedia to change that? Definately not. --Jayron32 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WH awards are a dime a dozen; article needs to assert more than that for notability. Does everyone who wins some staged photo-op meet de jure the notability standard per WP:BIO? Citing the lamentably low standards elsewhere is not an argument: crap does not justify crap. Eusebeus 15:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as subject doesn't meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. She may be a good person, but she isn't a notable person. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 01:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to National Preserve America History Teacher of the Year Award if that article is considered notable. Otherwise, just Delete. --Marriedtofilm 21:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as subject doesn't meet WP:BIO TheRanger 23:49, 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 Traxxas - Yomangani^talk 23:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traxxas jato[edit]

Was put up for speedy deletion, but it has Google results. I'll let the community decide. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 02:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no assertion of notability whatsoever. MER-C 03:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it were not for the added stub template, I would have no idea what that article was about. Keep only if expanded and notability shown. Resolute 05:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Models of trucks are generally notable, and this is certainly verifiable. The article is bad, but that's a call for improvement, not deletion. --Hyperbole 05:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, possible merge According to its google search it is a widely availible RC toy car. Merge with the company that makes it, which appears to be Traxxas. Article is stubby as all hell, but has room for improvement. Still, I would not miss it if it went. --Jayron32 05:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in to Traxxas. It's a specfic product, and Traxxas is fairly notable for making RC toys, but it doesn't need to be its own article. Kevin 18:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The Traxxas article appears to already contain a section on this particular model. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 21:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and should have probably been speedy-deleted per ((db-spam)) instead of ((db-nonsense)). --NovaSTL 02:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge information into Traxxas and then delete. Radagast83 18:20, 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 delete. Dakota 13:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miron Tegze[edit]

Importance tagged for a really long time; this guy appears to be a pretty regular academic; delete unless notability can be established. --Peta 03:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - one of Wikipedia's criterea for the notability of a person is whether they're more notable than an average college professor, and Tegze, to all appearances, seems exactly as notable as an average college professor. --Hyperbole 05:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge with Game Theory - He does get quite a few google hits, however, I can only get one significant published work and that was in 1979. A nearly 30-year old paper does not meet the minimum notability requirements for Academics. Possibly worthy of a one line mention in the main Game Theory article, but thats about it. --Jayron32 05:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:14, 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 --Durin 19:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleaseeasaur[edit]

No evidence whatsoever of meeting WP:MUSIC. No reliable sources. Not a speedy, because of the discography section. Contested prod. MER-C 03:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Have signed a record deal with Comedy Central [16], tour with Pinback, and have been featured on the Tom Green Show [17]. The article needs expansion, but it appears the band meets WP:MUSIC. --Hyperbole 05:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've added a small description, and Pleaseeasaur has been around since 1999 and have toured internationally mostly all across the US with a wide arrange of famous people such as Neil Hamburger and David Cross. The main person, J.P. Hasson, has been in other groups such as Touch Me Zoo which also included Joe Jack Talcum of Dead Milkmen fame. -Lostboy- 07:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, their website lists reviews by major reliable publications. Vectro 04:50, 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 delete. Dakota 04:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Veal[edit]

Andrew Veal non-notable person with almost no biographical information. This was a news item that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 03:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator --Tbeatty 03:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to have no notability.--MONGO 04:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete He comitted suicide at a famous cite and some newspapers picked that up. Happens every day. Nothing else about this guy is notable. --Jayron32 05:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the event might be notable but the person isn't. Deizio talk 09:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perhaps merge somehwere in Bush-related articles. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So this guy was upset about the election results. Are we going to have an article on every basket case that does something like this? Because he didn’t like Bush and the Iraq war, his suicide makes him notable? JungleCat talk/contrib 12:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless people can find a way to assert his notability more fully in the scope of things; but not a speedy. · XP · 16:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subject does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 18:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Why is Wikipedia a dumping ground for these sorts of trivial facts (not that his life was trivial, but the story is). Morton devonshire 00:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for articles on people who commit suicide, or protesters for that matter. As per nom and Isotope23, this article fails [[WP:BIO] and certaintly lacks notability. --NuclearZer0 12:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notable to me (1st hand knowledge of most aspects), certainly not to Wikipedia. It would be easy to flesh out bio and more fully summerize news articles and conservative-leaning blogs that commented on this event, but this would still not meet standards. Only notability is proximity to election/Ground Zero and as a study of heavy, politicized national attention that lasts 1 or 2 days on the news. Many events are connected to the 2004 election and Ground Zero, and many events receive brief, exploitive national attention. This is not a notable person nor a notable event.12.216.24.192 23:33, 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. Glen 09:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE RAW X Anniversary Show[edit]

Pure fancruft. Doesn't belong here, maybe on a wrestling wiki, but not here. Just a one time thing. --James Duggan 03:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 03:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. More Wrestlecruft. Resolute 05:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wrestlingcruft. JIP | Talk 13:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can say the same for the pay-per-views as well. --Aaru Bui ^DII 13:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- bulletproof ^3:16 22:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems worthy of a Merge into WWE RAW. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into RAW. — Moe 22:49, 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. Dakota 04:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go PowerTools[edit]

IRC client, no evidence of notability, delete --Peta 03:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. You also might want to nuke User:BradOKeefe/GoPT. MER-C 04:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Markovich292 03:39, 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 delete. Dakota 04:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel M'Mburugu[edit]

Short-lived fame, no evidence he otherwise meets bio, delete --Peta 03:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He did something notable, and this was recorded by reliable sources. Sometimes a single act is enough to establish someone's notability; other times, a whole career is required. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia isn't wikinews, or a collection of random trivia. --Peta 04:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, passing news item. Gazpacho 04:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've never for a moment liked the "100 Year Rule", but here, I'd go for the "100 Second Rule". In 100 seconds, I won't remember this highly trivial, non-notable news story. 181 total and 56 unique Google hits shows that, while the mainstream media picked this story up for about a minute, nobody really cared. -- Kicking222 04:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete his 15 minutes of fame have long since passed. Resolute 05:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Another instance of news being conflated with notability. Eusebeus 15:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He does not satisfy the "multiple non-trivial published works" criterion because the coverage is trivial (appearing in newspapers only as a brite) and because "Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage." Pan Dan 23:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Pan Dan's summary of the relevant matters. JoshuaZ 21:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• An awesome story, but delete as not sufficiently notable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:24, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David E. Kendall[edit]

changed link above to reflect that David E. Kendall is now the page on AfD after David Kendall was made into a dab page. Current link is confusing the AfD.--Isotope23 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence provided to show how this guy meets BIO, delete --Peta 03:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but I'm going to make it a name disambiguation page. There's a screenwriter/director, a statistician, and Clinton's lawyer during the Lewinsky scandal. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turns out it was stealth-vandalized from the article about Clinton's lawyer back in January. I reverted and moved to David E. Kendall, where the AFD tag is now, and created David Kendall as an hndis page. Per Jayron32 below, though, I think there's a case for a non-stub article on the guy but there would have to be more. As it was, this was not his article, it was stolen! --Dhartung | Talk 05:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the vandal at work. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep PPI is a notable organization; if he is involved in steering policy for that group, he may be notable. Article is REALLY stubby, however. --Jayron32 05:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Unclear So which guy is being deleted, the Lewinski Lawyer or the PPI guy? I would weak-keep either; even the Lewinski lawyer has notability if he had such a central role in what was a HIGHLY notable legal case. It still a stubby article, but it could be improved... --Jayron32 06:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's my position that the article history up to January 2006 was for David E. Kendall, Clinton's attorney, and that by reverting it I have resolved the notability issue. If somebody feels strongly that the PPI guy needs his own article, creating it is up to them. To preserve article history, it would have to be an enitrely new article, though, unless an administrator wants to tease out the little bit from David E. Kendall that relates to this guy's presence in that article history. --Dhartung | Talk 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as resolved. Clinton's impeachment counsel is obviously notable. Gazpacho 03:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The President's lead attorney during the scandal was clearly notable. I remember numerous news articles about him. —Lowellian (reply) 23:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Gazpacho. I can't believe nobody noticed for like 10 months, but clearly the lawer Kendall is notable, and David Kendall is a good disambiguation page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:31, 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 Speedy delete, A7, db-website with no assertion of notability. Deizio talk 09:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet world[edit]

