< September 18	September 20 >

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

The result was Redirected Yomangani^talk 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon[edit]

Reason Hmr 15:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Nickelodeon (TV channel) Needs To Move To The Article Called Nickelodeon[reply]

• Comment: This AfD may be closed; required redirect has already been completed. --Satori Son 20:54, 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Minton[edit]

Delete. The subject of this article does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:BIO. His acclaim is not verified by any sources. ^{[Check Google hits]} shows about 1,300 results, but in the first 5 pages there are few mentions of him specifically. Most of the hits are for a writer and an antiques dealer who may or may not be the Joseph Minton in question. Prod tag (which I added) was removed. ... discospinster _talk 00:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' dot dot dot. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable.UberCryxic 00:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cautious Delete Notability seems to be an issue. The page was only created today, so obviously little work has been done on it. I think if verifiable claims of being shown at major exhibitions or museums can pop up, or multiple articles in periodicals perhaps the article deserves a spot. As the article is now, however, there is little to support his "claim to fame". Xiliquiern 00:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pending some claim to notability appropriate for an artist. FrozenPurpleCube 00:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize, I think I removed the tag while I was edditing this. I am the person who added the artist in the first place. I am a little new at this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr. Life Bender (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete actually I kind of like some of his paintings [1] (in particular The Drunk is nice, really). But I am afraid we have a problem with WP:BIO. Until we can find third-party reliable sources (and that won't be on the web, his website was all I could find) I'm afraid this has to get the axe. Pascal.Tesson 01:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

extra comment we should probably speedy delete the image though as it is quite clearly a copyright violation, unless of course Joseph Minton put it there but then we would have another problem... Pascal.Tesson 01:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no assertion of notability as an artist. NawlinWiki 05:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 15:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just invested some time in it.

--TWrex 00:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think this is a beneficial and applicable entry. The art is clearly real? --TWrex 01:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am the artist and I added the art after I received the request. My art is very dear to me and it is all privately held, I do not sell my art so it is rarely shown in the public (the sale of art is the common reason for a living persons art being displayed and few galleries show art that provides them with no profit). I do not hold the same level of fame as someone like Picasso or Pissarro and I fully understand if my work is not appropriate for your listings. I thank you for the time each of you invested in this. Perhaps it will be a better fit at a later date. Sincerely, Joseph —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JMinton (talk • contribs) 05:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if this matters but I did some more work on the page. --TWrex 00:23, 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 keep, no consensus. 1ne 07:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EU three[edit]

• Bush used this term in an interview with Wolf Blitzer Sept. 20th 2006

Comment: This is the reason I found this article to begin with. To view the video, go link here to CNN.com (direct link to video). My personal opinion is that this term might spread and become more commonly used in the future, so why delete the article when it might be required to recreate it later? Mastgrr 05:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-notable neologism. This will never be more than a stub. Try European Union and weapons of mass destruction, possibly. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:45, 8 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) 00:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Looking at a few articles from a Google search, it seems that the term has indeed entered the political vernacular in the UK and in the US (at least within the white house itself). The page could easily be expanded by providing brief chronological actions taken by the EU 3 and their repercussions, as well as comparing the common goals and interests of the member nations. The article needs expansion, and I believe it to be a valid topic. Xiliquiern 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I think that phrase is commonly used. I'm not sure I'd call it a neologism though. At the worst you could accuse this of being a dictdef and you might have a point but I disagree that there's no room for it to grow. For instance it could be extremely interesting if someone were able to trace how this informal group happened to form. I don't know and I'd certainly welcome an explanation. For instance, Germany's involvement in military affairs was pretty much unthinkable before reunification. It's yet another attempt by European countries to form some sort of coherent counterweight to the US in foreign affairs and should be documented as such. Pascal.Tesson 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to European Union. It might be commonly used, but there's too little to say about it for a separate article. JIP | Talk 05:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Never heard of it. EU politics is a constant circle of blocks forming and breaking-up over different policies. While these three countries may have a united approach to Iran (which is itself debatable), they differ over topics like federalism and agriculture subsidies. Catchpole 06:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Catchpole. Marcus22 09:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into EU per JIP. Signature^brendel 03:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for the record I strongly disagree with the above four comments. As I tried to explain in my keep opinion, there is probably a lot to say about this subject. I also suggest that anyone who "has never heard of it" is watching too much of CNN and FoxNews and not reading enough of Le Monde, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or foreign policy publications. The fact that "EU politics is a constant circle of blocks forming and breaking-up over different policies" is certainly the American point of view on the EU but it is debatable at best and even if that's the case, then isn't it precisely Wikipedia's role to document how and why these blocks and circles form and evolve? Note also that the merge to European Union is most certainly not an option as that page is already too long and not at all focused on such issues. Pascal.Tesson 16:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SecondedI absolutely agree. Xiliquiern 16:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't get CNN and FoxNews where I live. Neither do I read French or German newspapers, as they are not written in English. As an UK citizen living in the Netherlands I would say that the average man on the street would not be familiar with the EU three. It certainly has not entered the political vernacular in the UK. Either way the article needs to be rewritten to make clear that the phrase relates to the three countries recent policy towards Iran and not EU politics in general or renamed. Catchpole 19:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Isn't this term also moot, since France broke ranks? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment well this Google search for instance shows that however informal the group may be, the term "EU three" is in wide use even in the english media. [2] I still think a lot can be said about the subject. The fact that the current article does not say much shouldn't mean that it's not a valid topic. Pascal.Tesson 23:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The google search above demonstrates more that the term is Iran policy wonk jargon that has occassionally strayed into press reports than wide use in the english media. Note also that The Times has to append the 3 countries it refers to when it uses it [3] presumably because it recognises "EU three" is an unfamiliar term to its readers. Catchpole 07:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not sure how good a judge you are of things Pascal. Not only does Catchpole not received Fox or CNN as he appears to live in the Netherlands, but I do not receive them either as I live in France. And FYI I haven't heard the term on TF1 and I haven't noticed it in Le Montagne either - my local French paper. So Delete it still is. Sorry. Marcus22 19:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry to insist but if you haven't heard the term "troïka européenne" in the last few weeks then we are not reading the same french newspapers. [4] [5] [6] [7].

• Strong Delete: this term is a journalistic neologism used in the context of the nuclear talks with Iran. Since these talks include other non-European nations (eg, the USA), and those three countries generally act in concert in the context of those talks, it is convenient to refer to them as "the EU three". For example: «the US is calling for an ultimatum, while the "EU three" prefer to continue the talks without setting a deadline». However, this is only valid within the context of this specific international crisis; in other instances, those countries can easily be on opposing sides (see, for example, their stance on the Iraq war), and within other groups, you can have an "EU three" or "EU four" or "EU five" consisting of different countries, depending on the situation. 82.55.199.200 14:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not contesting that it is a convenient term and not much else. However it seems like a particularly good encyclopedia topic. Would you also recommend deleting the article "Collaboration of Germany, United Kingdom and France during the Iran nuclear crisis of 2005-2006"? I think "EU three" is just a convenient title for that article and one that is likely to be a search by users. Pascal.Tesson 20:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Extra comment I'm not sure why I'm fighting for this but I do think that the delete opinions expressed here are too weak. The fact that the common man has not heard the term is not an argument for deletion, especially since the common man doesn't read the foreign affairs section of his newspaper. I am certain that people who have followed closely the negotiations with Iran have heard the term or at lest recognize this group of countries to have had a particular, coherent role in this affair. In any case, this debate has focused on the notability of the term when in fact it should focus on the wisdom of keeping the content of the article. I think the content is uncontroversially valuable and we can always move the page to another article. Pascal.Tesson 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I dont like this: "especially since the common man doesn't read the foreign affairs section of his newspaper". All the more so because as with your other assumptions - that those who vote Delete live in the USA and only see US TV - you are mistaken. (I know that in my own case I have voted for delete because I have NOT previously encountered the term and I DO read both politics and EU matters in newspapers and on the internet. I also watch French mainstream TV and listen to France Inter. And I have heard no mention of the 'EU Three'. Consequently whilst I dont doubt that you have encountered the term I do doubt that it is both widespread and of note/significance). So please, no more assumptions about what others do or do not do. That is not the way to "win" an argument. Marcus22 19:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I meant no disrespect to you or, God forbid, the common man. But it's not uncommon for Wikipedia articles to be about little known things and the fact that 90% of people have not heard the term is beyond the point: it does not resolve the basic question of whether or not this is an encyclopedic topic. And I will say again that the debate should not be about the prevalence of the term but about the value of the content of the article. Certainly the history of this alliance would be an interesting contribution to the project. Pascal.Tesson 22:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as neologism. A term used in a speech, which will soon die out... and before you jump the gun, I live in Geneva and read the Tribune de Genève and Le Matin. So yes, I get European news and no, I've still never heard of it. --Storkk 23:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Xiliquiern. Markovich292 22:51, 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. 1ne 07:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kull (Inheritance)[edit]

All of the current info is already written in a better style here. The article is choppy and uncyclopedic. I vote delete. Hemhem20X6 00:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If necessary, add information from Kull to Urgal, as there is some slightly more specific information there. Xiliquiern 01:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What in this article isn't already in the Urgal article?Hemhem20X6 01:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I misread some of the information - you are right, the Kull article is redundant. Xiliquiern 01:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but then again, why exactly are we keeping the Urgal article? Per WP:FICT all this should be consolidated into one article about the universe of these books. Pascal.Tesson 01:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What in WP:FICT justifies deleting that article?Hemhem20X6 01:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where did you see Pascal.Tesson write the word "delete"? Uncle G 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sugarpinet/c 23:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Urgal, if it's a term likely to be searched for: I can't judge its notability since I'm unfamiliar with the topic (even after having read the article, hence "delete".) --Storkk 23:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Urgal. Markovich292 22:56, 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 keep. 1ne 07:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Hardt[edit]

Procederial nomination, contested PROD. Yanksox 01:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, LoriP is Dick Hardt's PR manager -- see http://www.sxip.com. This is a shill page.
• Weak keep, has citations, seems to pass WP:BIO. (For another one, here's a Wired News article that mentions Identity 2.0: 2005 article. Crystallina 03:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a fairly new and rather revolutionary field of digital identity that Dick has helped foster. Many companies are now involved with the "Identity 2.0" user-centric movement besides Sxip, including Microsoft, Red Hat, Novell and IBM to name a few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoriP (talk • contribs)
  • The number of google results on Identity 2.0 now numbers 321,000. A small sampling of other citations on Identity 2.0 over the past year: from MIT Technology Review Identity 2.0: An open-source identity management system could change the way we share personal information over the Internet, from ZDNet Why Web 2.0 needs Identity and Identity 1.x: Microsoft Live ID and Google Accounts and from Web Services Journal How Can We Best Make "The Writeable Web" A Responsible Place?, and Gartner Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoriP (talk • contribs)
• Keep, developed and marketed some very widely used software. Where's the article on ActiveState? Gazpacho 01:38, 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. 1ne 07:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Kaplowitz[edit]

