< September 1 September 3 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache




















































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

The result was Delete. Little or no context, little sense and an attempt to contact - speedied.. Shell babelfish 17:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Rubber Octupus Kirby[edit]

Not important enough to have an article to itself. Delete. Green caterpillar 17:34, 2 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 A3. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 16:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Hang On (To What We've Got)[edit]

Delete. All this article contains is a Youtube link. Marcus 13:32, 2 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. --- Glen 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog In The Bathtub[edit]

See WP:HOAX. Non-notable probable neologism; Google only brings up about 5 results, and not even Urbandictionary knows about it. Crystallina 00:20, 2 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. --- Glen 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Witchelny[edit]

I originally prodded this article with the following reason:

not a place that really "exists", just mentioned on some cards in a card game. Information already contained on character articles. Very crufty, made in haste, does not meet WP:FICT recommendations.

User:Kappa, however, deprodded the article with the reason "looks mergable".

Which promted this discussion:

I know we tend to disagree on these kinds of things, but before you re-deprod that article again I'd like to point you to this talk message by the article's author. The bulk of the article was created in one edit, the second edit slightly changed some wording, and then the last two edits were adding Digimon links at the bottom. Bandai has not defined this place any more than a brief mentioning on the cards for those 4 Digimon, who's articles all mention Witchelny. This article doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept in an AfD. Deprod it if you must, but I don't see what good that will do. -- Ned Scott 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is supposedly the home of 4 digimon, it will only be recreated if it isn't kept or merged somewhere. Kappa 20:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is completely inappropriate, whether or not someone will try to recreate it should not mean we accept things that violate core policies. Why do you think you are helping by mass removing prods on things you know nothing about, or for reasons that are.. absurd, such as this? It's clear as hell that this article needs to be deleted and a discussion for deletion is unnecessary, which is why we have prod in the first place. You are totally violating WP:POINT, and if I have to I'll bring this to arbitration. -- Ned Scott 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, OK which core policy is it supposed to be violating? Kappa 00:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It clearly violates all three of those policies, and doesn't follow the strong recommendations of guidelines such as WP:WAF and WP:FICTION. I should not have to tell an experienced user such as your self about these basic things. -- Ned Scott 00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my previous statement that this article doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept, and I move for a delete -- Ned Scott 00:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't merge unverified information, and without a source I can't help but think it's a likely copyright violation as well (it's worded just like you'd expect to read right on the card or from a Bandai website). The only information that is somewhat verifiable is what cards say they are from this place. This is already included in those 4 character articles, and has been long before this article came into existence. There is nothing to merge, thus nothing of the edit history of this article is needed. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note that just about every single Digimon card (there's hundreds of them) all have some little insignificant write up similar to this, that Blahblahmon comes from the planet Nebulone and wears green pants. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Digimon, that's why I've gotten myself so involved in these articles, but even I know when something is extreme cruft and totally insignificant. When these characters appear in the anime series of Digimon they have new histories and personalities that are usually not based on their description in the card game (not only that, but a single Digimon can have several different cards each claiming a different thing about that same 'mon). -- Ned Scott 06:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge and Redirect to List of television show casting changes. --- Glen 00:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin Syndrome[edit]

Another WP:OR black hole. If Chuck Cunningham syndrome was nuked, I see no reason this should remain. Dhartung | Talk 00:37, 2 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. --- Glen 01:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of transgender-support organizations[edit]

Indiscriminate list of external links. See WP:NOT. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 01:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharpst.org[edit]

fails WP:WEB Zephyr2k 01:02, 2 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. --- Glen 01:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Wrestling Entertainment tours in the Philippines[edit]

Prodded because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Deprodded without explanation. There's no other articles on WWE tours. There are articles on some of the individual tours, but I think this could be made into a category if nothing else, not a list. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 2 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 as vandalism. This is, simply, not an article. It's a page that purports to allow people to find Wikipedia vandalism to "laugh at". At best, this is a project namespace page. But we already have BJAODN, which already covers the ground of things that made people laugh. And much of the vandalism listed was in fact perpetrated by the editor who then listed it on the page. It does not further the purpose of Wikipedia to allow vandals to create brag lists of their own vandalism. Uncle G 03:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiComedy[edit]

88.110.104.37 (talk · contribs) believes this is not nonsense, as it has been tagged by many. Quoting: I don't feel that the article is nonsense, in the very least it enables administrators to find vandalised articles. I have no idea why this is justified or needed with AFD, prod, and CSD categories and such, but I'm going with AfD in the name of WP:AGF. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:15, 2 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. --- Glen 01:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flimap[edit]

This article appears to be nothing more than an advertisement for a service (Fli-Map) provided by a single company (John Chance Land Surveys). This article has been edited by a single author, User:Verminaard510, who also published links on the Lidar page in order to advertise this service. It is in violation of the Wikipedia policy against advertisement.

Justin 01:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was speedily kept per WP:SNOW. No chance that this will succeed so it might as well be shut down here. FCYTravis 16:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCO-Linux controversies[edit]

POV fork, mainly unreferenced, may infringe on WP:LIBEL. Better left for Groklaw. Electrawn 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case if a few inexperienced (with respect to Wikipedia) people from Groklaw come over here. MER-C 04:10, 2 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. --- Glen 01:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Spurgeon[edit]

A blogger who published one book with what is debated to be a vanity press (see the Wikipedia article: PublishAmerica). Google doesn't turn up much in the way of outside sources. Seems non-notable. Crystallina 01:42, 2 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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rlj records 2006[edit]

I tried googling this and got 16 google hits, mostly from myspace. It probably doesn't exist and if it does it is not notable enough to be in WP. Zephyr2k 01:54, 2 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. --- Glen 01:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Ghostbusters[edit]

non-notable fan film that hasn't even been released yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a place for advertising a film you and your buddies made. IrishGuy talk 01:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tink it shuld b kept cuz it is lik so cool. ROTG>>>>>>YOUR MOVIE ROFLLOSLSSS!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.218.206 (talk • contribs)

How do you know if you like an unreleased movie? IrishGuy talk 05:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, the more relevant number is unique hits. As of right now, out of 44,100 returns, I only get 171 unique hits. [3] That's more telling, IMHO. MikeWazowski 06:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "unique hit"? Anthony Appleyard 08:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google is able to detect similar pages and when it displays results that seem to be similar, it automatically hides them. The initial larger number refers to *all* hits, including dynamic pages generated on the fly with potentially duplicate content. The lower number of "unique hits" is the more accurate gauge of how often something is actually referenced on the net. MikeWazowski 14:35, 6 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. --- Glen 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Industry Standard" "What If (album)" "Free Fall (album)" "Night of the Living Dregs"[edit]

NN. Delete, and merge. While I respect the notability of the producing band, I don't feel the individual albums are notable enough to warrant their own individual pages, and that short summaries within the main article about The Dregs could achieve the same aim as this article. Other bands, for instance the Beatles, have individual albums well-known enough to be notable on their own, and are widely analyzed by music professionals for content, both musical and lyrical. While I don't insinuate that the Dregs' album is devoid of either of those, I'm doubting there are published, peer-reviewed sources available that provide such information, as a result of the album's non-notability. Shazbot85Talk 02:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How could it be considered a bad faith nomination? I found the original article through the random article tab, it's non notable, so I threw it up for deletion. Shazbot85Talk 01:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course I'm kidding. Keep the condescension to a minimum and disagree with me civily. Shazbot85Talk 03:34, 3 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. --- Glen 01:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wellstone Communities[edit]

Not notable corporation; previous prod removed; started out as a advert, but now is just not very notable. Brianyoumans 02:08, 2 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. --- Glen 01:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.psaresearch.com[edit]

Already speedied [4], but recreated. Let's settle the matter here. Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following additional similar articles:

--AbsolutDan (talk) 02:33, 2 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. --- Glen 01:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Kane[edit]

He does exist but a contributing editor with a cliamed artcile read on Howard Stern plus a non-existant televison show adds up to non-notable. The original link to "All-Nighter" went to a bus company. A search of MTV shows nothing for "All-Nighter" or Darren Kane and the selling of the show has been in the article since the original edit in 2005. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep (bad faith nomination). --Terence Ong (T | C) 02:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth[edit]

I've waited many months for this: my very first AfD nomination! I'm really excited to be able to do the honor of starting it, and I hope all bodes well.

Earth is nothing special and we should all know it! --PeterJohn2 02:44, 2 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. --- Glen 04:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Men's Hollow[edit]

Non-noatble per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 02:57, 2 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. --- Glen 04:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Yellow[edit]

Contested prod about a non-notable character in a non-notable TV show. MER-C 03:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it does, but thankfully it's been prod'd. Tychocat 10:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, my reason for deletion is that the show is unverifiable, as the show is not listed in the Internet Movie Database, nor is the actor who plays this character, and I can't find any relevant Google hits. --Metropolitan90 15:34, 2 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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pritam Sadaphule[edit]

Blatant spam, contested prod. MER-C 03:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Original version of the article ([5]) was a personal résumé. After removing the Prod, he changed it to be look like a company, but gave no company name or contact information ;-) Fan-1967 04:06, 2 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. --- Glen 04:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PFTB[edit]

Only some fringe sources, like answers.com, not much else indicating notability to any substantial degree, lots of confusion with an obscure chemistry term, looks like Wikipedia could do without it, or have it merged into else. Kmaguir1 03:12, 2 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. --- Glen 04:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Owego Camp for Boys[edit]

Another nn camp in my general area. I can't see how notability could be asserted. Daniel Case 03:16, 2 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. --- Glen 04:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of world's tallest women[edit]

Unnessarry, violates WP:OR and WP:V, the list looks like very incomplete, how can someone tell the height of every woman listed, Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 03:24, 2 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. --- Glen 01:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amafanius[edit]