Website, no evidence of notability, delete --Peta 03:37, 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 14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zander Vaubel[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, as the subject is not notable, even though the facts in the article may be verifiable. Even the references assert that this invidual was not well known, as one article states ("No one knew him," said Kate Marantz, 22). Delete. —Brim 03:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "No one knew him" from the New York Daily News article was a reference to the fact that no one at that particular party knew who he was. Aghost 00:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (people) is not Wikipedia guideline policy. Even so, under the Alternative tests heading it lists Verifiability, which states: "Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now?" The answer to both is yes. The subject is notable because it is verifiable. It was already judged for its notability when it was originally reported in credible well-known news sources like The New York Times and New York Newsday. The point of Wikipedia is to be NPOV and chronicle the facts from sources like those; why should we place subjective restrictions on things that are already established as notable? If so, there is a slippery slope, and established information that some editors don't like can be censored for being "not notable enough?" Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. --Howrealisreal 03:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't have a strong opinion either way on this one, but WP:BIO is in fact a guideline - see the top of the page. Crystallina 04:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant to say policy. Thanks for pointing that out. --Howrealisreal 04:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies has for a long time been the realization of our Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policies that Wikipedia is not a telephone book, not a memorial, and not a genealogical or biographical dictionary. Uncle G 09:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that the information is verifiable but I don't see that the subject passes WP:BIO. GassyGuy 04:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:BIO states: "Failure to meet [this] criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included". --Howrealisreal 04:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but WP:BIO is a commonly cited guideline on WP that establishes a pretty low threshold for notability as it is, and this subject still fails. So I'm citing the failure of the guideline as justification for why I believe this article ought to be deleted. It's fairly common practice. Obviously failure isn't an automatic deletion, or else there'd be no need to get community consensus - somebody would have just deleted it already. GassyGuy 05:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: Based on your questions about the WP:BIO guideline, I'd assumed you were a new-ish editor, which is why I tried to explain it as I did. I now see I was terribly wrong and apologize for bringing it to a level that's very basic and that explains things you likely already know. GassyGuy 05:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Verifiability and Notability are related but not identical concepts. We can verify that this guy lived (which is not a notable fact) that he died (which is not notable either) and how he died (unusual, but not really notable). We can also verify that he was on his high school debate team (not notable again, even if he did well) and that he created some pieces of art (also not notable, even if they were shown publically). What is left about this guys life that makes him notable in any way? --Jayron32 05:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a memorial - even for someone I'd consider nominating for a Darwin Award. Resolute 05:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO, and I have serious doubts that any of this information will be verifiable ten years from now. Generally, Wikipedia does not permit articles on people who are less notable than the average college professor; Vaubel fails that test. --Hyperbole 05:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like he didn't quite make the jump to notability ... or that other roof. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. If he makes the cut, it's because of his career as an artist; and it appears that his art was not all that well known at the time of his unfortunate death. The only mentioned exhibition was as a part of a student exhibition at his university. If further evidence that his art was well known can be mustered, I'd change my mind. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and he has zero notability. --Aaron 15:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --rogerd 16:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - newspaper refs are all very well but just because you died a singularly bizarre death doesn't mean you should have a Wikipedia article if you didn't do anything in life. Moreschi 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Smerdis. I'd say keep if it could be verified he was notable for his art.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep regardless of the criteria for being included on this site, it was very helpful to find this entry on wikipedia. If this does get deleted, perhaps we can try again when a book or Zander's work is published. I feel like all the people apposed to this entry are being Nazis, this is not a book, its not like you’re going to run out of space on the internet by including this entry, letting Zander Vaubel be in the wiki would make hundreds of people happy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.107.99.191 (talk • contribs) .
  • Reply Please refrain from personal attacks like calling people Nazi's. You are correct; WikiPedia is not paper but WikiPedia is also not a memorial. The policy is clear, and I quote incase you'd rather not look yourself: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered." I am not doubting people loved this guy. I am not doubting he will be missed. I am not doubting that friends of him would appreciate reading an article about him here. But WikiPedia has clear-cut objective standards by which a potential subject is judged. They can be found at WP:NN, WP:V, and WP:BIO. Read these and then IMPROVE THE ARTICLE so that it meets these standards. Simply complaining that the article should be kept does not good. If it can be brought up to standard, then do so. It will be kept. If the article cannot be brought up to standard, it will be deleted. --Jayron32 19:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The guy was a notable Brooklyn artisan, if there is any doubt about that you should look up the success of the company he has been an integral part of: Roux Roux. It is an international jewelery business with clients all over the world. Quite notable for a small, Brooklyn operation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fowl345 (talk • contribs) .
  • reply Ok, then provide references that establish notability, and put those in the article. If it checks out, I would be willing to change my vote. As the article stands now, it is entirely non-notable. --Jayron32 19:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' Vaubel was on the board of the Young Associates of the Chelsea Art Museum. He was asked to found this program because he was such an influential person, which speaks to his notability. I think it is also relevant to note that news of his death was being emailed throughout schools in New York soon after it had occured, including schools that he did not attend. I think the death of a university professor would elicit a similar response. Vaubel was notable for his striking art, his work for the Chelsea Art Museum, and the vast influence he had on people throughout New York. I was not aware that the Wikipedia spent time deciding who is notable and who is not, but if that is the case than Zander Vaubel certainly qualifies as notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.107.104.201 (talk • contribs) 16:07, October 17, 2006 (UTC)
  • reply Ok, IF such statements are verifiable, then edit the article, and put REFERENCES in where we can find that such things are true. These assertions MAY make him more notable, but we won't know without third-party references. If you provide those references, I may be willing to change my vote. Alsoplease remember to sign your posts --Jayron32 20:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went ahead and added this referenced information about the YA. Thank you for helping me establish notability. --Howrealisreal 20:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • reply Checked out the new link. OK. We can verify that he held this post. Still, it doesn't get to the heart of his notability. Are there reviews of his work? Do others cite him as an expert in his field? That's the sort of thing that makes one notable. Getting better, but still not enough yet to change my vote. A review in the mainstream art press would be nice. Citations in anthologies or the like would be even better. Examples of widespread use of his work beyond a single museum showing would be good too. --Jayron32 04:54, 18 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. Luna Santin 07:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Papirany Trio[edit]

I am unsure this article meets it's burden re: WP:NOTABILITY. It's certainly not asserted well. It's also unencyclopaedic and I worry if this material was removed whether there would be much left of this bio. MidgleyDJ 11:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Move The article appears to be written by the subject of the article. According to the linked website the Dan Papirany Trio were nominated for a prize, not the artist himself, so this does not seem to qualify as notable for the artist? The Radio New Zealand website has no mention of Dan Papirany that I can find. The Trio would appear to have made a number of albums and may meet WP:MUSIC, perhaps the article should become one on the Trio? Rich257 12:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This article has a new focus (the trio rather than the artist), it has a reference to the radio interview mentioned above, and also a music sample of the trio, can the article title change to "Dan Papirany Trio"? if it's possible, how do you change it? And would this change satisfy the notability issue?Papdt 21:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• In my view, yes, I think the WP:MUSIC criteria have been met for the Trio.

  You can rename a page using the move tab at the top of the page, see also Help:Moving a page. However I would probably suggest that this AfD process comes to a conclusion first as it might get a bit confusing otherwise? What do others think?

  Papdt, please sign your comments, using ~~~~, see also "Sign your name:" below the editing box, thank you! Rich257 21:35, 5 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 03:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MUSIC. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've renamed the article, and the AFD discussion, for you. Uncle G 12:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability (via albums released, awards nominated for and interviews) seem to me to establish notability. Akradecki 19:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The canonical website allmusic.com has an entry for Dan Papirany. If he shows up there, he's atleast made a blip (however small) on the music scene. That proves he's atleast has an album in widespread release. His notability is marginal, but it can be verified. The writing is crap, but the subject meets baseline notability standards. A rewrite (with citations) would help quality. --Jayron32 20:40, 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 no consensus. Deizio talk 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAW is Owen[edit]

Article is mostly results, making it fancruft. Anything notable should be in the Owen Hart article and/or the WWE RAW article. --James Duggan 03:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wrestlingcruft. JIP | Talk 13:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are numerous Wikipedia pages featuring results from important single wrestling shows; see many of the articles in the World Wrestling Entertainment pay-per-views category, for example. -Conniption 14:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having said this, Raderick's suggestion below to move the article to Tributes to Owen Hart, including details of other tributes such as the famous Bret Hart-Chris Benoit Nitro match, has real merits as a compromise solution. -Conniption 11:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete And to the above user, this was not a pay-per-view. This article is total cruft, and just because he died, doesn't mean that his show deserves it's own article. Maybe merge with the main owen article. Tony fanta 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Its mentioned on the Owen Hart page. I loved watching Owen Hart's matches, but I don't think its significant enough for anything more than that. Stephen Day 22:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was the first notable all-tribute WWE shows that honored a major star that was killed in the line of duty. IIRC, it was also the only televised tribute show that occured during the Attitude Era. kelvSYC 04:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how does that make it encyclopedic? Wrestlers may die a little more often than most people, but that doesn't establish notability. Tony fanta 18:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a person could only die once, no matter what their profession is. <g,d&r> JIP | Talk 16:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The results of the show aren't important and the information on Owen's death is already on his page. --Aaru Bui ^DII 16:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Delete to Owen Hart and WWE RAW. — Moe 22:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-Eddie Guerrero Tribute has it's own page. And these are the only times that wikipedia has ever shown any respect.
  • Comment actually, the Eddie Tribute episode is part of a larger article that covers the many tributes to Eddie. This is not. Aside from that one WCW match between Bret and Benoit, this is the only tribute to Owen, so it won't take up a lot of room in Owen's article, especially if the results aren't covered. James Duggan 00:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does it matter if respect is shown? WP is meant to provide a NPOV on things, not just to do or document something that might be nice. Tony fanta 18:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It's an incredibly sad, but important moment of WWE history as it was one of the very few times where kayfabe was allowed and even encouraged to be broken, plus it's clearly an event that won't exactly happen very often: we hope.
  • You mean a professional wrestling match where they actually wrestled? JIP | Talk 07:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL you're funny. Now go play in traffic.
      • I apologise for insulting something almost holy to some Americans. JIP | Talk 19:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not American. Just stop replying, you're only going to embarass yourself further.
    • Joking aside, I don't think this vote is valid at all. Just because someone dies and most people are saddened by it doesn't mean that it is notable. How this has an even amount of votes is stunning. Tony fanta 18:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I completely agree with both of you. Yes, a professional wrestling match whose outcome, and entire coreography, isn't determined beforehand, is an extremely rare occurence. No, such a match doesn't, by itself, deserve a Wikipedia article. JIP | Talk 19:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename "Tributes to Owen Hart" Wasn't there an Owen Hart Tribute Show that included WWF, WCW and ECW wrestlers? WCW had a tribute match and a black card (ala Adult Swim) at the beginning of their Monday Nitro broadcast the night after his death. And Bret Hart came out to the ring on Nitro a couple of weeks later and said he was taking time off because of Owen's death. A lot have been done in memory of Owen or because of Owen, and so re-naming the article might be the best way to go. Raderick 03:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Very important show in wrestling history.--Unopeneddoor 19:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP-People in the future will want to find out about this, and i know this issuse is important to so many fans.

