< September 16 September 18 >
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 Speedy Delete (db-author). -- JLaTondre 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike hogan[edit]

Created by mistake by me / wrong use of capitalization Susanoleara 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, bad faith nomination (content dispute). NawlinWiki 12:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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






















































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

The result was delete. -- Steel 23:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Enoch[edit]

This page was originally nominated for Speedy Deletion. I believe that it is not a Speedy Deletion candidate so I moved it to Afd. I believe that David Enoch fails WP:V. I couldn't find any information about David Enoch on the most well-known chess sites: [1] [2] [3] [4]

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 23:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Burger[edit]

Single joke on single level of Duke Nukem 3D. Stands absolutely no chance of being kept, consider speedying if possible. - Hahnchen 01:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was flagged as copyvio. MER-C 08:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Living Hope Church[edit]

Contested prod. Prod concern was "A church; no assertion or evidence of notability". Deprodder gave no edit summary or comment. Article contains no references to independent reliable sources that could evidence meeting WP:ORG. GRBerry 01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 23:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soapy the Chicken[edit]

In addition to this nn-webcomic, the webcomic author Steven Stwalley is nominated. Soapy the Chicken, seen here is a webcomic with no Alexa rank. It manages to get 60 unique Google links. This fails WP:WEB, WP:V. - Hahnchen 01:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human World[edit]

This article was created by the people who invented the term, as the history shows, so it is Original Research and Vanity; it is only used by the people at the radio show, so it is too limited in scope to be encyclopedic; it is POVed in the way it describes "a profound connection;" the information it presents is both obvious and already covered in other articles, mainly Anthropocene, so it is also unecessary. K-UNIT 01:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have shortened the Human World entry and attempted to make it more neutral. It is true that, after many discussions with its Science Advisors (one of whom is Paul Crutzen), Earth & Sky invented the term Human World, and it is true that Earth & Sky posted this entry. But I would not call this Original Research or Vanity. In fact, popularizing science - creating simple concepts from more scientific ones, so that people can understand - is our job in the world as a science radio series. I would add that the words Human World are heard frequently on our radio series, which is broadcast to 6 million daily around the world (9 times daily on Voice of America, for example). Many people do hear the words Human World. They might wonder what they mean. If they searched on Wikipedia, it would be grand for them to find some explanation. Thank you. Earthsky 12:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wizzy[edit]

Another webcomic on Wikipedia's infamous billboard. You can see this comic, here hosted on a domain that fails to obtain an Alexa rank. Also try Googling the name of the creator Robert Mauritson. - Hahnchen 01:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sonic Center[edit]

The article fails to establish notability per WP:WEB. I prodded it on the 12th but an anonymous user removed the prod. It hasn't seen any marked improvement since the prod, particularly in the field of outside references. Axem Titanium 01:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, despite efforts of anons. Punkmorten 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 66[edit]

This event, while likely to occur in the future, does not pass Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only generic information is available for this event, and the promoters themselves, so far, have only applied for a license for this show with the Nevada State Athletic Commission[7] and that is no guarantee that the event will happen. In general, articles for UFC events are created only when the UFC themselves announce them. Prod was removed by an anonymous editor without explanation. hateless 01:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zaheer Mohamed[edit]

Vanity article created by User:Zam123. Claims to have acted in Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna . But IMDB shows no entry of this actor in the credits. [8] Ageo020 02:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius 15:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

The information in the first half of the article is included in the Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses article. The information in the second half of the article is included in more detail and with better quality on the Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses page.

The debate of the previous nomination can be seen here. The result was no consensus, however the article has changed since its nomination about this time last year. BenC7 02:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes a consensus... BenC7 07:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Goldfarb[edit]

Prod contested by Dan goldfarb (talk · contribs) who insists he had nothing to do with the creation of the article. If the article has any hope of conforming to WP:BIO one would need some presence on the web. However, IMDb knows only his work on Game Shop which, incidentally, is a 3 minute silent short. 33 unique hits for "Dan Goldfarb" + film, and 4 for "Dan Goldfarb" +cinematography, (2 wiki, 1 irrelevant + the IMDb one). It is also claimed that Goldfarb is a news photographer and although I am certain he does a fine job of it, there are only 19 Ghits for "Dan Goldfarb"+ photographer, none of which constitute independent coverage. Pascal.Tesson 03:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if we did find references for those, I'm not sure I'm convinced that "Second Place, Alabama Cable Television Association Award for Excellence in Programming and System" is remotely meaningful to anyone outside the Alabama cable-television community. That's just a couple of notches above employee of the month. Pascal.Tesson 03:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken! Delete, then. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 04:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Troup (Lost)[edit]

Non-notable non-character-- fictitious author who does not appear as an actual character on the TV series, but only "existed" as a marketing ploy for the semi-tie-in book Bad Twin. The deletion also includes the redirects Valenzetti and Laird Granger. --LeflymanTalk 03:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That would be the point of the AfD: an article about an inactive fictitious (not merely fictional) person "Gary Troup" is not notable. The "Lost Experience" and the marketing efforts associated with it are; a non-existent author created just to generate interest in a semi-tie-in is not. The core of this article's info is already mentioned at Lost Experience, where content from here can be merged, if needed-- as there will never be more to say about Gary Troupe, the character. The real author, Lawrence Shames, apparently doesn't merit his own article; nor does the book itself. We likewise don't have entries for Peter Thompson, Hugh McIntyre and, apart from Rachel Blake, none of the other fictitious characters in the marketing campaign. --LeflymanTalk 16:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: could those (as above) claiming "notable subject" please provide a rationale of what makes "Gary Troup" a notable character/fictitious person requiring a separate article (from "Lost Experience")?--LeflymanTalk 19:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. As has been pointed out, this case didn't need AfD. Keeping it as a redirect is harmless, does the job, and helps prevent a similar inadvertent recreation under the wrong title. No merging necessary. Tyrenius 16:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalSecurity.Org[edit]

See this diff [9], which contains the original complaint. In short, there is an article called GlobalSecurity.Org (capital "O") and another called Globalsecurity.org (lower case "o"). The latter contains all of the information of the former and more. The latter also adheres to Wiki's guidelines of WP:CITE and WP:NOR, while the former doesn't. Plus, "GlobalSecurity.Org" is a violation of Wikipedia's naming conventions. Thus, GlobalSecurity.Org should be deleted. WGee 03:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featuring cowbells[edit]

I'm sorry, but we cannot have an article in an encyclopedia which is a) unsourced, and b) claims that Bob Dylan, David Bowie, the Beatles, Jay-Z, The Byrds, George Harrison, Black Sabbath, Dizzy Gillespie (Dizzy fricking Gillespie!) and countless others had songs featuring cowbells.

There are two references in the entire article that verifies two songs. The rest is taken from "The Cowbell Project" (I'm assuming, since that's the only external link, which itself is just some crazy fanatics home page, and cites no sources).

I know people are fond of their internet memes, and that's fine. You can have your articles on Star Wars kids and Numa Numas and whatever. That's ok, I don't have any problem with them at all. But honestly, can you call yourself a good wikipedian if you want an article in an encylopedia that claims that Jimi Hendrix used cowbells.

Kill it, kill it fast! Oskar 03:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not against lists at all, in fact I've made several lists. I started List of draughts players, List of Mennonites, and List of music prodigies. That said the things in a list have to have the topic as part of their notability. See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Even the confirmed examples here would not be less known if they lacked cowbell or at least it's debatable they would as no one cared that they did until years later due to a comedy sketch. Still on searching I find that there is a List of songs featuring hand claps and List of songs featuring vibraslap, but those are the only other instruments I find. It does make me ponder though so I'll under the cross out I did above.--T. Anthony 03:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see there's also List of songs featuring finger snaps and Songs that start with telephone sounds--T. Anthony 03:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't the worst of our problems. I'm much more concerned with the fact we have a List of songs about robots. VegaDark 05:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I disagree a bit there. That a song is about a robot could be a central element and even be important to its notability. I'm not sure any song is notable for having handclapping, a vibraslap, or a telephone sound.--T. Anthony 07:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bananaphone. VegaDark 18:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Still Delete Content sourcing issues normally don't apply in AFD, except in this case there is no physical way that the article could ever hope to be properly sourced. Is that a cowbell I hear or a jamblock? Is it a sample? Is it someone banging on a roadie's head? If you look at the written logs that come out of a recording session, about all you ever see are: "Track 1: Guitar 1 Track 2: Guitar Fills Track 3: Percussion Track 4: Bass... etc.". They don't keep records of whether or not a cowbell was used. Also, if you really get right down to it, this article isn't so much a real scholarly work as it is an attempt to keep a meme alive. - Richfife 21:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is definitely not scholarly; it's part of what I think of as the more playful side of WP. It is, however, a list that establishes a notable connection between the referenced items. It would be notable in a very small way, but for the SNL sketch generating a little more interest in the previously overlooked cowbell. Sure, it's a little crufty, but you only have to read the talk page and the comments in the various deletion discussions to see that it generates interest and discussion. Your point about the difficulty of sourcing the article is well taken. However, I could see Rolling Stone asking Mick Jagger if that was really a cowbell in Brown Sugar. Alternately, the article could disclaim that the songs contain cowbell or a cowbell-like instrument and use the songs as the source - as we might use a book as a source for a quoted phrase.-Kubigula (ave) 22:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Tumatoe[edit]

Non notable - though article gives (bare) assertion of notability hence not trying speedy Springnuts 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freddyjrjr[edit]

Non-notable Web site. Possible vanity / advertising site Fairsing 04:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tornadoes of 2006. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September Upper Midwest Tornado Outbreak[edit]

