< October 20 October 22 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete per author —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-21 09:05Z

Chemin de la Montagne[edit]

I am nominating this page for deletion as even if I created this page in the first place but way back in March 2006, I realized (I made a mistake) that the vast majority of the road (after the amalgamation of Gatineau in 2002)was located outside Gatineau's limits while the portion that is still inside Gatineau is not notable while the old and more notable portion called Chemin de la Montagne Sud was renamed.If the name haven't changed the article would have remained but now I'm asked for a deletion. --JForget 01:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can just go to the article and put a ((Db-author)) tag on top of it, which will request a speedy deletion. Since nobody else has ever made any major edits to it (all the other edits were just stub sorting, putting in a category, etc.) any admin is free to pull it on your request. --Aaron 02:57, 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 speedy keep. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hell Teacher Nūbē manga chapters[edit]

Wikipedia is not shopping guides Zhaieo 23:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Zhaieo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline skew theories for The West Wing[edit]

Entirely original research. This is an article on fan theories about The West Wing. It is unsourced, and cannot be traced to reliable sources. Phil Sandifer 00:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per first AfD. Needs clean-up, not deletion. — Scm83x hook 'em 00:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What sources can be used to clean it up? It's an article about fan theories - it's next to impossible to keep this from being OR. Phil Sandifer 00:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I got rid of all the OR at the end of the article and just cited all of the claims. I suggest a name change to something like Real-world timeline comparisons for The West Wing. — Scm83x hook 'em 01:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is still all OR - it's constructing theories about events in the West Wing based entirely off of primary source material. Phil Sandifer 02:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be OR if it's just a comparison of the two timelines, the real one and The West Wing timeline: "This is The West Wing timeline, this is the real world. Here are the differences." That is what the article is now with the addition of the cited theory by the TV magazine, TV Zone. It's too much to go in the larger article, which is why it was split off in the first place. — Scm83x hook 'em 02:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that those articles you list seem to be original research and should probably be deleted as well, or at least drastically reduced to verifiable content and merged, except for star trek physics maybe, as that has been written about by several people. Wickethewok 03:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that any substantial progress has been made. You have cited basic facts from the series, however, you have failed to address the far more important concerns regarding the synthesis of these ideas into more complex conclusions. This article has been around for nearly a year now, so its not like it hasn't been given a chance since the last AFD for this. Wickethewok 03:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, article was already forked from the FA The West Wing. — Scm83x hook 'em 04:14, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-marketing[edit]

The time has come to nuke this crap from orbit. This article may have been around since 2003, but is one of the biggest farces ever on Wikipedia. If you read the article, it barely touches on E-Marketing, instead it focues on David Chaffey's emarketing book. Why is that? Well, that's because User:Dchaffey wrote the damn thing to promote his book in 2003. And since then no one has done anything about it, oh, apart from when his advert got too long and ended up split to Online marketing. I've tagged it with cleanup and merge, but its best to just kill this dead. I'm sure our link did wonders for his google rank, especially as this article was linked to from Template:Marketing (link since removed). For further comments see Talk:E-marketing. - Hahnchen 00:12, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 1998 TRL Countdowns[edit]

Incomplete list of videos that appeared on the top 10 countdown of TRL. This list falls under the category of indiscriminate lists of information. Metros232 00:24, 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 - Yomanganitalk 11:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity supporters of AFL clubs[edit]

This page is an unsourced mess, with 8 citations and 255 supporters, 27 redlinks and a huge amount of people that I have never even heard of. This is the sort of article that critics use to attack Wikipedia's credibility.  Jorcoga  00:35, 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven Worlds[edit]

This reeks of OR and lack of notability. I'm no Kabbala expert, but without sources… Avi 00:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hebrew Wikipedia, at he:שלמה (Solomon), where it claims (unsourced) that these worlds are mentioned in a book he wrote (The "Book of Worlds"), and
  • this Kabbalah Centre site (also Hebrew). The Kabbalah Centre site gives these sources:
  • ספר הזוהר, תיקוני הזוהר, כרך י"ז, עמוד צ"ו סעיף רט"ז
  • ספר הזוהר, כרך י"א פרשת ויקרא, סעיף קל"ז-קמ"א, קמ"ד
Also, there are some few details mentioned in English at the following sites:
Finally, the Kaballah Centre site makes it seem that these worlds are physical planets, which I assume is not the only interpretation.
So the question is: Is this a notable concept that deserves mention? I have found very little actual information aside from the Hebrew Kabbalah Centre site, which is very similar to the information in the article. The four sites above were not easy to find, either. --Eliyak T·C 19:23, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1998 TRL Countdowns[edit]

This list falls under the category of indiscriminate lists of information. It is intended to be an archive of lists of videos that appeared on MTV's TRL top 10 video countdown. Metros232 00:53, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riddle vision[edit]

Neologism, slang, about 500 Google hits reveal a host of possible meanings. Deprodded. Accurizer 00:54, 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 no consensus (thus keep). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California Patriot[edit]

First of all, I'm flummoxed. I've been at Cal for nine years and have never even heard of this publication. If this is distributed free of charge on campus it must be somewhere I've never been to. But since this could be my oversight I tried to look into circulation numbers, but the Patriot conveniently forgets to mention them [1]. So I looked at independent coverage it received. It turns out (per Newsbank) that the editor was cited in one article in the Oakland Tribune on "Which political party has whinier children?" A check on Lexis-Nexis for coverage on University Wire gave me five articles total, all by the Daily Californian. So absent other sources I propose deletion as a marginal student publication with no non-trivial independent coverage. ~ trialsanderrors 01:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, of course trialsanderrors hasn't seen any copies around campus because the samizdat publishers can hear the medals on his political commissar uniform jingling from a mile away. Bwithh 03:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I admit I'm a card-carrying member of what is the true silent majority on campus, the Association of Students Who Don't Give a Fuck About Campus Politics. We tried to get our own magazine started, the "Daily Whatever", but for some reason we could never get it off the ground. ~ trialsanderrors 04:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Best political blog" -- let alone this one's "honorable mention" -- from a student newspaper isn't even within shouting distance of "noteworthy". --Calton | Talk 07:12, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicles in Unreal Tournament 2004[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide. There's some precedent over here. MER-C 01:16, 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 merge into Sharon, Pennsylvania. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Police Department[edit]

Small-town police force, fails WP:Notability, though it might be desirable to merge some information into Sharon, Pennsylvania. Thunderbunny 01:29, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Destruktur[edit]

This looks like a hoax. I can't find anything out about this band, if it does exist, aside from a puzzling myspace page. The list of albums is a list of Guns 'n' Roses and Bon Jovi albums with dates preceding the release of those albums by the latter bands. I think this is total B.S., but maybe someone can vouch for this band. Maybe it's real but heavily vandalized. From the article itself: "Unfortunatly commercial success has yet to bestow itself onto Destruktur." That means "not notable" to me. Mr Spunky Toffee 01:56, 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 speedy delete (Deleted by the author)

Microbial population biology references (2000)[edit]

This is just a list of journal articles related to a particular field. No assertion of notability to any of them, or any explanation for why they are listed here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nor is it an article indexing service. Deprod-ed by author with the explanation "Explicit reference to article this entry is documentation for," where he also added a link to Microbial population biology. This article doesn't "document" anything presented at Microbial population biology, which has only a few paragraphs of useful text.

Also nominating:

eaolson 02:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oy vey. Some of those reference lists are the sorts of things a university professor would quietly dash off for a student in need of help. I'm sure they're exceptionally useful reading material, but a tad on the side of overkill. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:16, 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 speedily deleted by Firsfron (csd a7). MER-C 03:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homebwoi[edit]

NN/wtf --Macarion 02:12, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob and George[edit]

In 2003 there was an AFD with no consensus. I see some subcomic of this being deleted and I check this and I see that it clearly fails WP:WEB. It's another NN webcomic. Anomo 02:16, 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. --Coredesat 00:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thesa[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC, prod filed by User:DWaterson, endorsed by User:N Shar with the comment "website doesn't exist, no photos as musician -- I suspect a hoax". Only claim to fame is album produced by brother's company. Prod notice removed by User:Christstyles w/o comment. Xtifr tälk 02:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the use of "vanity" is now discouraged. Instead please use "apparent Conflict of interest" per WP:COI Jpe|ob 08:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noted and changed. EVula 17:15, 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. The anonymous contributors don't provide any policy or guideline reasons for keeping, and most of the sources provided do not talk directly about the organization in question. The notability guidelines ask for multiple non-trivial, third-party sources. There only appears to be one, which is not "multiple". --Coredesat 00:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Confederation of Interstellar Planets[edit]

This article still does not currently address the problem that was raised on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCIP: There is no evidence or sources cited on how the UCIP (United Confederation of Interstellar Planets) website is notable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I know for a fact you guys were not the first to have an "Academy" System, since I graduated one before you set your sim group up! EnsRedShirt 07:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. UCIP was voted the "best StarTrek role playing site" in an online readers poll. The editorial staff at Interenet Life Magazine did not rank it, and this sub-section of the ILM is run by fans, not serious journalistic contributors. Take this quote, directly from the opening paragraph: "To sort it out, we asked our online readers to vote on their favorite spots, from Best Overall Resource to Best Anti-Trek Site." That isn't exactly like winning a Webby, and I don't consider it to denote notability. Consequentially 00:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, a false premise. Any organisation without notability (or perceived as such) risks having its article deleted here. Just because any given organisation hasn't been nominated for deletion yet doesn't mean that it won't be - it just means nobody's done so yet. You're welcome to do so if you feel that the standards being applied to UCIP mean that any other organisation is also non-notable. The place to question the notability of other organisations, however, is in their own articles or AfDs, rather than here. What flagged this particular article in comparison to any other is probably the simple fact that someone found it. I found one incarnation of it at the New Pages list, for example. Additionally, the previous UCIP article was flagged and was in fact deleted. See the link at the outset of this AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But where are the facts? We have been asked to provide hard evidence that UCIP is notable, and we are doing that. Therefore, I must ask that you submit hard evidence for these other organizations as well, or we are talking about a double standard.