About 127 hits on google, mostly just in lists, there's little else verifiable about this dude, this is the outcome of history: the best arguers write it. He's in one category, but so little is sourced or linked--it just seems like this history stub is not a relevant one for wikipedia. -Kmaguir1 03:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Subject" is disengenous. Billy Graham's "My Life" has one subject, a principal subject. To be a subject here indicates mention, and not use, as I explained above, and that mention is brief, and not notable. In fact, I don't see anything on the page, nor was I able to find much, about what historians have written about him. Cicero and Montaigne have mentioned him, not used him. That doesn't make him notable. If George W. Bush mentions a yu-gi-oh price guide, does that fact weigh in determining its notability? No. Powerful people, notable philosophers, mentioning, as opposed to using, is a weaker notability standard.-Kmaguir1 21:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But if I want to know about Anaximander or Anaximedes, I can pick up Plato and role with it, or even Heidegger, for that matter. The Presocratics are all eminently notable, without question. Here we have a figure who was mentioned by just one guy, and seems to have little historical significance, like the Presocratics did--you know, the beginning of Western philosophy, all that important stuff. But the Presocratics wouldn't be notable without Socrates, and so forth. So the fact that Cicero names this guy, this isn't an antecedent of importance like the Presocratics. Hundred of other philosophers held these claims, and here's the big problem: it's his membership on a list that gets him onto Wikipedia to again be in a list. Two lists does not a notable bio subject make.-Kmaguir1 21:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uppland and others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I expanded the page with details about what Cicero had to say about him. Beyond this, there doesn't seem to be much preserved of him. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:41, 3 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 redirect Deville (Talk) 04:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reem Kalani[edit]

Non-notable Palestinian folk singer, whose "impressive" Google hits come up mainly as Wikipedia and its mirrors. CFIF ☎ 03:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, redirect is what I meant. Thanks to those who read between the lines. BigHaz 03:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So change it. Ryūlóng 04:06, 2 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. --- Glen 04:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snook, It's a big big World[edit]

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) says major characters should be covered within the article on the work of fiction unless the description is particularly long. This character already is covered in It's a Big Big World, there isn't much on him there, and it's a children's TV show. Galaxiaad 03:25, 2 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. --- Glen 04:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Masi[edit]

was tagged speedy and then removed, but there is an assertion of notability, so not really speedy. I would definitely say not-notable in any case. Deville (Talk) 03:38, 2 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. --- Glen 04:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BuySell Home Price Index[edit]

Referred from prod. Suggest either delete as advertising or merge with BuySell Real Estate, which appears to have originated the index. Delete both is an option for the deletionists. :-) theProject 03:48, 2 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. --- Glen 04:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Superstars Debut[edit]

WP is not an indiscriminate list of information, this is a odd list that is just cruft and will be hard to maintain. The individual wrestler's pages can provide this info if needed. Renosecond 03:49, 2 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. --- Glen 04:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rohloff[edit]

non-notable author of a couple vanity press books Akradecki 04:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

afterthought note: if/when this is deleted, would the closing admin also please close the redirect page Robert rohloff? Thanks. Akradecki 04:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. --- Deville (Talk) 01:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rachel Stevens awards[edit]

Listcruft, summarized version should be merged into Rachel Stevens. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 04:26, 2 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. --- Glen 05:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowclan[edit]

this is all original research. not a single source or reference. why??!!?? Metspadres 04:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, the word "revolutionized"?... that one struck me as off base.-Kmaguir1 05:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I mean, feel free to edit the article and take that out. But that doesn't mean the article itself should be destroyed. I mean, I don't know if they're notable, not being invokved in that mileu, but their forum is big anyway. Herostratus 05:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears the only support this nominator has for deletion is lack of sources. If you want to see about citing sources, I suggest the user refer to the citation page to go about that. I urge the nominator and everyone else to kindly refer to the deletion guidelines, particularly the "Renominations and recurring candidates" section. There, re-nominators are warned to be careful. Now, if you'll kindly refer to the "Problems that may require deletion" section, you'll see his nomination reason falls nowhere in there. I believe the re-nominating editor was brash in his nomination of this page, due to his new user status (refer to his contrib's page and note he has few contribs). I reiterate that this should be pursued in the proper manner, through WP:Cite. I urge the nominator to withdraw his claim, post-hast. Best Regards, Shazbot85Talk 05:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Annonymous votes aren't even considered from my understanding so it's wise for you to sign your comments. You also need to provide a reason, that actually contains substance for your vote, not simply a "me too" comment, devoid of anything pertinent or rational. Note to all The user posting the above vote is also someone who has repeatedly tried to add his advertisement link to the Shadowclan page, and everytime it has been removed. He has been warned twice informally and once formally now for this behavior, and the barring of his website brings his sudden intrest in this AfD to question as far as I am concerned. Seems vindictive at least. Regards, Shazbot85Talk 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment It appears the voter in question has made an admission of association with a rival guild of Shadowclans' that existed on a different server. Their guildpage apparently got deleted because they were not notable in the fashion that this guild is, and it seems like this jealousy issue is a possible fuel, either primary, secondary, or tertiary, to his baseless vote on this page. See User talk:Lenapeco911 for the exchange. Regards, Shazbot85Talk 02:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



All these keeps are Shadowclan members http://www.shadowclan.org/darkmoot/viewtopic.php?t=37944&start=0 they posted on their game forum to get guild members to support this online guild. The fact is there is other guilds who even have more sources and fame and are deleted daily. Shadowclan should not get a pass. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lenapeco911 (talk • contribs) .

It's often etiquette to warn the page's author(s) that their article is up for deletion. I don't see how this is relevant to the non-existant claim that this article should be deleted. I'm still waiting on a claim to refute or some shred of evidence to be presented. Shazbot85Talk 04:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shazbot are you a moderater here?

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 05:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.me[edit]

WP:OR, and erroneous. There is no factual basis for the article. It is mere speculation with no citations --kjd 04:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The vast majority of net business is done in English as a standard, mostly by handshake agreement. Besides, this is also the English language Wikipedia. Further, and as wwwwolf states, there needs to be evidence of a ccTLD reservation. You've turned up nothing other than a URL to an article in Cyrillic. --Dennis The TIger 15:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. All relevant encyclopedias accepts references in other languages. If you think that English Wikipedia shouldn't do so, I think that you are at least someone who is not relevant to contribute to one encyclopedia. Besides that, such claim is xenophobic. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    2. You showed that you don't know to make a difference between Cyrillic and Latin alphabet. And you are using Latin alphabet. Source is written in Latin alphabet. (Also, I made a mistake about the first link; it is non-existant; correct link is http://www.rsr.cg.yu (not http://www.rsr.cg.GOV.yu). And you couldn't se a Cyrillic alphabet there, too.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    3. I have a current event news and I added it into the relevant articles. Saying that this is about crystal ball is extremely rude if you are not introduced in such issues. The only relevant comment here gave Herostratus. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I proposed this deletion is I work for the IANA, and am involved in the deliberations of the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency, and know for a fact that evaluations are still ongoing. The Government of Montenegro doesn't decide either what the code is, or who runs the TLD should it come to fruition. The fact is it is crystal balling to say otherwise. For ".me" to be a TLD it needs to be decided by both ISO 3166 MA (comprised of ten organisations) and IANA itself, and if that reference says otherwise it is incorrect. --kjd 23:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm... My translation was not so good: The original news say that Montenegro government at August 24th accepted ISO proposal for two and three letters codes. So, ISO proposed and Montenegro government accepted. If agreement about two letters code with ISO doesn't mean that it would be an Internet domain, then this article should be deleted. Otherwise, it should be kept. Information is based on Montenegro pro-government newspaper Vijesti. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • to be free enyclopedia (anybody can edit it - users who know languages other than English can add content which is not easy accessible to others, meaning users who know only english language) (Wikipedia:Five pillars - 3rd pillar)
  • Wikipedia does not have firm rules - (Wikipedia:Five pillars - 5th pillar) as such, wikipedia is following popular culture and is more often more accurate to reality than Britannica or other sources of information
And yes, as of today .me TL domain doesn't exist, but as I am informed (as Internet user since 1994.) if every island with some degree of independance has its own TLD, Montenegro as a new state has the full right to get it. And fact (reason) that new domain is not already here is only of IANA (or Montenegro state request to IANA) procedure. SpeedyGonsales 16:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I see, some steps are done: (1) Montenegro asked ISO; (2) ISO said proposal; (3) Montenegro government decided to accept proposal; and some are not done: (4) Montenegro didn't send a letter to ISO (or ISO didn't get letter yet); (5) ISO didn't announced that it is done (but, if both sides agreed there I don't see any reason why not to announce it in the near future); (6) Montenegro didn't send a letter to IANA (or IANA didn't get letter yet); (7) IANA didn't accepted ISO proposal, but as the article about two letters ISO codes say, the main purpose of those letters is usage for ccTLDs. (Yes, of course, I know that it can be different, but different ccTLD and ISO TLC is an exception, not the rule.) (8) IANA didn't send a letter with acception to Montenegro; (9) Montenegro didn't say "yes, we agree" about something which is ageed; (10) Montenegro didn't send a letter to IANA with it's agreement; (11) IANA didn't list that as a ccTLD. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The steps listed here have very little correlation to reality, which again reinforces this is WP:OR and should be removed until such time the appropriate authorities make a determination. (More than one code has been under consideration by ISO 3166 MA, not just "ME") --kjd 20:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if Wikipedia may have the article 2024 Summer Olympics, I see no reason to delete this article which would be a formal fact in a couple of months. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is little contention that there will be olympics every 4 years, however the new codes used for Serbia and Montenegro are not determined. Whether ISO has been doing consultations with the Government of Montenegro on possibilities is not germane. --kjd 20:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have informations from ISO, please, let me know is the claim of Montenegrin government truth or not (as I said, they claim that they accepted ISO proposal for the codes). I am not saying that it is not possible that they badly understud ISO proposal. At least, if claim of Montenegrin government is correct, ISO sent some proposal to them. So, do you know anything about that proposal? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no reason to suspect it is not true, although I suspect it is a consultation by the secretariat to see how they feel about the code, and doesn't symbolise ratification. Other codes have been under consideration also. --kjd 01:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Following the rules for naming the country top level domains, it is absolutely obvious that alpha-2 code will also be the top level domain for Montenegro--Vitriden 00:19, 6 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. --- Glen 01:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAW episodes from 2001[edit]