I'm finishing up this nomination started by H0n0r (talk · contribs) but not completed. The objection is pretty clearly WP:BIO. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand why naysayers wish to delete this article. It is a fair, brief, objective description of a household name within American education circles, particularly conservative ones. Teach For America is the premier teacher training programs in the nation, and Kaplowitz's story represents the zeitgast of its failure. Moreover, Kaplowitz' later article was widely read and cited around the country, including articles in the National Review and Wall Street Journal. If you feel the article is incomplete, by all means expand it. But it is censorship to delete it without rational explanation. First off the "notability" criteria is not official Wikipedia policy; even if it were this entry would qualify under 4 different notability headings: newsworthiness, published and widely cited and reviewed, and a strong local character.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellis21 (talk • contribs)

• Delete and merge any relevant info into the Teach For America article. Serpent-A 01:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge as per Serpent-A. While I agree that TFA has its critics, and perhaps they need more space on Wikipedia, Josh Kaplowitz seems less an educational milestone than a minor watercooler story, and he is certainly not a "household name". His lawsuit is notable, and should be merged with TFA, but Kaplowitz as a bio article goes too far.H0n0r 21:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge relevant information into TFA article, which includes his article among its references but currently doesn't discuss his case and related criticism. Kaplowitz's sole claim to notability is his connection with Teach for America. A similar AfD a few months ago was Justin Layshock -- his sole claim to notability was his connection with myspace.com, so the relevant information from his article was moved into the myspace article. I'm sure Layshock got considerably more media attention than Kaplowitz, and I've seen nothing to suggest that Kaplowitz is a figure of major local importance to either DC or UVa. I'm neutral on whether the article should be deleted or turned into a redirect after the merge. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BIO and maybe a sentence of WP:NPOV. Sugarpinet/c 23:01, 20 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 23:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Misko[edit]

Incomplete nomination started by 198.169.188.225 who claimed in the edit history that the subject of the article was non-notable. Yomangani^talk 01:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:BIO states that notability is limited to "professionals whose work is widely recognized...and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." Currently, this individual fails that guideline. WP:BIO makes an exception for those individuals who are the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works," but this individual is only notable for being part of a team that won a national engineering contest, and being of a recipient of various student awards is also non-notable. - Runch 04:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Runch. JIP | Talk 05:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Graduated in 2005! Hardly a leading member of his profession yet then. -- Necrothesp 22:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A non-notable employee of a semi-notable (at best) company. Userfy? --Storkk 23:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Runch. Markovich292 22:58, 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 keep. 1ne 07:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Budde[edit]

Prior nomination was closed as "speedy keep" without an explanation and without sufficient discussion. As it stands, collectable card game players should rarely be considered notable themselves, and amount of winning ($300,000) is not sufficiently notable either (as it does not distinguish him from any successful, but non-notable, member of another profession). Delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following for deletion, based on the same rationale:

• Jon Finkel (see prior nomination.)

• Strong Keep on both. Kai Budde is a winner of a MTG World Championship, is notable enough that he is the top-rated Pro player in the game. Jon Finkel is also a World Championship winner, and No. 2 behind Kai Budde in ratings. MTG may be a new game, and perhaps not quite as big as poker or chess, but it's still a significant business, and as such, the top players deserve an article. And that's not even getting into the issues behind the proposal. FrozenPurpleCube 01:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for both. While MTG may not be as popular as other card games, the top players therein remain well known with a relatively large following of individuals. Xiliquiern 01:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete both. They've won some Magic: The Gathering tournaments? How does that make them notable? I'm sorry, but I think you need to do something besides win some CCG tournaments to be notable. TJ Spyke 01:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the world championship. Maybe WP:BIO can shed some light if you're unclear what makes them notable. WilyD 12:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd recommend contacting the closing admin or taking this to WP:DRV if you have a problem with the outcome of the previous AFD. Yomangani^talk 01:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded - bad faith nomination, speedy close DRV is how you contest AfD results, not via immediately doing another AfD. AfDs done soon after eachother without being because of DRV are strongly frowned upon. LinaMishima 03:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:DRV is usually used for reviewing deletions. Since this article was not deleted, DRV is not particularly appropriate. --Nlu (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Nlu here. Mangojuice^talk 05:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last time I checked, WP:DRV was the place to contest all AfD discussions, both deletes and keeps. It doesn't really matter, though. Oh, and keep, top five professional sportspeople are notable (with "sports" inclusing things like chess, go, etc.) Kusma (討論) 08:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Do not confuse "notable" with being a "household name". According to WP:BIO, Kai Budde is notable as an athlete. The spirit of the term applies here, and athletes gain notability within there own sport, not across sports. It isn't the amount of money Kai won, it's that no one has earned more doing the same thing. Jay32183 01:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That presumes that Magic can be considered a sport. Do we want to really add articles for top bass fishers, top players at horseshoes (whatever the term would be for them), and top chickendancers? (And each of those is covered on TV, whereas Magic is not.) --Nlu (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, M:TG world championships were broadcast on ESPN2 at one point. It didn't do that well, mainly because it's not exciting to watch (like poker), but unlike poker, most people don't know the rules. Still, it happened. Mangojuice^talk 05:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable bass fishers: Michael Iaconelli, Luke Clausen, Roland Martin, etc. -- Plutortalkcontribs 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep both. Jon Finkel is the subject of a book published by Random House: I will admit, his article needs to be refocused, since he is now much more well-known for his poker accomplishments than his M:TG ones. And while we're at it, there's no new reason here (or in the speedy kept debate) for deletion other than notability, which was adequately settled in the first debate. Kai Budde meets the WP:BIO criteria. There are plenty of sources out there on him; see this for instance, which is a published book, that describes Kai as "the best player in the world as of this writing." Lots of columns published on the Wizards site too. If it needs better sourcing, it should be fixed, not deleted. Let me add: under consideration, I don't think MTG or other CCG (or, really, any non-mainstream sport) competitors should automatically become notable for being in a professional league: I wouldn't think that EVERY professional tournament player would deserve an article. However, both Finkel and Budde could be considered "other professionals whose work is widely recognized and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record in their field", and both have been the subject of multiple MTG-related columns, and most importantly, WP:BIO is not intended to be exclusionary. Mangojuice^talk 05:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As this article stands, it does not meet the criteria at WP:BIO and badly needs sourcing. Sources should be included in the article, not the AfD debate. It takes a very broad interpretation to fit these subjects under the category of "athlete." The first bullet was not intended for participants in a leisure activity; it would require another broad interpretation, this time of "field." It does bring into question the inclusion of articles on poker players, champion backgammon players, chess grandmssters, and any other indoor game of skill; and Nlu does bring up a good point of where we draw the line at inclusion of champions of a particular activity. WP:BIO draws a fine line, and I could see an argument for broadening the notability criteria to include champions of popular activities. But that debate is for the policy page. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 11:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment If a verifiable citation of a reliable third-party source can be included in the articles outside of an article by WOTC for the purpose of demonstrating the subjects are "widely recognized" as performing at the highest level, I could be persuaded to change my position on CCG players inclusion. This has to be addressed in both articles. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I pointed out a book describing Kai as the best player in the world, and there's a book written about Finkel. Don't those count? Mangojuice^talk 18:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:OBVIOUS - passes most reasonable use of WP:BIO (as an athlete), 40K ghits (frankly I'm surprised it's that low) et cetera. Everyone who plays an inning of OF is entitled to encyclopaedic recognition per WP:BIO - methinks if the comparison to an athlete fails the holistics of WP:BIO are pretty obvious. Both have lots of reliable, third party coverage. WilyD 12:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, perhaps speedily again for Finkel. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, highly successful professional player of a widely played game. —ptk✰fgs 15:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I stop short - but just short - of agreeing that this a bad faith nomination, but I have big problems with nom's handling of this issue. There are venues on Wikipedia to argue for the general non-notability of CCG players (although given that there are articles on world-class chess, poker, backgammon and Scrabble players, it's a crock), but an ambush AfD of a World Champion in a professional circuit is certainly not one. And winning "only" $300,000 isn't notable? Policy forbids me to respond with the appropriate degree of incredulity, but Wikipedia has numerous articles for professional golfers with lifetime earnings lower than Budde's (Deane Beman, Tony Jacklin, Bob Shearer, Johnny Pott, Orville Moody ...). RGTraynor 16:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Being one of the best at any sport/game that is played international is considered notable. MTG is played across the world and is printed in numerous languages, such as, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish (see wikipedia article on MTG). - Darkchun 14:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to start adding articles for International Science Olympiad champions? --Nlu (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might get away with that, but it is streching the principle further. MtG is a game, not a sport, sure, but it's one with a large following, professionally organised tournaments and press coverage (i.e. ESPN2) - I don't know if the OIs are comparable (after all, I've known OI competitors and I don't think any received noticable press coverage). WilyD 19:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to start deleting articles for Chess Olympiad? I see at least a half a dozen articles there with no claim to notablity besides being on a national team. And ISO has a few articles with players with no notablity outside of the competiton. FrozenPurpleCube 20:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the comments above, very notable according to WP:BIO guideline. Yamaguchi先生 21:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, and per previous analogy to Scrabble, dominoes and backgammon champions in another AfD. -- Grev 05:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, reasoning for nomination is flawed: there are hundreds of articles on sportspeople who are non-notable outside their profession, including a significant number of people on this list and other lists like it. Budde also passes WP:BIO on the first bullet point in my opinion: The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. Just because his "field" was a CCG doesn't make his contribution less recognized. QmunkE 13:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the verifiable citations of this subject being "widely recognized?" -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would imagine that he would be featured in numerous trading card game magazines, websites, forums (not quite as 'professional', but still a form of notability) and from ESPN2 when MTG championships were shown.Xiliquiern 13:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quick Google search turns up over 200,000 results, of which most of the first page are Magic based news sites, then further down a more independent site: [8]. I'd say this probably also falls partly under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Popular culture and fiction - there aren't going to be many journals and the like about Budde however the reliability of sources such as the Wizards of the Coast website and [www.starcitygames.com] aren't really in doubt. QmunkE 15:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your inline link is really a press release from WOTC republished on that site. The problem with citations from WOTC is that they are the makers of the product and would naturally want to hype it through a large tournament. It doesn't demonstrate that the event's participants are "widely recognized." Citations of coverage of the event in Scrye or InQuest Gamer would be better evidence that the subject is widely recognized. One big problem is that the claims of notability in this AfD aren't backed up by verifiable citations in the articles. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And what you're doing now is being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Are you genuinely suggesting that a former World Champion and the lifetime career earnings leader in a game's pro circuit is not notable within that field? (If so, could you tell us what within that field you do consider notable?) You could, with just as much justification, claim that the notability of many prominent scientists only stems from scientific journals and thus aren't "widely recognized." RGTraynor 16:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A line still has to be drawn somewhere on notability within profession -- depending on what that profession is and whether that profession is itself notable. I'm sure that there are professions for which even the most notable people within the profession can be agreed on as being not sufficiently notable overall to be included. The question is whether professional Magic-playing is such a profession. I think it is. --Nlu (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the line is drawn here, then we might as well delete all the players of any CCG, as well as a good chunk of Scrabble, dominoes, and other "traditional" game champions. As stated, Kai is the winningest player of the game ever. He will get in the game's Hall of Fame on the first ballot (he's not eligible yet), and the only other player of the game that even comes close to him in notability is Jon Finkel. To be less argumentative, my line is drawn at Hall of Fame members, World Champions, and players who are notable in other fields (like David Williams). -- Grev 18:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • They still have to meet the criteria of being "widely recognized." Promotion by WOTC doesn't cut it as a WP:RS. This is because coverage by WOTC is inherently unobjective; they want these people to seem notable. This isn't new; it's the same standard we apply for NCAA athletes. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two things: (1) WOTC employs semi-independent columnists. Sure, they write about and promote MTG, but I see no reason to doubt their authority when they describe someone as a prominent player. (2) I'd stop pushing the point about WOTC and independence. You've made your point, clearly and cogently. The best thing now is to see if people end up agreeing or disagreeing with it. Mangojuice^talk 19:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malber: DALLAS (October 10, 2005) --- An exclusive interview with World Champion Kai Budde highlights the newest edition of Beckett Magic The Gathering #3 which will hit newsstands and subscribers later this month. If a magazine produced by Beckett isn't notable and independent enough for you, tell me what will. FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sugarpinet/c 23:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on both. MTG's most well-known competitive players are just as notable as most pro-sports players or, for that matter, pop-culture writers. Anyone who cares about CCGs should have a use for this article. However, the article on Kai Budde may need to be better-Wikified.Blue Crest 01:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep* With a bit of incredulity that it's up for AfD SirFozzie 23:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep* For all the resons above and flabbergasted it's even here on AfD CodyM 17:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both per Darkchun. Markovich292 23:03, 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 (sorry, can't think of a witty phrase). -- Steel 23:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raging Fetus[edit]