This is not Wikinews. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different events. This was Sept. 15-16. That outbreak is Sept. 21-23. CrazyC83 02:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? They are different events. CrazyC83 02:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They don't each need their own article. Anchoress 03:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Love the name, though. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankz Finest Hot Dog Palace[edit]

This article about a restaurant fails WP:CORP, which would require that Frankz be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". The Torontoist source is a weblog, which is not an acceptable verifiable source per WP:V. The only Google hit is the student newspaper article that isn't about the restaurant as much as it is about the competition for hot dog sales. Erechtheus 04:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius 16:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Developmental Action Inquiry[edit]

del yet another promotion by Zhumaf (talk · contribs) of theories of a Torbert, W.. Another similar article was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Developing Leadership Capacities Through Action Inquiry. Both look like original research, in the meaning of the exposition of a theory of some author. Mukadderat 04:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaoscopy[edit]

Seems very much like a hoax to me per WP:HOAX. Google test supports this; if this was a real mathematical or otherwise subject, I supect it'd get more than 63 hits. (I realize the limitations of the Google test, but for this I feel it is valid evidence. Crystallina 04:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creator notified --WikiSlasher 08:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Move to user space. Tyrenius 16:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek/temp[edit]

redundant but exception to general merge procedure

This is a duplicate article, and so merging would be the standard course. This particular page seems to be an exception to the rule. It has become rather large and a merge would be a nontrivial endeavor. My main concern is that a merge will never take place.

The content of this page would not seem to be so different from the original as to add significant/salient info. Meanwhile, both pages exist in competition. I suggest that the article be deleted in order to remove the redundancy from Wikipedia, and dedicated editors save off this page's contents to their hard drives and trickle the info into the main article. --Ling.Nut 04:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stunner (game)[edit]

Nomination for deletion Spammy article about non-notable obscure freeware game. This is the current message from the game author on the game's website as linked from the article: stunner.st.funpic.org/ "Shut down: Stunner has been unupdated and unplayed for a while now. Due to the fact that I am done with Stunner. Developing it has become boring to me, maybe one day I'll bring it back.". Recommend deletion as advertising/self-promotion abuse of Wikipedia & non-encyclopedic content. Bwithh 04:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. 1ne 20:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhitharta[edit]

Almost completely incoherent. Appears to be a non-notable religion. Only a few Google hits, and most are troll posts on Christian forums. eaolson 05:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia should have well-noted as well as obscure information. Asana Bodhitharta is also a songwriter and composer. Also, Asanas is not a mispelling nor a misnomer of any kind. The word posture or seat come form the root word of Grace. Do not delete article.--Witnessthereal 18:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got my signature from the book and part of the first page of the book is on my page, I think that is reliable enough.

Well, reliable isn't the point, verifiable is. This issue of where you got your signature isn't really relevant (I got mine by being named after a great aunt.) And if the book is copyrighted, you probably shouldn't have the first page on your userpage. What is the publishing information on the book? That might help, a bit. Cheers Dina 21:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There simply is no reason to delete something that is true and not harmful perhaps you should do some research and merge it or something but to delete my article would be unfair to me as a contributor. There are tons of things I have never heard of here but that doesn't mean they don't have a place here. This information is both reliable and verifiable there is access to the free e-book on the IslamMessge.com website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.230.238 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 17 September 2006.
  • Please don't vote more than once in an AfD. thanks. bikeable (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throne Of Mortality[edit]

This band seems to just barely make a claim of notability, so that the article is not A7, but I think they are far from meeting the standards of WP:MUSIC Deville (Talk) 05:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for adding this later, but I think we should also bundle Virkelix to this nom. For what it is worth, I have already A7'ed Project Mina, the other contribution of this editor. --- Deville (Talk) 05:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monte Carlo or Bust (Fundraising)[edit]

This is not an article, it's never going to be an article, it's not about a notable subject, and it's not been updated. TheMadBaron 05:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 02:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FLG(Family Guy)[edit]

This article concerns an acutely non-notable subject and contains no credible references. John254 05:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was smerge (slight merge) with Cliff Bleszinski. Only a slight merge is appropriate, given the size of the target article. Mangojuicetalk 15:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Palace Of Deceit: Dragon's Plight[edit]

This is a non-notable game that the creator of the article argues should be included because it was the first game for its designer, who has gone on to fortune in the industry. The game already has coverage in the designer's article. In fact, that coverage provides 3 of the 4 Google hits[17] for the title of the game. This article fails the proposed WP:SOFTWARE. Erechtheus 05:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Just because Google has forgotten the game doesn't mean Wikipedia should forget it, too. Search Dare to Dream while you're at it; you won't get too many hits related to that game either. A Wikipedia article can keep an obscure piece of history from being forgotten. Somebody looking for information about the game will be thankful for a wikipedia article about it.

There was already a wikilink to Dragon's Plight in Bleszinski's article, which told me someone else wanted more information about the game, too. There is no "coverage" in that article; there is an empty link to it and passive mention of it. I just filled it in. It's part of Cliff Bleszinski's history. It was the first game he designed, which makes it as notable as Dare to Dream (his second) and Jazz Jackrabbit (his third).

I suppose the article could be merged with Dare to Dream's entry (the gameplay sections do overlap), but it doesn't seem necessary as they discuss two different games. Odds are someone else will come along and recommend the article be split. And it doesn't belong in Bleszinski's article because it's not about the man himself, it's about the game.

If someone else recommends Dragon's Plight be included in Bleszinski's article, or merged with Dare to Dream, I don't mind doing that. The information doesn't need to be deleted!--Tagenar 18:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reasons for merging Dragon's Plight into Bleszinski's entry. The game was probably only important to his history, not gaming as a whole. Since I'm outnumbered, go ahead and merge it.

I'm not sure how it can fit. Maybe someone can think of a way to make it relevant to the designer and not to the game itself? I just wouldn't want the information deleted entirely. It still deserves a place, and if that place is not in its own article that's okay.--Tagenar 23:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


With reviews to back up the info on both games and reinforce their place in Bleszinski's history, does Dragon's Plight deserve its own article now? DtD and Dragon's Plight may not be notable to the history of gaming but they are notable to the author, and if these sources can be used to justify the information, they justify a Dragon's Plight article in Wikipedia. I recognize the difficulty of verifying information like this. I'd like to find something in the New York Times to use as a source, too, but at least this is something. I hope the sites I gave above can also be used to help Cliff's entry, too.

I believe it's all notable. Anyone looking for information on these games and/or on Bleszinski's early career will be glad for some details about the games themselves. (Now with a source to back the details up.) If the concensus is still to merge, at least there's a source to tie the game to the creator's history. Maybe it'll allow more than a one-sentence passing mention in his bio. But please reconsider merging in light of these potential sources.--Tagenar 02:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tinyxp[edit]

Appears to be non-verifiable, only information available is forumcruft. Despite large google hit count, most information appears to be torrents and additional forum cruft, suggesting it is also nonnotable Canadian-Bacon t c e 05:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius 16:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unite UST[edit]

This organization is not notable enough to warrant a separate article. Its mention at UST already includes all important information. This page is merely that information plus an external link dump plus the text from the organization's main page. No significant work on the article has been done since the addition of a cleanup tag, except the further addition of an NPOV tag. My apologies in advance if I make any mistakes in this process; this is my first AfD. BCSWowbagger 06:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was election loss (delete). Punkmorten 22:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Bello[edit]

Candidate in municipal school board election, no other notable contribution. Page seems primarily geared towards advertising candidate Canadian-Bacon t c e 06:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. But the state of public education in general is an issue and the budget cuts slated in Toronto a HUGE issue - for all involved. The Liberals just lost yet ANOTHER by-election in Parkdale/High Park based on this issue and a provincial election is coming up in about a year. Funnily enough, the Toronto Municipal Election page lists the Mayoral and City Councilor candidates but completely ignores the the Trustees. Why is it that people think they are unimportant? Sorry about the impassioned plea - but I'd vote for the article to stay - it's not advertising when you're looking to keep kids in school and feed them while they're there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick9901 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Maverick9901 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Comment, note that having good intentions does not merit having an article on Wikipedia. Also, please remember that AfD is only a discussion and not a vote.--TBCTaLk?!? 07:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pitera[edit]

Appears to be non-verifiable, page seems primarily geared towards advertising the product and self-explanatory. A sign of Viral_marketing spread to Wikipedia Xinghuei 07:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- Deville (Talk) 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constantian Society[edit]

Substub on utterly non-notable fringe political group. Statement "It cannot be determined whether the society has been active since 1997" gives you an idea of its influence. Fishal 07:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. Tyrenius 16:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max On The Rox[edit]

This article appears to fail WP:MUSIC by not making a claim that would confer notability per that notability guideline. 55 unique Google hits.[20] Erechtheus 07:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as hoax by Herostratus - Yomanganitalk 17:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ponsenby club[edit]

Little Yahoo! search results. Maybe I should use Google. This is Tosh. --Dangherous 09:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Schwan Food Company . Whispering(talk/c) 20:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago town[edit]

This article is about a product line, and should be Merged with the parent company's article at Schwan Food Company and then deleted. The edit log shows that the creator even thinks this article is trivial (article creation. (somehow) trivial article, link to parody advert website (no direct purchase possible).) Fiddle Faddle 08:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete CSD G6, duplicate material -- Samir धर्म 10:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spinosaurus Vs Rex[edit]