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

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

The result was DRP. - Mailer Diablo 14:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Metal[edit]

Pop metal was already deleted through an Afd and has been recreated and deleted many times since. The page has also been used as a redirect to glam metal and nu metal. However, the article was recently recreated as Pop Metal and the creator insists on having it as its own article, rather than redirecting to glam metal. Note that although there are three accounts and two IP's involved in editing the article / reverting, these share a very similar contribution history.

The article seems nothing but the creator's essay, original research and personal view on the term "pop metal", failing WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. It also heavily overlaps with the glam metal article. I don't think we need to consider every 80's term for glam metal/rock as a separate Wikipedia-notable genre, be it hair/pop/sleaze or whatever. Since there is quite a lot of text, some content, if verified, can maybe be merged to glam metal instead. Prolog 03:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redirect to Glam metal and protect per Deizio --Casper2k3 14:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Merge with Glam metal. Casper2k3 03:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redirect to Glam metal and protect. Redundant. Deizio talk 09:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redirect to Glam metal and protect. Not that Pop metal refers to Nu metal. Spearhead 10:47, 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. Regarding the presence in other wikis, WP:INN is relevant, and counts double for articles in other Wikipedias. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Gabaldón[edit]

I can't see how this musician is notable. Unlike every notable bassist I can think of, he doesn't have an allmusic.com entry, nor does he seem to have a presence on the web other than on venues for self promotion (personal websites, youtube, etc.) He appears to be a legitimate working musician, but I fail to see how he merits an encyclopedia article. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user 81.202.127.177 seems to be attempting to make the argument that Gabldon is a prolific session musician in Spain [18]. If this is true, the article could be pefectly valid-- as long as we can verify whether some of the recordings the user lists are notable... in any case, this anon editor is now going around blanking all pages associated with the musician [19] [20] [21]. I find this behaviour inexplicable.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 07:48, 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article provides zero context or biographical data and a long list of red / non links. Spanish article has a bio but still a mass of redlinks. Deizio talk 09:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait. This subject appears to have an article in a number of other languages on Wikipedia. Can someone familiar with this genre of music, or who is fluent in Spanish please comment? RFerreira 00:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per entry in multiple wikis. Extensive discography checks out. Catchpole 21:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per comments by Deiz. Additionally, unless someone can point me to a policy that states contrary I do not think being in articles other Wikis necessarily means it qualifies for THIS Wiki.--Tony 00:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there are no reviews or other external citations that can be used to establish notability. The article is simply a long discography thet would be better placed on a website and there is no encyclopaedic content. Looks as though it may have been deleted in some other versions too. BlueValour 23:57, 21 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 14:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Xing Hui[edit]

non-notable club, possibly promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tued99 02:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am slightly concerned that something that is clearly presenting itself as an East Asian religion (cf the long list of supposed names for this religion in every imaginable East Asian language) does not in fact have an existing article on any East Asian language wikipedia. I am also concerned that there appears to be no information available anywhere on when this organisation was founded, how many members it claims, or even which countries it is active in. An article that merely presents the doctrine of an organisation, while lacking such fundamental details, is problematic, to say the least. — Haeleth Talk 11:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I must disagree. Just because a society does not reveal itself according to your preference does not mean it is a fraudulent society. Please, I ask you, please refrain from such "problematic" suggestions. With warmest wishes on you and your family. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.245.5.209 (talk • contribs) 03:44, October 6, 2006.

• Comment I certainly agree with the latter's point-of-view. Thank you for your time and consideration. May Luna's continued blessings dwell inside you and your family. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jwhite72450 (talk • contribs) 03:46, October 6, 2006.

• Comment i don't understand why this would be deleted. if something exists then why delete information about it unless it offends some one in a legitimate way. i guess i am new but isn't that kind of the purpose of this site? open-source informaton...all of us adding information... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keyien (talk • contribs) 20:11, October 6, 2006.

• Delete - "Wu Xing Hui" (in quotes) gets a grand total of 122 Ghits, including its homepage and WP/mirrors. Fails to establish notability or verifiability. It exists, insofar as someone's set up a website and is accepting credit card donations, but of course that isn't nearly enuff. May Luna's exhalted wisdom lead you down the path of deletion. --DeLarge 18:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable religion. Catchpole 11:15, 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. With the tiny number of google hits, this looks exactly like something someone made up one day as a joke. Presenting religious beliefs of an organization with absolutely nothing else makes a bad article. -Amarkov ^babble 04:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete religioncruft Danny Lilithborne 04:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per above. Grutness...wha? 05:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Haeleth. The lack of any foreign-language articles on the topic, as well as the utter absence of any significant Google hits outside Wikipedia for a number of the alternate names, convinces me that this is total bollocks. (I tried "Hâa Tâat Sǎng-kom" which got no outside hits, "ごぎょうかい" which appears to have something to do with Naruto, and "Ngũ Hành Hội" which matched against "... toản ngũ hành, hội bát quái" in the Vietnamese wiki, which doesn't appear to be related.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unfair to search for the string ごぎょうかい: this is alleged to be the reading of the kanji, and if the allegation is true we'd expect the kanji and not this hiragana to appear. (Beats me why the reading can't be given in horrible old Hepburn and must instead be in hiragana, but still.....) -- Hoary 07:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if you prefer Sinograms, "伍行會" (the Traditional Chinese version) gets a single hit. The Simplified version gets a bunch - I suspect they're unrelated, but I can't read their crazy moon language to verify it. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The simplified Chinese characters for this name happen to be normal in postwar Japan and there are a fair number of Japanese-language hits. Among them, I didn't notice any convincing evidence for a religion of this name, though I must admit that boredom and fatigue soon overtook me so I wasn't even slightly thorough about it. -- Hoary 08:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Large claims require particularly convincing evidence. We read: Their membership includes almost every Asian ethnicity as well as several American Indian nations. Can anyone present any evidence for this? There are loads of "Asian ethnicities" and quite a lot of American Indian nations; I'll settle for disinterested, reliable, convincing evidence of membership by five distinct "Asian ethnicities" and three American Indian nations. -- Hoary 07:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Haeleth, and others. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:04, 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 delete. Dakota 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SavIRC[edit]

IRC client, no evidence of notability. --Peta 04:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, utterly nn software, vanity. Deizio talk 10:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Never Mystic (tc) 21:00, 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 no consensus. Moved to 2006-07 Australian bushfire season. Deizio talk 11:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Eastern New South Wales bushfires[edit]

A minor and typical event that occured in Australia this year, wikipedia is not wikinews. For people not familiar with the fire situation in Australia, today there are over 100 fires in Victoria, a couple in New South Wales and Tasmania, and 38 in South Australia. I have added details of the fire to the towns were houses were lost. Delete --Peta 04:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article needs some improvements and should be in Wikipedia since it was a event caused by drought and something that doesn't happen in September in that area of New South Wales. -- Bidgee 04:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Its stubby, but stubbiness does not mean it is not notable. Natural disasters ARE notable, consider: Peshtigo_Fire or Aspen_Fire or Ash_Wednesday_fires for relevent similar articles. --Jayron32 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This event is not comparable to any of those 7 houses and 1 death is not the same as 75 deaths and over 2000 homes as was the case at Ash Wednesday.--Peta 05:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing is comparable with any natural disasters as there all different. -- Bidgee 05:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• In this case I vote delete, but what would people think about 2006-07 Australian bushfire season or 2006 Australian weather incidents? -- Chuq 05:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support moving it to 2006-07 Australian bushfire season since other fires could be covered without needing there own page if there not notable to have there own page. -- Bidgee 05:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not Wikinews and this article does little to distinguish it from any other fire. Unencyclopaedic. GassyGuy 06:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I support the idea of having a bushfire season article. Notable fires could then have tyheir own articles as required. It is analogous to hurricane seasons. B.d.mills 06:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With so many fires a year, this would not be as straight forward as the cyclone articles. --Peta 06:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about if only fires that have the S44 (not sure what there call it in other states), damage or lost homes, burnt a large area (Say over 300ha) can only be added so it doesn't get to big unlike Tornadoes of 2006? -- Bidgee 06:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• move and edit in accordance with Chuq's proposal. This is a nice Wikinews article, but seriously, S44 declarations are made most weeks of summer in NSW, and the equivalent in other states. The Bureau notice is boilerplate text, and the RFS reference has already gone from their website. An article like 2006-07 Australian bushfire season can include an intro that talks about the unusual dry hot conditions that led to the early start to bushfire season. Even that topic will be hard to keep up to date - there have been several fires large enough for mention in SA, Tas and Vic this week, too. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article about not unusually significant bushfires. The season articles suggested by Chuq could work. JPD (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this seems to me to be an exceptionally early bushfire season - it is not yet summer. Perhaps rename to wider geographical region.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarification, are you suggesting that it be kept as an article about the season as a whole? My delete was for the current article about the early bushfires which probably won't be anything like the most significant bushfires this season, but as I said, I have no objection to the creation of a more general article. JPD (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A move to a 2006-07 bushfire season which I suspect will be large. There is a similar declaration in place for this weekend and September was rather early for bushfires. However, I think that these fires were not notable enough to warrant an article rather than part of an article. It is similar to a tropical storm in the relevant hurricane articles. Capitalistroadster 03:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Totally non notable. An individual fire/group of fires would have to do far more damage to be notable. --Michael Johnson 04:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and edit as per Chuq. If there aren't any notable fires this year and this is the best we have though, I think it should be deleted. (JROBBO 05:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • "Best" was a really bad choice of word here! --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Chuq's idea of creating an article for the whole bushfire season has merit though. --Richmeister 04:28, 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 speedy delete as A7/G11. Kusma (討論) 09:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Financials Expert[edit]

Non notable company newsletter. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BW Expert. This article is largely identical to that article. All arguements for that articles deletion apply here. --Jayron32 04:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• strong delete - got spam? /Blaxthos 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as spam. Created by the same single purpose account as Wellesley Information Services. So tagged. MER-C 06:18, 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 no consensus. Any way you sort the arguments, there is no consensus to keep or delete here. --Coredesat 04:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A.N.U.S.[edit]