Delete. All signs point to hoax. They're from Fetusville, Alaska. ^{[Check Google hits]} "Raging Fetus" brings up some MySpace pages and forums with people by that username. No proof that the albums exist, or that "death techno" exists for that matter. I originally added a prod tag but an anonymous user removed it. Someone please abort. ... discospinster _talk 02:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually they're not from Fetusville, Alaska dumbass. they're just such a big band they can't release their hometown otherwise it would draw to much tourism and take away from New Yorks tourism and economically destroy the United States of America. Raging Fetus is completely patriotic and thow releaseing their hometown would increase their profits ten fold, it would oddly enough force the economy to collapse on itself.....you retard. duh

SAVE THE FETUS!!!. This is completely true, I am a long-time fan of the band. http://www.myspace.com/ragingfetus DO NOT DELETE THIS ENTRY PLEASE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.99.43 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 68.40.99.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• DON'T DELETE RAGING FETUS! It's true and accurate and should be left on. User:49.28.11.71 — Possible single purpose account: 49.28.11.71 (talk) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Miscarry Danny Lilithborne 02:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN, bandcruft. FrozenPurpleCube 02:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's Wikipedia's encycopedia, it's Wikipedia's choice (to require WP:V).-- danntm ^T _C 02:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. ""Raging fetus" band" produces even fewer Google hits, nearly all from Myspace. If not a hoax (WP:HOAX), it certainly fails WP:BAND. - Runch 04:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abort per above --Shirahadasha 04:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unverified, probable hoax, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC even if true. NawlinWiki 20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• THIS BAND ROXXORZ!!!11 THEY ARE TEH NOTABUL, THEY EVAN HAVE A MYSPACE AND ARE FREINDS WITH TOM!!!1!!2!1! (that was a Delete, btw). Wavy G 00:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as either a hoax or a non-notable band. Prolog 15:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: Someone put this thing out of its misery already and block 49.28.11.71 for blanking this AfD in bad faith. ju66l3r 19:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Having a my space account does not meet WP:MUSIC (of course if some how information is dug up showing that they meet WP:MUSIC, then I'm all for keeping AmitDeshwar 01:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seriously doubt it. Note that the article reads like a complete joke ("Every CD they release pushes the boundries as best record ever"). Come on. OH, not to mention the curiosity of a virutally unheard-of "Death Techno" band having an "MTV Uplugged" album in 1997? Wavy G 02:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Use a condom or contraceptives next time. Storkk 23:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Runch. Markovich292 23:05, 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. It has been transwikied already (see below). alphaChimp^(talk) 00:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How To Burn A Disc On iTunes[edit]

Wikipedia isn't the place for tutorials, which are not encyclopedic. With this title and subject matter, the article could never be improved to an encyclopedic level, anyway. I put a prod (proposed-deletion) notice on the article, but it was removed without explanation, so I'm moving the discussion here. Switchercat ^talk_cont 02:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there are wikis where such would be acceptable, like WikiHow or such. FrozenPurpleCube 03:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or place for how-to guides, see WP:NOT. Crystallina 03:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, per Crystallina. - Runch 04:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• TransWiki to WikiHow --Shirahadasha 04:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or transwiki to WikiHow. JIP | Talk 05:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• TransWiki to WikiHow with a cleanup -- Klacquement 08:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT a how-to-guide, transwiki to WikiHow. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 09:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOT Step 1: Nominate Step 2: Delete. --Charlesknight 10:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. Transwiki is okay, but does anyone really need a tutorial for this?-- danntm ^T _C 14:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This one is easy. Delete --CPAScott 16:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT --Alex ^(talk) 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ramsquire 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT, not as if my input is needed... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a how-to guide. Prolog 16:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT Sugarpinet/c 23:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- WP:NOT - Longhair 13:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per above. --Storkk 23:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - Article now copied to b:Transwiki:How To Burn A Disc On iTunes. There is a wikibook that deals with iTunes, so this material will be incorporated if it isn't already covered. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 10:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Now incorporated into b:ILife_06/iTunes/Burning_CDs_from_iTunes. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 11:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per all above. Markovich292 23:06, 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 a (not so) speedy close because AfD is not for proposing merges. Grandmasterka 04:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for Alcohol-Free Sports TV[edit]

Insufficiently notable for separate article: merge with Center for Science in the Public Interest THB 20:27, 8 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 03:29, 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 delete. Next time, use ((db-bio)) for articles with no assertion of notability. Grandmasterka 04:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhom(rapper)[edit]

Clearly non-notable person. He's only 17! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing special about him. No verifiability to him (Myspace doesn't count as a reliable source) Wikipedia is not for personal websites. Kevin_b_er 03:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacking notability. Xiliquiern 04:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete nnbio. Danny Lilithborne 04:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:BAND and WP:VAIN. - Runch 04:20, 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Carnations[edit]

I have reason to believe that most or all of this article is a hoax. Google brings up next to nothing about a band with this name in London. (Most are about a band in Toronto.) Response I have seen this band play and they can be reached on the UK search page of google.. Martin I cannot verify any of the claims in this article. (Those citation links are not citations.) The original author has repeatedly removed others' tags, including my cleanup and needs sources tags. The Gene (band) page does not mention the individual who was supposedly a former member from this band. Response I don't believe the individual was ever in Gene nor does the article claim this Delete unless sourced. Grandmasterka 04:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice The Lovegods have no mention on Wikipedia or Google.. presumably they don't exist either.. or perhaps that have not achieved suffiecient notoriety yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.168.174 (talk • contribs)

• delete this is either an entirely non-notable band or it's just a plain old hoax. Either way flush it down the interhyperweb toilet. --Charlesknight 10:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - don't think notability is there yet --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep i know this band! They are a big indie band in East London!! I have one of their records.. they are quite good John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.168.174 (talk • contribs)

I entirely agree with the summations posted. The band has no notability nor sufficient prominence to be included in this encyclopedia and like many aspiring bands are merely trying to use this site as a vehicle for publicity. I eagerly await their swift removal, so that we can all get on with our lives, and so that they too can join the pioneers of indie such as Art Brut, Hefner and let's not forget the not forgotten Special Needs (now renamed The Needs) who rose to success through the notoriety of obscurity.. rock on! The band definately exist though and it's not a hoax.. I promise

Surreyboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.168.174 (talk • contribs)

• Delete per gross violation of WP:MUSIC --Storkk 23:25, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDUCANG[edit]

Nonnotable institutional neologism, delete --Peta 04:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's not a neologism, it's the name of an institution that owns and operates a number of notable educational institutions. - Richfife 04:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Per above. --dtony 07:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, not a neologism, but fails WP:CORP with a feeble 96 distinct Google hits and few other remarkable aspects. By the way, the article about the only one of these 'notable eductaional institutions' with its own entry badly needs a rewrite ("our Middle School"?). Fram 07:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Lack of a wikipedia article does not mean lack of notability. The schools in question appear to cumulatively have an enrollment about 3000. They are conservative religious schools, which probably explains the low Google hit count - Richfife 22:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I would treat this organization as if it were a governmental school district, which is probably the closest comparison available. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: - This is their website, which gives absolutely no information other than acting as a portal to the 5 schools concerned. Are they notable? Fails WP:CORP to me. LOUD COMPANY NAME ALSO! (but that has no bearing on my decision). -- Longhair 12:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 00:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not a neologism, although it is an acronym. It is a company name and as such I would need a bit more information to decide why to delete, keep by default for me as I cannot see the harm in recognising a body which runs schools... Ansell 00:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Longhair. Arbusto 22:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spammish-non-notable-per-WP:CORP oddity. --Storkk 23:27, 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mac2pc[edit]