Comment. You're confusing the various issues. This is the place to provide evidence that UCIP is notable and you're certainly having a good go at doing that. The place to provide evidence for the notability or otherwise of other organisations is in their articles or - should it come to it - their AfDs. The only thing up for discussion here is "Should the article on the UCIP be deleted?" The other organisations have very little to do with the case. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Too much evidence, this is a legit organization, per articles, structure etc. Here is a question for all you "deleters" :: How many articles in wikipedia are currently incorrect or not updated?

Comment. The quality of other articles is not a factor within this debate. You're arguing that we should let bad content stay in the encyclopedia because there is bad content in the encyclopedia. Bzzzt. Wrong. You get rid of the bad whenever you can find it, and keep an eye out. Consequentially 02:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Further, nobody's saying UCIP doesn't exist (which I presume is what you mean by saying that it's a "legit" organisation). I exist, you exist and so does everyone else contributing to this discussion, but that doesn't mean we should all write articles on ourselves. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous items concerning the notability of UCIP has been given, which is what was asked to be done originally. Those references have been stated in the article. Now, given that, why is deletion still being discussed?

For two main reasons. The first is process: AfDs run for about 5 days, sometimes a bit longer depending on how rapidly admins spring into action or how contentious the issue is - they can be closed earlier, but only in situations where the article's already been deleted (a speedy delete), or the nominator retracts the nomination, that kind of thing. The second this is that, as a number of contributors here have said, the evidence provided isn't too great. The award cited was a fan poll, for example - and as other users have also pointed out, it doesn't look like it meets WP:WEB which is a useful thing for it to meet in order to be notable. Yes, information has been provided, but it isn't necessarily enough. Therefore, deletion is still being discussed partly because that's the way we do things and partly because notability hasn't yet been proven. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:12, 22 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 per G11. --Coredesat 04:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geodesic Foam Scenery[edit]

minor branded product Tfine80 02:59, 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 Naconkantari 16:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rivero[edit]

  • Comment Did you honestly just argue that his own website has lots of information about him? How many of those google hits are real and do not include his site or reproductions of works on his site? --NuclearZer0 12:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what he was saying is that the website itself produces 335,000 entries in Google, which was one of the arguments used against the deletion of the website's old article. - EmiOfBrie 17:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An impressive resume, but not an indicator of notability. If he had received major media attention based off of his work on these, or an industry award, perhaps. There are far more notable effects artists who do not have articles. In fact, while Rick Baker remains a stub I can't really say that Michael Rivero rates more attention.--Rosicrucian 14:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Rosicrurian - science fiction movies employ large teams of visual effects people, these people make important contributions to the movie to be sure but they arn't necessarily big contributions (I remember hearing that on the Star Wars prequels visual effects guys were responsible for 2 seconds of film a week). The visual effects supervisor may be notable, but an animator is no more notable than a casting supervisor or a gaffer or any of the zillions of other people whose names you see in the credits. GabrielF 17:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If it's shown that he has won an industry award, would either of you consider a keep vote? *Sparkhead 00:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possibly, as that would go a long way towards establishing him as meeting WP:BIO as an effects artist, and only as an effects artist, via:
  • The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
  • Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.
  • Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field.
Make sense? I don't believe I'm applying an unfair standard here, and if people are trying to claim his effects career alone is enough to keep him, this is how I see it.--Rosicrucian 03:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article would have to be rewritten to promote his notability in special effects and considerably downplay his conspiracy cruft if that's what his notability is going to be built around in the article. --Strothra 03:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense and I don't believe you're applying an unfair standard either. Checking some history, I'm suprised "Whatreallyhappened.com" was deleted as advertisement, when other comparable entries exist (not arguing that one today though). On topic, a search of his name and his production company "Home Baked Entertainment" reveals claims of awards: Mr. Rivero's awards credits include gold, silver, and bronze medals from the New York International Film Festivals, two Clios in graphics, the Cable Car award at the San Francisco Film Festival, an emmy nomination, and gold & silver Hugos.,[12] and the Hawaii Student Film Festival site notes him as "award winning"[13], but I've been unable to verify a single one from another source. Clio site, IMDB, even the Hugo Award site which lists every (major?) award for the last 60 years doesn't have his name on it, that I could find anyway. Interesting. *Sparkhead 11:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that you're having trouble verifying his awards - maybe he's overstating his role on his website and it was the film or the team he was part of that won the award. More generally I'd say that an award itself doesn't necessarily prove notability. In academia a Nobel Prize guarantees notability but does a Guggenheim Fellowship? How about a best thesis award from a university? GabrielF 15:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, here's his resume [14] and here are some samples of his work [15] I'm not an expert in this field but it doesn't look like he's more notable than the average visual effects guy. GabrielF 16:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. New Orleans Times Picayune February 22, 1998 p. A21
  2. The Denver Post, September 30, 2001 p. A7
  3. Newsday (New York), July 17, 2006 p. A33
happy researching.--csloat 00:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make him notable even by WP:BIO's standards. --Strothra 01:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've put on the talk page the paragraphs where they mention him. It's too thin to change my mind. Tom Harrison Talk 17:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, that's a lot of the trouble as I see it. Being an online conspiracy theorist drives his Google signal-to-noise ratio waaaaay up, especially given how controversial his views on "Zionists" are. He's heavily blogged about and linked, but none of those count as reliable sources.--Rosicrucian 16:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits aren't really ever a "reliable" source for proving notability. --Strothra 19:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, he includes Christians in his definition of "Zionists" as well...basically, his definition would be anyone who (he feels) is deliberately trying to bring about the end times and therefore be raptured (with "Zion" being another name for paradise). Given some of the USA and Israel's actions recently (especially Israel's attack against Lebanon for the actions of a private organization who even Lebanon officially does not approve of), I'm not surprised Rivero believes that way. -EmiOfBrie 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete as nominated, in spite of additions. Withdraw vote if the CSPAN interview can be confirmed and he is a major participant in that interview, as opposed to being one of a number of censored conspiracy theorists. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:46, 25 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. While merges end with redirects and not deletion, this is an implausible search term, and would be an inappropriate redirect. --Coredesat 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrenaline Combo[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Suggesting a transwiki to an appropriate gaming wiki. MER-C 03:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user decided to be bold and merge the content already. Delete as content is now a part of Unreal Tournament 2004 Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 23:02, 24 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. Considering that most trivia is unverifiable, and we're supposed to avoid it anyway, the main article won't benefit from a merge. -- Steel 00:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo DS trivia[edit]

A whole article just for Nintendo DS trivia, with no references at all. Mushroom (Talk) 03:04, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Urban Explorers[edit]

Not notable website, Internet group. Vsion 03:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, for disclosure, this website/Internet group (SUE) was mentioned in a newspaper article [16] in three paragraphs:"On a smaller scale, there is online community Singapore Urban Explorer, ...., dedicated to discovering lesser-known sites in the city, ... The website has over 400 registered members ...". I believe the news article is authentic. In addition, the group does organise some activities outside cyberspace, physically exploring Marsiling jungle, etc. Nonetheless, I don't think the group is notable. --Vsion 18:55, 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 speedy delete all as CSD A7 (no assertion of notability). — TKD::Talk 06:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mouzam solkar[edit]

it's a personal ad and not a real article Karasuman 03:15, 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 01:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collusion between business and government[edit]

Appears to be a POV fork from Hong Kong. I would merge back except the content is POV and having "Collusion between business and government" redirect to Hong Kong is kind of POV too. - Richfife 03:28, 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. Chick Bowen 22:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow's Nobodies[edit]

Non-notable web series. Fails WP:V and WP:RS due to a lack of independent reliable sources. Looks like it fails WP:WEB as well. Was deleted previously: HERE. Wickethewok 03:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being linked to or mentioned by Maddox or whatever is trivial. Maddox has talked about a lot of things and I'm sure linked to them as well. Wickethewok 20:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your personal opinion on maddox doesn't change the fact that he is one of the most trafficked websites on the internet. The same goes for newgrounds, another place their material is published. Consdering the nature of most of these comments, that only 3 of you are here and calling for a delete, and the way the last few attempts were handled with extreme prejudice it almost seems like you have something against TN. Face it man, the article just doesn't quality for deletion, whether you like them or not has no bearing on it. They meet the criteria for notability. --Superslash 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like Maddox, but that has nothing to do with anything. Being linked to from a blog-like source would make just about every Geocities site valid for inclusion. I've probably nominated hundreds of articles for deletion, and assure you I have had nothing personal against any of them. Wickethewok 04:24, 26 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Swarm[edit]

Game mod that doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE. Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 03:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The GameSpy Network encompasses all of the Planet sites (FilePlanet, PlanetUnreal, PlanetDeusEx, etc.) as well as GameSpy.com. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know about standalone, but Forbes is noting that the next Alien Swarm incarnation will be deployed via Steam. [17] Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:10, 26 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 deletemania. --Coredesat 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corpsemania[edit]

Game mod that doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE. Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 03:54, 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 wasno consensus. --Coredesat 00:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FEMA Trailer[edit]

Neologism, original research, merge relevant bits with articles about FEMA and the two hurricanes Ponch's Disco 04:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewriting. At 19:00, I converted the article "FEMA Trailer" to "current-event" status, after rewriting and adding 6 sources for facts. Upon close examination, I found the article contained unsourced general information (not "original research" to FEMA), including new events up to last month. Now it is a totally different current-event article, and never was a neologism since FEMA uses the term: "FEMA Trailer Hotline" and such. -Wikid77 19:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this does not solve the original underlying problem. Ponch's Disco 01:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All valid points, but which belong in the FEMA article and articles about the two hurricanes. Ponch's Disco 08:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, even though some of this may be original research...it is research that documents a widespread current event. It's something that will definitely grow with time in both content and citations. Killing the article now would be an exercise in ignorance and shortsightedness. The FEMA trailer might seem like a small thing, but to those in the region, the trailer will become a cultural icon of the life and times. Don't delete this, because it IS relevant.--MonkBirdDuke 10:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjusted: At 13:12, I converted the article to "current event" status to focus attention for rapid changes, and many did not realize it was a Federal term: FEMA Trailer. -Wikid77 14:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment"Encyclopedic" and "unencyclopedic" seem to be Wikipedia neologisms which mean nothing more than "I like this article" or "I don't like it" so they shed no light on what should be kept or deleted.Edison 23:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21-October-2006: At 13:12, I converted the article to "current event" status to focus attention for rapid changes + noted term given by US Gov't (not neologism, Federal policies, not OR). -Wikid77 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- the trailers have propane stoves but microwave ovens;
- trailers will only be installed with external electric service;
- FEMA has officially re-requested trailers to be returned when no longer used; and
- FEMA has extended the usage-deadline beyond the original 18 months.