WP:LC, WP:NOT. Sss666 05:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy X-3[edit]

WP:NOT, nn game.--Sss666 05:17, 2 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. --- Glen 01:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Unity[edit]

nn NPO--Sss666 05:20, 2 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 G1 -- Samir धर्म 05:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit this page![edit]

WP:V, WP:OR.--Sss666 05:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-Corporation[edit]

nn fictional company--Sss666 05:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kohler Award[edit]

Looks like something made up in school one day. I speedy-tagged Classic Log and Good Log as nonsense before discovering this whole set of buddycruft. Also including Herman Alexander Weck (purported award recipient) and Kohler Hall (linked only from this series of pages, and doesn't appear to be notable enough for its own page otherwise). Opabinia regalis 05:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there anything it's particularly relevant to, though? It seems to be just a bunch of college buddies hanging out in the woods at the moment, which doesn't strike me as being connected to much. BigHaz 02:41, 3 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 Naconkantari 04:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game junkie[edit]

Contested prod about a non-notable store. MER-C 05:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft meets WP:CORP and WP:WEB requirements, sells software globally, is a multimillion dollar company, and is notable for more than their bathroom. Wooty 05:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus the clarifier "almost". Also, that account you mention made one edit months ago, then suddenly surfaces to vote on this? I call vote stacking on that, as I do with almost every keep vote on this page thus far.most of these accounts were made with the clear purpose of swinging towards a favorable vote. To the other note, half of those are duplicated articles in local papers. In fact, let me detail your sources for you.
  1. Partly copied from next source
  2. Local paper
  3. This is an event listing, and doesn't even focus on the store
  4. Again, completely unrelated name drop
  5. Two sentences? It doesn't even mention the store
  6. At least this one about the bathroom mentions the name
  7. Photo gallery
  8. A GameSpot review?
  9. Mentions the store once
  • Your "sources" hardly qualify as such under current guidelines. This store isn't notable. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the sources required. Please review the articles listed. Thank you. Also, unique, small businesses are notable. I thought the point of the site was to make known information that is interesting. Just because a reporter hasn't picked up on a story, doesn't mean the story isn't notable. It just isn't known.Lytnngseed 01:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wooty 03:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia is a collection of notable information, and since notability isn't even abstractly defined for Wikipedia entries, it's kind of hard to understand what people mean when they say "non-notable". Viewtyjoe 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), it fails. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published
    works whose source is independent of the company itself."
They don't fall into these categories, do they? Viewtyjoe 17:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the second one, yes. The articles do not cover Game Junkie itself, but rather the cultural phenomon of games being for more than just kids. Futhermore, it's a local paper, and bound to interview the nearest local source. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed reference in Friday Night Live section to remove furries. Lytnngseed 15:38, 6 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. Runcorn 09:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CG-Core El[edit]

Almost-copyvio ad for a corporation whose rather awkward name gets only 700 Google hits, top of which is Wikipedia. Not such a great advertising strategy. Opabinia regalis 05:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee's pharmacy[edit]

This is a non-notable company per WP:CORP. There are around 54 Google results, none of which appear to augment notability. Erechtheus 05:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge/redirect - Fire Island and Lightning Island merged into Pokemon: The Movie 2000, Ruzunga redir into Telefang. BaseballBaby 06:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Island (Pokémon)[edit]

A multi-article nomination of 3 Pokemon stubs that do not assert the notability of the subject. The nomination includes the Fire Island article, Lightning Island, and Ruzunga. The first two could also be done like Ice Island (a redirect page) has been done, redirecting to the general movie article. Ruzunga just needs straightforward deletion. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 05:55, 2 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 by Doc glasgow under A7 critera. --Hetar 18:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The many deaths of jordan[edit]

Contested prod about a non-notable film. MER-C 06:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Many Deaths Of Jordan" is a short home movie series created by three kids on the Gold Coast; Richard, Jordan and Sam. The series has no plot at all and the main character (Jordan) dies in many different and humourous ways. It is published on the web and also sent around the school in which they go to. --Wafulz 07:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Orange Islands. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grapefruit Islands[edit]

This page is unneeded. It plays no signifigant role in the anime besides being the place Ash caught his Snorlax. This page is unnecessary and should be deleted. Hybrid 07:04, 2 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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stutter (band)[edit]

Hard-to-google band from Canada, but from the info on their website they seem to fall short of WP:MUSIC. One album, local shows in Ontario and Quebec plus two (free) shows in New York. No reviews in the press section. Not on Amazon.com, #13,414 on Amazon.ca. Listed but not reviewed on allmusic.com The article itself is almost speediable for lack of assertion of notability. ~ trialsanderrors 07:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted in the face. --- Deville (Talk) 01:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actor-preneur[edit]

Neologism; the word is used by its creator, but not I think by anyone else. An article on this guy's site might be notable, but not this neologism. Brianyoumans 07:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 'MERGE into Orange Islands.Herostratus 17:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kumquat Island[edit]

This page is a STUB which cannot be improved. The gym leader is major but the island is not. It amounts to nothing but fancruft and should be deleted.Hybrid 07:33, 2 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. Catchpole 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waynehead[edit]

Notable? This was a Saturday morning cartoon, with 730 hits on google, which is amazingly low for pretty much any television program. Its age is the most interesting thing--1996, about 10 years old, existed for one year. I think this is the "imdb yes, tv tome yes, wikipedia no" category, where if it is so unheard of a mere 10 years after its one year run, it's not notable to the masses, and it probably wasn't notable when it ran. Also, Damon Wayans produced it--this doesn't help its notability particularly. Who knows him as a producer? Bottom line: only 10 years out, a TV show ought to show more evidence of notability than this. I judge it NN for wikipedia. Kmaguir1 07:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not take the position that everything on TV is notable just because it has a potential of being seen by a lot of people. There's lasting effect, and this one clearly had nothing. Relegated to a Saturday morning position, it generated, obviously, no clear fan-base, no distinctiveness--it was cancelled after a season. I think that we go too far with TV, with too much inclusivism. Prime time? There's a reason to be inclusive, a wider actual audience. But when you've got 730 google hits, it's hard to say that, as TV shows go, that that is anywhere near notable.-Kmaguir1 00:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Now, however, a single episode of a more recent Wayans-produced cartoon, Thugaboo ("Sneaker Madness"), gets 36,200 Google hits. If Waynehead had been released this year, instead of 1996, it probably would have receieved a similar number of hits.)
Furthermore, Waynehead does get 44 Lexis-Nexis hits from major newspapers and magazines, which is arguably more substantial than a hundred times as many Google hits. These results are all from non-trivial sources, which is something you can't say about Google hits.
Lastly, I do remember this show, and even it's theme song. I also recall that it aired on Sunday mornings on my local WCIU, rather than Saturday mornings. These facts have no real bearing on the discussion; the point is that Waynehead wasn't as obscure as you think it was. At least some people were watching. Zagalejo 07:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's definitely expandable; interestingly, Damon Wayans orginally planned to make this a claymation series about people with oversized heads. :) The article is a pretty clean stub right now, so it doesn't need immediate work, but I might come back to it some time in the future to add some info. Zagalejo 03:55, 4 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. Catchpole 20:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katatonia/Primordial Split 10"[edit]

Totally not notable. 14 hits on google, one message board, some ebay stuff, and that's about it. Looks like total fluff. Kmaguir1 07:47, 2 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. Grandmasterka 05:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black billionaires (4th nomination)[edit]