This article is a nonsense article about a project that does not exist, and it contains a teaser link leading to a rambling article, called Click Here, that seems to be just a joke. The article also references Safari Windows, an article that was deleted on the 18th of September. perardi 04:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN, quality poor, most of the links at google go to a sourceforge page on a utility to convert files.FrozenPurpleCube
• Delete both this and Click Here as either crystal ballism or blatant hoaxes. JIP | Talk 05:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. Danny Lilithborne 07:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete etc. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonsense. Possibly vanity. Nothing worth keeping. AlistairMcMillan 18:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Until it was deleted, "Click Here" was a redirect to Internet fraud. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:26, 20 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, however, I blanked and listed it at WP:CP since it's cut and pasted from their website. The Manjit Minhas article wasn't tagged with the afd tag so this result doesn't concern it. It's probably also a copyvio but I can't find a source for it. - Bobet 09:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinder minhas - now at Ravinder Minhas[edit]

vanity page, npov Doldrums 04:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:VANITY. Chuffable 07:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Arrrr, vanity article. Walk the plank. MER-C 08:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:VSCA --151.200.246.168 09:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Clear vanity. A ridiculous article.UberCryxic 15:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as well as his sister, Manjit Minhas (Doldrums didn't research enough.) --72.75.117.73 20:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've actually heard of this guy, because I live in Alberta--he's on a commercial for his beer. I sure don't think he deserves an article, though. Tom Stringham 03:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. He is quite notable in Alberta. Has been subject of numerous newspaper/media articles.

Major News Publications about him:

Maclean's Magazine: http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/business/article.jsp?content=20050815_110500_110500

The Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050506.wcareercoach07/BNStory/specialSmallBusiness/

On News Radio: http://interact.cbc.ca/pipermail/hotsheets/2004-November/000087.html

Calgary Sun: http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Jackson_Paul/2006/04/01/1515906.html

Calgary Herald: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=035bc0d1-cfd5-4865-8315-0df748617d78

I would say he meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." AmitDeshwar 01:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At the very least the first two of those are independent reliable sources about the individual. Thus, the WP:BIO criteria are met. However, they (and possibly some of the others) should be used to improve the article and added to it as references. Additionally, the article should be moved to the proper capitalization. GRBerry

• Agree with your comments: The article needs improvement and should be capitalizedAmitDeshwar 16:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BIO criteria, though the vanity aspects should be written out. Tewfik^Talk 18:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please per grberry the bio critieria are met here Yuckfoo 01:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AmitDeshwar, and continue to improve from the sources provided. Yamaguchi先生 22:40, 29 September 2006

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. This site is clealy notable. Its deletion outside of notability criteria is beyond the scope of AfD. You can either present immediate issues to the administrator noticeboard/s, or seek a special mandate from the Arbitration Committee or from members of the Foundation. El_C 07:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stormfront (website)[edit]

massive vandalism through sock/meat puppets (evidence provided), doesn't satisfy 'notability', article is an advertisement, discussion and arguments below Stick to the Facts 04:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Stormfront (website) wikipedia article has been embroiled in a massive edit war for several days. I uncovered evidence of sock puppetry/meat puppetry on a massive scale (see below). The editors continue to scrap other editors' contributions, including one with 11 cites that was claimed to be inappropriate due to "original research".

The article is, in my opinion, essentially being used as an extension of the Stormfront forums. There is only the weakest form of criticism permitted in the article. It has the look of a recruiting tool for the 'organization' including a link to a page where donations can be made.

The editors continue to reinsert a link to a donations page on the Stormfront website. There is no indication that Stormfront is a non-profit organization, a status that must be applied for and must meet rigorous requirements including rigid tax reporting requirements and fiscal spending constraints. At least, no one has alleged that it has such status and it is extremely doubtful that such an 'organization' would qualify.

The Stormfront forum also contains a post to recruit editors to 'keep an eye on' the Stormfront article dated September 14th: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:seUEv9D__TQJ:www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php

Many new people began editing the Stormfront wiki article on sept 15th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stormfront_%28website%29&limit=250&action=history

User Brimba's user contributions page - began heavy editing of Stormfront article beginning Sept

15th http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Brimba

User Conserve's user contributions page - account first used to edit on Sept 13th, has only edited

Stormfront articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Conserve

User Magnetic's contributions page - account first used to edit on Sept 13th, has only edited Stormfront articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Magnetics

User ExplicitImplicity's contributions page, created account Sept 11th, first edit was stormfront article on Sept 13th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=ExplicitImplicity

User Alecmconroy's contributions page, began editing stormfront article heavily Sept 16th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=Alecmconroy

User UberCryxic's contributions page, began editing stormfront article heavily Sept. 16th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=UberCryxic

Alecmconroy's talk page, showing solicitations from UberCryxic to assist in reverting pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alecmconroy&oldid=76349940

UberCryxic's talk page, showing messages from Alecmconroy discussing reversion strategy to avoid violating 3RR: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UberCryxic&oldid=76147892

Poison sf is also in this group, I believe, and is the only one who has been editing since before September 11, 2006.Stick to the Facts 04:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not going to attempt to explain in how many ways this person's account of events is wrong, but I agree with the fundamental point that this article should be deleted.UberCryxic 05:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not sure if I get a vote or not since I posted the tag, but... As for notability - I also believe the article should be deleted on that basis. Its 'notability' appears to stem merely from a concerted attack on a tv news dial in vote on whether or not people would want a segregated prom. Ironically, people solicited voters on the Stormfront website and stuffed the ballot box so that the results were not announced and Stormfront was named as the culprit. One or two pranks doesn't seem to satisfy notability. It seems that most of the articles that are cited that are alleged to be about Stormfront are actually about Don Black. Perhaps I'm wrong. Stick to the Facts 05:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite The site is execrable, the creators are scumbags and there is nothing I would like more than for them to go away, but... They are notable. 553,000 GHits for "stormfront.org". Wikipedia is not censored. - Richfife 05:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article only an ad for a discussion board. Non encyclopedic. It can be listed on list of nazi sites, in articles about nazis, holocaust denial and so on. as it is now, it's just spam. Amoruso 05:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The subject of the article is only mildy notable. It's been mentioned in a couple of CNN stories, but, it's right on the edge. I did to support having it around, but it's hard to see this article as being much more than a stub. We are having a hard time covering the subject neutrally, just because of a lack of secondary sources that talk about the subject. So, it's a toss up, but i tend to error on the side of not deleteing. --Alecmconroy 05:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD is concerned with what an article could be more than what it is. I think the article should be semi-protected, at the very least, and then someone should write a completely dry, boring article covering just the facts and nothing else. Nothing pisses off a neo-nazi more than people yawning - Richfife 05:31, 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. HappyCamper 02:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rageh Omaar Launches Rabina Khan's new Book at Borders Oxford St in London[edit]

An article for a book launch? The event did happen, the article was already deleted when it was created as an announcement of a book launch to come and is now back as a reort of the happening. The event is real (Rabina Khan + Borders gets 32 distinct Google hits, some of them about the launch), but is extremely non notable, and worthy of perhaps one line in an article about the author or the book. I can't see anyway ever using this title in the search box either... Fram 05:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WTF? - Richfife 05:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge heavily condensed to Rabina Khan. JIP | Talk 05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Instantaneous Delete - It is possible that Rabina Khan is notable (although this is her first and only book, it is a little dubious.) It is barely possible that her book deserves a separate article. But the book launch party for the book? Out!!! --Brianyoumans 05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete news article. Danny Lilithborne 07:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG and right now Delete before it gets reduced to 2 for £5. --Charlesknight 09:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not PR Newswire.-- danntm ^T _C 14:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. This is ridiculous. - Runch 23:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Holy Freaking Christ Speedy Delete Damn.....UberCryxic 00:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• User Husond proposes Delete this new article at Borders Oxford St in London.--Húsönd 02:57, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer and video game settings[edit]

Unverified and original research. I've nominated this article for deletion before. However there was no consensus, so the AfD defaulted to keep, with many users suggesting that the article should be cleaned up with citations added. Even so, it's already been around for two months and still no one has bothered to clean it up or add sources. I'm also starting to doubt the article can be cleaned up, since many of the listed "clichés" are either:

1. Seen in other forms of media, and not specifically related to video games. For example, Area 51-related facilities appear commonly in all science fiction related media, not just video games.
2. Due to technological restrictions, such as cities having fewer builings than what one would see in a real city.
3. Appear commonly in real life, so they can't really be considered as a "cliché". This includes settings such as jungles, deserts, grasslands, and forests.