This article appears to replicate information that's available at Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus, with little reason for it to be done. It also seems to have no sources, it's got a copyright statement in it, a disclaimer that suggests it's based partly on speculation, and a bunch of pictures at the bottom. I don't see any point of this article. PROD tag was removed by an anon, so bringing it here. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 06:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

99% DO NOT DELLETE. I QUIT DOING TAT ALLRDY!!!!!GC 09:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC) I Wiil do anything 4 the"wikipedia Team"GC 09:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Reason 4 NO SOURCES[reply]

  1. . Yahoo.com lets ppl take their info w/o there consent.
  2. . Its a DAMN Non Burocraitic world[u know wat I mean],It a 'Free World'.[No Restrictions}

Sry,can ya edit it GC 09:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, already transwikied --- Deville (Talk) 02:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pest control of slugs[edit]

This is a how-to article, has been copied to wikibooks (b:Transwiki:Pest control of slugs). It's unlikely that it could be rewritten in an encyclopedic style due to the subject matter. Links-to will be replaced with interwiki links. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 09:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment; you expect to find this stuff in an encyclopedia? I usually go to gardening books and websites for this sort of thing. Personally, I would not expect to find this sort of information in an encyclopedia at all. ergot 00:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't that encylopedia users should be able to find out that things like Diatomaceous earth and salt are used against slugs then I don't you should be editing one. Kappa 00:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever. That's only an argument to have the subject mentioned in the slugs article, anyway; WP:NOT a how-to guide. ergot 01:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides, the information is still there, just on a different project that's linked from the same pages. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 09:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Encylopedia users should not have to visit a "how-to" website for encylopedic information. Kappa 09:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valtira[edit]

This AFD was originally started by an IP: 24.7.25.122, but was incomplete. No reason was given, and it was the only contibution from that IP. Yomanganitalk 09:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Do you have any links to some of the media coverage? My searching only turned up a couple of mentions about executive hiring and reprints of press releases.
  • Comment; it doesn't say that it's a spinoff of JWT, it says that it was founded by guys who had previously worked there. Church rummage sales get local media coverage but aren't notable. ergot 00:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep as a faulty nomination. There is no such thing as "delete and merge". The two are mutually exclusive. If you want duplicate articles merged, merge them yourself! Articles For Deletion is for article deletions, which only administrators can perform. Article merger can be done by any editor, even ones without accounts. Uncle G 11:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Western Martial Arts[edit]

Delete and merge content to existing article Charlesknight 10:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lolifox[edit]

Non-notable Firefox 2.0b build, linked from only one article (that being List of web browsers). - Sikon 10:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Su madre[edit]

Firstly, "su madre" doesn't translate as "your mother". I must but assume that it translates idiomatically as "yo mama" then. Otherwise, tosh. --Dangherous 09:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of level editors[edit]

The article is pointless to be blunt. There are millions of computer games, and therefore millions of level editors. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or lists. Localzuk (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Microphone. Whispering(talk/c) 21:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shotgun_mic[edit]

Because the subject of the article is already covered in Microphone, there is no reason to clean the article up or keep it. The doctor23 11:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius 16:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HiWF[edit]

None notable e-fed (people who pretend to be wrestlers by writing roleplays), thus none notable. Strong Delete Englishrose 12:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable to you, but notable to others... Notable to the people who write and those who read it... Obviously Vince McMahon owns a large stake in this website so other wrestling federations are forced to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.135.63 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was WP:SNOW speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. – Chacor 13:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.[edit]

WP:HOAX, Merge to BJAODN--Gonjkl 12:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

You know, someone could have easily Googled it to see where it pops up, like at linguist.com http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/3/3-175.html Bignole 13:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just close this, it's even in DYK. .* 13:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius 17:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kwan gar[edit]

A google search for "Kwan gar" turns up 3 links to non-related subject matter. Delete as either hoax or a personally coined phrase for their own style of martial art.
LOCALZUKtalk
13:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 08:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fencibles[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 Speedy Deleted by Prodego as CSD A3: No content whatsoever. - Yomanganitalk 17:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth dimension (lottery)[edit]

4D as in the lottery in Malaysia and Singapore doesn't stand for fourth dimension, it stands for 4-digit Glueball 11:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge with Hopes and Fears. —Centrx→talk • 00:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopes_and_Fears_DVD[edit]

article is just a list of features on a dvd. Should be deleted or merged into the main keane article Richyard 17:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't even a serious AfD discussion. you've wandered so far from the person you are, let go brother let go, cause now we all know... --Fluence 23:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Second !vote from Fluence. -- Tyrenius 17:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tyrenius 17:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LEGO Rocket Racer[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. The title will be hard redirected to Loose Change (video) for GFDL purposes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louder than Words[edit]

First deletion reason: Non-notable conspiracy cruft video producer. Fails to assert notability by reference to any reliable sources. Cites only to Alex Jones' websites and a podcast. Fails WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and WP:VAIN. Morton devonshire 18:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Momma (song)[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. Punkmorten 22:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New rave[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 Redirect/merge to List of Garfield characters. —Centrx→talk • 23:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pooky the Teddy Bear[edit]

There is already a section under List of Garfield characters we don't need an article Samuel 22:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tyrenius 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Setten[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 but needs to be improved. Tyrenius 17:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swahili Culture[edit]

Seems to be copied from another site, unencyclopedic and the information can probably be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Archibald99 17:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- Deville (Talk) 02:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torstar Syndication Services[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable subsidary - does not assert why it is notable. MER-C 13:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tyrenius 17:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westgate Resorts[edit]

Non-notable article; subject of article is also the subject of several spam links in articles about Central Florida SwissCelt 12:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty neutral about this one but I find the above links rather unconvincing. Pascal.Tesson 23:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning(talk) 13:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Technically, I said the article is non-notable, not the subject. It's a fine distinction, and generally winds up meaning the same thing, but in this case I simply based my judgment of notability on the article itself. In other words, the article does not indicate the notability of the subject in verifiable, NPOV tones. -- SwissCelt 11:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AfD is a debate; the earlier deletes seem not only less informed than the later keeps, but have not responded to the convincing points put forward, and this reduces the weight of their opinions, which would otherwise have resulted in no consensus. Tyrenius 17:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Miyagi (blogger)[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet notability criteria Neier 13:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shop Rite (Australia)[edit]

some discount shop. listing now Melaen 14:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tyrenius 17:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty in India[edit]

There have been no significant edits to the article in months. The article has few sourced statements, and it cites information out of context. Statistical data from questionable sources are deliberately slanted to make India look like the poorest country in the world (a patently false claim). There is no precedent on wikipedia to single out the poverty situation of any country as an article, while statistics show that poverty situation in some other countries are far worse than in India. Why is India being singled out? Plus, the pictures are placed out of context and have no text in the articles to support their placement. As it stands (and has stood for months), it is offensive. There is a better article Standard of living in India where the matter of poverty in India can be put in at length so this article is also redundant with a POV title. Hkelkar 14:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a significant re-organization and expansion of the article. Please re-visit the article and consider changing your vote as you see fit. --Richard 18:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment:A merge with Standard of living in India is not necessary (IMHO) as most of the NPOV information (incl images) is already there in this other article (put there by the same user too). The issue (I think) is the redundancy, 100% POV (loading the title itself to a certain POV) and misrepresented information placed with no context (for months!).Hkelkar 14:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: That's not particularly good reasoning to vote for delete in the first place (or for keep after creating the article). Wikipedia is not a battleground between Pakistani and Indian editors. BhaiSaab talk 22:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - its not battleground. Are you disputing the fact of poverty in Pakistan (a more widespread problem than in India)? You put it up for db only to make it a battleground.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not disputing anything. I put it up for speedy deletion because the article was 8 words long, but now that you've added content, I've removed the template. BhaiSaab talk 23:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note The above exchange is deeply, deeply depressing and yet somehow funny. Hornplease 09:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let not make an India-Pakistan mud-slinging match on the empty stomach of crores of hungry people in the sub-continent. That they have to go to bed hungry should be a matter of concern for everyone, not a patriotic issue. Deepak D'Souza, Hyderabad, India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.197.22 (talk • contribs)

An irrelevant argument. Please argue on the merits of the content, not on the motivations of the editors.Hkelkar 12:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please Clarify whether you want to keep an article about Poverty in India or you want to keep THIS article. Both are different (I Suppose) Doctor BrunoTalk 16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Response':I have no rigid opinion on this matter. While I lean towards deleting the article on the grounds that it has nothing but a copy-paste deal from another article, some (not all) editors have provided valid reasons for keeping it. What I think should be done as the most reasonable compromise is that the article should be merged with Standard of living in India and the title Poverty in India redirected to it, as has been done (similarly) in Poverty in Indonesia, for instance.Hkelkar 00:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The above anon chose to keep. You can't simply strike out their input, no matter what motivates them. Plenty of editors at AfD simply give a Keep or Delete with no reason whatsoever. You're not going to strike them all are you? Please unstrike. The closing admin will decide whether or not to consider their edit as part of the discussion. See WP:BITE also. -- Longhair 12:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:While I fully agree that the subject matter is relevant, the article has not grown one iota since I put it up for AfD. All of the stuff there is a copy-paste from Standard of living in India. I suggest a merge of both articles at least.Hkelkar 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment:This article is about the article on wikipedia, not about poverty in India as a subject.I don;t dispute the obvious truth about poverty in India. I DO dispute the articel as it stands today, which is nothing but a copy-paste of the standard of living article. Keep one and get rid of the other by merging.Hkelkar 16:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: From one perspective, you're right. The debate is whether to delete this particular article about Poverty in India. However, deletion inhibits writing and editing. If we believe the topic is worthwhile, it is better (IMO) to take the current article and expand it than to delete it and hope that someone will write a better article from scratch.
Merging is certainly one solution. Another is to trim the "Poverty" section in Standard of Living in India down so that it is a summary of this one and then expand this one. This article certainly needs expansion. There are many, many ways in which it could be expanded. One would be to describe the government programmes in greater detail. If we delete every article because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards now, then we will tend to limit Wikipedia. If we work to improve articles, then we will grow Wikipedia in both quantity and quality.
I recognize that the opinions expressed here are just my opinions and represent an "inclusionist" philosophy rather than a "deletionist" philosophy. Nonetheless, those are my thoughts and you may adopt them or reject them as you will.
--Richard 17:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I adopt the principle but reject it's application here.The article is still mostly copied from the standard of living article. However, your suggestion that poverty section in the standard of living article be trimmed down and expanded in the poverty article is not so bad and worth thinking about.Hkelkar 18:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:As of this moment I am doubtful as to whether the article should be deleted or not. It would seem that the better solution is to shorten the poverty section in the standard of living article and expand the poverty article and cross-reference when needed. To all those who have been following this AfD (and any other interested parties) I would be very happy if you would peruse the poverty article, as well as the standard of living article, and fix any redundancies by cross-referencing.Thanks.Hkelkar 22:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - spam, no context, blanked by creator. - Mike Rosoft 16:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franscartoons[edit]