Was voted for deletion before, vanity page, is now back inexplicably 142.167.95.132 18:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original AFD here Yomangani^talk 19:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - The page is totally different than the old page and meets wikipedia policy guidelines for NPOV and notability a lot better than the old debate. --TrollHistorian 19:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the 2nd ANUS page on wikipedia because I was pretty irritated that I had to read through a bunch of anus materials to determine what they really were. I actually visited Wikipedia immediately after I saw the first page so that I could hopefully get an objective view of what ANUS was. Unfortunately the page wasn't there and I was forced to read through some really awful articles on their webpage. --TrollHistorian 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Speedy as re-creation. Same reasons as before, Wp:WEB, reliable sources, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a totally different article than before. --TrollHistorian 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as recreation. As before. DJ Clayworth 20:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The old article can be found here (http://www.anus.com/etc/wikipedia/), the new article is not a re-creation. The GNAA have their own page and frankly ANUS has been more active than the GNAA as of late. Not surprisingly they are the 2nd google hit for the query "anus" --TrollHistorian 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it fails WP:WEB and WP:V. I never saw the old article, but if it can be speedied, all the better. GassyGuy 04:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does it fail WP:V? --TrollHistorian 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is ANUS itself - not a third party. The second is GNAA - not reliable. The third documents its Alexa ranking, which only verifies that the website exists but not much else. The fourth is a directory which, reliable or not, would again only verify that the site exists. The fifth is the site itself. That leaves a lack of reliable third party sources establishing anything notable or verifying most of the content within the article. GassyGuy 07:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article now. It is pretty verifiable and there are many external sites mentioning ANUS pranks. --TrollHistorian 04:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reliable references. Not getting into the speedy / recreation debate, but it has been deleted 16 times... thats a protection candidate. Deizio talk 10:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no reason to delete it! Or is there:— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.184.167.12 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, total lack of WP:RS for this group of trolls and their activities. Sandstein 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were new links added from multiple sources other than "trolls" why do they not fit in with WP:RS? --TrollHistorian 04:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V unless some reliable sources are produced.--Isotope23 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity. Moreschi 19:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-non notable and vanity. Nwwaew(My talk page) 19:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please show how the article does not meet WP:WEB? --TrollHistorian 04:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. hey guys, remember "consensus"? first of all: "Vanity is a potentially defamatory term that should be avoided in deletion discussions." 2: "Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not notable!" 3: GassyGuy: There are more resources for "notability" than those listed in the article. I will add to the list. However, how many more do we need? 4: ANUS covers heavy metal extensively. How about you invest some search engine work? See: http://www.google.com/Top/Arts/Music/Styles/R/Rock/Heavy_Metal/ and http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=anus.com&x=0&y=0 (sorry for the long links, but maybe you can excuse them like you will all those pointless votes?) If you want to have the article deleted for obscure reasons, at least be honest and state them. Best Regards, Aor 21:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a matter of quantity of resources; it's about quality. Again, none of these are reliable third party sources that establish the notability of the site; at best, they establish that it exists, or are from GNAA or the site itself, which obviously don't count since those are not third parties (the article claims that ANUS is affiliated with GNAA). GassyGuy 23:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added more references. You will find them in the external links section. Best Regards, Aor 06:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MTV article is close, but alas, it does far more to confirm the notability of Slayer than ANUS. The others, again, while mentioning ANUS, do little but confirm that the website exists. GassyGuy 06:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In contrast to you I think it is more reference than one can expect for a site about heavy metal. If you look at the other sites in the google link I posted above, you will notice that the important ones have Wikipedia entries, too (Encyclopedia Metallum, BNR Metal). Mainstream reference is even rarer for those sites. It is in the nature of a subgenre that is not well presented in mainstream publications, but this alone doesn't make ANUS non-notable. Best Regards, Aor 07:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If all the references can do is confirm that the site exists, then it leaves little too no verifiable content about the website for the article. Per WP:V, you cannot have articles without verifiable content. Per WP:OR, you cannot just use the site itself to write about it. If heavy metal websites do not get mainstream coverage, then they shouldn't get Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - it documents things which meet the guidelines; it does not need to acknowledge the presence of everything under the sun, and especially not everything on the Internet. GassyGuy 07:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I see a problem in your skewed standards. Those other sites are not nominated for deletion, because they don't offend as ANUS does. Although there are clearly more external references for ANUS than for, say, Enclopdia Metallum, ANUS is nominated for deletion. In consequence it appears that this article is focused on and nominated for deletion because of its content, and not because of notability issues. I myself leave the ANUS doctrine aside, judge by the various references on the article page alone and come to the conclusion that ANUS is noteworthy. n.b. I don't call for the deletion of other heavy metal articles, this is just to show the hypocrisy of this debate. Best Regards, Aor 11:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If what you say is true, then I would likely express a similar opinion at an AfD for Encyclopedia Metallum. I have not had a chance to look at that article. However, your argument is specious. I have told you what my problem with the ANUS article are. Others cite similar claims. It is really a matter of addressing them. If other websites have similar problems meeting WP:V, they should be nom'ed for deletion, but the existence of other articles that should be deleted is not a reason to keep this one. GassyGuy 13:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Of what use are guidelines that are enforced only, or more strictly, on articles with offending/dissident content? That is not in any way an encyclopedic approach, and I can only reiterate my conclusion which springs from such behaviour: that something else than the denied encyclopedic adequacy of the topic motivates those who nominate the article for deletion. As a result, articles like ANUS get singled out while others, which, by your standards should have long been deleted (if you abode by those standards), remain. In the end, this hilarious debate is pointless. Those who want the article removed because they have personal objections, which of course aren't sufficient reason for deletion, are not honest and do not aim for consensus. Best Regards, Aor 15:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, any argument based upon some supposed equality between ANUS and Encyclopedia Metallum is flawed right from the start. ANUS has a current Alexa rank of 66,041, while EM's is only 4,781... more than ten times better than ANUS. (Yes, I know Alexa isn't everything, but it's the quickest way to compare two websites, and these two aren't even in the same ballpark). Believe it or not, this is an argument we've heard countless times before, in misguided support of everything from high-school athletes to video game ROM hacks to people's pet cats. In fact, we hear it so much that there's even a couple of essays written specifically as a rebuttal to this argument. See WP:INN and WP:ILIKEIT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Compare the Alexa ratings of ANUS to that of the GNAA. GNAA has 307,527, while ANUS has 68,721. Popular media outlets have covered ANUS's exploits. Even admins like JoshuaZ agree this article meets WP:WEB. Also, this article is not the same article that was deleted long ago. You are welcome to compare articles (I provided links at the top). --TrollHistorian 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We do remember consensus. We remember consensus to delete this article the first time, and we remember consensus to keep it deleted in at least two DRV votes. What we don't remember is consensus to create it again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Your argument could be used against you: Maybe its notability is what motivates contributors to re-recrate over and over again. Aor 07:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone can procure some reliable, third-party sources, I'll vote for keep on this one, because of its amount of ghits (9,990 for the entire name) and its alexa ranking of 66,041 (with around 30,000,000 hits per day). If reliable, third-party sources can't be found, then I vote for a delete and protect from recreation. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 01:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Even more "ghits"(11,700 for the entire name) return for: "Dark Legions Archive". Aor 07:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.52.187 (talk • contribs)

Delete - These people are obviously fascistic nazis neo-pagan types, and society is falling enough down the drain due to right-wingers. I know wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place that advances a point of view, but for the sake of minorities, let's not let these people have a platform to stand on. Isn't that what democracy is about -- letting everybody have a say? These people wouldn't let minorities have a say. These people would censor wikipedia in the unmitigating pursuit to destroy freedom and coerce people into thinking their way. With that, my vote is a sound delete. --Iconoclast 04:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do the above correctly? I'm a black man, you see. A gay one, at that. I don't want to be disenfranchised. --Iconoclast 04:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here want to play Dungeons and Dragons: E-Bureaucrat adventure? 3.5 edition rules. --Iconoclast 04:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A legitament organization, trolls or not--ABigBlackMan 14:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your name entices me. Wanna chat? --Iconoclast 20:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Mentions in mainstream news and such easily meets WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 20:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and redirect to anus. Anomo 03:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Many articles remain from groups like SomethingAwful for Memes that are obscure/specific to them. ANUS arguably, especially in the black metal world, has some relevance and lots of history behind it. This article had clarified to me what ANUS was when I heard a casual mention of them on IRC a while back. There's no need for it to fall to people who want to delete it for personal reasons. ContivityGoddess

• Failing WP:V is hardly a personal reason. GassyGuy 20:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think people have shown it doesn't, and there are many, many notable links on the article's page. I suggest you check out the page and actually read it. ContivityGoddess 20:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already commented above on why the references on the page do not count as WP:RS and find it insulting that you think I would comment before reading the article. Please reread WP:AGF. GassyGuy 10:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has changed since the initial AFD. I've asked you if you have read the new article and looked at the new links but you haven't responded to my questions. --TrollHistorian 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I already covered the revised article when I had my discussion with Aor... GassyGuy 10:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do the following links fail WP:RS [22] [23] [24]? They are all mainstream media and the Houston Press article covers what the group ANUS is. I read WP:RS and the 3 links I gave examples are reliable secondary sources. Even the non-english one is considered legitimate by WP:RS. --TrollHistorian 13:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Clarin article doesn't say anything about ANUS except confirmation that it exists and is somehow associated with metal - that's not non-trivial coverage. The Launch one is also not non-trivial; it's more about the Slayer incident than ANUS, who is simply mentioned in passing as being associated with it. The Houston one is the strongest of the three, but it's not being featured in a real article, it's part of a "best of" special feature. That's borderline; it may or may not count as non-trivial coverage by a reliable source, but I hardly see that as strong evidence of notability any more than a paragraph in any other special interest (e.g., the tech section) area of a paper would qualify most sites. GassyGuy 15:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It seems that the sickeningly egalitarian rules on this let's-pretend 'encyclopedia' deem it permissible to have articles like "List of props appearing in episode 432 of The Simpsons" but regard articles about subcultural phenomena, especially when the philosophies espoused by such subcultures go against the grain of placid Hindu-cattle conformity which this 'encyclopedia' promotes, to be a waste of precious server space. The irony of this is that the fool who nominated this article for deletion clearly doesn't even understand the first thing about what he read in the article. He claims that this is vanity. The thing is, Yomangani, vanity is a distinctly un-nihilistic trait. There is no reason for a nihilist to be vain, because it is placing value upon something that is transitory and fleeting. It seems to be thing at Wikipedia, though, that ignorance, political correctness, pseudoscientific twaffle and Judeo-Christian moral systems are regarded as sacrosanct, while logic, beauty and intellectualism are condemned as not being important enough for inclusion.