Also note that similar articles to this one have been deleted before, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer and video game character stereotypes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fighting game character stereotypes --TBCTaLk?!? 05:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just so much navel-gazing - Richfife 05:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Cleanup preferably with a volunteer to improve it. Although I could accept moving the content into a wikibook if somebody is working on something suitable. FrozenPurpleCube 05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I've mentioned aboved, it can't really be cleaned up since most of the cliches are either seen in other forms of media, due to technological restrictions, or appear commonly in real life. Either way, wouldn't it be better for it to be transwiki'd to a gaming wiki instead of wikibooks?--TBCTaLk?!? 05:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That something is a cliche in another media/genre (and may well be mentioned in an article about that media/genre, or cliches in it) actually helps convince me that it should be included. See for example Science fiction themes. As to technological restrictions, in fact I was actually thinking that that explanation should be included in the article (when I saw the 255 and 65535 I thought to myself, that I really should explain the memory issues behind htat). As for existing in the Real World, that too doesn't bother me, as the character of an inclusion can be relevant. Once again, see SFT. Clones exist in the real world, yes, and even Robots. But the issues brought up in Science Fiction about them are still important. Video Games being a different and less communicative media may not have the same depth of meaning (and due to their relative newness have a lot less depth of research and respectiiblity), but that doesn't mean they don't have any, or that expanding it is not a good idea. That said, if you care to name a suggested wiki to move it to, I'll be glad to support it. I'd look, but you seem more involved in the situation, so you might remember something from past discussions. FrozenPurpleCube 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if most of the cliches in the list apply to all media forms, what's the point of having a seperate article on one for video games? Also, it isn't considered a cliche if it's unintentional, such as due to technological restrictions. After all, note that a cliche is defined as "a phrase, expression, or idea that has been overused to the point of losing its intended force or novelty". This also applies to things that exist commmonly in real life, which are seen in video games due to common sense, not for an intended force or novelty. As for a good wiki to transwiki it to, I reccommend Encyclopedia Gamia.--TBCTaLk?!? 07:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because computers and video games are a seperate and distinct media, that often have their own genres which are not directly comparable to the genres in say books and film, that's why. It's a question of presentation, they are different enough that they can't be linked. Your objections as to whether or not any particular thing constitute a cliche more properly belong in a discussion about the article, not in a VfD, but I note that if you examine the various entries under cliches (like the Doctor Who cliches, cliches in animation, and probably others), you'll find many of the same things. So you may have a lot of work to do. FrozenPurpleCube 14:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And since you brought up EG, if you want to make the transfers, and get a consensus agreement on that, it would seem to qualify, but you'll have to check with its members to see if they'll accept the concept. FrozenPurpleCube 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is defined as a place for "Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted". I feel that the article should be deleted since all of the listed cliches are technically not cliches, thus AfD is a perfect place for it to be discussed. Also, you don't need the consent of Encyclopedia Gamia to tranwiki an article there, since they are a wiki as well.--TBCTaLk?!? 19:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reason that articles like Doctor Who cliches and cliches in animation exist, is that there are cliches that are specific to that series/genre, whereas this article is simply listing cliches that have existed in all forms of media, such as Area 51, jungle, grassland, etc. settings.--TBCTaLk?!? 19:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't concur with you that all of the items are not cliches, as I've read more than a few articles which mention those things. Sorry, not sufficient. And note, cliches in animation is as specific a genre as video and computer games, in fact, there are some overlaps with the two. FrozenPurpleCube 23:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I do respect your opinions, if there really are "a few articles which mention those things", then why haven't you referenced them in the article? Also, if the cliches of animation and other forms of media "overlap" with video games, then what's the point of having a seperate article for video game cliches?--TBCTaLk?!? 05:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I find funny is that you could have asked for it to be moved without an AfD, why did you chose to go about it this way and not ask the people who have contributed to the article to move it, and maybe even started a discussion on the WikiProject CVG page? Last I checked AfDs should not be used for cleanup. Havok (T/C/c) 07:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though I admit that transwiki'ing is certaintly a possibily, I'm personally advocating for the page to be deleted. Also, as I've stated before, I feel that the article can't be cleaned up since so much of the article is original research, that if the original research were to be removed, the article wouldn't have enough content to merit either a seperate article or stub. As for mentioning it on the WikiProject CVG page, the WikiProject has already been notified of this discussion through Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Deletion.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, why did you not start a discussion before you put it up for deletion? Going around deleting things is bad practice, specially for the people who have worked on said article. Starting a dialog and trying to come to an agreement first might be the best way to handle such matters. Example, like I stated, you could have asked for it to be moved to another Wiki and forgo the AfD all together. You had several choices in the matter, and you chose to AfD it and at the same time step on the toes of the editors behind the article. Havok (T/C/c) 07:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't AfD itself a discussion? As quoted from Wikietiquette, please remember that this "debate is not a vote; [but a place for] recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." Also, as I've stated above, note that I'm not advocating for the article to be traswiki'd; I'm advocating for it to be deleted.--TBCTaLk?!? 07:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom Bwithh 16:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, articles always can be cleaned up. By the way, those voting for "delete" should note that a deletion poll for Computer and video game item clichés was started a bit ago here, with the majority of the users voting "keep" due to similar reasons. --Nkcs 18:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First of all, what about the AfD's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer and video game character stereotypes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fighting game character stereotypes, which both recieved a majority of delete votes?. Also, as I've noted before, this article can't be cleaned up since all of these "cliches" are either:

1. Seen in other forms of media, and not specifically related to video games. For example, Area 51-related facilities appear commonly in all science fiction related media, not just video games.
2. Due to technological restrictions, such as cities having fewer builings than what one would see in a real city.
3. Appear commonly in real life, so they can't really be considered as a "cliché". This includes settings such as jungles, deserts, grasslands, and forests.--TBCTaLk?!? 19:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane _talk 03:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems valid to me. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AfD is not a way to clean something up. If you want something moved to another Wiki, or cleaned up. You ask for that, you don't AfD it. You can use the ((Move to gaming wiki)) tag, or ((cleanup)), as an AfD is worthless in this case. Havok (T/C/c) 05:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; WP:NOT for indiscriminate collections of crufty WP:OR. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the stereotypes/cliches listed do exist in the real world and other forms of media (why this makes them not cliches I do not know), there are definitely unique things that can be said of them and their significance to video games in particular. The way something like a Lava World or Ice World setting is used in a video game (and the rapid juxtaposition of these things as video game levels) clearly differs from the cliched use of a Lava World or Ice World as literary settings, and they are probably far less recognised as cliches there as well. The article rambles and probably needs cleaning up (as you said) but I'm not convinced this isn't a good starting point. And again, the fact that there are tropical islands in the real world, and as the settings for many things, does not mean you can't say anything about it with regards to its use in video games as the typical brightly coloured first level, etc. Do you think this article would be valid if it looked at typical literary settings and the devices each tended to use? Despite the possibly large number shared settings that that article would have with one like this, the discussion in an article like that would differ greatly from one like this simply because they ARE different media and the settings clearly have vastly different uses for them. Being stuck on a glacier in a video game means you probably carry a lot of momentum when you move which makes comlex platform jumping much more difficult. It means something very different in a movie or a novel. --Rankler 15:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An article on or list of cliches in film and fiction is hardly comparable. People have written books and articles, made TV programmes, and given courses on those topics. They are not original research. The only sources for this article, on the other hand, were the observations of the editors. If and when someone writes about this in a reliable, then there should be an article on WP, but not before. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and this article contains nothing else. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Categorizing worlds found in video games and determining them to be cliches makes this entire article and its premise original research. Wickethewok 18:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. YechielMan 22:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Rankler. —SHININGEYES 22:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Seconded Keep SAMAS 04:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not sure why this was AfD'd. In response to the OP, (1) is not necessarily an argument for deleting this article, it could be seen as an argument that we need also an article for typical sci-fi settings. (2) Inadequacies of architecture in emulating settings is a fair mention in an article for computer and videogames. Still not a reason for deletion. (3) So they're not cliches. Alright. But that is an argument to remove this article from the cliche category, not to delete it. -- Solberg 08:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
  • Comment In response to your comments: (1) Please explain how it can be seen as an argument for creating a sci-fi cliche list. Also, ironically, there use to be a sci-fi cliche list, but it was previously deleted on AfD. (2) But why do we have to have a seperate list for them? Can't we keep information on technical restrictions in the articles on games in which they occur? (3) This article is a list of cliches. If none of them are cliches, then what's the point of keeping this article?--TBCTaLk?!? 09:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to #3 is simple - rename the page, perhaps to 'Typical computer and video game settings' or something. One can easily fold in reason #2 within it, explain that these come about due to technical restrictions. Also, I think a major point of this is not just that they exist, but are often "within the game world" bizzaringly in proxminity. As for #1, well, if you can't see why then you're probably not going to be convinced. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this article were to be changed from a list of cliches to a list of "Typical computer and video game settings", this list would become unmaintainable, like the the List of firearms in video games article. After all, since there are thousands of video game settings out there and it isn't clearly defined how typical typical settings have to be, then basically any video game setting could be added to the article.--TBCTaLk?!? 18:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Angus McLellan. Markovich292 23:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Solberg. —Coat of Arms (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As an actual gamer, I can recognise many of these level types, and I certainly would consider them to be clichés. The article lists common types of obstacle or enemy found in several of the levels, which are clichés. The article also describes many things that have nothing to do with technical restrictions and are largely exclusive to video games - for example, shops where the proprietor charges someone for items necessary to save the world, lava that collects in pools and doesn't harm those who approach it, and fire-based weaponry that continues to work underwater. The lack of citations is certainly a problem, but I'm sure it could be overcome with careful research. Actually, I don't see why the games themselves can't be cited as evidence. RobbieG 15:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cleanup, and rename to Computer and video game environments. The current title made me think it was a list of program settings/options. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 12:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per RobbieG and Wrathchild. The Kinslayer 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Angus McLellan, Tewfik^Talk 18:55, 27 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jem Cain[edit]

Political candidate, no evidence that he meet BIO, delete. --Peta 05:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Arrrr, ye doesn't seem notable outside election. Walk the plank. MER-C 08:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - looks like someone on his campaign staff created it as a WP:VANITY page for the upcoming local election. --151.200.246.168 09:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Candidates for local elections are just a little too non-notable. -- Necrothesp 22:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 00:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unelected candidates aren't generally notable just for being candidates. --Storkk 23:30, 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog curse[edit]

Looks like original research to me. Google produces no sign of it, the only results coming from Wikipedia/mirrors. Article fails to cite sources as well, and all indications point to this being something that the article creator just happened to notice. -Elmer Clark 05:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete With only 3 or 4 exceptions, sports curses are never notable - Richfife 05:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Arrr, walk the plank as above. MER-C 08:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Storkk 23:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Markovich292 23:13, 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Guerrilla events[edit]

Listcruft. We don't need a page listing each and every event ever for a pro wrestling promotion. RobJ1981 05:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as just listcruft. TJ Spyke 05:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 05:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Arrr, ye listcruft. Walk the plank per nom. Arrr. MER-C 08:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Markovich292 23:15, 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROH: Round Robin Challenge[edit]

Non-notable wrestling event TJ Spyke 21:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a non-notable event. Edgecution 01:47, 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, Mangojuice^talk 05:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - so far from notability and other guidelines/policies that it hardly merits discussion. --Storkk 23:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Markovich292 23:15, 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Animal[edit]

A magazine which scores well under a thousand Googles (complicated by the existence of a similarly titled magazine in Sydney, Australia). Unsourced, most of the top ghits are spam. So: a worthy endeavour but of no objectively provable significance. Guy 21:44, 8 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, Mangojuice^talk 05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mangojuice^talk 05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails all guidelines and policies for inclusion, including WP:CORP. --Storkk 23:32, 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. Sango123 15:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike baroni[edit]

• DeletevUnsourced and not particularly noteworthy Downunda 05:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article doesn't have an AfD template on it, it has a prod. Danny Lilithborne 07:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Arrrr ye vanity article. Walk the plank. (By the way, I've changed the prod to an afd). MER-C 08:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't decide but I'll keep but it needs some major copyediting work and formatting on it. Sugarpinet/c 23:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced, and not even a solid assertion of meeting WP:BIO criteria. GRBerry 13:56, 24 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Huff[edit]