Short article providing little or no context; Speedy delete tag removed by author. Springnuts 14:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Winhunter on author's request. - Yomanganitalk 17:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Pape[edit]

non-notable. Springnuts 14:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted, the boundary of notability on schools has to be drawn somewhere. The claim that "all schools are notable" is simply absurd, and anyone basing their reasoning on a falsehood like that is likely to be discounted. What we're dealing with here is a small, small school that is part of a church that itself isn't notable enough to have an article. Remember, AFD is not a vote; judgement can and must be exercised. --Cyde Weys 02:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finger Lakes Christian School[edit]

Non-notable school, no links to it, very little content. ColinFine 14:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources cited (and no notability asserted). --W.marsh 03:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sources were listed under External links. I have moved them to References. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 contingent on rewrite. —Centrx→talk • 23:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business Professionals of America[edit]

This entry fails WP:ORG. It is also written in an ad-like tone. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the "X is as notable as Y, which has an article" is not a very strong argument for a keep. I have looked at the DECA article and it has issues of its own, firstly, copyright violation and second, it also fails the requirement of WP:ORG which states, "information can be verified by a third party source" and "A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject".--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 00:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hydranode[edit]

prod was removed by User:83.84.19.140 [27]. This software is non-notable; very few hits on Google, no discernable press coverage. Has never released (version 0.3) and hasn't updated in about six months. The article reads like an advert. Mikeblas 15:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In open source software (or any software for that matter) version 0.3 doesn't have to mean never realeased. eMule for example is still at 0.42. Does read like an advert though, but I still found the article helpful. 82.131.12.193 18:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon says : I discovered this project when looking for a console based p2p program that supports ed2k network. I want to run a file server on my low profile, quiet firewall, so I don't have to have my computer on all the time. I was specifically looking for a program like hydranode, and wikipedia helped me find it. Not sure I could have done this without wikipedia's article. As there are no other programs that do what hydranode can do, I recommend that this article not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.37.41 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a directory. You're more likely to get that sort of answer from Google than WP anyway. ColinFine 11:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Double Champion[edit]

nn, or listcruft, gets almost no google hits other than retreads of this article, and a few prod tags were added but removed (see history) Renosecond 15:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I forgot to put the google results [28] Renosecond 17:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domeshot[edit]

This is a non-notable neologism if not a hoax. The article cites only urbandictionary.com as a source. This is not a proper source because the entire point of that site is that anyone can submit a definition. In addition, the only Google hits for the term and "oral sex" come from that site [29]. Deprodded. Erechtheus 15:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSTRMND[edit]

Non-notable. Appears to be an advertisement for a new magazine with very little market presence. Wikipedia should not be used for promoting new projects. Donald Albury 16:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squink[edit]

Vanity page of non-notable blogger. Leibniz 16:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7 - Tangotango 12:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Espín[edit]

Delete. Notability is not established for this person, which is surprising seeing as how he is "revolutionary". [Check Google hits] only gives 87 results, none of which are very helpful. Prod tag (by me) removed by anon. ... discospinster talk 17:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miriam. —Mets501 (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snow-white Miriam[edit]

Google search showed only 36 actual ghits, many seeming to refer to the article. Topic is controverial, article is unsourced. (Note: The event in the narrative of Miriam is sourced, but not use of the name "Snow-white Miriam" or statements about contemporary significance or views). Notability appears not to have been established after months of requests for sources. Given that the article involves a narrative in the life of Miriam, suggest merging any reliably sourced content with Miriam. --Shirahadasha 17:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete as an unsourced + WP:OR description and interpretation of the Miriam story. JoshuaZ 19:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC) changing to weak keep since it has some sourcing, barring that merge sourced content into Miriam, There still seems to be OR issues. JoshuaZ 23:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article takes the position that Zipporah and the "Cushite woman" Miriam complained about were two different people. Merging into the Zipporah article would imply the opposite position, that they were the same person. Not clear that Wikipedia should take a position on the subject either way. --Shirahadasha 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've also never seen the claim that Miriam was talking about anyone else before. This seems all very ORish. JoshuaZ 02:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, duplicate page with improper page title. NawlinWiki 03:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qanun (disputed page)[edit]

Unfortunately this page is created by a vandalist User:ILike2BeAnonymous by chauvunist claims instead Qanun. zandweb 17:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to User:ILike2BeAnonymous, User:Zandweb is trying to "claim" the kanun (or qanun or however you transliterate it) as an Iranian instrument, when in fact practically identical instruments are found in many cultures, such as Turkish. —Keenan Pepper 20:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh. Well at least now I understand. So it's an edit controversy and this is a POV fork. So this article needs to go and the origins of the instrument need to be hammered out somehow in the article itself. Dina 21:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was done by nominator, no need for discussion (Liberatore, 2006). 16:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of organ composers[edit]

It appears that a major editor, MusikFabrik was, in fact, a group including Paul Wehage, Jean-Thierry Boisseau, and selling music for some of the other composers listed in this article. Here's where the information came out, It is confirmed by Jean-Thierry Boisseau here. As such, I believe that all the 20th century sections of the list should be deleted, until they can be remade from independent sources. Adam Cuerden talk 18:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was the page has been speedy deleted under A1. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast, Mpumalanga/Comments[edit]

Subpage of an article that already exists. Can't just redirect to Belfast, Mpumalanga, because it wouldn't be a valid redirect. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 18:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, not even the nominator wants to delete it. Merge if you want, but don't bring it to afd for that. - Bobet 08:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Phone Signal Booster Sticker[edit]

This page is not WP:NOTABLE. Merge into Mobile phone. Hello32020 18:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please note I cannot see the validity of the POV fork argument, as there is no particular view in the mention of this incident in Operation Days of Penitence to fork from, nor does this article advance a POV. It expands on the smaller mention, as is not uncommon. I also note that there is a sizable list of media mentions worldwide. The delete reason "Practically every Palestinian civilian killed by the IDF qualifies as 'notable'" is an affirmation of keeping the article. It would also seem to be qualitatively different from the other two "similar" articles cited in the nom, which have reached a clear delete decision. Tyrenius 18:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Darweesh Al Hams[edit]

(Note: This is the latest installment in my "Articles-Created-by-Alberuni-Each-Devoted-Solely-to-a-Victim-of-the-Israeli-Palestinian-Conflict for Deletion" series. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rania Siam and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar. I did not bundle this article for deletion with the others, because this article is much more extensive, as there was an IDF investigation into this clearly tragic death. However I still believe this article should be deleted for the reasons below.)

While Iman's death is obviously tragic, I believe this article should be deleted due to the following concerns:

(1) Fails WP:BIO. I don't think Iman satisfies any of the criteria at WP:BIO, including being "the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works...(Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage)." The article's coverage, and the references, are really about the incident of Iman's death and the subsequent investigation, not about Iman herself. The article includes almost no biographical details about Iman, and such details would indeed seem out of place. (Compare with the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Allen Smith.)