Iconoclast, so anything can be included in this pretty 'encyclopedia' except for 'fascistic neopagan ideology'? Let me tell you something, fool. Nihilism implies atheism, not neopaganism. Neopaganism is a pointless romantic revisionist historical creation which, while having aesthetic appeal to some, is far removed from any critically tenable conception of the world. You're ignorant, Iconoclast, but we agree on one thing. The world is indeed deteriorating. But the world is not deteriorating because of black metal. It is deteriorating because people are terrified of the truth, and would rather exist in a novocainesque facade of shopping malls, designer clothing, plastic music and trendy stupidity. The fact that there are some people who would rather have no part of that existence is mortally offensive to these herd-grazers, and that is why they want to delete this article. But this 'encyclopedia' is also helping the world to destroy itself. Knowledge is not for everyone. It is not democratic. Knowledge is an aristocracy. A fool cannot savour the existential fullness granted by reading the works of Nietzsche, or playing with the abstractions of higher mathematics. They content themselves here by editing articles on the local highway and their favourite television show. Pseudoscience is promoted here at the same level as real science. Religion is privileged above art.

That being said, there is no real reason why this article should be here. Its presence merely indicates perceived importance on the part of those who are not fit to judge. Nonetheless, it would illustrate just how fucking hypocritical the ostensive egalitarian nature of this 'encyclopedia' is, if the article were to be deleted. Any ideology has to censor that which poses a threat to itself. And while I do not delude myself into thinking that the ideology of black metal poses any real threat to the nauseating stupor of left-liberalism at the moment, its time will come. The reaction, though, of people to intellectualism and anti-egalitarianism is an inbuilt and natural extension of the left-liberal mindset, because ultimately this is what poses the biggest threat to the 'utopia' in which we live. So, if the people at Wikipedia are to truly practice the revolting morality which they preach, they will keep this article, not because they agree with it, or because it is in accord with whatever insane so-called 'rules' there are here. They will keep this article to avoid making bigger prats of themselves than they already are.

Now have fun, everybody, finding your 'consensus'. But know that consensus among fools will represent only foolishness. You make me laugh. --Diffeomorphism 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I'm not going to read all that (I do not want to get a heart attack as a black man such as myself has heart disease), but what it boils down to is whether or not it is good for minorities. ANUS isn't good for minorities -- it is actively racist and anti-Jew (the worst of the worst as anti-Semitism has always been the highest evil) and supports neo-nazi skinhead music like Skrewdriver, Burzu, Graveland, Bully Boys, and so on. I think that what it boils down to is not whether it is notable or not, but whether or not it should be notable. Get it? Get it? --Iconoclast 19:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree, although it's not very often I get to agree with a gay gentleman of colour (with heart disease)...you're being very subtle. Although what's also subtle is how I could change my vote from 'keep' to 'delete' but it still makes sense. I think that should tell everybody something, but I shan't bother explaining what ;[ --Diffeomorphism 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A.N.U.S is an absolutely superb resource for numerous musical genres and subcultures. It is particularly insightful and well written. Indeed as someone who specialised in music youth and subculture as part of thier political studies I can only but wonder why this sight has been deemed inapproprate for this site. I would go so far as to argue that its relevance is particulalry pertinent due to the sure number of related pages of this nature concerning music in the metal scene. Many of those above that have nominated this page for deletion furthermore seem totally unfamiliar with the topic at hand and its deeper meaning and consequence for those who live this style of life and make it thier approach and philosophy. I think it would be sad to delete this page and if this is then the case it is only further indication of the increasingly deteriating quality of wikipedia as a whole. Spectral Delight 19:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This site should not be deleted as it supports metal. It is a cool source of info on bands and stuff and has some interesting ideas on why bands play the way they do etc...

Death to all false metal. Brothers of true metal proud and standing tall, wimps and posers leave the hall. The Crying Orc 19:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is death for true metal, fool. Diffeomorphism 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and protect from recreation. Non-notable and of course having an article on Wikipedia is a troll itself, and there's no reason to give them any satisfaction. Recury 19:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy against describing groups which Wikipedians might not like? --TrollHistorian 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, troll! How's the trolling? Not too obvious, I hope. Recury 22:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• TrollHistorian is not a troll. What we see here, though, is the act of accusing someone of being a troll so you can rhetorically deny the value of his contribution to the discussion (Fallacy). Also, the ANUS article is not a troll. Best Regards, Aor 06:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles for similar organizations on Wikipedia, such as the Gay Nigger Association of America and the Cult of the Dead Cow. The former has withstood votes for deletion several times, and the latter does not appear to be controversial. Thus I think American Nihilist Underground Society is also a legitimate article for a notable organization. --Afed 00:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anus is definitely more notable than the GNAA or even the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, and both articles have survived deletion votes before. Anus has been around longer (since the BBS era), operates several websites (Anus.com, Corrupt.org, Sodomy.org and many more) and has been more active recently than GNAA, "trolling" both the cyberspace and meatspace (through flyering). Besides, Anus is much more than a simple trolling organisation, it advocates a philosophy and a lifestyle, and has articles that inform a certain subcuture (Death Metal / Nihilist culture) I can't see why it is less notable than Wipipedia which serves approximately the same purpose for the BDSM subculture. In fact, it can be said that the articles on Anus.com constitute social commentary that qualifies it on the same level of notability as Lew Rockwell.com and various other social commentary websites.

• Keep, unfortunately. These people have been at it for many years and are better-known than 3/4 of the so-called "internet memes" that get Wikipedia coverage. They get 10,100 Google hits at this moment, even after removing Wikipedia-referential sites. wikipediatrix 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. With multiple coverages on mainstream media, the site seems to meet WP:WEB and WP:ORG. Also, as mentioned before, "American Nihilist Underground Society" gets more Google hits (both altogether and unique) than "Gay Nigger Association of America". I'm also a bit worried about the nomination, which was done by a single-purpose IP user. Prolog 03:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for deletion by anonymous SPAs should be disreguarded. This does not seem to be someone with a legitimate interest in improving Wikipedia. --Afed 18:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I just don't see evidence of an encyclopedic level of notability. Deli nk 19:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is why Wikipedia has policies like WP:WEB which is ANUS definately meets via mainstream media mentions.--TrollHistorian 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The following links (listed under external links in the article) show satisfy WP:V and WP:WEB [25] [26] [27] [28]. JoshuaZ 23:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As many have shown above, there are at least as valid reasons for the present article as for a rather large percentage of Wikipedia articles. Apparently, people who do not understand a topic that deviates from what they are used to, try out scrutinizing to a level never used for more mainstream topics. — SomeHuman 18 Oct2006 23:44 (UTC)

• Strong keep. ANUS is a useful source for Nihilism and one of the most well-known sources for underground metal. The site itself has caused quite a bit of controversy, and for this reason and the many other reasons mentioned above is a noticeable internet topic that fits the nature of this encyclopedia. Macellarius 02:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete right now. - brenneman ^{L} 07:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HR Expert[edit]

Non notable company newsletter. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BW Expert. This article is largely identical to that article. All arguements for that articles deletion apply here. Jayron32 04:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• strong delete - got spam? /Blaxthos 05:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as spam. Created by the same single purpose account as Wellesley Information Services. So tagged. MER-C 06:19, 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 spam. --Interiot 06:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CRM Expert[edit]

Non notable company newsletter. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BW Expert. This article is largely identical to that article. All arguements for that articles deletion apply here. Jayron32 04:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• strong delete - got spam? /Blaxthos 05:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as spam. Created by the same single purpose account as Wellesley Information Services. So tagged. MER-C 06:18, 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 spam. --Interiot 06:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCM Expert[edit]

Non notable company newsletter. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BW Expert. This article is largely identical to that article. All arguements for that articles deletion apply here. Jayron32 04:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• strong delete - got spam? /Blaxthos 05:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as spam. Created by the same single purpose account as Wellesley Information Services. So tagged. MER-C 06:18, 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 spam. --Interiot 06:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SAP Experts[edit]

Non notable company newsletter. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BW Expert. This article is largely identical to that article. All arguements for that articles deletion apply here. Jayron32 04:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• strong delete - got spam? /Blaxthos 05:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as spam. Created by the same single purpose account as Wellesley Information Services. So tagged. MER-C 06:18, 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. Robdurbar 07:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wellesley Information Services[edit]

Spam / Vanity Blaxthos 05:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as spam. So tagged. MER-C 06:09, 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 no consensus. Deizio talk 11:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak position (grammar)[edit]

OR/neologism and a minor topic that should be covered elsewhere, e.g. in Grammaticalization — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnPrep (talk • contribs) 2006-10-12 05:13:25