Current news reports have indicated that FEMA trailers were still being issued in recent months, not just in 2005, hence the "current-event" status and not another description of Hurricane Katrina and such. -Wikid77 19:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Using that logic, there's no such thing as a "Space Shuttle" either: all of the orbiters are unique variations that met certain specifications at the time, whether using RAM or old core-memory circuits for the onboard computers, just as FEMA trailers must meet certain specifications at the time. Of course, the topic of "FEMA trailers" is just common sense to millions, but you could find 20 people who would agree to delete any Wikipedia article. -Wikid77 21:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Search-hits for "FEMA plan" matched thousands more webpages than "planning" with Google-hits reported as 14,600 (non-original topic). -Wikid77 01:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe article has useful info, but FEMA haas been providing trailers at least since 1992, so it is odd to focus so much on Katrina response criticisms. That could better be put into Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina as a section. Then there could be a section in FEMA on housing they make available: tents (or motels or domed stadiums) for the short term, trailers for a year or 2. I find nothing in Wikipedia on "Disaster housing in the U.S." which could become important in the event of various natural disasters, wars or terrorism incidents. The stuff here which is not Katrina or FEMA criticism belongs in an "Intermediate term disaster housing" section. The article seems like too much info on too little a piece of the topic.Edison 02:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Too much information" seems an odd criticism here. If someone isn't interested in the trailers, they can stick with the main FEMA article. Having this much info there would be too much. But providing well-sourced information elsewhere is to be lauded. While it might not interest you, it probably does interest thousands of other people. Having it in a separate article guarantees that it will not overly intrude on those who do not care for this much information, while providing it for others. No reason information about 1992 trailers can't be included, an article shouldn't be deleted for being incomplete. A retitle (with redir) to "FEMA disaster relief housing" would be fine though. Derex 02:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On what do you base this accusation?? wikipediatrix 11:27, 22 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 00:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NFL starting quarterbacks[edit]

The Page is hardly a substantial article as it is a trivial list. It makes Wikipedia seem more like a Sports News Network as opposed to an encyclopedia (See WP:Not) ShadowJester07 04:22, 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. --Coredesat 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic software[edit]

Non-notable article discussing a neologism. Justin Eiler 04:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Justin, what do you not like about this article? -author

Greetings, William. "Liking" has nothing to do with my decision to nominate the article--I actually do like the articles. My only reasons for nominating the article for a deletion discussion have to do with Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability. As it stands, the article does not make clear why the topic is notable. Additionally, since you are the owner of one of the websites under discussionin the article, there is some question as to whether or not the articles fall under the guidelines for vanity articles or spam. Justin Eiler 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a neologism, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Please read the relevant notability guidelines for neologisms. MER-C 04:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, it is not a neologism. that would be ethnoware. this article is a concept, which seems to be gaining some acceptance, 1200 hits in google. oh and btw, articles are not supposed to talk about their notability, they are supposed to establish it. --Buridan 13:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually the WP:NEO page says that a neologism can be a phrase, not just a word. I get 288 Google hits [19], many of which are link farms. eaolson 13:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. the hits that i get that aren't farms are sites like rhyzome, washington university saint louis, kanonmedia, all fairly well respected artists. to me.. it comes down to this. if the category exists as a concept and is used in an academic field like this one seems to be, is it better to cleanup the article and have it as a stub, removing the advertising from it, so that people can look up an authoritative meaning in wikipedia, or is it better to vacate the conceptual territory and let the advertisers have it?--Buridan 14:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the use of "vanity" is now discouraged. Instead please use "apparent Conflict of interest" per WP:COI Jpe|ob 08:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wierd, i got one hit from google scholar, the electronic disturbance theater, though i didn't verify it. keep in mind that the texts that terms like this originate in, in the academic universe, might not be the texts that end up in google scholar because small publishers don't participate. a regular google search actually turns up several more academics and artists in this area. i see the problem between the advert and the concept. it would be nice to expunge the advert and keep the concept. --Buridan 14:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
actually, software does have an ethnicity, or at least a cultural specificity. there is plenty of evidence in chi/hci specifically in the anthropology of software that shows that.--Buridan 17:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's important aspect though 'ethnicity' sounds strange here (culture or cultural context got used, e.g. [20]). The article however does't touch this, it is list of of some SW. Pavel Vozenilek 21:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to abstain: Though I'm the editor who opened this discussion, User:Williammurrell has taken steps to make this a discussion of the concept of "ethnic software," rather than an advertisment for his website. As such, while I am still unsure if the discussion is notable, I will note that it no longer falls under spam or Conflict of interest. Justin Eiler 19:43, 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. It still could have been speedied per CSD G11. --Coredesat 00:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W.D. International[edit]

Article fails WP:SPAM and does not establish notability. Seems to fail WP:CORP as well. Article author removed speedy deletion tag twice, but it seems as though she works for the company. JaimeLesMaths 04:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, this is Janus. I do not work for the company, however was asked to write an article on their datacenter in Pheonix, AZ. I do understand that this article might meet some spam requirements, but please know that the company for whom I am writing this article is not, in any way, trying to advertise. I am simply providing information on the companies physical address and their history. Also, they qoute "We are establishing a positive online presence". If I must take out certain parts of this article to qualify it as "not spam", please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanusLairetammi (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that I can "Post a extremely short review that does little more than restate the various packages and services available."?

Is it exeptable if I just put the companys history?— Preceding unsigned comment added by JanusLairetammi (talk • contribs)

Even if the article is just the company's history, the company itself is still non-notable. Not much you can do about that. EVula 06:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Would a history like "This company was founded in 2003 by _______." W.D. International has been in business since November 2003." Be acceptable?

Comment No. EVula 21:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the detailed response. What would be acceptable to list about a companys history?


Your not anserwering my question. What would be acceptable to list about a companys history?

Comment: It's not about what you are and aren't allowed to say about the company; what you need to do is explain why this company is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Take a look at the guidelines set forth at WP:CORP. If the company does not meet any of those criteria, an article about it will not be accepted to Wikipedia. I hope this clears things up for you. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 16:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Would you like me to explain the notibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanusLairetammi (talk • contribs)

Yes, actually. That's what we've been asking repeatedly for. EVula 17:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not quite sure what the nobility is. I read the link. What still not sure. What would you like me to explain about the companies nobility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanusLairetammi (talk • contribs)

Notability, not nobility; bit of a difference. If you can't find anything on WP:CORP that you can use as evidence of notability, then you have no argument. EVula 21:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The following review meets Criteria for companies and corporations - The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.

W.D. International Hosting Review:

W.D. International Hosting provides web hosting services for $90.00/mo. For their $90.00/mo. plan, you get 15,000 MB of storage and 100 GB of file transfer.

In addition, you can host multiple websites using the same $90.00/mo. hosting account from W.D. International Hosting.

For tracking site visitors, W.D. International Hosting provides Awstats. Among the three popular stats scripts - Awstats, Analog and Webalizer - our editors prefer Awstats it is user-friendly and powerful.

W.D. International Hosting's automated order system will setup your new $90.00/mo. account instantly. You're issued your new username and password immediately.

W.D. International Hosting also provides a money-back guarantee with their $90.00/mo. plan. You can try out their service and get a full refund if you're not completely satisfied.

For more information on W.D. International's hosting services, visit their website at www.wdint.net.