(2) Violates POV fork. The incident of Iman's tragic death and the subsequent investigation are already covered in Operation_Days_of_Penitence, an NPOV and extraordinarily thorough day-by-day coverage of that operation. The nominated article is a POV fork of the other article, as it "highlight[s] negative or positive viewpoints or facts." Specifically, it highlights the negative fact of the accidental shooting of a Palestinian child by the IDF. Widening the context even further than Operation Days of Penitence, hundreds of children on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been killed, by suicide bombers and by the IDF, just since the second intifada began in 2000, and this unfortunate, broader topic is also already well-covered in Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The nominated article devoted entirely to Iman's death takes it out of the context of both Operation Days of Penitence and the larger Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Pan Dan 19:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About part (1) of the nom: I think that's a little disingenous on the part of the nominator. At the very least, if the investigation was notable, and that is not denied in the nom, the article could have been moved to Investigation of the death of Iman al-Hams. I would not support that, however, as there have been several occasions where it has been decided that a person becomes notable through the manner of their death. Consider Amadou Diallo. The example chosen by the nom is, I suspect in somewhat bad faith, as the death of that individual was non-notable even by the standards of the media circuses such deaths involve. The JonBenet Ramsey murder and that girl who disappeared in Aruba are still on here. As are Diallo and another article that just survived AfD of someone who was similarly gunned down by the NYPD. WP:BIO itself says "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" meet the criteria for notability.
Thus, the investigation itself would have to be nn for this argument to go through. The article demonstrates it wasnt. In fact, I have read this elsewhere already, so I think it's very far from nn, especially given the degree of media interest in Israel itself. Hornplease 01:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Re: WP:BIO. First, as to renown and notoriety. I don't think Iman achieved either renown or notoriety. Certainly not notoriety; and as for renown, at [30], "renown" is defined as "widespread and high repute; fame," "the state or quality of being widely honored and acclaimed." Neither of these characterizes Iman. "Renown" connotes that the person did something, herself, whereas Iman, tragically, did nothing to get shot.
"Renown or notoriety" in this context means "will people search for her name?"+"will they continue to do so for some time in the future?". You have conveniently avoided the fact that that section of WP:BIO is cited frequently as indicating that people who have died in notable fashion have achieved notability. Iman may have done nothing to get shot, but that is irrelevant; because she got shot, she had renown thrust upon her. Hornplease 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I disagree that "she had renown thrust upon her." See again the dictionary definition. If it's true that "that section of WP:BIO is cited frequently as indicating that people who have died in notable fashion have achieved notability," then I would disagree with that use of WP:BIO. Pan Dan 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Renown', in the definition you yourself have given, includes 'fame', which sometimes people do nothing to achieve. This is obvious. Hornplease 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Fame" in the context of "widespread and high repute"--see again the definition--is not an accurate description of what Iman has. Pan Dan 07:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When a semicolon exists in a definition, the word or phrase following that semicolon serves to extend the meaning the phrase before the semocolon attaches to the word being defined. It does not serve to place it 'in context'. Hornplease 09:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does the other dictionary's definition ("the state or quality of being widely honored and acclaimed") not include the word "fame," or the weaker concept of fame than "high repute" that you are trying to apply here? Pan Dan 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second, as to precedent. You cite Amadou Diallo, JonBenet Ramsey, and Natalie Holloway. Let's take Natalie Holloway first. I do think it would be appropriate to consider deleting that article, but as her disappearance/death was an isolated incident, it simply doesn't fall into the same category as Iman's death. Next, Amadou Diallo. His death also was an isolated incident, not part of a larger story, and alone engendered widespread criticism and discussion of NYPD practices, so an article devoted to his death and community reaction is appropriate. Next, JonBenet Ramsey. Her death was unique as it engendered a widespread discussion on the propriety of kiddie beauty pageants, and as Bwithh noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Allen Smith, pertained to wider cultural trends. Iman's death was like none of these, as it was part of an Israeli operation.
Surely you realise you havent got a good enough argument in this case. Iman's death was part of an military operation. The investigation was notable in that it revealed details about what is considered appropriate during military operations. This caused widespread discussion in the English and Israeli press, and thus is notable. What part of this is difficult to follow? If her death was not unique, as you seem to - in the absence of all precedent of logic - believe is necessary for inclusion, at least the level of scrutiny and the facts that emerged in the investigation were uniquely discussed. Is it untrue that it engendered widespread criticism, defence and discussion of IDF practices? Then how is it different from the Diallo case? You have described these cases, and in none of them have you even begun to explain how they are inappropriate comparisons.Hornplease 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like Stalin (may his name be expunged) said, one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. Sadly perhaps, he was right. Uniqueness does confer extra notability, and Iman's death is one of hundreds. But uniqueness also has to do with the POV fork issue. The investigation into Iman's death, as I said, is already covered in Operation Days of Penitence. The others' deaths are covered nowhere else. Pan Dan 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my discussion below. That the investigation is covered briefly in that article is irrelevant, as the investigation extends to methods used elsewhere, and the investigation itself is hardly part exclusively of the details of the operation, which is the primary purpose of that article. You have, again, not made your case. Iman's case is one of hundreds, but the one that was discussed and hence notable. Hornplease 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Iman's case notable is the investigation that followed her death in the Israeli operation, which is why it belongs in the main article. And as I said, both the death and the investigation are adequately covered in the main article. Pan Dan 07:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You havent answered the point that the investigation and discussion is not relevant to the history of the operation, but to general IDF methods, and thus the operation page, while it should mention the death, is not the appropriate place. Hornplease 09:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See (b) reply below. Pan Dan 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But even if you think a comparison between Iman's and these three deaths is appropriate despite these differences, I would point out that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Allen Smith shows that precedent is not unanimous on whether to keep such articles.
Finally, as to your suggestion that this nom is in bad faith: Given the difference between Iman and the other three, and the divided precedent, that suggestion is quite unfair.
You have not even bothered to respond to (a) me pointing out that the George Allen Smith article was deleted because it was decided that the investigation was nn and (b) that you chose that particular example out of many in the opposite direction - which you now claim merely demonstrates that "precedent is not unanimous" - in something very close to bad faith. I think its clear that you wished to delete several articles. About the others, its possible that they were less notable. I certainly wasnt moved to intervene. This is, however, a notable incident, a notable investigation, a notable discussion, and to delete it as being the bio of a nn person instead of moving it to a more appropriate title, means that you think the discussion is non-notable; and that is untrue, and to attempt to achieve the removal of the discussion inappropriately smacks, as I said, of something approaching bad faith. Hornplease 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the George Allen Smith case shows is that dying in a sensational manner does not automatically confer sufficient notability for a WP article, which is why I cited it. Note that I put it in parentheses, asking the reader simply to "compare." I didn't think it was dispositive of this case.
As for the investigation into Iman's death, that is certainly notable, which is why is should be covered, as it is, in Operation Days of Penitence.
As for your statement that I "wished to delete several articles," I don't know what that is supposed to prove. I wished to delete several articles each devoted entirely to a victim of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And although they were all created by the same user, Alberuni, I don't assume bad faith on his part. He clearly thought these articles merited existence on WP. Don't assume bad faith on my part just because I disagree. Pan Dan 20:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Once again, you miss my point. Many people die sensationally; but a death that causes discussion of army methods and considerable study in several countries is notable in a way that George Allen Smith wasnt. (b) The article about the operation deserves to be about the operation. The discussion of IDF methods following the girl's death went beyond a specific operation. (c) My statement was that you "wished to delete several articles". The good-faith interpretation of your actions is that you let the fact that this article was created by a user who also created articles about nn individuals to affect your judgment. Hornplease 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Not to be comical here, but I'm afraid you're missing my point. See 4 paragraphs above. You imply that the Smith case was a major part of my argument for deletion. It was not. (b) You're making way too much of the "discussion of IDF methods following the girl's death." Read the article on Iman, and you will see it has little discussion in the way of general IDF practices. The discussion almost entirely involves specific allegations and rebuttals related to the incident of Iman's shooting. (c) I found these articles created by Alberuni because I find one that I thought NN, then checked to see what other NN articles the same user might have created. Obviously there's no way I can prove my judgment is not impaired. Let my arguments stand or fall on their merits, which I see have been endorsed by several others here. Pan Dan 07:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Then let's ignore the Smith case altogether, since it's not really relevant. (b) The very first paragraph declares that the crucial line in the judge's decision was that 'confirming a kill is standard procedure', which is precisely what the furore was about in the Israeli and European media. (c) Fair enough, though I think that you would do well to note that all articles created by a user with an agenda need not share that agenda. Hornplease 09:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Is too. :) Just not central. (b) The item of the judge agreeing with the defense that "confirming the kill is standard procedure" is nowhere near enough to sustain this article as a stand-alone. (c) Agreed! If Alberuni had an agenda, it is not relevant here. Pan Dan 23:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: POV fork. You cite the My Lai massacre. I don't think it's right to compare the massacre of hundreds to the shooting of one girl in the middle of an Israeli operation. The proper comparison in terms of notability would be of the My Lai massacre to the Operation Days of Penitence (during which Iman was shot), or of a single casualty of My Lai to Iman. The notability of Iman's death warrants its inclusion in Operation Days of Penitence, certainly (and it is), but not an article. Pan Dan 15:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a pointless paragraph. I do not compare the two incidents in terms of notability, as should be clear. I was comparing the application of the concept of a POV-fork, which you incorrectly accused this article of being. Notability does not feature in the discussion of POV forks, NPOV does. Please re-read what I wrote above and attempt understand its applicability.Hornplease 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me re-phrase what I wrote. It would be a POV fork to create an article devoted to a single victim of the My Lai massacre whose death is adequately covered in My Lai massacre, just as the nominated article is a POV fork of Operation Days of Penitence, which adequately covers the death of Iman and the subsequent investigation. Pan Dan 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed above, but to respond specifically: your use of the term is incorrect and it is inapplicable here. It would not be a POV-fork to create an article on a specific victim of th eMy Lai massacre, it would just be not encyclopaedic (Unless it were about the little girl in the photo, perhaps, if there was considerable discussion of her identity). The article about the operation is not the place for an 'adequate' discussion of the investigation. At some point in the future someone might point out that that article is overwhelmed with this discussion and be within their rights in removing it, as the investigation is peripheral to the operation itself. It needs and deserves its own article, and saying so is not a POV-fork, in the manner in which the phrase is used. Hornplease 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well clearly we disagree on that. The investigation is adequately covered in the Operation article; the investigation is not notable outside of the context of that operation; and Iman has little or no discussion on general IDF practices that go beyond the operation. The Iman article does nothing more than highlight a negative fact from the operation. Pan Dan 07:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The investigation cannot be said to be non-notable outside the context of the operation. The operation provided the context for the death. The context for the investigation was army policy, Israeli law, and Israeli media interest. Hornplease 09:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing what I said above--whatever this case's relation to policy or law, there's nowhere near enough to sustain a stand-alone article. And the media interest does not justify a stand-alone article. This case's relation to policy and law, and the media interest, is enough to sustain and justify what there is already in Operation Days of Penitence. Pan Dan 23:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, may I respectfully suggest that you calm down a little. Second of all, as for "articles about Israeli victims," tell me, where are the individual articles on all of the Israeli children murdered by terrorists in the Ma'alot massacre, Sbarro restaurant massacre, Dolphinarium massacre, and all the others over the years? Unless they are well-hidden, the articles do not exist. The individual victims are merely listed in the articles about the particular incidents. This nomination seeks to achieve the same result for this individual. (Adding signature which was omitted by mistake: 6SJ7 20:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Dear anonymous. These pages are not primarily about the person involved, but about the incident. The article is not necessarily about the girl, but about the way in which the girl was murdered. You could rename it "Gaza killing of Palestinian girl on whateverdateitwas" if you want. It seems logical to me that large incidents, in which multiple people were killed, should be named after the location of the incident - for example, "Ma'alot massacre". For incidents in which only one person was killed, we call it after the name of the victim - for example this article, Ayala Abukasis and Shalhevet Pass. If multiple members of one family are involved, it is named after the most notable one - usually the father, or if he is not involved the mother - such as Tali Hatuel. And there should indeed be articles on Wikipedia about each victim of the intifadah, on both sides. Virtual monuments to each of them. Not only innocent children, but even IDF and Hamas combatants. (This comment is also placed below for discussion.) --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, clearly anything but the facts should be removed from this article. The vote to keep is by no means an approval of the article's wording. But, the article concerning her definitely has merit. Take the example of Muhammad al-Durrah. He is also a child who died in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; no one would recommend the deletion of this article despite the view by some that the pictures of it are overly graphic and the article covers primarily his death and the aftermath only. Iman Darweesh al-Hams is very in terms of symbolism as Muhammad al-Durrah and may be more well known in the West.
Finally I think the vote to delete is the most POV part about this article. ZaydHammoudeh 17:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. United States House of Representatives [31]
  2. BBC *2[32] [33]
  3. CNN *2 [34] [35]
  4. The Guardian *3 [36] [37] [38]
  5. Haaretz[39]
  6. ABC [40]
  7. Al Jazeera *2 [41] [42]
  8. The Christian Science Monitor [43]
  9. Rense [44]
  10. World Socialist Web Site *2 [45] [46]
  11. Jewish Virtual Library [47]
  12. What Really Happened *2 [48] [49]
  13. Scoop [50]
  14. Independent Media Center [51]
  15. CounterPunch [52] (see this for even more references)
  16. New York Times? [53]