User:MasterEagle tried to revive the discussion on the previous AfD, giving the reason "Remove, racist". Keep from me by the way. See also previous nomination Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other previous deletions are listed on the article's talk page. Gazpacho 22:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (in reply to Coasttocoast): People should not be denied the right to write about an issue just because there is nothing worthwhile to say about a corresponding white phenomenon. If such a policy is reinforced, wiki contributors better get busy composing articles about white civil rights movements, white minority struggles, white racial profiling (uhm, and how about an article on DWW, "driving while white"?), or the corresponding article about such issues in the black community would risk being deleted or not given a place. There is nothing remarkable whatsoever about being included in the rank of the billionaires while being a white male, the reason being that the odds are stacked in your favor. Beating the odds makes for notability. I also want to add: if a child is told to stop dreaming and set realistic goals because there is no such thing as a black billionaire, in my opinion that child should be able to type the phrase "black billionaires" into a search engine and a wiki article should pop up that addresses this issue in a NPOV, encyclopedic, as well as non-Eurocentric, way. And that child should not have to search through a long list of billionaires to try to figure things out. Pia 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find multiple, reliable sources about white billionaires specifically, feel free to write the article. I suspect you'd have a dilly of a time getting such an article past WP:V unlike this article, which passes it with flying colours. WilyD 16:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG SPEEDY KEEP Stop wasting the valuable time of wikipedia volunteers by nominating the same article over & over. This artilce is excellent by all standards and contains lots of excellent data...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.241.100 (talk • contribs) --M@rēino 03:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Who ever said it was 'okay' to have an article on German Billionaires? Is everyone assuming that German Billionaires has received Wikipedia's infallible approval just because it's article isn't on the AfD page yet? I think it's ridiculous as well. However, this is an AfD for Black billionaires, and the existence or nonexistence of German Billionaires neither explicitly nor implicitly condones the necessity or lack thereof for Black billionaires. I see that many made the claim repeatedly that if one exists another ought to as well; that is a weak claim, and people voting on this AfD ought to make more cogent and less specious arguments. A given article does not exist to give complicit license for another article's existence. Also, this isn't a popularity contest, and it's not about cutting down Blacks and lifting up Germans; don't misconstrue it as such. My own stance is that both articles are unmerited and I'll vote "Delete" on German Billionaires as well if someone cares to put it up for deletion. --S0uj1r0 07:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These two claims are equally unsound. Wikipedia does not need an article on One-armed cello players simply because there are very few, and the only interest to be derived from such can be saved for circuses and talent shows. As far as relevancy goes, I don't think either are relevant, and this isn't about which one "gets deleted first". As I stated above, this is not a popularity contest. It's also not tit for tat; this isn't some sort of "trade" for deletions. Consider this article and vote for or against deletion on its own merits. I think they both deserve the axe, and if you care to nominate German Billionaires, I'll vote to delete it regardless of how Black billionaires results. I think it's Wikipedia:Listcruft, uninteresting, and unencyclopedic. --S0uj1r0 07:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think either article desrves the axe and certainly not this one. Billionaires are arguabley the most important people in society, and Blacks are a race with a noteworthgy social history. This article is more notebale and encyclopedic that 99% of wikipedia. Editingoprah 17:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article were called Half-Chinese gay mechanics in California in 2006 then I could understand its lack of relevance. But an article about how members of arguabley the most oppressed people of all time, a tenth of humanity, joined the most elite, admired, successful and powerful demographic on Earth, and currently the only Black member comes from the most oppressed gender, is an article of far reachinmg global sociological and historical significance. When was the last time a woman has been the richest member of her race? To compare it to an article on One-armed cello players demonstrates a lack of perspective and an ignorance of history. Editingoprah 19:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are you claiming that one-armed cello players don't face social adversity? But you're right, I did trivialize a bit, and my analogy isn't spot on. Oprah is the only Black billionaire, so this article is more like Governors of the State of Minnesota Nicknamed 'The Body'. It's a nonspecific article that applies specifically to only one person. Save the issues oppression and economic hardship for African_American#Economic_Status where it doesn't stand on its own. --S0uj1r0 20:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: George W. Bush is the world's only American president and has been for several years now, so I guess you better go delete the American presidents article. This article is arguabley more note-worthy than that one since more people aspire to wealth than to political office, billionaires are the people who pretty much decide who gets to be president so if presidents are noteworthy, billionaires are too, and Black related articles are just as relevant as American related articles, since many Blacks are American and the global Black population outnumbers the American population 2 to 1. Editingoprah 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:We are not here to argue about whether or not the American president article, which has N O T H I N G to do with the Black Billionaires article(except for the fact that it is a list). 1. There have been MANY american presidents, and they are static, sourced, and encyclopedic, in that it doesn't go off on 20 tangents. 2. Just because people aspire to something doesn't mean that it is noteworthy. I'd say VERY few people aspire to sexually abuse children, but yet we WAIT, we have an article for it. We'd better delete it then, since nobody want's to aspire to it, it MUST be non-noteworthy. 3. Billionaires make up significantly less than 1% of the population, so it'd be hard to get that few people to influence the stupid and poor majority, except through advertisement, which probably wouldn't sway anybody too far from what they initially believed anyawy. 4. I am the person who pretty much decides what food I will eat today. So if food is noteworthy, then I am too. 5. This article is not up for deletion because it is "black related". That's, well, fucking stupid. There are many, many "black related" articles that are not up for deletion at this very second. Maybe this is just a specific aritlce that is being specifically targeted for deletion for specific reasons, unrelated to ethnicity? 6. Asians are Americans, and the global asian population outnumbers the American population 6 to 1. Where is my Asian billionaire article? Your argument offers more arguments about why the American Presidents article should be DELETED than why the black billionaires article should be kept. I think it should be deleted simply because its POV, and there has been no effort to make it NPOV, and because it is more of a list of non black billionaires than it is of black billionaires themselves. Liquidtenmillion 00:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please try and calm down. First you asked where your Asian billionaire aricle is? In fact the richest Asians are not limited to one article, they get five, without any controversy: List of Singaporeans by net worth, China Rich List, South East Asia Rich List, List of Korean billionaires and multi-millionaires,List of Hongkongers by net worth. And yet a single article on Black billionaires generate four nominations for deletion. Never mind the fact that Black economic developement was stunted by slavery, colonization, and apparteid, segration, Jim Crowe laws, and world-wide racism that is as old as recorded history and so Black billionaires are a special case. Never mind the fact that the Asian articles deal with highly specific sub-groups, while this article is broad enough in scope to focus on the entire Negroid race-one of the three broadest racial groups in anthropology and ten times more relevant because of its international population. And this article is extremely well sourced in that it relies primarily on Forbes magazine wealth valuations, the most authoritative business magazine. And how is this article any less static than the presidents one. The current president changes once every several years and so does the number, and identity of Black billionaires. And as for your earlier charge that this article is biased towards a non-white POV, this article depends on Forbes which is run by rich White Republicans. The articles cites several examples of corrupt Black billionaires and half-billionaires including dictators who allegedly exploited their own people. Yes the section about racism may be a little one-sided, but in the case of Oprah, the store's CEO agreed she was right and apologized on her show, so all an encyclopedia can do is report the official statements. The part about racism preventing Michael Jackson from reaching billionaire status does come off as paronoid POV, but at the same time many in the Black community are paranoid about racism holding successful Blacks back, and so this is a noteworthy perspective that needs to be reported on in a neutral way. If you feel the presentation was too biased, then the constructive thing to do is find alternative sources that present alternative opinions. It's not helpful to try to delete an article that deals with an important Black demographic that no other article can discuss in detail. Editingoprah 02:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The differences between Black Billionares and List of Singaporeans by net worth, China Rich List, South East Asia Rich List, List of Korean billionaires and multi-millionaires, and List of Hongkongers by net worth collectively is that the latter happen to actually contain more than one person and are lists of such. Black billionaires, on the other hand, might more acurately be named "Black billionaire" since there's only Oprah, and is not a list, but rather a launchpad for POV about the various reasons there are not more Black billionaires, why Michael Jackson and Oprah are rich but still discriminated against, etc. That article lacks focus. If you want to change the article to List of Blacks by net worth, that would be an improvement. Then there would be more than just Oprah, allegations of racism, and various, unfocused conjecture. --S0uj1r0 03:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's only one Black billionaire right now but the article goes into great detail about past Black billionaires and the prospects of future Black billionaires. There's only one American president right now but that doesn't stop there from being a list of American presidents. And what's wrong with discussing allegations of racism since they are sourced and the focus of much socal tention and it's very note worthy that even the richest Blacks feel discriminated against. Editingoprah 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and "prospects of future Black billionaires" do not belong on it. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. As such, a list of American Presidents is entirely acceptable. I already stated that a List of Blacks by net worth would likely be acceptable, verifiable, and encylopedic. Allegations of racism have nothing to do with Black billionaries in particular that they don't have to do with Blacks in general, and they belong at African_American#Economic_Status. You've repeated these two claims of yours again and again, and I've disputed their merit multiple times and using multiple criteria. Please try to address my counter-arguments rather than simply restating yourself. --S0uj1r0 04:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As you said Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. I believe the events described in the article meet this criteria. Take Tiger Woods for example. The prospects of him, a part-Black man becoming a billionaire athlete in a White dominated sport is considered virtually inevitable by the numerous sources discussed and is so noteable that a popular magazine created the chart cited in the article about Tiger's march to $1 billion. And you also have the whole race to become hip-hop's first billionaire. The is not "future history" or extrapolation. It is simply reporting on a much hyped note-worthy competetition that provides much insight about the cultural value the idea of a black billionaire has in hip-hop culture and society at large. I really think you need to step out and look at this from a different perspective. There's more than enough encyclopedic content to produce an article on Black billionaires. It's not just the number of Black billionaires themselves but it's their changing net-worth as a fucntion of year, it's the yearly change in the percentage of Black billionaires among the total number of billionaires, and there's the constantly changing comparison between the net-worth of the richest or only Black billionaire compared to the richest person period. There's also data on Billionaire with partial Black ancestry. The data is far too detailed and far too international (see the membership chart) to be limited to the discussion of African-American economics. And the discrimination against Black billionaires is on a totally different level than the discrimination against Blacks at large, and what better place to discuss it than artice about Black billionaires. Everyday Blacks are discriminated against because they are assumed to be poor or because they may appear physically threatening. But alleged discrimination against Black billionaires appears to be resentment that "these people" having surpassed society's expectations for what a Black can accomplish and attempts to knock them down a peg. If you feel this is too POV then balance with quotes of people claiming Blacks are just paranoid. But I find it the most fascinating discussion I've ever seen in wikipedia and do not wish to see it marginalized to just a sub-section of another article. There are all kinds of Black scholars who have all kinds of theories of why ther aren't more Back billionaires. You may call that a POV launch pad but I call it sociological theories, and reporting on theories is what encyclopedia's do. If you feel the theories are too slanted to the political left, then feel free to add right-wing theories. But please stop advocating the deletion of this article because it's my favorite article on wikipedia. Editingoprah 05:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial and non-notable. Ckessler 05:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. Clear A7 case, no claim of anything that meets WP:MUSIC. Shell babelfish 18:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Phathom[edit]

non notable,copyright issues=copies elsewhere on the web Kpjas 08:04, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wellchild interactive[edit]

Spam-er-ific, also seems very probably not notable, only about 150 or so hits on google Kmaguir1 07:54, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elise (file sharing)[edit]