Taken from: http://www.hostaz.com/company/wdinternational.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanusLairetammi (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information on the website (reproduced here) was clearly provided by the company. I would also say that the page is not non-trivial (i.e. it's just a statement of bare facts with no analysis). I would say that this website alone is not sufficient for the notability guideline. Try finding an article in a published trade magazine - that would be certainly be more convincing. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 03:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The company provided some additional links:

http://www.webhostingstuff.com/company/WDInternational.html

http://www.hostaz.com/company/wdinternational.htm

http://www.aboutus.org/WDInt.net

http://www.getafreelancer.com/users/249249.html

http://www.wdinternational.com/pressrelease1.html

http://www.wdinternational.com/pressrelease2.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanusLairetammi (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're still providing poor links to prove notability. Two pre-releases by the company and a bunch of re-hashings of the same promotional material is not evidence of notability.
Also, don't sign your posts with ((unsigned)). Do it with ~~~~, as it also date-stamps what you post. Example ---> EVula 03:46, 25 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 - since the ethnic software article was deleted on the grounds it was a non-notable neologism as a child (or at least a relation) of that article this has to fall under that umbrella too. Yomanganitalk 11:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blacksoftware[edit]

Non-notable software company. Does not meet guidelines at WP:SOFTWARE. Note that the article is discussing http://www.blacksoftware.com/, owned by the article's creator, so it may meet WP:VANITY. Ethnic software, which it claims to be a form of, is also undergoing an AfD. eaolson 04:35, 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. Chick Bowen 22:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Light: Tension, Juack Hallavasso, Girus Myries[edit]

Non notable book. Also nominating two articles about characters in the book: Juack Hallavasso and Girus Myries. Actually, I say not-notable book but I should say "possibly inexistent book". Not published as far as I can tell and most certainly nowhere close to the criteria of WP:BK. Pascal.Tesson 04:51, 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. If anyone would like the list in order to make a category, let me know and I'll copy it into userspace for you. Chick Bowen 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters with one eye[edit]

I believe this to be of no encyclopedic merit. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters missing an appendage is of interest. —Encephalon 05:42, 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. --Coredesat 00:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who are physically scarred[edit]

I believe this to be of no encyclopedic merit. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters missing an appendage is of interest. —Encephalon 05:44, 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. --Coredesat 00:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Lu[edit]

I nominated this for Speedy Deletion before, but the page creater deleted the tag. So now i nominate it for regular deletion because this is a non-significant bio page. Google doesnt help with "Kenny Lu" and only 4 images show up when searching. Nothing links to this page and there are no external links. So I say Delete Kamiawolf 05:48, 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 no consensus. Chick Bowen 22:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of children's films[edit]

The list is very vague and only includes five films after its creation over several months ago. There are multiple more lists of films that include various children types of films such as: List of computer-animated films, List of Disney live-action films, and List of Disney Channel movies. Unless this film sees a massive increase in films, I don't see it being notable enough to remain. Nehrams2020 05:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in just 30 minutes of work, I was able to expand the article to several times its former size, with many of the entries I added being neither Disney nor animated. It still needs more expansion, of course, but that's a small sample of what can be done with the article with a bit more work.Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:50, 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. --Coredesat 00:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stacking (gaming)[edit]

Seems like a neologism - no sources cited and I can't find any through Google. Delete as it fails WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NEO. Wickethewok 03:44, 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 speedy delete per author request. --Coredesat 05:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enion Halili[edit]

Alright, clearly this article has no support from the community and is a misuse of Wikipedia's existence. I, the author, hereby request the deletion of this article. Thank you for your guidance all who commented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortune500 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. 7 unique GHits. I'm not sure exactly what he's up to, but I get the feeling it's something along the lines of helping people use Wikipedia like it was MySpace. Conflict of interest. Speediable? Richfife 06:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This article looks innocent enough. Let's see where he's going with it. It's kinda nifty actually. 02.22 21 October 2006

Comment. The above comment was left by User:Fortune500, the creator of the article in question. SnurksTC 06:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note If he were involved in the creation of Wikispaces, he'd be listed here: WikiSpaces credits, so I expect he is not. - Richfife 15:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not forbidden, but strongly discouraged, see WP:AUTO. But more importantly, biographies (whether auto- or not) of non-famous people are forbidden, see WP:BIO. You have to get famous first, then you can have a Wikipedia article. You can't have a Wikipedia article in the hopes that it will help make you famous (although many people try, hence all the comments about "vanity"). Xtifr tälk 07:52, 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. --Coredesat 00:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pacificm and the New Testament[edit]

Incorrectly spelled title, completely POV, New Testament discussed in other articles. Risker 06:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with all the above, but wouldn't dignify it with the word 'research'. original or otherwise. Emeraude 11:57, 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. Chick Bowen 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vashist Narayan Singh[edit]

I'm not sure if this person is notable (gifted but no clear accomplishments that might meet WP:PROF), but this article, which focuses on his mental illness and personal problems, needs to be either rewritten or deleted per WP:BLP and WP:V (added per Bwithh's comment). ~ trialsanderrors 06:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- utcursch | talk 11:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some contradiction between the article and the external links. Article says subject came to US and completed a PhD at Berkeley in 18 months in mid 1960s. Indian external link says subject was brought over as a research scholar to the US in 1963, and doesn't mention Berkeley at all. Berkeley link says subject completed/submitted his PhD dissertation in 1969. I don't think this subject is a hoax, but the information in the article seems very unreliable at the moment in addition to the issue I emphasized above Bwithh 15:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google hits is not a criteria for India related issues.  Doctor Bruno  13:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article at present meets WP:BLP and WP:V. Hence there is no reason to delete per nom  Doctor Bruno  13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then delete per Utcursch. I would appreciate you not nitpicking. Danny Lilithborne 13:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has been re written and sources cited  Doctor Bruno  13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, but there's still no evidence for the claims about "amazing feats" Bwithh 13:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all the unsourced statements, including "amazing feats". The only statement needing citation is that he was the "first Indian to complete his post-graduate studies before the age of 20". The rest of the statements include references from The Times of India and proceedigs of Lok Sabha. utcursch | talk 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bwithh; the re-write didn't change anything fundamental. This is still all about the guy's personal problems. That's not an encyclopedia article; it's something I would expect to see in People magazine. What did this guy do to be note worthy? Being a child prodigy and having mental health problems doesn't cut it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand. THe rewrite has of course provided citations and is encyclopedic. Please don't invent new criteria just for satisfying your ego of sticking to the initial vote made. The article has been modified and sources cited. It is now in compliance with WP:BLP and WP:V  Doctor Bruno  13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ahem, WP:NPA. Bwithh 02:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may not come under WP:PROF. But as per WP:BIO Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events the subject is definitely notable. Not every one's mental illness is discussed in Loksabha. (On a lighter vein, As per my professor in Medical College, every one is a patient in Psychiatry and Dermatology!!!) This person certainly satisfied WP:BIO and the article is in compliance with WP:V and WP:BLP after the revision by utcursch I request to closing admin to disregard the earlier votes that were made when the article was not revised  Doctor Bruno  13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Pgk (talk · contribs). Go Pete! ~ trialsanderrors 10:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete carter[edit]

Joke article about a dog, speedy delete tag was removed by article author. I'll cite WP:BIO, but this really should be a speedy delete under A7. JaimeLesMaths 06:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete is a very notable dog, in the San Antonio area he is a friend to hundreds of people, hundreds of people that will soon be linked to wikipedia through his facebook profile. This will bring increased traffic and increased awareness to Wikipedia. He is a local hero in the area, and with your cooperation his legacy can stretch far beyond the limited reach of his friendly handshake. Rizzodizzo 08:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our bad for removing the speedy tag, it is in place now as far as i know, and i have 5 days right? I may be some random guy but this is not a random dog, how many people will it take to save this page?Rizzodizzo 08:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion process is a discussion, not a vote. If there is a consensus about what should happen to the article, then that's what will happen. If no consensus emerges, the page will remain. Here's an informative quote directly from the deletion policy: "It should also be noted that packing the discussion with sockpuppets (multiple accounts) and meatpuppets (advertising or soliciting of desired views) does not reflect a genuine consensus, and usually doesn't raise much in the way of novel policy considerations. A deletion debate is not a popular vote, but a way of obtaining editors' views as to whether an article meets policy guidelines or not, so these kind of activities don't achieve much. Often, where sock-puppetry is suspected, only editors with a significant history of contributions to Wikipedia will be counted in the rough consensus." --JaimeLesMaths 08:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now now, let's not start scaring the poor guy with discussions of sockpuppets and such. He obviously just wants to know why we want to delete his article about his poor dog. And the answer is that a dog known to "hundreds of people" in the San Antonio area is simply not famous/notable enough for an international encyclopedia. Even a dog that was famous throughout the entire state of Texas might have trouble qualifying. No offense to what is surely a fine dog, but Wikipedia has agreed-upon standards that this dog simply doesn't meet. Xtifr tälk


GO PETE. WE LOVE YOU. AND NO MATTER WHAT THESE PEOPLE SAY YOU ARE STILL FAMOUS HERE IN SAY-TOWN. LONG LIVE PETE CARTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

The result was delete as a hoax. --Coredesat 00:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Schaller[edit]

This article looks like blatant misinformation from beginning to end. A quick web search immediately shows that there are no notable individuals with the name of either Geoffrey Schaller or Michael Schaller. Most likely this page is someone's make-believe biography of himself or a friend (per User:Tschel). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: A lot of SPA's have !voted "keep". Possible meat/socks in operation, trying to negate concensus.
I would try ((db-blanked)) but the blanking wasn't done by the page creator. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that he is a real person; however, does a car accident make him notable enough to have an encyclopedia entry? I highly doubt that there is any validity in most of the information on this article. Tschel 14:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was mentioned in the Toronto Star a few months ago. I say the article stays. --leafsnation 6:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what news story you're referring to, but Schaller appears nowhere in the archives for the Toronto Star. --Tschel 19:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, and he truly is the leader of the well-known Gambino crime family, then why does Google News return zero news articles containing his name? Tschel 14:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to verify the "sources" on the article. The two Italian news sites make absolutely no mention of anything related to the Wikipedia article, and the only source that even contains the name "Schaller" is a Google Pages userpage. --Tschel 15:48, 24 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DDR Freak[edit]

Fanforum, no independent sources that establish notability (Newsbank search yields 13 hits, none about the site). Brought here as a contested Prod, a prior AfD resulted in merge and redirect to Dance Dance Revolution, leaning delete. ~ trialsanderrors 08:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to Keep, per text below. Some references have been added, and I don't see any major problems with the article which might be a reason to delete it. -dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 00:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think the AfD has to remain for at least 5 days (unless closed early under WP:SNOW, or similar provisions). However, this does help a bit. Would you mind adding links to such articles, transcripts, or other types of sources (as a reference), if they are available? dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can link to the articles. However, the only records that exist of the TV appearances are on VHS at my home, so that's not possible. Also, the actual link to ddrfreak appears on a separate sidebar article which is not included in the online version. The online article does describe the website as "fans at UC-Berkeley and UCLA created Web sites for fellow enthusiasts..." Jasonko888 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the TV appearances, and newspaper articles, it's not necessary that they be online, but you can simply cite the date of the coverage, like, "Featured on Larry King Live, July 8, 2002." See WP:CITE. --Elonka 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification Elonka. I wonder if the links to the mirrored copies of the articles might be a possible copyright problem now that I think about it (unless you have permission to use the articles from the publishers), so I'm not sure if that's a problem or not if they are linked to. At least the significance is explained now. -dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 00:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, although that's more of ddrfreak.com's issue than ours (we should remove the links though). For us it's actually more relevant that neither of the two linked articles actually mention ddrfreak at all. They're both about DDR. ~ trialsanderrors 00:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's what I wanted to know. This is true, that the articles are on DDR in general, but the fact that the articles interview Jason Ko in specific might be worth something. I'm really not sure, though, and I'll leave that up to you and other users interested in this discussion. It may not be enough of a reason to change my vote back, but it does perhaps warrant a bit more discussion and thought. -dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 01:01, 27 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 00:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superman Plate[edit]