And more [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]

--Striver 18:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these sources do not include Hebrew-language media, or Israeli media outlets more generally, where the discussion and coverage was even more intense and long-standing. Hornplease
WP:NOT a memorial. However certain deaths are notable because of what followed or the discussion/investigation. As has been documented above, this is one of them. There has to be a place for it, and as the first part of your discussion makes clear, the article name is usually that of the person who died. Hornplease 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wow, how did you manage to miss all other sources? --Striver 00:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not so difficult if you're a Zionist. They like to ignore criticism by pretending it's only minor non-notable groups that criticize them. Criticism? Just pretend it doesn't exist, wish it away, and if necessary, mention the word 'Holocaust' to silence any and all criticism. (FYI, I'm an Orthodox Jew who does not like such things.) --Daniel575 | (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from such attacks. It doesn't do anyone any good to speak ill of other people here, or to berate "zionists". Criticise the arguements, not the editor, whether he's a zionist, an arab, an orthodox jew, or anything else. okedem 14:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That statement (that there is always a "discussion") is demonstrably false. In addition, sources have been presented and an Israeli wikipedian has stated above that this discussion in particular was notable. Given that, I strongly suggest you re-read the above points and alter your vote. I would also urge any editors -or the closing admin - to have a look at the discussion page of the article, which has been active for a long time with people arguing about the sources used, the degree of NPOV of the content, whether there should be a link to the IDF Code of Conduct, etc., etc., without once questioning the importance of the subject or the level of notability or the availability of multifarious sources. Hornplease
Speaking as an Israeli, this incident was a major scandal in Israel, and sparked more discussion, controversy and criticism than almost all others (barring A-Dura and a few others). The article should be NPOV, and bring both sides of the matter, but it's an important event (as I said - because of the public interest in it, not because of the girl, who I know nothing about). okedem 14:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete JJ211219 23:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Near unanimous. Tyrenius 18:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macaca (slur)[edit]

  • Given that the article itself provides sources for the existence of the term, and ... well, Josh Marshall says it better than I could:

But let's review. We know that not only is "macaca" a widely used racial epithet in American crypto-racist and white supremacist circles. Its apparent origin is among the colonial population of francophone North Africa -- where Allen's mother was raised.

Now, call me ungenerous, but given those facts, the idea that "macaca" was simply three syllables Allen randomly strung together when digging at a dark-skinned young man who was getting on his nerves just doesn't strike me as credible.

I don't expect Allen to admit now that rather than make this name up it was a synonym for the N-word that he was fond of when he was a kid. But he's practically begging for renewed attention to this transparent lie by weaving it, again and again, into his strained apologies. [62]

  • Allen's ass-covering doesn't have a lot of credibility -- not to mention it being irrelevant to the actual issue at hand, namely the stir that he created by opening his big mouth. --Calton | Talk 04:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I resent that, I really do. The fact of the matter is this article did not exist until the Allen controversy. Additionally, many of the sources were American, and the section about Allen took up a very significant chunk of space. If anything, I thought the article was too provincial, reflecting American interest in the subject out of proportion with the word's history and use. We do not usually have a separate article for ethnic slurs unless they are very well known in English; in this case it was only after Allen used the term that someone decided it deserved its own article.--Cúchullain t/c 21:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism (book)[edit]

Book with little notability and of highly questionnable credibility. Published by a vanity press. The title gets a limited number of Google hits [63] mostly on forums, blogs and message boards and because his author gets some coverage as a Republican politician and a radio-show host. A previous debate resulted a year ago in a no consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism. I'd like to point out that the book fails to meet the proposed criteria for notability of books:

  • the author is not primarily known as an author,
  • the book has won no awards,
  • the book has not been the subject of multiple indepedent reviews. You do find, for instance a review by Samuel L. Blumenfeld [64] although Blumenfeld is Morse's colleague at the WorldNetDaily [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=37&PAGE=4] and his coauthor on at least one book [65] so his independence is suspect. You can also find blogs mentioning the book or giving basic reviews but again these are not generally considered as reliable sources. Pascal.Tesson 19:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tyrenius 18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TUS Project[edit]

The subject doesn't seem to be notable. The phrases "TUS Project", "Megaman Battle Network 7", and "Rockman EXE 7" all return less than 150 Google hits. Also, at least two other users have told me that this article includes inappropriate information. --Ixfd64 19:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the vast majority of the information was obtained illegally, and as a result, TUS is threatening to stop the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.88.213 (talk • contribs)

Follow Up-See, that's what we would edit it to, but 162.84.180.223 (talk · contribs) would revert it back. -Sukecchi 19:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging duplicated AfD into this one: [67] --WinHunter (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, wrong title, apparently about a piece of vaporware The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity and Provincialism in Pakistan[edit]

This reads like an essay, and is hopelessly POV Cordless Larry 19:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. There is no consensus in the numbers, I have at 4-4. So on the arguments. It is true that galleries are are not proper articles (although we do have some articles that are basically galleries, we're not supposed to). This point is not really strongly refuted. Yes there a captions for some of the photos, but this makes it little more than a captioned gallery. The other main Keep point made is this is a useful and encyclopedic entity. That may be, but still, it's not really an article. The main article does have a number of good images (some of which are in this gallery). With a link to the Commons gallery, this seems to serve to purpose. Bottom line: we have to hold the line somewhere, and I think the point that Wikipedia articles should not be just collections of images is strong enough that the article should go. Also FWIW slashes are not allowed in article names in the way used here. Herostratus 19:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse reports/Gallery[edit]

WP:NOT clearly states that Wikipedia is not for "Mere Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles" and that describes this supposed article. Should just be a link to the commons gallery [68] in the main article on this topic. --W.marsh 21:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't it just be a link to Commons, then? Why does it have to be an article? Articles aren't galleries for a good reason. --W.marsh 01:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure votes from unregistered IPs count in AFD... you may want to log in and cast your vote again... Mike McGregor (Can) 06:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to the closing admin. They generally count unless sockpuppet or meatpuppet abuse is suspected. --W.marsh 14:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not having signed in when I commented I am still a bit green Ratherhaveaheart 18:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tyrenius 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H.E.R.O. (Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the UK)[edit]

nn website--So3 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Note that Of the six people participating, only 3 (one "retain" and two delete) have any significant history on Wikipedia. The nominator's first WP action was to create this debate. Mangojuicetalk 20:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar High School[edit]

This article does not assert any notability about its subject. It does not place this school, one of thousands like it, in any historical context. It does not provide any information available elsewhere, nor does it relate it to any broader educational or cultural context. The information it does include is either of such a generic and common nature as to be self-evident (nearly all public high schools have sports programs, for example), or is specific and unverified. There are no sources pertaining to the article; the only link given is to the school's main page.