Non-notable vanity article. We'd have twice as many articles if we had one for each P2P client that's in verson 0.004 with its own author-created "proprietary open source" license (major oxymoron). --midkay 08:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a "vanity article"? I don't see why it is that way. Because I wrote it? Does that matter if the article is well-written (yes, I agree that 'stub' is probably best suited for the article at this point)? Would it be better if someone else wrote it? There are plenty of different P2P clients that are on Wikipedia that doesn't have a "stable" version or where the article is a stub/written by author. And why does "0.004" matter? If I choose to call the next version 5.2, does it magically become more useful for Wikipedia? As far as the license goes, if the "proprietary" phrasing bothers you, just change it. Ullner 08:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, it would be better if you didn't write about yourself, instead letting others do it when you or your product becomes notable. This helps guard against potential conflicts of interests; please see WP:VAIN. Does the software pass WP:SOFTWARE notability criteria or have some other particular claim to fame? Any external sources for the information in the article as self-published information is rarely considered a reliable source? Weregerbil 08:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it would probably be considered more reliable if someone else had written it. However, I tried to write the article as neutral as possible, and I think I did a 'okay' job. TheParanoidOne added that the article should be a stud, and I agree that it is just that. As far as the criterias, I think Elise pass #1. There have been several non-trivial works published. Sure, there is no direct notable 'fame' associated with Elise, however, there is no other software, that I know of, that is an platform independent ADC client. That alone make Elise 'one of a kind'. I guess adding a direct link to the license and/or history would be great. Ullner 08:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these "several non-trivial works"? Please provide links or citations. Right now, this looks like a new and obscure program that has received little to no attention of any kind. —Celithemis 08:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Different versions is available for anyone to view. According to SF's stat page, Elise was ranked, in August, 5,705 with 61 downloads and 1,240 web hits. (No, I did not sit and downloaded those myself or pressed 'Refresh' in my browser.) As I interpret the numbers for the different months, there's an steady increase in users. (I know, WP:SOFTWARE argue that user number isn't a criteria, though it seems to be an argument for this deletion proposal.) Ullner 09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is number of users an argument against this? I mentioned that it's an early version of a quite unknown piece of software.. --midkay 09:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my first comment, would calling the next version "5.2" (or whatever seem "mature") be better? The stats show that more and more people know about Elise. I didn't know there was a "x amount of users must know about the application for it to be allowed on Wikipedia" clause. Ullner 09:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you call the next version 5.2, I can assure you that you would be considered a fool. My advice: develop the software, and if they like it, they'll use it. --Dennis The TIger 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... Oh, well. In any case, if you do delete it, please change Direct Connect (file sharing) to point "Elise A platform independent ADC client. " to http://elise.sf.net. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ullner (talk • contribs) 10:18, 2 Sep 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 07:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Zafiriou[edit]

Contested prod (i.e. the editor removed the prod I'd tagged it with). Basically, I smell a WP:HOAX here for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the player was born in 1989, making him 17 which seems a tad on the young side for playing professional first-team football in Europe at a top-notch club. Secondly, the article on his team was anonymously edited to replace a different goalkeeper with this gentleman. Thirdly, and most importantly, Google's never heard of a "Jimmy Zafiriou", as a footballer for any club or in most other contexts. BigHaz 08:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, the "close friend" mentioned in the article - in a nicely self-referential way - bears a striking resemblance to the account name involved in creating and editing the article. BigHaz 08:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the link. Sam Vimes | Address me 15:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure it's just his pals, either. Recent edits are equally divided between attacking Jimmy and reverting to the neutral-but-hoaxy version. BigHaz Schreit mich an 11:49, 4 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.


I believe a redirect of this page, likely the creation of a well-meaning if inexperienced Wikipedian, to the related Orange Islands will be the most satisfactory outcome. There is in fact nothing to merge, technically, as the target article already has all the information contained in this one. Thank you for your comments. Regards —Encephalon 10:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkan Island[edit]

This island only appeared in one Pokémon episode. It played no major role in the plot and has never been referenced since. It is not in any of the video games. It is also a stub that cannot be expanded. This article amounts to nothing but fancruft and does not belong on Wikipedia. Hybrid 08:58, 2 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 -- Samir धर्म 05:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémopolis[edit]

This only played a role in one episode of Pokémon. It did not affect the plot in any way and it is also a stub that cannot be expanded. This page ammounts to nothing but fancruft and does not belong on Wikipedia. Hybrid 09:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge and redirect into Lil Boosie. BaseballBaby 07:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' Boosie[edit]

There are two articles for this rap artist, the other being Lil Boosie. This one is the poorer of the two. Juggaleaux 10:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - true that it's shorter, but this one doesn't go into as much detail as the other one, and only goes into basic summary here. People will want more than that when they read articles. --Dennis The TIger 02:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. That's certainly true. The writing on the other one is terrible, but it does have more detail. Erechtheus 03:06, 3 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 c/vio. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LEICA FREEDOM TRAIN[edit]

Was nominated for speedy delete as nonsense. Doesn't meet definition for nonsense. Encyclopedic value in question. — ERcheck (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, it's not nonsense (though the first paragraph is throroughly lacking in context). Anyway, copyvio list; not a CSD CV candidate, but a CV nonetheless. (|-- UlTiMuS 11:17, 2 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 TO DELETE. Herostratus 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall (territorial duchy)[edit]

POV fork of Dutchy of Cornwall josh (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply redirecting would lead an edit war. There tends to be strong feelings on the subject (as demonstrated below) and wanted to go through due process to prevent this. josh (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note on process: While I can understand what you mean, I don't think it's a good use of Wiki process to employ an AfD just in order to get a "binding" mandate for a redirect. An article RfC might have been the more correct choice. But I'll vote "redirect" for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The teritorial concept of the Duchy is already covered by the Duchy of Cornwall article. josh (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All that does is to mention the existence of another POV in status quo speak! -- TGG 11:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The answers to your questions are "in one article," "yes if they do not represent extreme minority opinions in Cornwall," and "very far." You are underestimating the ability of a talk page to clarify tricky differences in opinion about editing articles dealing with currently disputed subjects. You are underestimating the ability of a large community of editors to be even-handed in the long run after an immense amount of arguing. And I think you are patronizing the reader by denying them the ablity to see all the information about a topic in one page because we might confuse the poor dears. Contradictions are a part of the world (particularly when it comes to British topics I've noticed!) and the reader is well-served by juxtaposed, qualified, contradictory text in one article. See British Isles and its talk page with 6 archives, British Isles (terminology) and its talk page with 3 archives. Flying Jazz 12:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have tested the water on the Duchy of Cornwall page (para beginning 'For Cornish Nationalists..) to see where it leads -- TGG 12:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what other POV Cornish nationalist forks have there been? I can't think of any offhand - maybe if you directed us to them and their subsequent discussion it would help us decide on the current dilema Mammal4 15:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst I agree with your initial sentiment which truly highlights the distinction between the Duchy, as officially presented (an estate), and its hidden true historical construction (a territory with people), I have little confidence that one page can do the subject justice. At least, maintaining the two pages will facilitate cross-linking references. On one page only, every Establishment POV will be faced with 20 others pointing out the historical, and legal, proof to the contrary. Wonderful, if it were free from edit vandalism, but we are well aware of what, in fact, is going on! -- TGG 23:20, 9 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. --james(talk) 13:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Flanagan[edit]

As article and discussion suggest themselves, there's a lot of unverified information here. Disregarding the unverified information, notability would be highly suspect. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on later discussion. Apparently the thing that was very, very weird was the subject of the article himself. BigHaz 08:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ~ all information is useful to some degree ... its up to the reader to ferret out what is worthy and and what is not.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Guitar[edit]

Contested prod about a website that does not assert notability. MER-C 12:19, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EFDgames[edit]

Prod removed by creator without explanation. My original prod read "article about phantom "amateur company" on the web that does not have a working web page yet". Fails WP:WEB, WP:ORG and WP:CORP whichever one might find most suited. Pascal.Tesson 12:54, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison austin[edit]

Contested speedy deletion (page recreated after initial speedy and speedy tags removed from the second article 3 times despite warnings that this was not the appropriate way to contest). I think Mr. Austin is a non-notable young footballer. Google search for him and BOYS Caivanese came up empty Slp1 13:11, 2 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 TO DELETE. The raw comment totals are 3-2 Delete. But one could take the post by User:Hanksta2 attempting to provide a reference as a Keep comment. But FWIW User:Hanksta2 has mostly only edited the article under consideration, and one of the Keep comments was a Weak Keep. So let's move on the arguments. The argument that the article is not verified is true. It should, however, be relatively easy to verify the article, unlike some unverified article. The claim in the article that Freddy vs. Ghostbusters is popular on the internet is not verified, but neither has it been refuted, granting its harder to prove a negative. In my mind this one juuuust falls off the bubble and survives. Herostratus 18:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus 18:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BraxtanFILM[edit]

Non-notable independent film company. Lack of third party references. Google hits for ("BraxtanFILM -wikipedia") = 663. Fails: Wikipedia:Verifiability. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Yes, but if and only if it had "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per Wikipedia:Verifiability. But either way, this article also needs the same. --Satori Son 14:56, 12 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 TO DELETE. Herostratus 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currier House[edit]

As per WP:BAI point 4 dormitories are non notable _Doctor Bruno__Talk_/E Mail 14:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note The equivalent at Yale are called Colleges, and each of those twelve have articles. Fan-1967 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The role at both schools is somewhat in between the Oxford/Cambridge constituent colleges (which clearly deserve articles) and ordinary dormitories (which almost exclusively don't). Christopher Parham (talk) 15:47, 2 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. `'mikka (t) 03:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pforzheimer House[edit]