The Superman Plate article is either nonsense or hoax, which can be clearly seen. It could be speedied, but there's a number of contributors. There really are superman plates, of course, being just collectibles for cartoon fans, and that's probably why some people were tricked not to delete it outright. I'd suggest quick deletion, as it has nothing of value, encyclopedic or humorous, and only damages WP. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 08:19, 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 not redirect, it's delete. This isn't really a plausible search term, so a redirect wouldn't make much sense. --Coredesat 00:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not you, it's me.[edit]

The phrase "It's not you, it's me" does not seem to me to be a subject of encyclopedic merit. —Encephalon 08:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with this. As much as I like Seinfeld, this redirect wouldn't be terribly sensible. GassyGuy 22:24, 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. - Bobet 11:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oz Deathmatch[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE. Contested prod. MER-C 09:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to some of the other mods? ENeville 01:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 11:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VerbumVanum[edit]

This was apparently PRODded in March citing just WP:WEB, but PROD was removed by an anon user without a reason. Basically, this is a repository of free/CreativeCommons content... that currently enshrines grand total of 11 different works; this fact alone would make me question why this article is needed at all, because, if you use common sense, this would automatically make me think the repository is worthy an external link in relevant articles at most. Article doesn't explain why the site meets web notability criteria. Most google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. Googling for "VerbumVanum" -Wikipedia gets me 86 discrete Google hits that don't really explain a whole lot on why this site is notable, either, most appear to be trivial references. I'm bringing this to AfD because this is an old article, otherwise I would have brought down the hammer on it immediately. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable; (if this ever develops into a huge online library it may be the time to rewrite the article)Arnoutf 13:36, 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. --Coredesat 00:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Mehmood Advocate[edit]

Non-notable person, article looks like it was never more than one person's CV placed online. A Google search reveals him to be a lawyer from Rawalpindi with nothing notable enough to put him on Wikipedia. Hydraton31 09:29, 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. --Coredesat 00:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Caruso[edit]

No evidence provided that the subject meets WP:BIO. Contested prod. MER-C 09:46, 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 Speedy Delete as G11. Yanksox 15:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H liqueur[edit]

Contested speedy and prod. Non notable product, only recently launched and only available in a very limited area. Nuttah68 09:48, 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, a concept referenced by a person isn't automatically worth inclusion (I'm sure mr. Knuth has referenced other things during his life). There's no context here to establish notability by (which means I don't know where it could be merged in the Knuth article). - Bobet 11:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia 84[edit]

This page has existed since August 2004, so I am hesitant to nominate it; however, I am unable to find encyclopaedic value in the one sentence which is here. As far as I can tell, Utopia 84 is the name of a programming language which did not actually exist, but was referenced as an ideal by Donald Knuth. A Google search for "Utopia 84" -Hawkwind (the band Hawkwind recorded an unrelated song by this name) produces 506 results, many of which mirror the text of this article, the rest of which offer no further insight as to why this concept/language is/was important or otherwise. Anyway, I currently recommend deleting this as it fails to demonstrate notability, with perhaps the option of mentioning the concept in the Knuth article if it is even that important. GassyGuy 10:31, 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 00:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide and TV Land's List of the 100 Most Unexpected TV Moments[edit]

This list is in its current form (full list, "official TV Land and TV Guide descriptions that were given in the press release") quite blatant coyright infringement. Unless it is pared down to acceptable fair use excerpts and rewritten in our own words it needs to be deleted. There seems to be some common but erroneous belief among list makers that lists are not copyrighted. ~ trialsanderrors 10:41, 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. --Coredesat 00:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unrepentant jerk[edit]

Pointless article about a phrase that I have never come across as a serious topic in literature. May make a dicdef (though I doubt it). No pages link here, has not developed significantly since first made apart from vandalism Emeraude 11:07, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CCL (programming language)[edit]

Non-notable; advertisement SJK 12:28, 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 00:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Clyde Campbell[edit]

This page was prod'd back in April and the prod removed by the article creator. The subject seems non-notable according to normal understanding, but the article does not help by saying that durint the "controversial years of school integration " he managed "to provide central heating for the town grammar school and indoor plumbing for the janitor's home." Hardly a great contribution to the contorversial years..... Original prod by User:Wickethewok stated "Only online reference to this individual is from the article's creators webpage." This is still the case. Emeraude 13:37, 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 Closed; vandal nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryulong (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 August 2006

Note: I have left User:DumbBOT listing this nomination as of today (13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)) so that this nom is not left orphaned around. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

53651 (number)[edit]

Non-notable internet meme. Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. Iownapool 01:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted as promotional material (CSD G11). -- Merope 14:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

INFOMAN[edit]

not notable software distributor, no particular claim to notability. Prod removed. Brianyoumans 19:23, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dreadmire Fantasy Animals[edit]

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

The result was delete. 66.230.200.136 08:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fictional Animals in Dreadmire[edit]

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 05:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional legitimacy[edit]

I cannot understand what this page is meant to achieve. The first sentence is completely self-referential; the rest of the article gets nowhere. Ths question is good one, but is adequately covered in a myriad of better articles. This almost reads as the opening paragraph in a politics/philosophy essay that never got finished. Emeraude 14:02, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Alessi[edit]

Serie B player, who never appeared in a Serie A game. [29] Angelo 14:05, 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 Speedy close. Basically, wrong venue; this is not an article, even when this is in article namespace (blame MediaWiki developers, not us). Unless there's a great big reason to keep the ((deletedpage))s around, they can get deleted anyway after a few months; If there's hastier need to delete this temporary page, Deletion Review is the correct venue for that, as it specifically says in Protected deleted pages. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Video Game Nerd[edit]

This article is false and useless. It has been protected on the grounds that it was deleted; but it was not, in fact, previously deleted. There has never been an article there. It should be deleted; if in fact someone wants to put an article there, they should have their chance to bring it to AfD and let the community decide on it. NOTE: There's no link on the page, since it was protected. Prosfilaes 14:10, 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 no consensus, leaning towards keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery from Cults (book)[edit]

Recovery from Cults (book) is not a notable book. On 31 Mar 2005, this article had already been nominated for deletion by me but it survived. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Recovery from Cults for a record of the discussion. I am re-nominating this article because I would like to do more work on this article only after I am sure that the article survives deletion. Andries 14:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a similar comment I made at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book), Per Pascal.Tesson and User:Jossi's recommendation, I went ahead and looked at WP:BK#Criteria. The criteria clearly states that if one of the criteria is met, the book is "generally notable." One of these criteria is, "The book's author meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, based on his/her work as a writer.", which Michael Langone most certainly does. Smeelgova 05:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC).NOTE:, this is NOT meant for you to go and look at the other AFD and vote there. Please do NOT do so because of this above comment. I simply wanted to point out the similarities between the debates and satisfying WP:BK#Criteria as per the guidelines. Smeelgova 06:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 15:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Tour Season 2005 (Magic: The Gathering)[edit]

This article is poorly written, formatted and unencyclopedic. The topic itself is less than notable, as evidenced by the lack of articles for other Magic Pro Tour seasons. Only two pages link to this article (once of the two is a user's talk page), and no edits have been made to it since July, which suggests that few people are reading it. Croctotheface 14:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, AFD is not an outright vote. Second, usually a nominator's reasoning is taken into account in an AfD anyway, so it is redundant of you. See WP:AfD FrozenPurpleCube 14:20, 22 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. kingboyk 16:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alix Rosenthal[edit]