I came across this article on random page patrol and placed a WP:PROD tag on it, citing these concerns. RJHall (talk) removed it, with the following summary: Disagree, plus H.S. deletes are controversial. It is not clear to me how he thought this article did assert notability, and I would invite such explanations here. As to the controversial nature of school AfDs, that remains a mystery to me. Articles about schools are not in themselves a special type of article, nor do they enjoy special status. They do not enjoy policy-level protection–even articles on Prime Ministers and Presidents don't have such protection in itself. Rather, the nature of the subject guarantees an easy assertion of notability and the ready availability of reliable sources.

I would argue that this article does not enjoy that status; does not possess reliable sources; does not assert and does not enjoy notability. Thanks for your time. Mackensen (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School articles do get deleted from time to time, if no importance can be asserted. There's a group of people who always vote to keep, but that doesn't mean school articles are automatically kept. --W.marsh 01:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a difference between "this is a stub" and "this is not notable". Existing precedent is that high schools are by nature notable. If this is a stub then it should be fixed and tagged as such in the meantime, but that's no grounds for deletion. Georgewilliamherbert 02:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- Deville (Talk) 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sirikitiya[edit]

Does not meet notability per WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 20:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a direct descendant from King Rama IV of Thailand; though by law, she doesn't carry any formal title. Her impact to Thai society can be recognize by a socially mandate rule (not a law) when addressing her as "Khun". This article is a stub but can be expanded (and Yes, current image need to be changed). Thai Goverment consider her as part of royal family. underexpose 05:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a member of the Royal Family of Thailand. As previously stated, this stub can - and likely will - be expanded. Phoenix7718 17:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!: I don't usually encounter such obvious decisions in an AfD discussion. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, this article should be kept and expanded! With the coup in Thailand & Thaksin on his way out today, Mai (and all the rest of the Royal Family) is an even more prominent figure than when this was AfD tagged. I'm sure we'll see news reports saying that the people are looking to the Royals for reassurance that the coup will end peacefully, if not silently. Deebki 04:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. Tyrenius 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Manon[edit]

A resume/autobiography. GregorB 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure that cuts it. "Notability can be determined by:
*Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
*A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
*An independent biography
*Name recognition
*Commercial endorsements" Leibniz 21:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tyrenius 18:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LIst of digivice[edit]

WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Deville (Talk) 20:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I think the extra cap in the title is unintentional. (?) --- Deville (Talk) 20:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy Jo's Lunchroom[edit]

Restaurant with zero ghits and no assertion of notability. Prod removed with no comment. Jamoche 21:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, though a credibly constructed article for a new user. Tyrenius 18:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Reed[edit]

Massive self-promotion, I don't really see much prove of notability, he's fairly unknown on serieus professional music sources on internet too... User:Cybersonik [69] discovered the contributions of User:Qabbalah, the author of this article; and, as it seems, writing an article about himself. Even worse: he's inserting his name in many different articles, spamming wikipedia as self-promotion; see Special:Contributions/Qabbalah LimoWreck 21:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is possible that an article about this topic might at some point (possibly) be made that would be worth keeping. However, the current article is two sentences, one of which is patent nonsense and the other is a restatement of the title. Policy-wise I'm not sure we can apply different speedy criteria to separate parts of the article but it seems like a reasonable thing to do in this case. JoshuaZ 02:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuffed Animal Hippo[edit]

Non-notable -Nv8200p talk 21:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 23:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Hope 2[edit]

This article violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, WP:SOFTWARE, and WP:RS Whispering(talk/c) 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah a guy who by the looks of it only edits music articles, and probabley hasn't even played BF2 comments on the notability of a mod, lol King nothing 18:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably 90-95% of my edits are to music articles, and were this, say, an RfA, that would be applicable, but here it's just an ad hominem argument. More effective than attempting to discredit me by introducing tangent issues would be to demonstrate how this meets WP:SOFTWARE, thereby showing that my judgment was in error. GassyGuy 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's the "third-party" part of WP:V that is at issue. We need some sources other than "the creators themselves" to properly verify both notability and article contents. --Satori Son 01:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 23:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiromi Hayakawa[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RedBrick Studios[edit]

A "secret" studio that nobody even in their home town knows about, that is "rumoured" to have been the site of "one off" recordings, but nobody knows for sure. The only Redbrick Studios which comes up in Google is one in the UK, but then, since this one is "secret", I'm not surprised. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- Deville (Talk) 02:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Redeemer High School - Southwest Detroit[edit]

*Delete While I agree with Truthbringer that notability does not vanish when an institution closes this school did not have any notability in the first place. The only argument that can be made for notability is the age of the school but even then it barely goes back to the 1880s. I was unable to find any record of notable almuni or any other particulary notable event or matter associated with the school. JoshuaZ 01:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Now changing to Weak keep the age of the school might confer notability. JoshuaZ 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 23:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Kornmehl[edit]

Unsure to whether the subject is suitably significant for inclusion in wikipedia. The article appears little more than a bio. Senordingdong 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to BT Group. —Centrx→talk • 23:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BT Consulting and Systems Integration[edit]

Nomination of above page AND related page Syntegra This subsidiary is only notable for its historical association with Control Data Corporation and for being a wholly owned subsidiary of BT Group plc[70]. It's not even called BT Consulting and Systems Integration anymore, its now called BT Global Services (Check out the redirects here). Recommend Delete & Redirect/Merge - (not that there's much to merge - hardly anything). The Global Services division is already mentioned on the main BT Group plc page. The relationship between Syntegra and CDC and BT is already mentioned on the Control Data Corporation page, and also to some extent on the Syntegra page. I am also nominating Syntegra for deletion/merge/redirect for similar reasons as its basically an older name for the same subsidiary. There's no reason to create all these separate pages for the same subsidiary. Bwithh 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 23:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitweaver[edit]

This article has had two AFD nominations recently. The first resulted in a delete. It was recreated, and deleted as a repost. It was then the subject of a deletion review and subsequently relisted at AFD where it was again decided it should be deleted. The content has now been moved from TikiPro and is a stub. There was considerable work done on it during the last AFD listing and it was still eventually decided that it failed to meet WP:CORP. I don't see that this has changed in the last few weeks, so rather than have somebody spend time rewriting the article I suggest it is deleted. Yomanganitalk 22:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whispering(talk/c) 21:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Brunswick High School[edit]

This article does not appear significant enough for inclusion in wikipedia Senordingdong 22:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD A7. -- Steel 14:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taegyun kim[edit]

Note: I believe I neglected to add this to the log on the appropriate day. ... discospinster talk 12:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources provided for his alleged popularity or even his thesis. Probably some kid messing around, but I couldn't verify it one way or the other so I dropped a prod tag. Author Anon removed it. And here we are. ... discospinster talk 22:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 00:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Genesis[edit]

The article Photo_Genesis is an advertisment for a free online gallery of photos. It is not an encyclopedic article and is not written in a NPOV. = MidgleyDJ 21:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete. Fixed now. Yomanganitalk 22:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text concerning why the article was nominated for deletion was not very clear and linked too numerous reasons as to why the nomination may have been made, nothing was specific that I could see.
The article was written as an information page on a small gallery that hosts work from like minded photographic artists, it was not intended as an advertisement or a vanity article; I singed it in my name as I prefer to do things in my name instead of an assumed identity for correctness. I added the owners name as he supplied much if the information that I used.
I am sorry it has been seen as a NPOV/advertisement article, I will therefore try to make the article compliant with Wikipedia policy.
I am new to Wikipedia so I would hope that other users might be a little understanding if I do not do things 100% correctly, everyone has to be new at some point, making mistakes is how we learn.
I do not understand the following statement.
“I searched for Photo Genesis and found it to be many things, none of which except an RSS feed directory led to the gallery in question”.
Is that important?
Google search places it a top listing and Yahoo 2nd place listing, is this what is meant by doing a search? I don’t know how RSS works.
The search term Photo Genesis may well return many things, Photo genesis however is one thing, a gallery and art community.
Thank you for you time and comments.
Photo Genesis 01:07, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Reply I apologise, I should have been clearer with regard to Ghits. The gallery is in top place in this search, but it is the gallery's own website. While this may seem strange to you the very fact that it is the gallery's own website means it is discounted - it is a self fulfilling prophecy of notability, you see. Any good webmaster can get their website to the top of the list in many (but not all) searches.
At position 5 is your own newsfeed in a newsfeed directory. Again, because it is your own it is discounted. Good webmastering, just not "Wikipedic" notability, I have scrolled (albeit reasonably quickly) through the first 100 results. Your own website appears a couple or more times, but I have not found any independent reference to the gallery. The major result is for some form of light based therapy. This tends to prove that it is not (yet) notable
The article is also written as a point of view article, rather than as secondary research. This means that it is not acceptable in its current form. That doesn't mean it is not a great PR piece, it just means it is not a Wikipedia article yet.
The best way of saving the article is an immediate and total rewrite to render it notable and encyclopaedic. Notability requires assertion, so reading WP:Notability and conforming with it is vital. Assertion is done with citation of external sources which are independent of your own article and which have themselves a distinct notability. The thing that will not save it is rhetoric (I appreciate you have not used it).
With regard to the source of the information it is certainly permitted to quote your sources, including the gallery owner. This is best done with references because Wikipedia articles are never signed. I think WP:OWN covers this, but I may be mistaken.
Fiddle Faddle 06:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from one very helpful user, there hasn’t exactly been much in the way of useful feedback. I am good with cameras and EV’s which may or may not be “notable” clearly I am not good with writing articles; shame that only one user could find the time to be productive with their comments and explanations. The lack of response would seem to imply that many don’t really have an opinion one way or another, judging by the huge response on some AFd’s

I am a staunch believer in helping to develop people in areas where they are not so strong. I don’t exactly feel inspired to re-write something that is just going to receive one word/phrase answers. “delete” Surly if one feels so strongly about something, then logically they should be able to express that with more than one word/phrase/sentence.