A nicely put together article; unfortunately, the subject does not meet WP:BIO criteria as far as I can tell. If this article is deleted, the related article Tynas (a "language" created by the subject) should also be deleted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable person. Based on the username of the creater(Chuffable), it could be a vanity article, so it fails WP:VANITY as well. TJ Spyke 06:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Figured I'd know the most about it. Fair enough, do as you wish. Chuffable 06:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 06:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I have formally listed the Tynas article by adding the AFD1 template to that article with the link pointing here. Erechtheus 06:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both articles per above rationales and creator/subject's acceptance. Erechtheus 06:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but best of luck with your work. --Charlesknight 10:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 14:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity.--Húsönd 03:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm the original poster of this article and the Tynas article and I request deletion because it's been vandalized, as well as for all the aforementioned reasons. Chuffable 03:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Markovich292 23:18, 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. Sango123 15:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-Systems[edit]

An article about a non-notable company, written with all probability by the founder and CEO himself. Since May with a notability tag, but nobody proved its notability till now. So I decided to AfD it. Ioannes Pragensis 07:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Arrrr, ye non-notable company. Walk the plank. MER-C 08:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nigel ^(Talk) 12:29, 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Botme[edit]

Almost purely spam with no real assertion of notability. The article is also starting to become a link farm. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 07:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Arrr, ye spam. Walk the plank. MER-C 08:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom. Nigel ^(Talk) 12:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - are you kidding me? Wow is that a stupid article. YechielMan 22:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Botme? Even the name sounds spammy. -- TheGreatLlama ^{(speak to the Llama!)} 00:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MER-C. Markovich292 23:20, 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. Sango123 15:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stringbeans[edit]

Textbook vanispamcruftisement. Prod removed by author. My vote's Delete, of course. Danny Lilithborne 07:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to green bean or just delete and let someone else set it up for an appropriate target. GassyGuy 08:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Onebravemonkey 08:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Arrr, walk the plank per nom. MER-C 08:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - spam. BTLizard 11:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:VSCA indeed. Pascal.Tesson 18:26, 20 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. Sango123 15:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ezhava Tharavads[edit]

The listing is unencyclopedic, and unverifiable (per User:Deepujoseph). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Since I was the one who had originally prod'd the article, I must outline my reasons more specifically here. The article tries to list families belonging to the Ezhava caste of Hinduism. There are thousands of such families in India, and hence it is totally un-encyclopedic to have such a listing. The references given does not substantiate the claims, hence the article fails on verifiablity too. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Also see the related AfD for List of Nair Tharavadus here-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 08:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably hazardous to even begin to comment on this without a background on the subject, but I feel it worth pointing out that there are hundreds of pages on Wikipedia that serve the sole purpose of being redlink graveyards for caste family names. I think it's a big problem on the English Wikipedia, and one that would take an even bigger amount of work (and ad nauseum discouragement) to solve. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (per User:Deepujoseph).Clt13 10:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Serves no purpose other than indulging the smug fancy of some casteists.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kuntan (talk • contribs) .
• Delete per nom. Markovich292 23:21, 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. Sango123 15:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paraball[edit]

Non-notable game invented in a laboratory. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paraball/Temp for a discussion of a related article, as well as WP:NFT for guideline.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up by bored scientists one day. Danny Lilithborne 08:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's just another version of Bottle-knee, Roofball, etc., etc., etc. Yomangani^talk 10:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Charlesknight 10:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BTLizard 11:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Markovich292 23:21, 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 speedy keep. MER-C 09:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy[edit]

Out of scope for an encyclopedia, this is news, not knowledge. --Pjacobi 08:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - article is currently featured on the main page (see point 6), Brendanfox 08:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even more an indication for Wikipedia moving from encylcopedia to news portal. --Pjacobi 08:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just happens to be that current events are, by virtue of current news reporting, much easier to research. It just happens to be that researching old world events needs some extra work, but when it comes to current events, everyone's practically dumping references here with a wheelbarrow, because there's a lot of stuff, easy to find. It would make it a lot easier to research, say, the beginning of World War 1, if all of a sudden, half of Internet-based newspapers screamed "that one guy shot the other guy" and reported on all fascinating details of the case, don't you think? Instead, people have to bother going to the library to look at the big books. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a frivolous nomination, I guess. Everything worth knowing about history was news in its day. Azate 08:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pjacobi is just out to prove a point [9] with this nomination. Azate 08:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - clearly a very notable event with lasting influence on Islam-Christianity relations. --Ioannes Pragensis 08:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I understand the reasoning and aims behind the nom, but you're going to find it difficult to draw a line between news and knowledge. In any case, this article is valid. Onebravemonkey 08:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Per Azate and Brendanfox. I see your point. Kyaa the Catlord 09:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite Keep - I agree with Azate's view that this is a frivilous nomination. Wikikob 09:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yep, it goes in the category of "A relatively minor news event with disproportionate amount of sourcing and text", which I find just as weird as anyone else (We probably need "Eventspedia" that would lie somewhere between Wikinews and Wikipedia), but I wouldn't condemn this article just yet. I believe it's warranted now; let's take a look at it next year and re-evaluate what impact it had, shall we? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:18, 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. Sango123 15:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V.J.Reji Vasanth[edit]

Contested prod, vanity, non-notable person. MER-C 08:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete along with Mibiz Group as WP:VSCA created by Mibizreji ... his talk page has the same information! --151.200.246.168 09:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per VSCA, neither is notable, next to nothing links to either, almost no Google hits, etc etc. -->So sayeth Methnor^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}.

The related Mibiz Group is added to this deletion debate, reason: WP:VSCA. MER-C 09:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment restored the AfD after Mibizreji deleted it. --72.75.117.73 20:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete nnbio. Danny Lilithborne 10:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. So depressing to have to read this rubbish. BTLizard 12:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yarr this be deleted per above. --Nishkid64 13:44, 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POIP and QoS[edit]

Non notable neologism. Prod removed by author. No google hits for POIP with the explanation, or POIP with the inventor of the neologism. Fails thus WP:V Fram 08:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Ioannes Pragensis 09:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 10:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 11:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "serves no useful purpose". That'll do for me. BTLizard 12:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Plain Old Internet Phooey. Onebravemonkey 12:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above: confusing, and no one is going to look this up. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:05, 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. Sango123 15:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Carleschi[edit]

Non notable political activist. Catchpole 09:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 11:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, somewhat reluctantly. He looks as if he may be of interest in the next few years, but I don't think he's there yet. It would be helpful to to have some Scottish input as to what all this really adds up to, particularly in terms of SNP organisations. BTLizard

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- Glen 09:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dannychoo[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 09:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:VSCA --151.200.246.168 09:29, 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. —Centrx→talk • 04:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samineni narsaiah[edit]

Vanity, not notable. Contested prod. MER-C 09:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. - Triviaa 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sugarpinet/c 23:06, 20 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. — CharlotteWebb 17:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vedanta Resources[edit]

Little more than a re-write of the company's web-site, possible copyvio. Markb 10:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite - company satisfies WP:CORP. MER-C 11:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rewrite; company listed on the London Stock Exchange; many Google news hits including Bloomberg and Forbes. ergot 14:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CORP. Meets first criteria, "The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications." Company is listed on London Stock Exchange and FTSE 100 Index. --Satori Son 13:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Satori Son Doctor BrunoTalk 16:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepGLGerman 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)GLGerman[reply]
• Keep per satorison.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Company is a billion dollar company which is listed on London Stock Exchange. Majority owner in Bharat aluminium company whcih is one of the top three Aluminium producers in India. But it doesn't have a huge public or media profile --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 19:05, 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 flagged as copyvio. MER-C 11:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SibSoft[edit]

Advert, questionable notability, POV Cordless Larry 10:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Advertising. Just company info. Like "Luxoft" and other companies available on Wiki. SibSoft Ltd SibSoft

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 19:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OculusGen[edit]

Contested prod about a non-notable product. MER-C 10:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reads like an advertisement, Doesn't assert notability. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 15:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obvious advertisement. --72.75.117.73 20:58, 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 per author request. Flowerparty^☀ 16:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portable Components[edit]

Contested prod about non-notable software. MER-C 10:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I found the page with guidelines for software, according with these guidelines: please remove the page (pschojer, author)
• I have added a ((db-author)) to the page as per Pschojer's request. ... discospinster _talk 15:13, 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. Sango123 19:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Creation[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 10:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've already prodded three other articles by same creator for being spam for non notable software/companies. If contested, they'll turn up soon as well. Fram 12:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just look at the history. You could put this in a sandwich. BTLizard 12:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom. PJM 12:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GMAP Consulting added to this AfD now after prod was removed by anonymous editor. More articles may follow (MICROVISION, CAMEO, RollCall and Data Exchange, all by same editor about same company, all prodded). Fram 13:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAMEO added as well, see reasoning above. Fram 13:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Vehement delete all of them. Wikipedia articles should be written in plain English. This business "incorporates profiling and data mining services in order to produce a list of target segments." Wow! A list of target segments! For MOI? Just what I always wanted. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:08, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E. M. Washington[edit]

Delete seems to have a notable grandfather and had a minor mention in one article in 2004 when he was accused of making copies of his grandfather's work. Maybe worth a line on his grandfather's article but that seems to be it. Charlesknight 10:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with grandfather's article. Sugarpinet/c 23:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - no verifiable grandfather on whom to base an article! Bridgeplayer 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've seen enough work on eBay and at other auctions attributed to E.M. Washington. It's all (to the best of my ability to tell) recent work, mostly on old paper, much of it copying older prints. They're significant as forgeries. Given that there doesn't seem to be any evidence that E.M. Washington (the grandfather) was a printmaker, the article should be about the grandson or E.M. Washington as an entity. But that's just my 2 cents. cbustapeck 03:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sourced, verifiable and encyclopaedic. Oh, and interesting :-) Bridgeplayer 02:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both links to the same Forbes article; fails WP:BIO. Tewfik^Talk 19:11, 27 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. Sango123 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number One Baby[edit]