This person is a candidate for the San Francisco board of supervisors in the upcoming November election (not an incumbent.) A previous AfD was closed as no consensus. A DRV consensus overturned, given concerns about "advertising" and the closer's expressed doubt. This is resubmitted for new consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two local newspaper articles and a local blog's posting do NOT come close to establishing notability. The phrase "grasping at straws" comes to mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calton (talk • contribs) 22:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please point out the words that appear biased. Simply because the article is about a candidate running for public office does not mean that it is biased. Endorsements are verifiable facts and should not be deemed promotional content. Endorsements are typically found in voter guides and their inclusion also conforms with the WP:C&E proposition. --Waterthedog 02:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not my responsibility to back up anything I never actually said. --Calton |
  • It's fair to say that an "[o]bvious campaign ad disguised as an article" implies that it's biased, and "[l]ook! It even has a list of endorsements!" implies that endorsements are a part of that bias.--Waterthedog 10:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk 07:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not my responsibility to back up what you imagine I said, only what I actually said. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 07:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that none of the generalized handwaving about notability made the slightest attempt to ACTUALLY establish any here, except the raw misleading Google count -- which turns out to be 199 unique hits. --Calton | Talk 07:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use WP:C&E proposition to support my position because, although it is still a proposal, it is much more specific and on point than WP:BIO, and I think far superior to the vague notion of notability. But on that point, Rosenthal is a candidate for public office of a major city. True, any resident of the city can sign up to be a candidate, but those who run a serious campaign, win endorsements and gain the attention of the local news media become noteworthy candidates. There are all sorts of articles on Wikipedia on people who are only known to a particular locality. Candidates for important local public offices -- and city councils are important -- deserve attention. These politicians are poised to be the candidates of provincial/state and national offices of the future. Calton is right to point out the number of unique hits, which I neglected to check -- it was not an attempt to mislead.--Waterthedog 10:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which "basic principles" of WP:C&E are you referring to? As I see it, the essence of that proposal is summed up in this quote: "As a compromise between those who would keep all candidate articles and those who would delete all articles on yet-unelected candidates, it would be preferable if articles on elections were written before articles on individual candidates. Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written." Accordingly, an article was written on the election and the article itself contains "enough independent, verifiable information" to write a non-stub article on the candidate.--Waterthedog 16:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • C&E is not policy & not guideline. It's a proposal exactly because people don't agree with it. Derex 07:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not see anything under WP:NOT that mentions "electioneering platforms" per se. It does say that Wikipedia is "not a soapbox," and clarifies that its articles are not "propaganda/advocacy, self-promotional or advertising." The Rosenthal article is not an electioneering platform and it complies with the soapbox guideline because it is written in an unbiased manner. Articles about candidates for public office are not inherently biased. Again, if anyone finds wording that is biased, the remedy is to change wording, not delete the article.--Waterthedog 17:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's entirely illogical. We don't make exceptions to guidelines because another article would be only partially complete as a result. If this info were to go into the elections article, then it would only improve that article and perhaps even inspire someone to more fully define this particular election article beyond a simple listing of candidates and their campaign websites. Think it unbalances the article to do so? Put the NPOV tag at the top and say on the talk page that the other candidates need info added to better meet a neutral PoV. This article isn't submitted for deletion because of uncorrectable NPoV anyways; it fails WP:BIO and therefore more negative info isn't mandated (nor does that somehow neutralize an unbalanced sycophantic article). ju66l3r 17:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not arguing for an exception to a guideline -- as I pointed out, WP:C&E isn't a guideline. The simple issue is how we treat the verifiable information about Alix Rosenthal. Which approach best serves the readers:
(1) A general article about the election, with links to individual articles about the candidates (meaning that we keep the Rosenthal article);
(2) A general article about the election that includes information about each candidate in the level of detail of the article now proposed for deletion (meaning that we merge everything in this article into the general article, and provide comparable information about other candidates); or
(3) A general article about the election with little or no information about the candidates, so that most or all of the information in this article is expunged from Wikipedia (the consequence of deleting this article without merging).
I believe that alternative #1 is best. The general article will give people a quick idea of the parameters of the election. Those who want more detail about the race in a particular district can click through to the candidates' bios. Alternative #2 would drown the general article in an ocean of detail. Alternative #3 would excise from Wikipedia some verifiable information that many readers, in San Francisco and elsewhere, would like to have. JamesMLane t c 18:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You argue under the false pretense that verifiable info about Alix Rosenthal belongs on Wikipedia. This discussion is foremost whether Alix Rosenthal meets the WP:BIO criteria for inclusion. That is the guideline you are ignoring (i.e., trying to find the exception to) in order to determine its appropriate context. Cart before the horse. ju66l3r 18:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by "false pretense" you mean that I'm making the assumption that the information belongs on Wikipedia, no, I'm expressly not making that as an assumption. I included my alternative #3 to accommodate the people who want the information expunged. I just think that people who want the information expunged should be clear about it. (Some people support deletion and merger of the article. If this article is deleted, the next step will be wrangling about whether to merge it into the general article about the election.) I reject alternative #3 because I believe that the public attention attendant upon a candidacy such as this one makes a person notable. JamesMLane t c 20:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should be noted that in this particular election Rosenthal's opponent and all the other incumbents (with one exception) have their own articles.--Waterthedog 18:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect. Starchild does not have a page and is an opponent of Rosenthal. Also note that left unsaid by you is that none of the other candidates (who are not also incumbents) have articles. Putting this article in a very tiny minority of 1, in that regard. Your comment only serves to highlight the fact that the Rosenthal article is an exception, not the rule. ju66l3r 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say that all of Rosenthal's opponents had articles, but I should have clarified that I meant her more prominent opponent, Bevan Dufty (the incumbent). Bevan, along with all the other incumbents in the race (with one exception), have their own articles. The fact that the office itself including most of its members have articles lends support to the notability of the candidates running for those seats. I'm not saying that all candidates running for local public offices should have their own articles, but I am saying that these candidates should not be categorically barred from having articles either. Candidates who run serious campaigns, gain the attention of the local media and win endorsements of prominent local political organizations do meet the notability threshold of WP:BIO.--Waterthedog 20:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rosenthal did not apply for or create the article, nor did anyone from her campaign. It's not an advertisement. Advertisements are promotional and contain biased language. The content of this article is neutral. If you disagree, point out the words you feel give the appearance of bias and suggest alternative verbiage.--Waterthedog 04:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 11:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mervyn Colley[edit]

NN. I don't think the claim that he has been on TV cuts it per WP:BIO. Leibniz 15:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Delete as non-notable. I'be been on TV too, but that doesn't qualify me for an article. I would like to add to this nomination Ordo Lux, Mr Colley's world wide religion with 100 members. Emeraude 18:47, 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 Speedy Delete. Either a hoax. Or a non-notable bio. Either way, it's a speedy. Robdurbar 15:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scheiss Missgeburt[edit]

Prod contested by creator of the page. I has also tagged it as a potential hoax. My original prod rationale was

Seems doubtful. The creator claims that his sources are from Google searches. Yet searching "Scheiss Missgeburt" with "Tangerine dream" or with "Kluster" or with "Acon" or with "Michael Thomas Roe" or with "Rodelius" all come up empty.

I'd like to add that (as far as my German allows me to go) "Scheiss Missgeburt" means "shit miscarriage". Not an improbable name for a provocative artist but still sounds hoaxalicious. Even more funny is the new picture added: Recall that this artist is supposed to be born in 1937. This picture is most clearly taken with a digital camera... Pascal.Tesson 15:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is ok --Juookdf 15:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Says the sockpuppett. Pascal.Tesson 15:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed)--Juookdf 15:38, 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 No consensus has been reached, so the article is kept. The renaming issue can be proposed separately on the article talk page.--Konst.ableTalk 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of television episodes with coming-out themes[edit]

A Unmanageable list that will grow to no end. The list doesn't fit into Wikipedia as it gives truly or useful, encyclopedic information.--M8v2 16:21, 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, mwaa-haa-haa. ^..^ Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Destroying and avoiding vampires[edit]

This is an unsourced original research essay-style duplicate of the relevant sections of Vampire and Vampire fiction (not that the latter section is much better). Contested ((prod)) and ((prod2)). Sandstein 16:48, 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 00:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity Fleet[edit]

Non-notable gaming website. Doesn't pass WP:WEB, and only gets 3k hits (once you subtract "Wikipedia" from the results[38]). Unsourced and POV, as well. EVula 16:59, 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 no consensus - the merge proposal can be discussed separately on the article talk pages.--Konst.ableTalk 12:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Association for Downtown Arts[edit]

Non-notable local organization. Little or no media coverage. Fails WP:ORG. Mereda 17:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC) I nominated this while looking at the claims to notability of another arts org, Jansanskrity above. --Mereda 17:23, 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 Keep. Catchpole 20:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Maroon War and Second Maroon War[edit]

This and the related article do not give any context and need substantial work to be able to stand alone as Wiki articles. At the moment, neither manges to explain itself and I get the impression that they have been copied from some other source verbatim, but have no evidence for this. A solution could be to merge the two articles, but a better idea could be to delete both and merge them into History of Jamaica Emeraude 18:13, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Wilder[edit]

NN-person claiming to be involved with conspiracy theory, possible hoax; de-PRODed by anon. IP so I bring it here for deletion DesertSky85451 18:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh my god, how did I miss that?? Thank you EVula for pointing that out!!! DesertSky85451 19:38, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Smith International School[edit]

NN-school, de-PRODed by the usual school saving crowd. delete DesertSky85451 18:44, 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 02:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web Cadet Corps[edit]

advert for NN-online community. delete DesertSky85451 18:47, 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 02:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peagloss[edit]

Hoax; does not turn up any Google results. I originally tagged it with ((dictdef)) without looking into the situation further, but the page author removed the dictdef template, causing me to look further and find out that this doesn't exist in the first place. Delete --Spring Rubber 19:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is defined as a word invented by Paul Merton to prove a point, then the definition is accurate! Why not spread the fake word..?


Peagloss 2

The yellow stain that appears under a Labradors belly caused by a vitamin D deficiency. 