I could probably re write it into one short paragraph that has little educational value and comply with all except “notability” but if the general consensus is that Photo Genesis isn’t notable there isn’t anything I can do about that.

Thank you for the warm welcome!

Photo Genesis 01:35, 24 September 2006 (BST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Kusma (討論) 19:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: A Clone Apart[edit]

No demonstration of notability. Only one episode and a trailer has been released [73]. Highly probable vanity. "A Clone Apart" gets 87 unique hits on Google. Drat (Talk) 22:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayland[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Silly joke. Leibniz 22:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Jepson[edit]

Tragic, but non notable Hu 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 02:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowball Keep. Tawker 16:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Levin[edit]

First nomination (2 January 2006)

Fails WP:BIO. Google test inconclusive, varied results. (The majority of the hits are his calls to help Freenode). WP does not have an article on the creator of DALnet, Dalvenjah, nor the original admin of EFnet, Greg Lindahl. Those networks have at times been much more popular (and are much more legendary in the IRC business) than Freenode. There is no reason to consider it as anything else. While Freenode more closely pushes its discussion topics toward GNU ideas and open-source software (including Wikimedia's IRC channels), it is still an IRC network like DALnet and EFnet are. It isn't notable enough to warrant anything other than an article about the network itself (which we have).

Page was a redirect to Peer-Directed Projects Center for a lengthy time, and the only reason for its resurrection into a non-WP:BIO article was his death. It has been resurrected several times in spite of the previous AfD, and the example containing the consensus of most editors for their reasoning is this:

Revision as of 09:42, 17 September 2006 (edit)

Stesch (Talk | contribs)
(Restoring page. There are currently many links pointing to this due to his recent death. Have a little respect, please.)

[74]

In the previous AfD debate, Rob himself told Ta bu shi da yu that an article about him wasn't notable. (The consensus of that Afd was delete.)

Links to the page are minimal and fixable. --JStalk 23:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to participants: It has come to my attention that User:Stevenkaye created a page on Greg after I submitted this AfD. --JStalk 00:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh a redirect is fine with me, by the way. --W.marsh 23:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this succeeds I'd like to see the redirect put back. But we don't really have AfR, and it is in essence a delete, so here we are. :) --JStalk 00:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
on a related topic, we need a policy to stop people from posting deletes until a month after a death. because, posting and discussing it now, seem to me to be gauche, if not entirely passe. --Buridan 00:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...unless the page was created because he died. --JStalk 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it can still wait a month without harming wikipedia at all, while allowing emotional attachments to fade. it could be argued, that doing it immediately, will only yield a biased sample of those that loved or disliked, and because of that, it shouldn't be done for a month, once people have gained distance.--Buridan 00:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...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.
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. —Pengo talk · contribs 02:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The death of each individual soldier is not given an article, Rob Levin's was. njaard 05:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, discounting SPA's. Mangojuicetalk 03:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Nellis[edit]

Suspected vanity page. Person clearly not encyclopedic Vic sinclair 23:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This "Information" is completely irrelevant to whether the article merits deletion or not and appears to be little more than an unfounded attempt to vilify those in support of keeping the page. Kroppie 18:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Letting knowledgable people know that the article is up for deletion so that we can share our insights and improve the page(examine the edit history)and fully wiki-fy it does not count as "meat puppeting". Oh, and don't forget to mention your personal vendetta against Andrew, Bishop.. err.. I mean "Vic". And again, this is hardly a vanity page since it's about a newsworthy person and the subject of the article has had no hand in proposing or editing or even supporting the existence of the article. Drvoke 18:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratherhaveaheart 21:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Faith Delete - I'd just like to point out that I suspect kultur's delete vote has been done in bad faith. He runs one of the businesses in Ottawa that was affected by the Panhandler's Union civil actions. As far as "Personal Info" as Vanity is concerned, maybe kultur has no idea what the point of a biography is, and maybe he'll nominate some other AfD's for biographies that have Personal sections in them(all). Or, he could just help us fully wikify the page and try to be constructive. This is wikipedia, so instead of suggesting that something be done, maybe he ought to help? Drvoke 23:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kultur lives in the US and not Ottawa, DrVoke. You'd know that if you paid more attention in #as (and #ps, before he was banned).69.194.35.109 02:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a valid reason? Wikipedia doesn't maintain articles as a sign of support of the subject's activities.
An A for effort, Fred, but you just shoehorned the reference into the article on Jane, by proxy of common affiliation with the IWW. That's not a relevant link. I'm sure a better connection can be made. Haven't they been arrested together or anything like that? "During a protest at the blahblahblah meeting, members of the local blah blah blah group, including Jane and fellow Ottawa activist and suspected ur-fascist Andrew "PoisonPen" Nellis, were hauled off by State-sanctioned stormtroopers for a severe talking-to." That sort of connection I'd consider a relevant link. 69.194.35.109 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are both members of the same branch of the IWW in the same city. I think that's a worth enough reason to link them. Andrew has never been arrested. Jane however has been arrested dozens of times and spent eight months in jail.--Fmaack 06:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so literal Fred, just rewrite the connection in a relevant form. The article on Jane isn't an article on other IWW members in Ottawa. 69.194.35.109 01:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jane's page now mentions that she was present during the May Day protest which was also organized by Andrew. That's a good enough link between the two if any.--Fmaack 06:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Alloggia[edit]

Vanity page, not notable. Leibniz 23:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Userfy to User:Jtab? Storkk 14:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no particular reason to userfy. Punkmorten 22:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 03:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge is a Dish Best Served Three Times[edit]

Just speculation. Literally no concrete facts except the episode name (which gets zero Google hits). --zenohockey 23:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's in the copyright database and [here]. Even if this page DOES get deleted, it will just be remade in a month or so, so it seems pointless. There are a LOT of other pages that you could go after for deletion. Why does it matter if this one exists a little early? -- Scorpion0422 23:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scorpion0422 - Richfife 00:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the COPYRIGHT DATABASE. Even if this article is deleted, it will just be recreated in a month, so I don't see the point. Don't believe me? Go here: http://www.copyright.gov/records/ and search for this: PAu-3-027-449. Besides, whats the difference between this page and the half dozen other future Simpsons episode pages? Or the dozens of future episode pages from other shows?
I don't doubt that there WILL be a Simpsons episode called "Revenge is a Dish Best Served Three Times," and that in the not-too-distant future, the article under discussion will be WP-worthy. The problem is that right now, this article is not worthy of being on WP, and judging by Google, it will not be for some time. Having a page of nothing but grade-D prognostication reflects badly on the incredibly well-documented pages for other Simpsons episodes. No Homers Club is calling WP a "bad media source", right alongside The Sun (!) and TV.com (!!). We're better than that.
Besides, it's not like it takes four hours to recreate the page once more details are released... --zenohockey 02:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about Ice Cream of Margie (With the Light Blue Hair), Kill Gil (Parts 1 and 2), The Haw-Hawed Couple and The Wife Aquatic? It's the COPYRIGHT DATABASE. You can't get more official than that. I hardly see how this is tabloid-esque speculation. It's not like it says anything unlikely or extremely speculative.
No plot is available yet, although the episode name suggests it will be about revenge and possibly Sideshow Bob (although Kelsey Grammer has not been announced as a guest star for this season) or Artie Ziff (Jon Lovitz HAS been announced for this season). The title also suggests that it could be an episode with three different stories.
That comment should be removed because it is just unsourced speculation. This will leave the article completely blank, essentially throwing it up for a CSD A1. When verifiable information is available, the article can be recreated. Remember everyone, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --Wafulz 03:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So how come The Mook, The Chef, the Wife and Her Homer, Please Homer Don't Hammer 'Em and several more episodes were not up for deletion when we knew squat about them? There are several we still know nothing about and nobody's rushing to put there articles up for deletion.

Listing Wikipedia as a bad sources disclaimer is because anyone can edit it, and it was added following the addition of an obviously fake title (Simpsons Christmas Stories II), and the last time I checked that page was still there. Just because somebody rightfully said that things posted on this website should be taken with a grain of salt, doesn't mean you can delete an article. It's in the copyright database, IT IS AN OFFICIAL TITLE.

What is the point of deleting an article when in a few weeks it will just be recreated?

I'd really love to know why we never get this sort of argument about any other episode we know nothing about!

I would too, because as I pointed out, there are at least four other SImpsons episode pages that are similar. And not to mention the fact that TWO fake episode pages existed for several months wothout being deleted! (Simpson Christmas Stories II and Simpson Witches). I hardly see why this page is worth targetting. -- Scorpion0422 20:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this page is deleted, the precedent it would set would prevent future fake-episode pages. And if there are currently any future-episode pages with as little real information as this one, they should be deleted too. --zenohockey 21:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely agreed. The fact that we miss some is not to be taken as condoning others. --Storkk 23:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Amalgam Comics. --- Deville (Talk) 02:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of metafictional Amalgam imprints[edit]

This isn't needed at all. It's fancruft. All the comics mentioned never existed. Fictional comics mentioned in Amalgam comics aren't very useful. RobJ1981 00:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Merge, then write a letter about the comic you didn't write about it. I wouldn't mind if the list were merged, sans details, to Amalgam Comics. "They invented a number of fictional past storylines such as... " etc. -HKMarks 22:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Kappler[edit]

Minor host of local public access cable show. Minimal GHits. Richfife 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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