As per WP:BAI point 4 dormitories are non notable _Doctor Bruno__Talk_/E Mail 14:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, this is inaccurate for the purposes of this discussion. They are a basic administrative unit of the school ,not a basic academic unit. Harvard college is notable academically, not administratively. So they are not much more than dorms elsewhere, though some of them are a little prettier.Delete. Hornplease 06:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Endowments, facilities, academic units, administrative units, and scholarships at other universities are not intrinsically notable. The fact that Harvard combines these functions with their living arrangements does not increase the notability of their houses.
2) If age were a reason for intrinsic notability then every class, every room, every stone at Harvard should have its own article. Perhaps the oldest buildings at Harvard are notable for their age. All of the houses are not notable because Harvard is old.
3) Countless college newspaper articles have been published for nearly every university that describe a huge volume of details including historical minutiae that are only valuable to someone affiliated with the university. Details about the names of house masters or how one house stole the other house's gong do not make this a "splendid" example of an article just because there are verifiable citations to the information in the Harvard Crimson. They make this a splendid example of the kind of insular "my-school-my-home-is-really-really-important" attitude that Wikipedia has tried, often unsuccesfully, to avoid. Show me a national or even a city-wide news story about "The Hastings Doctrine" or the rechristening of a house to a new name and I'll be more impressed with the notability of the subject matter. This article is of note for quite a few people affiliated with Harvard but not for a general purpose encyclopedia. Flying Jazz 04:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/Response Actually, this is precisely where Harvard houses differ from dorms. For decades (in some cases over a century), they were allowed to select their own members and, despite official policy to the contrary, this apparently still happens to some extent. Newspaper or magazine articles about famous Harvard graduates do sometimes mention whether they lived in Elliott House or Kirkland House, for example, and this information tells you about the social class and hobbies of these people when they were young. (Hint: Elliott = rich, old money, Kirkland = more into sports than studying) Uucp 10:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Harvard houses differ from dorms elsewhere, that makes the entire house system notable but it does not make each individual house notable. Also, many universities (perhaps most) have living systems where one location has a lot of rich kids and another location has a lot of jocks. Flying Jazz 04:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum A quick check of newslibrary.com shows hundreds of hits for "eliot house" and "harvard", over a period of decades, in newspapers around the United States (subtracting out the hits from the Harvard Crimson, of course). Nexis has hits in The New Yorker, New Republic, as well as regional papers like the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I'm glad to send you copies of any articles if you'd like to verify.
"North House" and "Pforzheimer" have fewer hits, but are discussed in Boston, New York, Texas, and Illinois papers, among others.
Most significantly, when Harvard changed its policies about how students were assigned to houses in 1996, it was national news. See for example, "Harvard tries to break with tradition Students now to be assigned housing, diluting cultures of residence dorms," The Dallas Morning News, June 16, 1996. Harvard houses are not dorms, and they are notable. Uucp 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would never argue that Eliot House isn't notable. I would argue that Eliot is notable and I also think the Eliot House article could use some work. I also think the house system as a whole may be notable. I'm arguing that Pforzheimer and many if not most other houses at Harvard are not sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia article. I'm hoping for discretion instead of including every house at Harvard "for the sake of completeness" as an editor said here. I don't think Wikipedia should be about having an article for every member of a category for the sake of completeness. Eliot passes my notability test. Most other houses at Harvard do not. Flying Jazz 04:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am amenable to this view and feel that a single article on the house system might be ideal. In addition to being more consolidated it might help stem the amount of triviality, which any article along these lines attracts. If these articles are deleted, I'll probably seek an undeletion to carry out a merge. Assuming you don't oppose such an action I'll use your comment to demonstrate the usefulness of such an action. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A partial list of publications which have mentioned North/Pforzheimer in recent years include the Boston Herald, Boston Globe, Chicago Daily Herald, Dallas Morning News, Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution, New Haven Register, Portland Press Herald, Seattle Times, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and the Joliet Herald-News. Some of these are mere mentions; others are more extended discussions. I'm glad to forward copies of any for those who want to check. Uucp 17:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than offering to forward this list of several publications to us, I wish you had made the effort to take the notable content about this house from just one or two of these publications and add it to the Wikipedia article with citations. This would have simultaneously supported your viewpoint and improved the article. My strong suspicion is that even the "extended discussions" in these publications say nothing notable for an encyclopedia. Flying Jazz 01:17, 9 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 TO DELETE, but also reduce article to a stub as the current text appears to be copyvio. Herostratus 20:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Lonsdale[edit]

The article is about a somewhat notable doctor, but it has no pages linking to it, and it doesn't cite its references Its been this way for a month now, so it finally should be deleted 11kowrom 14:46, 2 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. Thε Halo Θ 13:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Irrigation[edit]

ad for NN corp. -Steve Sanbeg 00:33, 25 August 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, —Xyrael / 14:45, 2 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 by Doc glasgow under A7 criteria.. --Hetar 18:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sarah lorondeau[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. This article had been previously speedied. This AfD takes the place of the Prod tag another editor added to the re-created article. Rklawton 15:09, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar[edit]

Does not assert notability. While obviously tragic, Ghadeer's death is no more significant than the hundreds of children killed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the last intifada began in 2000, or indeed the untold numbers of children killed in violent conflicts since the beginning of time. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rania_Siam. Pan Dan 15:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason, I am also nominating the page on Ibrahim Muhammad Ismail. Pan Dan 15:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Getting 1 or 2-day coverage in the media doesn't make a person notable. Pan Dan 19:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such an article wd be POV. At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rania_Siam I suggested: "Perhaps a list of child victims of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, or something like that, could be created instead of one article per child." Pan Dan 19:43, 2 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, but... destroy most of the material in the article, prune it down to a stub, slap an ((Expand)) tag on it, keep an eye on it, and hope somebody eventually makes a proper article of it. Herostratus 18:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off plan[edit]

Written as an advertisement for a property firm. I tried to clean it up a little by removing the linkspam, but it comes back. Wikipedia shouldn't be a free advertising service for real estate brokers. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 21:56, 19 August 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:26, 24 August 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, —Xyrael / 15:13, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abode Steamer[edit]

Fails WP:CORP with [Check Google hits] no coverage whatsoever, not under this name at least. Daniel Case 15:25, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Spacians[edit]

Short article about Yu-gi-oh "monsters". Doesn't seem to contain any useful content. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 15:27, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BPositive[edit]

Another editor commented on the talk page:

This page appears to be hype for a product. A review of the product's webpage does not substantiate the claims made, especially the claim of superiority over continuous SSL sessions. I therefore suggest deletion.

I of course also support deletion on the grounds that the company or service has little or no notability. Google finds no trace of third-party coverage [22] [23]. The article is a blatant advertisement. Pascal.Tesson 15:37, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mzima[edit]

Company vanity article. Fails WP:CORP. Prod tags were removed by original author without comment. Could also be copyvio since text is same as company web page. Rick Burns 15:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the above action would not satisfy WP:V Ohconfucius 06:35, 4 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 VERY SLIGHT AND WEAK KEEP per commentors. Which is the same as Keep. Herostratus 19:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CampusTours[edit]

Contested prod. Questionable notability (see WP:WEB), Alexa rank over 190,000. Reads like an advertisement. The "in the news" references refer to the site only in passing or (in at least one case) not at all. VoiceOfReason 20:58, 24 August 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, —Xyrael / 15:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa. The Very Slight Keep was from Hello32020, not me. I continue to believe that the article should be deleted for reasons above. VoiceOfReason 06:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into Poodle Hat. BaseballBaby 07:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardware Store (song)[edit]

This article was previously the subject of an AfD which closed as "no consensus." A DRV consensus overturned this result, with commenters supporting outright deletion, redirecting, and/or merging as more suitable options. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think those would be something notable to list with its entry into a main article, but not enough to warrant its own article. --Dennis The TIger 05:06, 3 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 TO DELETE. Herostratus 19:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wil Tower[edit]

This article was tagged for speedy delete but does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I assume that the problem was that it was not noteworthy enough. I do not have a personal opinion on whether it is or not. Blood red sandman 22:54, 24 August 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, —Xyrael / 15:56, 2 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 all. Yanksox 19:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bane (Weaponlord)[edit]

I am submitting this article along with all articles of the category category:Weaponlord (except the Weaponlord article of course). All articles are beyond all cruftiness and at the risk of offending the fans of the game of absolutely no encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a game guide. It is also supposed to be written in encyclopedic tone and so articles that include brilliant sentences such as "It is rumored he killed a fearsome sabretooth wolf once with his bare hands, and now his face is shrouded by a wolf's mask. " don't exactly have their place. Finally, let me also add that it sure looks as though the "Story" sections of the articles are copyright violations as they are likely copied out of the game booklet. Pascal.Tesson 15:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Isn't Samurai Shodown 'sword on sword'?--Nydas 08:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:It is. I have never come across that game, and it seems you can't believe everything you read... I apologise. J Milburn 11:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could live with a merge if the articles are extensively cleaned up. But I still think none of this cruft belongs in an encyclopedia which, let's remind ourselves, is what this project is supposedly doing. Pascal.Tesson 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I have already started on this article in my sandbox. I change my vote to Delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J Milburn (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NautiChem[edit]

Article does not establish notability per WP:CORP. Prod removed by author. Likely vanity/advertising. --Alan Au 22:38, 24 August 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, —Xyrael / 16:02, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PVLC[edit]

Whatever the notability requirements exist for a school club, I don't think the Pine View Latin Club meets them. Starwiz 16:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been argued that lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other things) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper and (in theory) has no size limits, there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with our other criteria, such as verifiability and no original research.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.245.245 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yossarian Is Drowning[edit]

Screamo band that has released one album on a minor indie label, some demos, and had one song on a compilation album by another minor label. They went on a small (non-national) tour in Britain. I believe the band does not meet criteria in WP:MUSIC and by extension doesn't meet verifiability and is original research. Probably vanity too since the creator is Raccoonisdrowning. --Wafulz 16:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result was Merge into KYW-TV Anchors and Reporters. BaseballBaby 08:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bell (reporter)[edit]

This article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). RMP 2584 16:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for my addition of Plantation (Maine) to all the Maine plantations, I not only created the Plantation (Maine) article, something that was needed, I went and added a relevant link to all of the articles, including at least one that was impoperly linked to Plantation. If this is the level of aggravation that is going to be typical of Wikipedia, then I don't think I want to be a part of it. I am definitely not this EDP named Scott Brown. Just because someone nominates some delete worthy TV reporter doesn't mean that they are part of some greater conspiracy. If anything I would say that you are all the EDPs for acting in this way. You people took something that was fun and turned it into some sort of sick and disturbed schoolyard scenario. On the schoolyard people like you had a name - bullies, who had their own sick and twisted pathology behind their behavior. And guess what? You people are acting the same way. You all would never make it as cops, since you would most likely arrest anyone without cause and do not seem to understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty - something that Wikipeida incoporates in its assume good fatih doctrine. God, do you people have lives or are you all sitting at home all day dreaming up conspiracy theorys? I am not going to waste my time with this, since judging by what you have written you are all seemingly suffering from some degree of schizophrenia with unseen people out to get you or things you think you own. I have dealt with enough EDPs in my life to realize it is a loosing and fustrating battle to reason with them. This isn't what I signed up for, so you win - I QUIT! RMP 2584 20:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, he's actually employed by KYW-TV, would be merged with KYW-TV Anchors. --CFIF ☎ 00:27, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shimlar[edit]