Unverifiable, fails WP:V. External links do not mention the subject, no Google hits for the subject, no sources. Article was prodded but removed by different editor than the author (both rather new editors). Fram 10:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless properly sourced. PJM 12:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Xio99 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, highly likely to be a hoax -- the "Japanese" phrase cited, "私は第1 赤ん坊、私持っている鉄のグリップをである", bears very little relation to grammatical Japanese, but coincidentally does happen to be roughly what you'd get if somebody who spoke no Japanese at all attempted to produce a Japanese equivalent of the English "translation" by looking up the words one by one in a dictionary. — Haeleth Talk 19:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I was going to say what Haeleth said about the Japanese text. It makes no sense. --Kunzite 01:25, 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 Speedy delete a7 per MER-C. NawlinWiki 14:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clemdev Omniglov[edit]

Delete seems to fail WP:BIO - he's called a "politician" but that could mean anything. I can find no information AT ALL about this person besides a link back to the wikipedia article Charlesknight 11:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - I don't see an assertion of notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 12:51, 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, nomination withdrawn and no other delete opinions expressed. GRBerry 12:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hays (Pittsburgh)[edit]

Delete - I just realised I could be noming this due to a difference in terminology but we will see. A neigbourhood (which in the uk is a very small area but I've just realised could mean something else in the states) would be entirely non-notable. If not I'll get to work on my Berwyn View article Charlesknight 11:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there is some precedence for keeping this sort of article, though personally I'd prefer to see this as part of a larger article on Neighborhoods of Pittsburgh. This could redirect to the master article and be broken out into an individual article if and when enough information exists to support more than a stub. I'd do it but the only thing I know about Pittsburgh is that they produce Iron City Beer...--Isotope23 16:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nevermind... I just noticed there already is a list of Pittsburgh Neighborhoods linked in the article.--Isotope23 16:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just for my future reference - is there a policy on neighbourhoods and notability? are they inherently notable --Charlesknight 17:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there is no policy or guideline here... I can completely see why you initiated this AfD. in practice though, physical places like cities, towns, etc, usually get kept. As far as neighborhoods, it gets a bit murkier as you start to get into "what defines a neighborhood". I only speak for myself, but personally I have no problem with a "neighborhood" article as long as it can be reliably sourced that a specific area of a city is refered to by a specific name. In this case it would appear that Hays is a term used for this area. Personally, I don't believe anything is "inherently notable".--Isotope23 19:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for reference, here is a map of the area in question. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a primarily industrial area set between various low-income residential neighborhoods that used to be mill housing. It used to be classified as an independent borough,[10], not sure whether it still technically is or not. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Apparently, it's also rather notoriously flood-prone.[11]. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, It may just be the Pennsylvanian in me speaking, or that I'm unwilling to set a precedent of deleting neighborhoods, but I believe established neighborboods in cities can be notable.-- danntm ^T _C 20:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Districts of cities are notable. -- Necrothesp 22:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is where the langage difference comes in - is a district a neighbourhood? --Charlesknight 22:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the term generically to mean an area, not a formal sub-division. "The neighbourhood" in the UK usually just means "the locality", not an area with a name as it does in the US. I think we'd generically call that a "district". -- Necrothesp 23:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm convinced - what's the process for me closing this AFD?

--Charlesknight 23:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As it stands, it is a rather useless stub, and I could still argue for it to be deleted as there lacks any assertion of notability. Someone familiar with the "neighbourhood" would do well to dress up the article with an explanation of the name, what there is, etc. Ohconfucius 04:48, 20 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. Possibly rename, possibly merge, but retain nonetheless. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 E2 K[edit]

Re-nominated for deletion after speedy tag was (correctly) removed by another editor. Original reason included below. I believe this should be deleted, but the nom was simply in order to move this deletion to the proper process. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 11:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original db-reason, by User:Mbeychok:

At least 90 percent of the visitors to Wikipedia probably have no notion of what 1 E2 K means, so why choose that cryptic title? In any event, the article is simply a list of useless trivia.

Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 11:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixing "cryptic titles" is a matter of renaming the article, not deleting it. And the article is part of a series of Orders of magnitude (temperature). Tables of the temperatures of various phase changes (at SAP) and of other things are common in encyclopaedias and reference works for the physical sciences. Here's one from a physics textbook. Here's one from an encyclopaedia. Here's a set of reference tables from a chemistry textbook. Wikipedia should not be less of a reference work than they. Keep. Uncle G 12:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does 1 E2 K mean? Recury 14:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read Orders of magnitude (temperature), as already linked to, and it should be clear. Then read Help:Renaming (moving) a page. Uncle G 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information --Roninbk 14:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is fortunate, then, that the information in this article is not indiscriminate. See above. Uncle G 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, having articles on individual orders of magnitude is a very strange idea, but only deleting this one wouldn't help. I might support some kind of mass merge of these kinds of articles into their respective scales or some kind of list. Recury 17:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (along with all of the similar articles) to Orders of magnitude (temperature). Recury 00:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Data, although you should probably rename this article, or redistribute into sections of similar relations (all the temperatures in one table, for example). No harm in having an example list, just the format is bizzare.Kdcarver 19:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Part of a limited, interesting and encyclopedic set of articles on orders of magnitude. Wikipedia is not paper. These articles are also being used for article links in places. But if necessary they can always be merged. (E.g. Orders of magnitude (length).) — RJH (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the data into the Orders of magnitude (temperature) article. I'd like to point out to everyone that there seems to be a whole series of these articles, in various steps from 1 E-12 K all the way to 1 E30 K. The titles are misleading, and many only contain a line or two of information. - Valarauka(T/C) 23:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I went ahead and merged all of the articles' info into the main one; the 1 E2 K article in particular had a lot more detail and was already tabulated nicely (unlike the others, which are mostly a couple of lines each), so I just made a new section for it and copied the whole table over; seemed like the easiest way to do it. I've put prod tags on all the others, and this one can be deleted without worry now. - Valarauka(T/C) 05:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, as RJH pointed out to me, there are a lot of articles linking in to these "1 Ex K" pages, so I think it makes more sense to Redirect all of them to Orders of magnitude (temperature).
• Merge per Valarauka. The information seems more useful if collected together. The current title makes no sense out of context, and probably need not be retained as a redirect. Espresso Addict 00:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and consider merging since there are complete sets of these pages for many units. Rich Farmbrough, 12:51 22 September 2006 (GMT).
• Keep and Rename as above 1 E2 K is a strangely cryptic title. I don't really have a clear idea what the new title should be, but all of the similar 1 Ex K pages should probably be renamed in a standard manner. Perhaps "Temperatures from 100 to 1000 Kelvin" or something readable like that. Cool3 19:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but maybe all the 1 EX K pages should be merged together. Lorty 15:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plainly a Keep but the titles need sorting. Bridgeplayer 01:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Orders of magnitude (temperature), Tewfik^Talk 19:13, 27 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 a1, no content, and WP:SNOW per comments below. NawlinWiki 14:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cringe[edit]

Strong Delete This is not even an article. It's a rumor on a book that may be written in 2010 with no information? It should not be here. Rabid 02:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - no context (csd a1). Tagged as such. MER-C 12:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Faster than light Delete - This barely merits the single line mention it gets on O+A's article... Onebravemonkey 12:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as above. Piece of rubbish. BTLizard 12:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 12:49, 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. —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.P.A.M. Records[edit]

Unsoureced hearsay, as far as we know its made up, not much on google. del this article is on a non-notable entity. Guaguis 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ironic delete per nom. MER-C 12:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nigel ^(Talk) 12:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 12:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Delete, Delete, beans and Delete. (Beans are off). Onebravemonkey 12:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: not really notable, but not made up. It was a garage record label out in Oakland, CA... only was ever heard of because of some of its extreme activist songs it produced. Article is made by a fan though, and doesn't accurately represent S.P.A.M.'s extremist nature (the only reason it might be notable). Utopianheaven 12:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sugarpinet/c 23:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Please see the talk page for many links to S.P.A.M. Records - it doesn't show up on Google because the word spam is a dirty word in internet-land - but the label was called that well before the use of spam to describe junk mail. The recent 10-year anniversary of Geekfest (a music festival that S.P.A.M. was the official sponsor of) booked over 40 bands and drew large crowds for several days at underground venues in Oakland, and S.P.A.M. itself released over 50 records before its dissolution.--Johngeek 02:48, 24 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. —Mets501 (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concord Cup[edit]

Minor amateur golf event. Most of the Google hits are for a youth soccer tournament or a rowing tournament, each with the same name. blameless 11:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin: note redirect, please. blameless 01:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a significant event in Michigan. It receives many more hits on ASK.COM than the Soccer and Rowing tournament.

The last comment was mine, but I've signed in now. I'd also like to point out that the article does not fall into any of the categories identified in "What Wikipedia is not." Granted, it's not an event with national following, but there are many non-participants that follow the event which gives it greater status as a valid entry in a large encyclopedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rfgeorge (talk • contribs) .

• Delete - entirely non-notable local golf tournament. Bridgeplayer 02:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable event, Tewfik^Talk 19:15, 27 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. Sango123 19:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITI Consulting[edit]

Not notable Cordless Larry 12:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - spammy as well. MER-C 12:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- but not speedy as notablity tags only added today (and new article today), time should be given for author to establish notability - standard 5 day AFD discussion should suffice. Asp 12:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above, but at least I was able to figure out from the article what this spammer was selling. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Markovich292 23:27, 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. Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 06:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kuntayithote[edit]

Non-notable place. Couldn't find a single Google reference to this name or its alternate Kuntayithode. Since no references are cited, I suspect that this article violates the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Suttungr 12:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article should be kept. Google gave you no results merely because there is no standardisation about transliterating Malayalam words or names in English. You can google Kundayithode and find at least a dozen references. There is nothing original about it and that will be later made clear. As such I can only cite certain research papers and that will be done shortly. A word about Google Fallacy: Search kozhikoad on Google and tell me how many results you get. That was how Calicut or Kozhikode or Kozhikkode or Kozhikkot was spelt for more than a century when Kozhikode Taluk was referred to. Kuntan 13:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then can you give us the Malayalam script and some sources for it? They can be book sources too and someone can verify them. But you do need to cite sources. gren グレン 15:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pending verification. Even small towns are notable. Google may be of small help searching for pages in Malayalam. This needs a fair amount of cleanup. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If you check the edit history, you will see I had mixed feelings about it, before deciding it should be kept. But I think any place that exists should be in Wiki should be listed. --ArmadilloFromHell 18:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE this speaks more of one family than the place.