• Delete as OR. The article actually asserts that it is "intended as an initial interpretation of 'weak position'," and I can't easily find any online references that use the term in precisely the same sense as the article. --Hyperbole 05:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text that you are talking about is simply an inexperienced editor's substitute for using the ((expert)) tag. This article grew out of a dangling hyperlink in analytic language that was added in this edit by VKokielov (talk · contribs) and appears to have been good faith attempt by a non-expert to recolour a redlink. Uncle G 12:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I was just starting back then. The term itself comes from a Bulgarian book, "Istorija na bylgarskija ezik", by a certain Kiril Mirchev -- whenever pronouns come after nouns, he writes that they're in "weak position". Whether the link was needed is another question. --VKokielov 14:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. "Weak position" is used in several contexts in grammar and linguistics. This is not the most common historical one: more frequent is the use of weak position to describe unstressed syllables. In classical prosody, "weak position" is where a short vowel that is usually grammatically long, usually because of preceding a consonant cluster containing a liquid, is realized as short for metrical purposes because it is unstressed. FWIW, the loss of case marking in Romance has more to do with phonemic erosion than it does with "weakness" arising from following a preposition. Whether the prepositions caused this erosion, or their use is its result, is a chicken-and-egg argument. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I went a head and added a description of weak syllables in Greek prosody. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (I started this AfD in the first place, so I guess I've already voted) Yes, the phrase "weak position" must come up all over the place in grammar and linguistics, and also in sports and economics and architecture and psychology… But is it a recognized, technical term in any of these fields, or does it just mean, well, "weak position"? If it has the status of a standard term in poetry, this can just be noted in the Meter (poetry) article, and not in a separate article, and certainly not one called "Weak position (grammar)"! And if we make a disambiguation page for all the possible uses of "weak position" then I think we'll also need to create large object (disambiguation), dark area (disambiguation), bad idea (disambiguation), etc. etc. etc. (Please do not click on any of those.)

• Hey, we already have Bad Thing. <grin> I'm not sure that weak positions in Greek prosody merit a separate article either, for that matter, and agree that it is only under the broadest sense that it counts as "grammar" or even phonology. It's my curse to see many things that come up here as a challenge. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like anceps might be a more established term for these "weak" syllables in Greek and Latin poetry? CapnPrep 15:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC) [Er, actually, no. Never mind. CapnPrep 13:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)][reply]

• Keep, please. I have just rewritten the article to make it clear that there are (at least) three distinct, well attested uses of "weak position" in phonology, prosody, and grammar. (I am expert in none of these fields, and the OP's usage of "weak position" might not be all that common for all I know, but the others are bog-standard in their scholarly niches.) Hopefully the article is now useful to bewildered first-year classics students, among others. Michael K. Edwards 12:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you can keep the page but I still think the original stuff about syntactic weak position should be deleted. And so the entire article can be given over to the metrical stuff, and then the article name definitely needs changing, to Weak position (poetry) (or just Weak position, I suppose). CapnPrep 12:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the vulgar Latin bit, I may agree, although it would be nice to have an expert opinion. The German usage is for real, and I suspect there are others. As to the move, who's to say there isn't a technical meaning of "weak position" in, say, go?  :-) Cheers, Michael K. Edwards 13:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the addition of German, and the external link is very good, but the established term in this case is "weak" and not "weak position" (cf. "weak declension", "weak ending", "weak form", "weak article/adjective/noun"), and it is already treated (or should be) in articles like Declension and German articles. And there are already disambiguation pages for strength and weakness where pointers to this information could be added. So I still don't see any reason to keep a page called "Weak position (grammar)". CapnPrep 13:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Michael K. Edwards's rewrite. (I added the refs tag at the end, which was missing.) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:08, 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 delete. --Coredesat 06:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Ortez[edit]

Not really nessacary, and not notable to Kerry supporters outside of Massachusetts or who are Red Sox fans. Possibly could be merged with John Kerry's main article. Knowing Is Half The Battle 05:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Possibly worthy of a single sentance mention in John Kerry;s main article. A Danqualeism of this nature is not notable in any way. Manny Ortiz is not a real person, and a single slip of the tounge by a public figure is WAY below the notability baseline.

--Jayron32 05:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article seems to be composed entirely of OR. It may be notable that John Kerry once accidentally named "Manny Ortez" as his favorite player when no such player exists, but it's notable only in the context of Kerry and deserves no more than (at most) a passing mention on his article. --Hyperbole 06:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not significant enough for own article, belongs as one sentence in Kerry article, maybe. NawlinWiki 11:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per points made above. PJM 12:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. How many times is this going to be brought up for deletion consideration? A notable gaffe with plenty of press coverage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the last time. PJM 16:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it notable beyond the time Kerry made the gaffe? From what I understand its usage was confined mainly to the period after the slipup and has since been used only in isolated, nn instances. SliceNYC 06:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still referred to rather consistently in Sox discussions, given that Ortiz and Manny still hit next to eachother in the Sox lineup. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But does that make it notable? It seems to have reached a current level of SoSH nickname, not a term used in either the political media (to describe mistakes) or sports media (to refer to the combo). You don't hear Brian Williams say that George Allen "pulled a Manny Ortez" or Peter Gammons talk about how the Yankee bullpen "won't be able to get Manny Ortez out." SliceNYC 15:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Gammons probably has referenced it at some point. In any case, the answer is yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't feel it's notable. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and this certainly seems better suited towards a short sentence in the articles of those involved. The article does not assert any notability or evidence of usage after the 15 minutes of fame in the press -- the fact that Gammons may have possibly mentioned it at some point in the last two and a half years doesn't assert that notability. SliceNYC 14:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Hyperbole. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Soxcruft that might be relevant in Manny, Papi and Kerry's articles. SliceNYC 15:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep per Badlydrawjeff presuming it becomes better sourced. JoshuaZ 20:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable, something a presidential candidate said by mistake should be, at the very most, menitioned in said persons article if at all. --Lord of Illusions 05:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Deizio talk 11:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CorVision[edit]

Seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE. 421 GHits for "CorVision Cortex", many of them business directories. Duja 14:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep CorVision is very much a legacy package only used by a very small number of business, any independent publications, articles etc will have long been out of print and I have not been able to find anything notable on Google. I agree that CorVision is probably of little importance in modern software development but I believe it is of historical relevance as an important 4GL package. With this on mind it should probably be cleaned up to only include the historical facts about the package. sdcoulson
• Weak keep Seems to be moderately notable, at least passing WP:SOFTWARE. For software popular in the 70s and 80s, I was surprised to find as much about it as I did, actually. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Andrew Lenahan. While parts of this need to be rewritten for encyclopedic tone and greater specificity, it seems largely of historical rather than commercial interest now. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I didn't see multiple external references in the entry, which leads me to question the assertion that it passes WP:SOFTWARE. It is also in need of cleanup. - Tewfik^Talk 05:04, 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) 06:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - utterly fails WP:SOFTWARE for not having multiple non-trivial publications written about it. Valrith 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publications exist, they just need to be cited. Also, Keep per Andrew Lenahan. Vectro 16:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability standards have to take into account the nature of the topic in question. When it comes to legacy software, we need to be more relaxed in our evidence -- there is unlikely to be much WWW info on these languages, because by the time the WWW came along they were mostly gone. But that does not mean that they are unnotable (from a historical perspective), if there are significant mentions in older literature (e.g. trade magazines, journals). Unfortunately, looking up those old magazines would be quite an effort; so I would suggest the answer is to err on the side of keep. --SJK 20:31, 18 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: after discounting WP:SPAs and arguments which do not meet policy, there is still consensus to keep, with only one delete argument coming from someone who appears to have reviewed the improvements made (and that self-described as weak). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweatdrop Studios[edit]

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

Abstain. AfDing in place of ((db)) placed by someone else. There's contibutions by two existing users, and possible notability. Interiot 06:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Puppetry warning - See [29]. In the case that they wise up and remove it, it's a request of their forum to help out with the AfD. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that Sock Puppetry? I was under the impression that that involved multiple accounts belonging to the same person. These accounts are owned by different people, who are, yes, coming here as a result of that thread, but they are different people --User:SunKitten
    • "Meat puppetry". Calling folks from a forum to defend an article is somewhat... annoying. It's not that I fear it will affect the result, so much as that this tends to get a bunch of inexperienced users coming in to try to "vote bomb", without actually adressing the problems at hand. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tribalwar is an extreme example. Arguments from people personally involved in the topic at hand are often far less useful and objective as well. Hopefully you understand. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. That's why I commented rather than voting. I would argue that in some cases the personally involved people can offer more information than others - such as my first comment below - but that's irrelevant to this debate --user:SunKitten
      • Since you're new, you might want to read the policies at WP:V and WP:RS, and the guidelines at WP:NOTABLE and WP:VAIN to help with your arguments. Becoming notable doesn't mean that they're notable yet, and simply not being a corporation isn't really reason enough either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, hence the comment rather than the vote. I understand that being a publisher/corporation/business/dictatorship is not reason for inclusion, I was simply trying to clarify facts. I did not mention becoming notable. Thanks for the links --User:SunKitten
• Speedy Delete. These so called established users are User:Msproduct and User:Chaos X3 and are members of Sweatdrop Studios as they have stated on this thread [30]. In that thread they also state that they realise Wikipedia policies but continue to write vanity pages about themselves anyway, for instance User:Chaos X3 said Wikipedia can go screw themselves; if they want the information to further their encyclopedia, then they shouldn't be complaining where it comes from, even if the subjects write about themselves (I mean, who knows them better?). This violates Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. As for notability, the studio is run by forum and the checkout system is paid via paypal. The studio is an amateur club and is not a registered UK company though they state that they are UK based. [31] in fact the only information I can find on the studio is that the domain is registered to Dock (Hayden Scott-Baron). All this article amounts to is a list of amateur authors internet aliases and a collection of links to their EOL manga books which is vanity and advertising. The page has been deleted before and the same users have created it again without improvement. --Squilibob 06:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Changed see below--Squilibob 15:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Squilibob. So tagged. MER-C 09:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems like a lot of the people involved - Dock (Hayden Scott-Baron), Laura Watton, Subi, Foxy (Manga Artist), Emma Vieceli, Sonia Leong and a whole heap of redlinks have pretty tenuous claims to notability as well. Deizio talk 10:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The users involved have begun reviewing these other articles and have agreed to reference them as well. --Squilibob 15:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Coment, though a number of the people involved seem to have books available on amazon.co.uk [32] [33] [34], with at least the Digital Manga Techniques book being sold somewhat widely [35]. --Interiot 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, that is true but none of those examples that you have listed mention Sweatdrop Studios anywhere. That is a good argument for keeping their individual articles and renaming Dock (Hayden Scott-Baron) and Subi, but that is not what this AFD is about. --Squilibob 22:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would Draw Manga, by Sweatdrop Studios, count? --User:SunKitten