Non-notable web game with an Alexa ranking of about 900,000. No major third party awards or reviews to be found, and does not meet criteria in WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. The article does not have reliable sources, it is not not verifiable, and is likely original research. --Wafulz 16:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what Wikipedia is for though. This isn't the place for other people to learn about the game- we are not an advertising service. In order to merit an article, the game has to achieve notability, which can be determined through multiple non-trivial independent sources. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to verify and claims made in the article, and we wouldn't be able to stay neutral.
Also, sign your posts by adding four tildes to the end of your statements(~~~~)--Wafulz 17:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. WP:SNOW - hoax and close to patent nonsense.. Shell babelfish 20:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


African Inordinate[edit]

(completing someone else's nomination) Possible hoax. Does not Google at all, and I wonder if a six-inch insect can really burrow into a coconut. Unverified, possibly unverifiable. Melchoir 16:57, 2 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, I am using the relevant guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people) to assist. I do not think there has been adequate evidence cited below to indicate that he meets the guideline -- Samir धर्म 08:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sumer Kumar Sethi[edit]

Issues are almost identical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas. Does not appear to meet the guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (doctors), Wikipedia:Notability (people) for authors, or Wikipedia:Notability (books). Possible violation of WP:VAIN and WP:WWIN: Article largely copied from: http://sumerdoc.googlepages.com/sumersethi'scurriculumvitae. -AED 17:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article can be written about them also. Just because one researcher does not have an article, it is not an excuse for deleting article about every researcher. Also he is not some one who has published one paper (read by 10 people). He has written half a dozen books read by thousands of Doctors Doctor Bruno 07:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is not some one who has published one paper (read by 10 people). He has written half a dozen books read by thousands of Doctors.Press Coverage and Awards are added in the article Doctor Bruno 07:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comments[edit]

Wikipedia:Notability (doctors) 3. The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality). 4. The person has published a significant or well-known academic work. (review of Radiology) 9. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. (award for medical blog)

I think the quality of the work is under question. I don't believe that writing a review is evidence of "significant or well-known academic work"..--Antorjal 05:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books) 2. The book is by a bestselling or otherwise notable author. 6. The book has been the subject[3] of multiple, independent, non-trivial[4] reviews. 7. The book has been the subject[3] of multiple, non-trivial[4] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.

The links for the original papers are given. Doctor Bruno 00:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Press Coverage and Awards are added in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorbruno (talk • contribs)

Wait, do you want to imply a 2 sentence quote is "press coverage"? Or do you imply the letters to editors? I personally have had both, does that mean I deserve an article too? The "coverage" wasn't on him. Newspapers have such 2 liners from thousands of people everyday. That doesn't make all of them notable. --Ragib 07:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Sawaguchi[edit]

Not notable. Would not pass the proposed WP:PORN BIO or a Japanese equivalent of the test, having no notable awards in Japan, and no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, etc etc. Would definitely fail the official WP:BIO if that were applied instead. Delete. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:25, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Races of New Star Trek Series[edit]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article has no context and its creator has not provided one after being asked on his talk page. Its impossible to tell which Star Trek series this refers to and its certainly isn't the "new" one since there currently isn't one. Fundamentally original research. Prod was removed without comment Gwernol 18:12, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam daniel mezei[edit]

Self-promotion of non-notable author. First edits were by user:Adamdanielmezei. Later edits are by user:Hangom who is likely to be a sock puppet. -- RHaworth 18:14, 2 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. The keep commenters provide little substantial rebuttal to the allegation of WP:OR. Existence of these terms within the anime itself doesn't qualify as a reliable, third-party source usage, so that point is trivial. Xoloz 01:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon Ball name puns[edit]

Nonencyclopedic fancruft. —tregoweth (talk) 18:33, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV5 (Portugal)[edit]

Hoax. No such channel in Portugal. Website whose link is provided does not exist. Húsönd 18:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The French channel TV5 is available in Portugal through cable, but is unrelated with this hoax.--Húsönd 18:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Previous note was for a speedy delete; this is before I took a good look at the criteria for speedy deletion. It would not meet the criteria. "Speedy" retracted. --Dennis The TIger 05:15, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vichy France and the Shite Led Goverment of Iraq[edit]

This is a non-notable, non-neutral point of view article with a very narrow target audience. Its title may or may not be intentionally offensive - 'shite' rather than 'shi'ite' government. I also suspect that it classes as original research. -- Ck lostsword|queta! 19:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non-notable and non-neutral point of view. Hello32020 19:06, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trodenhiem Gaming[edit]

Small online gaming company with only two members. Fails WP:CORP so I am recommending delete. --Hetar 19:13, 2 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 as a poorly-sourced article about unreleased an non-notable software. Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. (aeropagitica) 17:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rbau[edit]

vanity Yy-bo 19:14, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outer Kelvinside[edit]

No such place Broxi 19:21, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottie Wrestling[edit]

vanity Yy-bo 19:32, 2 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. BaseballBaby 08:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan Dillon[edit]

None of the other Maria contestants have articles, and it's just a short TV show on the BBC. r3m0t talk 19:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This item dose fulfil many of the Bio guidelines

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Oil Nationalization[edit]

Seems to be some original research going on here. It doesn't cover anything substantial that isn't at Oil imperialism or nationalization. --Wafulz 19:43, 2 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 - as pointed out, the info can be preserved in the whole season article.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fußball-Bundesliga - September 2006[edit]

WP:NOT (repository of information) Yy-bo 19:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You realize that this month's article will end up looking like last month's article? Kingjeff 17:42, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Militaristic Regime Change and Militaristic Democratization[edit]

An original research essay (well, paragraph) mainly used to argue against the Iraq War, with a little historical fluff thrown in to make it sound like the term "Militaristic Democratization" is actually legit. --Wafulz 19:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration and Iraq War and National Security Strategy of the United States and Regime change. Going beyond these is extrapolation. Gazpacho 18:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that there is a need for an article that covers this topic specifically rather than just mentioning it in the larger context of the articles mentioned by Gazpacho. However, I think it is more appropriate to delete this article and write a new one with the right name and with the quality that is expected of a Wikipedia article. --Richard 08:51, 6 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans and the Palestinians: A shared struggle for nationhood[edit]

Another original research essay by the creator. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I'll be writing the creator a message to remind him about what Wikipedia is and is not for. --Wafulz 19:56, 2 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. WjBscribe 03:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydraulic loss/damage aboard an aeroplane[edit]

Hydraulic loss/damage aboard an aeroplane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Duplication of material, much of which is already covered by flying a fixed-wing aircraft without control surfaces. Article is an orphan, itself being an unfeasible redirect even if merged. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was TransWiki to Wikibooks.Herostratus 18:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling family photos[edit]

instruction manual/how-to; not encyclopedic Yy-bo 20:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheadle Hulme High School[edit]

Not really notable, the information isn't relevant or important. As an alumnus and contributor to this article I can tell you its not really important. Having it on Wikipedia is quite ridiculous. T. Moitie [talk] 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films about snakes[edit]

listcruft that doesn't even include a reason for existing. This could just as easily be a category, or just not exist at all. Mysekurity 20:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Shouldn't that be "I want these mother f------ snakes off the mother f------ Wikipedia!"? Fan-1967 22:35, 2 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 valid reason for deletion given. The deletion of the categories are not at all a precedent, because lists are utterly different from categories; they are more easily maintained, annotated, etc. This is precisely the reason why lists and categories are seperate. The article needs strident criteria for inclusion, etc. but that is outside the scope of this deletion discussion, and is being hashed out on the talk page, just as it should be.--SB | T 22:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dead comic book characters[edit]

We've already gone through several rounds of killing categories about dead comic book characters. We need to delete the List of dead comic book characters. The list is not maintainable. I found too many errors. Some will point out that the article says they could all come back. Fine. However, there are at least a quarter million dead characters in the history of comics! A few of those who were listed have been shown to be alive now (Dead Moira was an imposter) and other information was inaccurate (Captain Boomerang survived Identity Crisis to die in a different comic). So the article is wrong and, in fact, can never be right. Too many debatable deaths will be listed, thereby invoking POV. Wryspy 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. Please pardon me if I missed a step, even with someone else helping me post this. I've never nominated an article for deletion before. Wryspy 21:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't think renaming is necessary, and it's a long title already. There is currently discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics on merging a lot of non-notable character pages. We could change the criteria for inclusion to characters with pages. As the page stands now, there are none on it who don't have their own article (unless they're sharing it with other characters by the same name). -HKMarks 00:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Non-humans are adequately served by Category:Fictional characters by nature. -HKMarks 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: the comment. A lot of fictional characters by nature lists have been purged for being subjective, biased, or just plain messes. (I can't believe it still has an effeminate characters listing.) Doczilla 12:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not convinced there are that many notable dead characters yet. There are currently 53 characters on the list, and only 2 have stayed dead since the 1950s-1960s. The only problem with this list seems to be that it's not comprehensive, and might theoretically become long. It isn't yet. The lists on Comic book death (of characters who returned) are 115-strong, just counting Marvel and DC examples. I specifically voted for deletion of those categories because I felt list page did the job more elegantly and was more manageable. -HKMarks 13:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've also done some light work on this article (mostly looking to provide notability after it was split from Comic book death). I'm not attached to the article or anything but I'll note that when it was split there was discussion about changing the list chart to focus on the significance and/or impact of each character's death, improving notability and making it a genuine sub-article of Comic book death. That said, this has not yet been done, although it might still happen -Markeer 14:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, we need some criteria for inclusion/exclusion. Own series seems a little too strict (what about team members? villains? Major supporting characters with years of history?). I think own article will do it. If truly obscure characters pop up, we can use that as a cue to clear out/merge those pages. Alternate universes are excluded de facto already, but that could be made clearer. Probability of return is a useless criterion. Who ever expected Aunt May to come back? -HKMarks 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with own article is that it's easily rectified. If someone wants to have an alternate future version of the Hulk on the list for whatever reason, he would have free reign too as long as he made his own article for that character and added whatever content he deemed as "significant".
But you have a point. Therefore, I suggest we split the criteria amongst character types:
Major characters - Must have held own ongoing/limited series. (ex: Superboy (Kon-El))
Villains - Must be recurring ("recurring" being defined as having faced opposing hero(es) at LEAST three times). (ex: Captain Cold
Supporting character - Must be one of the following at time of death.
  • The hero/villain's love interest. (ex: Gwen Stacey)
  • The hero/villain's "sidekick/aide/protege". (ex: Stephanie Brown)
  • The hero/villain's "mentor". (ex: Max Mercury) (Note: Parents/guardians should NOT count. No one cares if Batman's parents, Peter Parker's uncle, or Superman's home planet are still dead.)
Would this suffice? King Zeal 05:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also suggest explicitly excluding alternate universes (Ultimate, What If, Elseworlds, and so on), and characters in worlds where people just Don't Come Back. I've added some tentative criteria to the talk page -HKMarks 06:17, 5 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. Nominated by a single purposed account with precisely 3 edits. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic notation program[edit]