             ---Tomass---
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afton Apple Orchard[edit]

Non-notable orchard. WP:NOT a place for school projects. cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:18, 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 - it could be mentioned in VNC if considered appropriate and there were sources cited, but this article isn't required for that. (By coincidence, redirecting it would currently create a "VNC Article Loop" if you clicked on the see also link every time.)Yomanganitalk 15:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VNC Loop[edit]

It's interesting to note that the person who created the article is the one putting it up for AFD. --Amit 02:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly true. You created "VNC Loop" as a redirect to "Virtual Network Connection"[44], then added a section about "VNC Loop" to "Virtual Network Connection"[45] and I moved it to "VNC Loop"[46]. AlistairMcMillan 03:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created a redirect, but you created the article. Until you put it up for AFD, I never intended it to be its own article. --Amit 03:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. You do realise that even if this was just a section in a larger article, you do still have to back up the information with sources. So if you are done trying to build up some argument that I'm wrong for nominating this, or this nomination is invalid because I "created" the article, could you perhaps, just maybe, provide a "reliable source" to back this up. Given WP:VERIFY, WP:NEO, WP:NOTE, etc... AlistairMcMillan 04:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I could refer you to these wise words... It is the responsibility of those who want the article to stay — to establish notability of the term, failing which the article may be deleted. AlistairMcMillan 04:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that for some reason Google is still returning some Wikipedia mirrors in the above search. Also at least one article is referring to something else when it is talking about a "VNC loop", something to do with nuclear power stations. AlistairMcMillan 19:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Time and again, it has been known that Google is not a proper measure of notability. --Amit 20:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, but please a Keep or Delete vote would be useful. --Amit 20:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Contemplated"? More likely, a small percentage of VNC users have accidentally discovered that this is a possible side effect. And after possibly five minutes of playing around with it, have moved on and forgotten all about it.
Just out of interest, can you point to a single article anywhere on this subject. And by article I don't mean an image on Flickr titled "Huh, look what I did, cool" or a forum posting saying "hey, look I made a VNC loop, cool" AlistairMcMillan 20:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, contemplation isn't the same as notability. Bill Gates taking over the world has no doubt had more people think of it, but isn't an article (or come to fruition, thankfully). EVula 20:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the small percentage of computer-illiterate "nonerds" like me, that even have to look up what a "Flickr", a "screen tool" and an "SW" is, must be a good joke too. But still I would like too be able to find information even if it is considered unnecessary trivial for the "knowitalls". --Profero 00:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's Wikipedia, every second one deals with software and they forget existence of the rest of humankind. My point, without the obscure terminology, is that the effect could be accomplished rather easily with at least one common tool. (Flickr, SW means software and a zoom tool allows to magnify portion of the screen so people with weak or damaged sight could still use computer). Pavel Vozenilek 01:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I don't understand how simulating a VNC Loop effect means you shouldn't mention the real cause of it. Even if we link VNC Loop (since there are such links to the undesirable term on the web) to VNC – and mention it there – we loose the appropriateness of the associative links under ==See also== in VNC Loop as it is now. It's not only the effect that's more or less interesting to different people, it's also the cause. --Profero 02:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The effect presented is covered here (not very well) in "Droste effect". It is sometimes called "recursive pictures". Mathematical approach behind it is described in [48]. Pavel Vozenilek 13:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
VNC Loop seems to be a specialization of the Droste effect, as more than one computer is generally used, and there are secondary effects that are absent in a general recursive picture. --Amit 15:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a joke, and I fail to see how a basic screen magnifier could achieve this. This shows a lack of credibility. --Amit 02:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to set zoom to make the shown image smaller. Pavel Vozenilek 13:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like wer'e not speaking of the same thing. --Profero 15:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zooming!=Recursion --Amit 15:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need a tool that zooms automatically and repeatedly the area around the mouse. This adds the feedback loop and allows to create (ugly) recursive effects. Similar (and much uglier) effect could be made when the mangnifier does magnify, one can make repeated pattern of larger and larger pixels from the small portion of the screen. Pavel Vozenilek 17:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're zooming my leg! --Profero 12:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're no longer talking about a basic screen magnifier, but of a specialized tool. I recommend you should reconsider your original false statement, perhaps strike it out. --Amit 18:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seven deletes and two keeps so far. AlistairMcMillan 17:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following eight users have recommended to either keep the article itself or have allowed a mention of a brief portion of the VNC Loop article in the Virtual Network Computing article: Abelani, Profero, wwwwolf, RoySmith, William Graham, Bill.matthews, arielCo, Qwertyca. This is consensus enough to make a reasonable mention in Virtual Network Computing. --Amit 18:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, let's go with wat Amit says and mention in VNC. Qwertyca 19:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah okay. I mean we could spend our time adding useful information to the article, but no, our time is much better spent adding trivial shit like this. AlistairMcMillan 19:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said about your time in trying to delete this. The info may seem trivial, but to me and to some others it is an interesting example of an exploratory attitude and of how using tools in unconventional ways can sometimes result in unpredictable consequences. --Amit 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and lets overlook the fact that Amit still hasn't come up with a single "reliable source" that can be used to WP:VERIFY the information he insists must be on Wikipedia. It's not like we have rules about that or anything. AlistairMcMillan 19:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VNC Loop is not a controversial topic by itself, but if you must still be so hardheaded about rules in this case, fine, I give in. You can probably put a sizable fraction of Wikipedia up for AFD using that rule. --Amit 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I wonder if this controversy fundamentally has anything to do at all with "notability", "trivial" or "unsourced". I have a feeling it is actually a collision of opinions between they who argue for deletion because their knowledge (of computing) is - or they consider it – more advanced than they who argue for keeping in value of (or just recognize) those who need finding interesting information easily (i.e. the 'uninformed' of a subject who perhaps need WP more than others, or even those who's perspective we know little about). To put it simply: what criteria can we fundamentally refer to when judging what fact should be defined trivial and withheld from 'a few' others. I really hope it's not arrogance. --Profero 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to respond to this. So I'm going for sarcasm.
Damn, you are right. You caught me. Nominating this page for deletion is all part of my masterplan for global domination. By hiding information about this trivial, amusing for all of two minutes, with no useful purpose at all, side-effect of some VNC software from the general public, I hope to profit personally and one day rebuild the world as I see fit.
Step 1) Remove VNC Loop information from Wikipedia.
Step 2) ...
Step 3) Achieve world domination
If only you pesky kids hadn't caught me at it. AlistairMcMillan 18:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedily deleted under CSD A1/A3 (no context). --Mr. Lefty (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coca-Cola Fright[edit]

author deleted prod, non-notable future movie. 'Nuff said... SkerHawx 19:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment additionally, I believe that this user is a sock puppet of User:Hanna Films (see also User:Hannafilm, but I've never completed a request before. Can someone assist? SkerHawx 19:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What is wrong? --Drivecrazy 19:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with this article.--Drivecrazy 19:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy Delete - Is a recreation of a deleted article which Lucky 6.9 just deleted today, and it fails WP:Notability.
AlanTalk - Contributions 19:50, 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. Two arguments for the sake of keeping, one is that it might become notable in the future, and wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. The other is that it would get more google hits if google crawled their website. That still won't add a single relevant mention about it in third party sources. - Bobet 11:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young scientists online journal[edit]

Non-noteworthy online journal. Only one issue published to date. Does not meet WP:WEB, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prod was removed by anon without comment. Shimeru 19:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that it's very nicely written, even if it is by those associated with the project. I hope it does become more noteworthy -- I just don't think it's there yet. Userfying would be a fine way to retain it against that future possibility. Shimeru 08:20, 22 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 02:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Philbin[edit]

NN author. Appears to have gotten one nn novel published about twenty years ago, but all his ventures today are self-published. No assertation of notability beyond that, and no evidence provided at all to back up the claims that he is also an artist and editor. The redirect Hertzan Chimera is also part of this AfD. Aaron 20:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; however, there is no AfD tag on the article itself and I admit incompetence in figuring out how to get one on without messing something up. Risker 18:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. My computer crashed when I was setting this up, and I forgot to go back and finish it. I'll relist the whole thing. --Aaron 19:25, 21 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, Aaron 19:36, 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. - Bobet 11:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunshin[edit]

This article as current, is depicting a specific ability in Naruto. However, many other fictional ninjas have this ability, and I don't think the current content can be rewritten into an encyclopedic article. Either delete this, or wipe it and start over again. ColourBurst 19:36, 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. - Bobet 11:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bear Necessities of Brown University[edit]

Delete as not notable and not verifiable. Their own website is the only source the article links to, and even that doesn't confirm most of the article. Using Google, Lexis-Nexis, and Newsbank I can find no non-trivial, non-local, reliable sources featuring them. I don't think there's even a claim of notability in the article, including the assertion that Recorded A Cappella Review Board (RARB) "hailed" them, because, while evidently true, there's no indication that rarb.org is a respected reviewing agency. ((Primarysources)) and ((notability)) tags have not been addressed in the 3 days since my speedy tag was removed with the message "seems comparable to The Whiffenpoofs, take to AFD if you disagree." I disagree per the above. Pan Dan 19:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to argue that using your guideline for music, that one of the members has since become a member of the National tour of RENT - Jed Resnick -- which you can check at http://www.broadwayworld.com/showinfo.cfm?showid=932 and another member has a role on the ABC show HEROES -- which you can check at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiro_Nakamura. Althogh Hiro is not a part of a musical band he still is part of a well-known show. Also this website is along the same lines as The Whiffenpoofs so what makes this article less reputable than that one? Do you need for the article to be formatted so that there are more links with our information or what exactly? Your attention to this would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.22.179 (talk • contribs)

For me, what makes this article unsalvageable is not its content, but its subject. You have to show that The BN's are notable, and to show that they're notable, you have to show that they've been the primary subject of multiple reliable sources. The article on The Whiffenpoofs needs references, but I looked, and refs are at least out there, so that article is salvageable. I looked for good refs on The BN's, and found none.
As for WP:MUSIC: (1) It's a guideline, not a policy. (2) The criterion you refer to was conceived thinking of a band with a (more or less) fixed number of members, not a college group with rotating membership that compiles dozens or hundreds of ex-members. (3) The sentence in WP:MUSIC you are referring to concludes as follows: "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." In this case, a mention of Masi Oka's involvement with The BN's, in his article, may be appropriate (if such involvement has been noted in a third-party publication). (As for Jed Resnick, I see he doesn't have his own article, and does not appear notable enough to get one.)
Having visited your website (I assume you're a member, anon) and been involuntarily graced with your singing, I have no doubt that every one of you is destined for great things--even without your group having a Wikipedia article, believe me. Pan Dan 18:17, 22 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 02:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of television episodes with intersex themes[edit]

A Unmanageable list that will grow to no end. The list doesn't fit into Wikipedia as it gives truly or useful, encyclopedic information. M8v2 19:52, 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 keep. - Bobet 11:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Reh[edit]

This appears to be a professor who does research, who gets grants from various foundations, and who publishes articles, putting him on the same level as virtually every professor in the country. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (which is a guideline, not policy) for a general consensus on what constitutes a notable academic. Dylan 20:19, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Octapong[edit]