• Yes, that's a good reference. --Squilibob 15:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Myself (User:Chaos X3) and User:Msproduct are not members of Sweatdrop. Sweatdrop are recognised as a Publisher within the UK, though may be considered amateur nonetheless. Sweatdrop members write monthly slots in Neo (magazine) and host Manga Alley at the biannual London MCM Expo[36]. Sweatdrop are developing; this page does not serve as self-promotion or vanity, nor does it contain propaganda. --User:Chaos X3
  • Comment, Sweatdrop are genuine UK publishers. The six books they have published bear ISBNs and are registered with Nielsen BookData (Amazon: [37][38][39][40][41][42] )(note: this comment was intended to confirm a factual statement, and not as an opinion either way) --User:SunKitten — Possible single purpose account: SunKitten (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep I believe sweatdrop are the largest non-company based publisher in the UK. they have been in existence for 5 years, and have many of their products available through forbidden planet international. 2 of the members noted with 'tenuos claims' to notability, are currently working on some of the first commisioned manga books in the UK.
• Because the group exists not as a company, but as a collective of individuals, supporting eachother, and often giving up profit, time and commercial projects to spend time on comics that make them little to no money, i believe sweatdrop deserves to be explained on wikipedia, as they are certainly unique within the UK manga scene, providing an alternative to the corporate publishing route, while offering opportunities to obtain 'notability'.--user:Palmer-san — Possible single purpose account: Palmer-san (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

*Delete, as it does not assert notability beyond simply being a publisher. It also looks like we've got a bad case of The Socks on our hands. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep At least as notable as other small press publishers linked to from British_small_press_comics, given the ISBNs probably more so, though I've argued in the bast that some of those are nn cruft and should go. Artw 01:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia should be the definative A-Z of everything, regardless of importance. If grotty little towns like Dewsbury are mentioned on Wikipedia, then why not a group of hardworking individuals like Sweatdrop. Regardless of what some people seem to think, Sweatdrop is not out for vanity or to advertise on Wikipedia. Infact a couple of totaly independent people took it upon themselves to list Sweatdrop because they love the group. I personaly think it's mean not to include things like this. I think you should have a definitve list infact; of Uk all manga producers.

This puppety thing as i understand, are people called from a forum for instance to defend an article such as this. The only people who have commented so far are me, and the pair who wrote the article to begin with, and the wiki wise Sunkitten.

We are not one person with multiple accounts, and we only comment because we care. We are also totaly independent of Sweatdrop appart from Sunkitten.

Wikipedia contains a lot of information, most of it totaly usless depending on your point of view.

I say keep the article, maybe you could refine areas you don't totaly agree with. Totaly condemning the article is wrong, especialy considering it's contents are all true. Look at the website, read the forums. You'll see that everything is right.

Wikipedia should be based on the truth, not on notariety or fame.

Most sub-atomic particles are niether well known, or perticularly exciting but they do exist, and are listed on Wikipedia. Why not Sweatdrop?

There are articles about total losers, facists, dictators, food, small chunks of ice in space, things which are theorised about in the future which nobody really knows about, assumpions about the end of the universe, even articles about what the word dickhead means. So why not Sweatdrop?

I'm not saying that these things are unworthy of an article, i'm saying that nothing should be. If it exists, is proven to exist, and that information about it is true, then it should be included.

Note: The above is just my opinion. If you delete the article then thats life. Although deleting this article because a few people decide it's unimportant or has some ulterior motive is kind of laughing in the face of truth. Sweatdrop does exist, it publishes books, and stands out from the rest of the UK manga scene. It's a fact, and that makes it important to include it. The assumption of vanity and advertising is a complete falsehood, based on some cynical observations by a couple of people who would do well to enrich their knowlege of this small but very noteworthy publisher of manga in the UK.

Go on, google up Sweatdrop, they have many mentions on other websites as well.

Well; here are just a few links:

[43] Sweatdrop Website [44] Sweatdrop profiles [45] Mentions of Sweatdrop on animeuknews.net [46] Mentions of Sweatdrop on eurofusion.net [47] Mentions of Sweatdrop on noated.net [48] Mentions of Sweatdrop on answers.com [49] Mentions of Sweatdrop on the manganese forums [50] Sweatdrop merchandise on sale online [51] Mentions of Sweatdrop on quarto.com [52] Sweatdrop merchandise on sale online [53] Reviews of Sweatdrop comics [54] Article about Emma Vieceli

There are many more than this by the way if you look, this is just what i have scraped off the top.

It may also be worth pointing out that if many of the other british small press people are worthy of recognition then Sweatdrop certainly are.

UKMXL 01:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC) WRH --User:UKMXL[reply]

On Hold: I would like to put this deletion nomination on hold. I have made contact with the several editors involved on this page: [55]. Perhaps this Call to arms that is happening can be redirected from trying to save this page here on the deletion nomination page. Instead they can collaborate on just improving the page. That is what this nomination is all about after all. We don't want another rubbish, unreferenced page that just has a list of members who don't even use their real names and don't have any content about what their Studio is about. The users user:SunKitten, User:Msproduct, User:Chaos X3, user:Palmer-san and User:UKMXL obviously know more about the subject than any of us could ever know and if they just put that information on the actual Sweatdrop Studios page then this article would not only be kept but may even be a good article. I think this is a case of new users who aren't exactly sure how Wikipedia works. They argue Sweatdrop is a valid page. Prove it: Pages need content, Be Bold edit the page, reference your work and the deletion nom will fail. --Squilibob 02:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've attempted to edit the page, please note it's my first attempt at Wiki as well. I've given links to certain important statements such as creation dates, and editited the real names of members. There is only Foxy and Yuri that remain annoymous. I've also changed the some of the terminology to something you might find better. I've also linked each name to a Sweatdrop profile for now. If more info is required then only the original founding members can answer properly. I have also updated Foxy and Yuri's article to include samples of their work. --User:UKMXL

  Comment, I'd love to edit the page, and would have liked to do so when it appeared first, but I am a member of the group and I understand that that is frowned upon --User:SunKitten

  It isn't frowned upon. You are allowed to as long as you follow the policy stated on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:

  Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

  Note the Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. which is exactly why I nominated the page for deleteion in the first place. The list has been changed into a paragraph, which is better, but it still needs context and though there are links as references, they need to be links that confirm their notability. See Wikipedia:Notability. Are there any third party reviews of these mangaka? Reference to them. If all these people are popular, and it seems that they may well be, there must be something written somewhere by someone else about them. --Squilibob 08:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep i'd like to thank the member who offered their help with cleaning up the sweatdrop article earlier (crustacean man?) - i will be happy to update the article with some more information, but i am quite busy and find it difficult to get to grips with the format (altho obviously i'll try my best to make it decent).

i am not a sweatdrop member but have known of the group for just over a year and own several of their comics, books and the magazines they have been featured in. i also have a website with a couple of amateur reviews of their works (e.g. http://www.mangacite.com/Reviews/review_SD_stardust.htm )

the group is the major driving force in UK manga and therefore i would consider the entry on them worth keeping

• Keep - I am happy to report that I wish to change my opinion to keep. After much discussion on the Sweatdrop Studios forum, several editors have added substantially to the article and it has changed from this to its current form. The page still needs some more references but there's no reason to delete it as has at least a dozen references to comply with Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which was why it was nominated for deletion in the first place. All my concerns have been addressed. --Squilibob 15:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weaker Delete (consider it closer to Delete than to Weak Delete), the article has improved. It still doesn't really say anything for, say, their popularity. Amazon sources also don't do a terrific amount to establish notability, as I've found it's not that difficult to be listed on there. I can find several sources referencing them on the interwebs, but they all look like plain press releases, which doesn't speak much about their notability. We've had outright hoaxes come through AfD before that had extensive press release Google hits, and that's about it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I understand where you're coming from. I have asked them to supply some third party Reliable sources, which they have done, three unrelated magazine references. --Squilibob 02:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; two of which are just talking about the artists as individuals. I'm not certain if NEO magazine is at the point of notability at which things associated with it become notable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A user has suggested this review as a review. I have found this one which even has some critisism. What do you think? I think the second one has some merit. --Squilibob 15:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've been avoiding all anime/manga-related site news and press releases because I assumed they didn't count as sufficiently notable and were not as neutral as sources such as the London Graphics Centre or UniOrb. That second review is in any case based on a press release issued by Sweatdrop at the time of release of the books it's talking about, which based on comments on this page again I thought wouldn't suffice. If it is good, then I have a lot more references I can add - SunKitten

• Keep - They're an important and notable part of the British small press comics scene. I have a significant history in that area and I don't think most aspects of small press comics deserve Wikipedia entries, but this lot do. Peteashton 23:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep -

 To begin, it is stated in the attention box above. 

‘Deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks)'

And so I put the fullness of my argument to you Consumed Crustacean. First, in relation to Neo magazine.

Neo magazine is the only UK based magazine dealing with manga and anime, and the only one to be found in non specialist shops there period. The only main competition it would have is in specialist comic stores from the American or Japanese version of NEWTYPE magazine. But, they have sole magazine coverage of the UK anime/manga scene. It’s a valid reference. But frankly, I don’t think it’s as famous as Sweatdrop is.