• • "Any place that exists" doesn't work. Notability is not a blanket. The patch of grassland to the side of my house exists, and I can point to government documents that are authoritative on the subject. It doesn't deserve an encyclopaedia article. Places that are notable are notable by dint of having lots of stuff published about them, from census reports to local history books. Uncle G 19:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This place is not listed in the India 700K Project by either spelling. Yes, this place appears to exist. I can find people who put this on their mailing addresses, such as this rubber company. It's also a parish of the Syro-Malabar Church. But that's all that I can find about it. I have been unable to find a source that confirms a single sentence in this article as currently written. Uncle G 19:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep pending better sourcing on notability. Ramsquire 20:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless a source ascertaining its notability could be find. I am looking for a pointer to an article in a Malyalam newspaper online, a scan from an article in Malayalam magazine or some such. I can find scores of mentions online of the street where I live but that doesn't make it notable. Tintin (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question The article says something about "After devastation by the flood many archeological objects which lay buried for centuries came out. The maritime artifacts suggested the existence of a busy port there." Which flood is this referring to? Earlier in the article a flood in 1963 is mentioned, but this quote is from an entierly different paragraph. I suspect, but am not certian that the flood this referrs to might be the 2004 tsunami, in which case I wonder if the place this article is talking about is the "lost city" exposed by the 2004 tsunami mentioned in this article? If so, then keep and do a drastic clean-up. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This place has nothing to do with Tsunami. This is in the west coast of India and that side was not touched by the tsunami. The "lost city" in the east coast, some 60 km south of Chennai. Tintin (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article comments: The article was meant as an innocuous hoax. It is hightime it went. Please delete it as soon as possible. Kuntayithote is a highly non-notable place (nowadays, a busstop) off Calicut. It is not worthy of an artlcle on Wiki.Kuntan 06:05, 26 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]

• Speedy delete - "An international student popularized by the thesis written on the human psyche." isn't an assertion of notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 13:31, 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. Sango123 19:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oney[edit]

Non-notable emoticon variant used on a chat forum. Weregerbil 12:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - borders on nonsense and per nom. MER-C 13:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as above. BTLizard 13:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources (and why would there be?). I hate the internet sometimes... Recury 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - How can you have a disambiguation page for pages that do not exist??? --72.75.117.73 21:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note -- page was changed from "emoticon" to a disambiguation page (of a sort) in mid-AfD. 131.111.8.102 01:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• makes sense to me let them have the darn thing. who are you all to judge it? get over yourselves.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicdva (talk • contribs) 04:00, 23 September 2006

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

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

The result was delete. —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italia blue[edit]

This lady appears a long way off satisfying WP:BIO or WP:PORN BIO Ohconfucius 13:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not properly sourced either. PJM 14:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:VSCA, along with Pyros by the same author. --72.75.117.73 21:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the author of this can't be bothered formatting it correctly to give her some justice, then neither can I. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 82.55.199.200 14:30, 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. Until your religion has achieved notability, enWiki is not the place to proselytize. Sorry. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliottism[edit]

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

Unverifiable nonsense. Deletion notice removed several times without comment. Delete. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 13:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not delete, this is a real religion and not a practical joke. I am a member of the church and it is offensive to delete the article on my religion. Thankyou Wikiusers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.248.172.67 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment. It's not a valid subject for an article unless you can reference it with external sources. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 13:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unverifiable and non-notable. MER-C 13:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just another imaginary religion. BTLizard 13:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• How can you call my religion imaginary. That is quite an offensive comment. I only pray my Lord does not find it as offensive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.248.172.67 (talk • contribs)
• Delete Obvious WP:NFT. Seems we get one of these every week at least. This one's no more amusing than any of the others. Fan-1967 14:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above, and I will call it imaginary until proven otherwise. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am a very strong follower of the religion "Elliottism". I find it insulting when members from other religions question our faith and what we believe in. Elliottism has been kept quiet for many years. It isn't a world wide religion, but now Elliott and his followers have decided we should try and make it worldwide.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.133.87 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete as imaginary or insignificant or both. If you're keeping something secret, you probably shouldn't put it in an encyclopedia; if you're trying to garner publicity, Wikipedia isn't the place for it (because of, among other things, WP:NPOV). If few people know about it, chances are no one (or almost no one) is going to look it up in Wikipedia.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - We have over 200 hundred members of Elliottism and we wanted to let other people know about the interesting rituals we perform . Seeing as Wikepedia is used to find out about many different religions and cultures we thought it would be acceptable to inform people of the goings on in our Town. We do not wish to upset, insult or force anybody to join our religion.

  We just want to let people who view Wikepedia to find out interesting things that happen around our area. Now if you have a problem with that, your stopping people from doing what they came to do in the first place, which is research information in Wikepedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.133.87 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment: Wikipedia can't hold all information ever found. You need to assert notability if you want the article to be kept. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 17:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Many other religions and cults seem to have a page. Elliottism is no different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.94.68 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-19 17:31:41
  • Comment: Yes, it is different... this article has no reliable sources to comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Many people use Wikipedia as a source of research. Wikipedias articles on religion are no different. Elliottism is an article that can be used by someone researching my beliefs. the whole concept is well known in our area, and could benifit people in other parts of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.94.68 (talk • contribs)
• Strong Delete Yay, the religion of the week Afd! Seriously, as with the others that are made up in school one day, delete. Wildthing61476 17:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a primary source for information about your religion. Show us coverage of this religion from reliable sources if you want this article to be kept. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 17:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Comment - Okay, well if you want some sources tell us what kind of sources you mean. We may have made it up ourselves, but if more than a certain amount of people believe in Elliottism it is in fact a religion. Also it's exciting and for everyone 1 person who thinks it's a complete waste of time, there are about 5 people who are laughing and saying "wow, thats pretty cool, what a funky website, i might come on here more often".. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.133.87 (talk • contribs)

Again, there are other websites to do this on, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is designed to be an encyclopedia, not a hosting of someone's idea of a "religion" just because it's "funky" or "pretty cool". Again, if you have verifiable independent sources stating why this is notable, then the article can stay. Wildthing61476 18:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this person the Elliott Wragg that the religion worships? If so, delete. Actually, delete the article anyway. It appears to be a complete hoax, and Wikipedia isn't meant for such things. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - No i'm not Elliott Wragg, and am i not allowed to use words that people can actually understand? Such as "Pretty cool" and "Funky". We have published our religion on many other sights and they find it quite interesting that people like ourselves can come up with ideas like this. If you think it's a hoax then think differently, the religion is very real and will never end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.133.87 (talk • contribs)

• This has nothing to do with whether it's "real". I guess these "many other sights" are ones that google and yahoo search can't find, because everything we can find is that Wikipedia is the first place it's been posted, and Wikipedia never wants to be a groundbreaker for anything. We only publish things that we can Verify from other Reliable Sources. Fan-1967 19:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NFT. -->So sayeth Methnor^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}
• Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Yes, your right the websites or any facts on Elliottism doesn't show up on google or yahoo, I have just attempted it myself, so i apologise for the trouble you have taken on trying to find facts about Elliottism. But to try and keep Elliottism on board, can you please specify on sources, what would you need to keep Elliottism on Wikepedia?..Or do you want to ban it completly off your website?..Signed - Rocky Johnson (i been signing most of the arguments back) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.133.87 (talk • contribs)

• See Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Without coverage from sources like that, deletion is pretty much automatic. Fan-1967 20:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - ...and i also don't think it's fair when people who support Elliottism get there comments deleted off this debate. People who support Elliottism are stating for having Information on Elliottism on Wikepedia, like you are stating to delete it. Everyone had their own views and i don't think it's fair that you should delete or edit what they think..Signed :RJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.133.87 (talk • contribs)
• Comment One comment was removed, and it was a blatant personal attack. Wildthing61476 20:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC) (also, please sign your post with four tildes)[reply]
  • Comment Not only that, but the comment was not in support of your "religion" (it said, to wit, "Keep because it's hilarious and the creator of the religion is pathetic"). Danny Lilithborne 20:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Oh I see, How is it a personal attack?, by calling Elliott Pathetic I take it?..The reliable sources will be sorted sooner in the future, but for now, one has to complete some unfinished work and go to sleep. Oh and by the Way Danny Lilithborne...I love the fact your prized possesion is a teddy bear, i would use the word adorable =). Goodnight to everyone! xx"hugs"xx Signed: RJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.133.87 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Ted E. Bear says "This page is bollocks." Danny Lilithborne 20:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I was only saying good night, i am human you know, i like to wish people a pleasant sleep even if its on a debate page. So don't say its bollocks because it isn't, just because i am a nice person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.133.87 (talk • contribs)
• Delete - Nothing notable about a cult with only 200 members ... there are social clubs with local chapters larger than that which are not listed in Wikipedia. --72.75.117.73 21:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very good, but a bible allegedly written on some beer mats in the local watering hole, 200 members, The "church buildings" are private residences. WP:NFT and WP:-O Amen, Ohconfucius 05:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe these cult idiots will commit a mass suicide. Otherwise, it's not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YechielMan (talk • contribs)
• Excuse me. Whether this is true or not true, i think it should be respected by all, maybe it is a real religion and you hypocrites are downing it because of it's member numbers! I think you should all grow up and respect other people's views and religions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.14.146 (talk • contribs)
• Comment There is no liable reason to delete this yet, there is work on the official site now, so it is only a matter of time before these "cult idiots" will be official and rightfully allowed on Wikipedia. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil satanic choy (talk • contribs) — Evil satanic choy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment' Once again, are there verifiable independent sources to back any of this information up? Cult on not, there has to be proof this is little more than something made up at the pub one night. Wildthing61476 21:07, 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photosynthesis misconceptions[edit]

This is the last of the "misconceptions" series to be considered for deletion -- they appear to have been a class project to write up instructional materials regarding scientific misconceptions. In this case, (1) the article appears to be irretrievable OR -- none of the misconceptions appeared in the first cited source, and the second source is an unaccessable cd-rom; (2) it appears to be advertising -- the entire second half is either copied from the promotional materials for the cd-rom discussed or is simple advertising for the cd-rom; (3) it's instructional, not encyclopedic, and belongs on wikibooks if anywhere TheronJ 13:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. HGB 16:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tutorial format unencyclopedic, and this does seem one of the least useful of the series. Espresso Addict 00:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertising should not be transwikied. Gazpacho 07:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Totally useless. YechielMan 22:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Peta 06:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Richard 08:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Now Transwikied to wikibooks (b:Transwiki:Photosynthesis misconceptions). There were other articles in this "series"? Were they any good? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 11:06, 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.