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

The result was clear keep; article title etc needs extra discussion, best done elsewhere. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahound[edit]

For now, Keep the article or Rename it to Variations of the name Mohammed (with a redirect), as per the citations, but make sure this is reliable information first. This is not POV fork, as I explained above. It is also relevant: it is quite possible that people will want to find information on this name (or other variations of the name) for a research subject. It certainly doesn't fail WP:NN. I will try to remove some of the blatantly POV language, and I will put a disputed tag at the top of the article until someone can give a better description, because you're right, the information is suspicious. So I say keep the article, but only if we can come up with reliable info.-Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question, Patstuart, could you clarify which assertions you feel are disputed? Thanks. --BostonMA talk 01:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced.Bakaman Bakatalk 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete A single variation of Muhammad name, which is also not well-known by most, does not deserve to have a separate article. --- ابراهيم 13:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Question: Anonymous, could you please clarify what you mean by this comment? Thanks. --BostonMA talk 19:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Aminz' suggestion is a good one. —Aiden 04:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Aminz, your ideas are always very helpful. :) TruthSpreaderTalk 03:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea. --- ابراهيم 11:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move: I think Aminz idea is good, and I would strongly recommend creation of Medieval western conception of Muhammad. TruthSpreaderTalk 03:44, 31 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 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony John[edit]

Not notable. Leibniz 20:40, 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 and redirect to Lullaby. The concept isn't relevant beyond the novel in which it is mentioned and this article won't add anything to the target article (it's just a confusing mix of fiction and reality). - Bobet 11:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culling song[edit]

Despite what the article says, there's no such thing as a culling song. The concept was created by Chuck Palahniuk for his novel Lullaby. —dm (talk) 21:09, 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 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atrioventricular (Band)[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC Maybe vanity. -Nv8200p talk 21:54, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Kenya[edit]

This list was deleted on June 21, 2006 in an 8-2 vote that showed a strong consensus that this list did not contribute anything that could not be accomplished by categories. I have just discoverd that almost exactly one month later, Kappa, with apparent full knowledge of the original consensus (as evidenced by a comment he made on the article's talk page), decided to disregard the will of the community and recreate the page, a move I personally consider to be irresponsible if he realized the prior debate result before creating the page. All the reasons for deletetion from the first arguement (found here) still apply, plus the additional negative of a recreation undertaken in violation of clear consensus (though this is not a speedy candidate because it is sufficiently different from the original version). Indrian 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I see you feel rather strongly on this issue, but in your haste to bash the original AfD, you appear to have gotten a little carried away. You are correct that policy does not dictate that there be no redundant lists and categories, but that does not mean that being redundant is not bad form. When a list is not doing anything that a category cannot do, it is generally not that useful to have the list as well. One reason for this is just plain old efficiancy. Doing the same thing two ways can lead to confusion and contradictory organization. Second, categories would have absolutely no point if we just used lists, so the fact that the category system was created after people started making lists implies that these were intended to replace lists in some areas. Finally, despite what you have said above, redlinks can be a very bad thing. Allowing for redlinks may enocurage the creation of things that do not belong on wikipedia, which is why categories are a much nicer way of corraling this information. Also, redlinks are just plain ugly, and while some may be filled, they will not all necessarily be so. If redlinks are so good, why do we not create disambiguation pages for every possible topic that can have more than one entry even when only one entry exists with an article?
Furthermore, the original nomination was never about schoolcruft as was made very clear in the nomination itself. There were votes that were cast solely on the issue of the school debate, but I never went there and still do not intend to here. Also, to say that categories and lists cannot ever serve the same purpose as you say above is a most ridiculous statement. If a category contains all the articles on wikipedia that pertain to, say, Cincinanti Reds players and a list exists that does the same thing with no redlinks or annotations and with the same organization, then the list and category are exactly the same. I would avoid absoultes if I were you. I am not claiming that this list is exactly the same as the category of the same name, but your claim that lists and categories can never be the same is just not true. As for your other point that a categories cannot group these schools into categories (that just sounds silly on its face now, doesn't it), this is also not true since it is possible to have subcategories. I do not harbor any illusions of convincing you to change your vote, as anyone who makes blanket statements like "Any AfD (see the initial attempt) that uses any form of the word "cruft" is a strong argument for a Keep" is not interested in looking beyond shallow surface considerations, but I am hoping to illustrate that there is room for debate on this issue as there are with many others. If there was really no other way to vote on this article, then people would not do so. Try to assume a little more good faith and tone down your own rhetoric a little too please. Indrian 06:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory or a yellowpages that merely exists to list what institutions exist and where they are located. Now obviously, the organization of articles is excepted from this rule, but when it comes to listing insitutions this line is easily blurred. A list of this kind with a lot of redlinks is serving as a directory; a list with no redlinks is redundant with a category and therefore not needed for organization. While this list is annotated, the annotations do not enhance the organizational structure in a meaningful way in my opinion. It is actually conceivable to have lists of nearly anything that are vaguely connected and make a few annotations, but this does not seem a sound way to build an encyclopedia. Perhaps this would be indescriminate collecting of information, also in violation of policy, but I am not sure. I remain unconvinced that this list is doing anything that a category system cannot. Indrian 07:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. Not sure what the nom was trying to do, but this isn't going to get it done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjutsu (Naruto)[edit]

wikipedia is not directory. all moved to wiktionary Oooeq 22:51, 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. MCB 05:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refuge (race)[edit]

Prod contested for non-notable game-mod. My prod rationale was

Not notable and not in line with the WP:FICT guideline. Creator's sole edits are related to the Drow Town Team and copyright note at the end of the article is a very very bad sign that this is vanispamcruftisement. Grand total of 6 non-wiki Ghits for Drow Town Team. In fact those 6 hits are message board advertisements for Drow Town Team made with the same user name as the creator of this page.

Actually my reference to WP:FICT is irrelevant In any case, I have tried on Talk:Refuge (race) to explain (at length) to the creator why I felt the article was inappropriate and should be deleted. But he's still not convinced so let's go the AfD way. Pascal.Tesson 22:53, 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. - Bobet 11:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Weinland[edit]

NN-local pastor delete DesertSky85451 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This individual is not a local pastor. His books have been distributed in dozens of countries and his weekly sabbath sermons listened to by individuals around the world.

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rydens School[edit]

Delete non-notable school. AlistairMcMillan 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was wrong to nominate this. After all the school does contain "top notch geezers to have a gass with". AlistairMcMillan 03:45, 22 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. Non-notable possible hoax. Malinaccier (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yanichel Castillo[edit]

Yanichel Castillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-published author with no third-party references in the article. Deleted twice before because the whole article was copied from the Jane Yolen article, but since the current version has some other stuff, the author could have just used that as a template (even though the claim that he's a "modern day Aesop" is still cut-and-pasted from the other article). The article claims he's won awards from the national scholastic press association, but their website has no mention of him (even though it lists all the award winners). Similarly, the article claims awards from the Miami Herald, but their online archive has no mention of him, and I can't find any other mentions of him online aside from self-submitted pr sites. Since nothing in the article is verifiable, or is verifiably false, it's better off gone (and even if it was all true, winning prices for student writers is a questionable claim of notability). - Bobet 19:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man vehicles[edit]

Per a related AFD, Nothing here is verifiable; it's all just interpretation and supposition and speculation and sometimes fanon based on direct observation of the games themselves. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:28, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 05:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cromie[edit]

I nominate this page for deletion on the grounds that the person is not notable except for the fact that he is a BNP councillor. I suspect a bit of BNP self-promotion.--Ketlan 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know of the background issues involved (and I'd leave off mentioning that in the article at all until verdicts are in if I were you, to avoid any chance of litigation) but I don't consider that this marks him out - so many BNP councillors have criminal records that he would still be no great exception even if he should be tried and found guilty. I'm inclined to let it go just because you used the phrase 'neo-nazi' but I don't think these people should be legitimised in any way unless they've done something exceptional (like Derek Beacon, for example).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

53651 (number)[edit]

This was previously nominated for deletion, but the discussion was closed immediately as a bad-faith nomination. Nevertheless, I don't see why this number is especially notable. Although 53652 gets fewer Google hits, 53650 actually gets more. Essentially an internet meme that hasn't made much of a splash. --N Shar 23:43, 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 00:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Couture[edit]

Of the five unique Googles outside of Wikipedia for "Jayson Couture", four are on MySpace. There is no evidence here of the subject being the primary focus of multiple (or indeed any) non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Guy 23:49, 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. MCB 05:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon X & Ken Hell[edit]

Band article, no assertion of notability but not by a member of the band so I'm not inclined to simply delete it. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC though. Guy 23:51, 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 merge to Masque of the Red Death. - Bobet 11:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Magic in New Orleans[edit]

(completing incomplete nomination) --Pak21 16:17, 23 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 02:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enabledsuccess[edit]

Advertising by non-notable company. Page is self-promotion written by User:Pdoucetca. The company president is Paul Doucet (See company website http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.618436/sc.8/category.2/.f ) Emeraude 00:36, 22 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 02:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark O. Lambert[edit]

Nomination for deletion Fails WP:BIO. No doubt a worthy Iowan, but not encyclopedically notable in his roles as Iowa lobbyist/utilities comissioner/civil servant, publisher/editor or film producer. Article apparently created by subject's single purpose account[56] - contravenes WP:AUTO. Article says subject was once a ACLU lobbyist in Iowa. Then he was also served as a Iowa Utilities Board Comissioner for 4 years. Now he's an Administrative Law Judge. He also runs a very small publishing operation on the side[57] and has been the producer on a rather obscure documentary. He also edited some kind of pulp fiction/adventure story collection once. 16,400+ google hits but only 46 unique[58], as a large majority of hits come from his name in standard official legal documents relating to Utilities Board matters or case documentation relating to his work as an administrative judge or in his capacity as a lawyer. Bwithh 01:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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