As a section of culture which only continues to expand in popularity, individuals who have no interest in that sub-culture may consider the likes of Neo and SD to be of no importance. However, that does not detract from the status of said groups. Those two groups along with the Tokyo pop Rising stars of manga competition constitute the core of the UK and Irish manga scene. Sweatdrop, through its tutorials and constant presence exceeds the other two in importance, is literally educating and supporting the next generation of UK and Irish manga artists, and frankly whether it is listed in wikipedia or not, will go down in history as the source of the organised manga creation scene in the UK. They simply can’t be robbed of that fact. Anyone with even remote familiarity with the manga subculture in the UK or Ireland has been exposed to sweatdrop. And the list of companies that they collaborate with includes industry leaders like letraset, Wacom etc.

Who are wacom??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wacom they make the leading brand of graphics tablet used by artists the world over, but many people have no idea who they are, because of course they are only famous within the artistic community. My point is, just because a lot of people don’t know who wacom are, does not mean they aren’t of core importance to certain groups. Without them, the digital art community would probably crumble overnight.

And here, on wacoms site, wacom, who sell to the whole world of digital artists is Sonia Leong's work, SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS. http://www.wacom-europe.com/manga/manga.asp?lang=en&pdx=10 and on that page are also the words Sweatdrop studios.

Also, the references named above which 'are just talking about the artists as individuals' were to cite that Sweatdrop is mentioned before every tutorial said artists give in a leading concept art magazine which is read world wide a.k.a. the artists market themselves as Sweatdrop artists. When you consider the magazine in question has articles in it by the likes of ADI GRANOV and others who did concept art for everything from batman to star wars, names which might mean nothing to you, but once again, within the art community holds high esteem you have to realise Sweatdrop relative importance. It was made totally clear in the references that they accompanied tutorials by the artists in said magazines. It would be unfair to expect the magazine to allow a huge rant about Sweatdrop pre every tutorial by their members, and expecting such as proof of their position is unrealistic because that would never happen for any company.

For example. When you buy a pair of Nike shoes, you don’t get a 10 page rant about the company in the box. And the store selling the shoes isn’t handing out such rants either. Similarly, where Sweatdrop provides a service, there is no rant about them either. The very fact that they are providing the service, for magazines like neo, Imagine Fx, and companies like Wacom is the proof of their credibility.

In the October 2006 imagine fx magazine ISSN 9771 7489 3000 3 10> Sweatdrop is mentioned in the same breath as the biggest names in manga worldwide "other big publishers include Manga Entertainment, which is somewhat more focused on anime and DVD releases, Dark horse comics and Sweatdrop studios." -page 24 The fact that Sweatdrop in not an official company, but the blood sweat and tears of people with 9-5 jobs makes this ever more remarkable.

Imagine FX august 2006 page 27

Results of a competition run by Sweatdrop, and sponsored by IMAGINE FX, LETRASET, WACOM ,E FRONTIER AND TOKYOPOP are announced.

this proves a professional working relationship between SD and these very very respectable companies.

If you go to Tokyopop right now http://www.tokyopop.com, the leading manga publisher outside Japan, there is Sweatdrop artist Joanna Zhou featured, and advertised as 'of the Sweatdrop crew'.

Of note is that the article which was being judged here has changed to a degree that it is unrecognisable from the one set for deletion, for this alone, the article should be re-examined and re-voted upon after a short period to complete updating of the wiki.

Also, if you can find me another manga circle in the UK, or even outside Japan that can list credentials, and companies, and magazines like those Sweatdrop are associated with, ill be very very impressed. Credit where credit is due gentlemen. And in this case, that credit is your simple recognition of their right to be known. Various links have been provided, magazines cited in their defence, examples of their name associated with big companies within the trade.

I think you will agree, there is nothing unfair about that. At the very least deletion should be withheld for a month, to give time for the wiki, and a full list of magazine citations to be included. The problem is of course, any such citation can be negatively spun to being a form self praise, but, without it you doubt the importance or accomplishments of the group... How you resolve these two conflicting directives I do not know. Can you not accept all these references provided to you, and leave them out of the wiki, so it does not look like a list of ' look what I can do' references? It would seem that whichever direction they move in to appease you folks, they’re damned. Leave as in - not enough proof. Provide proof - tooting ones own horns.

Thus and for many similar reasons, the counter argument is flawed, and has failed to provide any proof to damage the validity of the citations provided.

Crustacean Man and the counter argument in general are being unreasonable in its view, as it was willing to be dismissive of the proof given. SD was asked for citations, and I provided numerous. Many of which were looked down for no solid reason. If Sweatdrop can be asked to provide proof , and provide it, then sir I say when you discredit that proof you must provide proof of your own, Questioning whether one magazine was valid as a source with the words 'I’m not sure' is unacceptable in such a situation, as you disregard the burden of proof you lay on others, and saying the other citations were just about the artists themselves when in fact it is stated plainly that they were bios quotes that accompany all of their tutorials in said magazine, and that I was quoting the bios to show hat the artists market themselves via the Sweatdrop name shows a clear willingness to pick and choose elements of the facts to reflect a distorted truth which favours your argument. This is unacceptable.

In addition to this, the links provided above, in respect to tokyopop and wacom, are proof undeniable for the case of keeping the SD wiki, where your current counter argument sir is based on mis representation of the facts I provided, which were cited in accordance with the submission rules of this institution. If you are unwilling to investigate my citations properly by buying said magazines , or contacting said companies to disprove said proof, then you have no basis to cast their validity into question, an by doing so you fundamentally weaken your argument to the point where it can no longer be upheld as rational. That is why I respectfully ask you to withdraw your argument at this point.

My argument is one filled with citation from site after site, magazine after magazine, company page after company page.

All the counter argument has done is attempt to tear down that proof with speculation. To any reasonable onlooker, the burden of proof overwhelms any current attempt to discredit it. Until the counter argument is willing to stand up, with proof to discredit these citations -you have no valid argument.

In closing I would say to the administration.

Sweatdrop has proved their existence, and that that existence is exceptional, through various citations from established sources. To include such citations in the wiki would be viewed by many as clear self indulgence and self promotion on their part, providing them with an angle to once again attack the SD wiki. Thus I ask that the issue of burden of proof of Sweatdrop’s importance to the UK manga scene and the validity of its connections to various leading creative companies be dropped as an issue, unless Wikipedia is willing to allow a list of shining citations which would only serve as self promotion, thus breaking the established rules against such behaviours. The burden of proof asked of sweatdrop by the counter argument was severe, and the proof provided was questioned in a very unreasonable fashion in that it was based on no valid source. A house of cards counterargument based on simple nay saying.

The only reasonabe decision, within a system which survives through the value of fact, of citation, is to disregard the validity of the counter argument due to a lack of anything but nebulous accusations and award the right to exist to the sweatdrop wiki which has clearly defended itself to a far more professional degree those who would act for its deletion.

James Gammell- October 15- 2006-17.08

Strong keep. I cannot fathom why this article is being considered for deletion. Sweatdrop studios is an important part of the UK Manga scene and should have a clear article on Wiki. As for the source of the information, as long as it is accurate I don’t see why we should discriminate against it. Butch-cassidy 08:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Sweatdrop Studios are very well-known in UK anime and manga circles. MoonShadow 12:29, 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 delete. Dakota 13:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patback[edit]

Extremely minor, unimportant character on the show. Character does not make significant impact, and only appears for a few seconds, maybe minutes, doing something unimportant. SuperDT 06:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TJ. — TKD::Talk 09:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Merge and redirect into List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. — TKD::Talk 06:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not even a character, it was just a face that Patrick made with his back fat. TJ Spyke 07:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, you're right; I misread it originally. — TKD::Talk 09:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TJ Spyke. PJM 11:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, very much non-notable. JIP | Talk 13:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable and I doubt there could be further information (with encyclopedic value) added to this article. Markovich292 03:48, 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 delete. Dakota 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley Grim[edit]

I proposed this article for deletion a couple days back, but that's been challenged. I'm to understand that the company/organization has no videos released. It was supposed to be some sort of reformation of a previous similar group named "Poly Bag Boy Productions", but I can't find heads or tails for this:

• There are no sources for this.
• The article's been moderately kept up since it was created in may, but doesn't have any videos then and now and its August.
• With reguards to the article's creator's self-description: "He is also a writter for the Smiley Grim Film Productions company, which is owned by a friend of his." Wikipedia is not a vechicle for self-promotion.[1][2][3]
• The owner of the company can't finish the videos just yet, and is taking directing classes to help improve themselves.(see talk)
• Their offical website is a myspace page.
• I cannot substantiate the claims of popularity in Scotland, and I reason that I will not as a result of what I've seen above.

As a result, I believe there are numerous and currently insolvable problems with this article. It should be deleted. My regrets to the author; please read the above. --Kevin_b_er 07:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Vanity article on a non-notable film company who's only films are those uploaded on Youtube. Fails both the criterias of WP:CORP and WP:V. Also, only 192 Google results.--TBCΦtalk? 08:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article asserts that the film company has produced no films, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Hyperbole 15:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comments and WP:FILM. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:32, 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mamoon Eshaq[edit]

For a "widely popular" singer, I find very little information on the web (60 ghits, 25 unique, most of which appear to be from web forums). Simply put, there's no evidence that this singer has met any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:V. Hallmarks of hoax / vanity absent of reliable independent sources. Deizio talk 10:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a widely popular ethnic singer. I am gathering some articles from Zeba magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralWriter (talk • contribs)

• Please be careful to ensure that any external source is regarded as reliable. Deizio talk 15:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will reference the article. It will be listed under references as soon as I retrieve it...NeutralWriter

I put couple references that I was able to confirm. I will continue with other reference souces as they become available...NeutralWriter

I'm afraid that those are not "references" as required by WP:V. Please provide links to reliable sources, rather than unverified notes about where this person may or may not have been featured. Deizio talk 15:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO. If he is popular in Afghanistan, why is his website in English? Also, we have no evidence of major distribution. Vectro 06:20, 20 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.