A google search for "Mosaic notation program" returned 19 hits. The recently deleted kitler article was deleted, yet there are 422,000 google hits for the search term "kitler". Therefore, this page is clearly not notable and should be deleted. Yeah! Delete this piece of garbage! Unnotable JimmyJones005 21:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC) — JimmyJones005 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Besides, "Mosaic notation program" wasn't the name of the program, which is why google fails on it. It's just the name of the article, to distinguish it from the numerous other uses of "mosaic", like the first web browser, or sticking colored stones on church walls. Fan-1967 05:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that note, I would propose a move and redirect. Perhaps "Mosaic (musical notation program)"? --Dennis The TIger 05:07, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rahovart[edit]

Not notable demon, mentioned in one Renaissance book and not widely known. Prod removed with the comment that every demon is notable. Is that so? Can't just have a list of obscure demons somewhere? Brianyoumans 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NOTABLE Hello32020 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete No article content. User:Yy-bo 21:59, 2 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. Catchpole 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clubsi.com[edit]

Arguabley non-notable online community. I am, personally, only slightly leaning towards a delete, so I believe a good consensus by editors is necessary. Every medium- or medium/small-sized online community cannot an article on Wikipedia — it would make the task of making a good online encyclopedia much more difficult. The site Clubsi.com is ranked at about 38,600 on Alexa's site traffic ratings and is ranked 95 for message boards sites on Big Boards, unique traffic wise. ~ clearthought 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a ranking by posts, not by views or traffic. ~ clearthought 21:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Van[edit]

AFD tag placed on article by 66.134.219.52 (talk • contribs), who may also be Worm082 (talk • contribs). This is a technical nomination regarding which I have firm no opinion at this time. Paraphrasing the comments on Talk:Eric Van, the anon user had concerns that the subject did not WP:BIO's standards for inclusion. At previous AFDs the article was stubbed and speedily kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Van and kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Van (2nd nomination) because the subject is, like the song says, big in Japan Boston. Nice, but I'm not sure that a heartwarming human interest piece in the deepest, darkest corners of the Boston Globe is multiple, even if it is arguably non-trivial. Whatever the article has going for it, it scores well as hagiography. Some might not see that as plus point. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Response' Awesome, we're both using the same edit to try and prove different points. It looked to me like Van was removing a whole bunch of chaff and leaving in the important information. And I think you're missing my point about POV. The issue here is whether Van is notable. Your musing on whether or not someone can write an article about themselves without a POV is not germane to the debate. Stilgar135 23:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The edits Van made violate the guidelines of WP:Autobiography. His claim to inventing "combined triple average" cannot be independently verified. "Van has privately confided that he wasn't blowing smoke here and is in fact working on a major innovative advance in sabermetrics," he writes. This is obviously unverifiable and is original research. Keep in mind that he doesn't meet any of the WP:BIO standards in the first place, and the case for deletion grows. SliceNYC 20:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is being renominated because Van clearly does not meet WP:BIO, something which was never mentioned in the first two AfDs. In the AfD two months ago, the focal points of the argument were that one article had been written about Van and that he was known in the Boston area. (For what it's worth, the article was in the arts section, not even the sports section.) The difference this time through the AfD process is that we are discussing actual policies and guidelines, not just vague concepts of notability. SliceNYC 21:30, 9 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical fiction short story[edit]

looks WP:OR and unexpandable definition; W not a dictionary WP:NOT Yy-bo 23:07, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volvospeed[edit]

Web community of 15,000 members. Maybe an article devoted to short descriptions of Volvo and other enthusiast/community sites is in order. Ranked around 155 for page views and 178 for unique traffic compared to other message board sites on Big Boards. ~ clearthought 21:57, 2 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 TO DELETE. The raw totals are 9 Keep, 6 Delete. Two of the Keep votes were by editors whose only edit so far are their Keep votes, another by an editor who has had one other edit, and another by an editor whose only edits have been to this AfD or to the article under consideration. If for the sake of argument we don't count those, we have 5 Keep, 6 Delete. No huge advantage in strength of argument, thus, no consensus. Herostratus 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay MacFarland[edit]

Contested CSD, Non-notable actress only had a few bit parts RMHED 21:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment There is no user Pr.girl. The above comment is from 71.137.249.228. IrishGuy talk 20:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment The above is another false signature [27] IrishGuy talk 22:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment How is it that I am a false signature and don't exist. Lets keep this constructive unlike - [28]InfoGuru talk16:20, 8 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. ZsinjTalk 23:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Beyond[edit]

Musician's notability not quite established here. I can't determine what makes this one notable. theProject 22:04, 2 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 by Marudubshinki as a copyvio. MER-C 04:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia Spells[edit]

not at all relating to the computer game utopia Yy-bo 22:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter role-play games[edit]

Delete - there is some information about forums that could be merged into the main HP article and some other material that could be saved but this seems to a collection of insider trivia. Charlesknight 22:17, 2 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, no reason to delete. Cowman109Talk 22:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echilamvayal[edit]

vanity Yy-bo 22:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per its an actual place.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:33, 2 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. Keep comments are all from new and/or single-purpose accounts. Xoloz 01:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zulu Online[edit]

Non-notable gamecruft. (Contested prod.) According to the website, the game is not yet even released. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Maybe warrants an article if the game is released and gets some notoriety, but not encyclopedic until then. eaolson 22:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, apologies for deleting the tag. Qwo 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also transpose my earlier protest on the article's discussion page here: as stated in the edit summary of my removal of the deletion tag, I believe the claim that Zulu Online is a "non-notable" game is of arguable merit. Also, the article was created mere moments ago, and has not yet had a chance to be fleshed out. Stop being a party pooper, dear sir. Qwo 22:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Logan Strunk. I am a senior at Shawnee State University in Southern Ohio.
I go to school for Gaming Simulation Design and Engineering.
Basically, I'm in school to make video games.
Recently, me and a few friends have decided to start making a game for our own enjoyment, and to show off at a gaming expo we having coming up in the fall. ...
Since the two "Keeps" above use the same IP address, I suspect they are from the same person. Flying Jazz 18:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please come back to Wikipeida AFTER the product has ACHIEVED notoriety instead of coming here to argue that it DESERVES notoriety. Flying Jazz 04:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I always wondered why the librarians at the college tell us not to use Wikipedia. Now I know why. -Logan

More like Flying POOP Qwo 19:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. My apologies for earlier silliness. Flying Jazz 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I also apologize if Logan took my post badly; I posted the quote of his announcement solely as part of the discussion of the article's notability. If this is something that really will be out soon, and is generating a lot of buzz in the gaming community, then it might be worth an aricle. I think it is more likely that we should hold off until the game actually comes out; if it becomes popular, then it will need an article. Until then, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Brianyoumans 23:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i quote from WP:SOFTWARE "Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden", "Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service." (this page was not made by Logan) 67.184.143.35 23:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Altirion (btw, i do have siblings so those "two post with the same ip address" did come from different users)[reply]
There are four criteria on WP:SOFTWARE, the meeting of any one of which makes it worth an article. In order: 1) Subject to multiple non-trivial works. 2) So well known that it's name has become generic. 3) Core product of a notable developer. 4) Distributed as standard with a major o/s. We know immediately that it fails 2, 3, and 4, and a Google indicates that it fails 1 as well. Therefore, it fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Mnemeson 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, I am however rather offended by Flying Jazz's post. I thought you guys were supposed to be more professional? -Logan
As well you should be. I've removed the comments and I apologize again. Flying Jazz 04:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i just did a search on google to see if that was true (i actually check the validity of other's statements) and when i search "zulu-online" it came up as the fourth link so it CAN be easily found on a google search and it's the 6th link on the search you did "zulu online" so i don't see how you can't find it 67.184.143.35 21:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Altirion[reply]
Hi Alterion - I think you've misunderstood the guideline, sorry if I didn't make it clear. Allow me to quote, instead of paraphrase, in order to avoid ambiguity. "The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The Ghit you cite does not meet these criteria - it is a post by Logan advertising on a BBS. Can you provide any major published works where this software is referenced? --Mnemeson 21:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it may not have a published works where it is reference (that i know of) but i have to know, why would it be so bad for Zulu-Online to have a page on wikipedia. (and don't give me some crap like it isn't notable) 67.184.143.35 04:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Altirion (also when you deside to say my name, at least COPY it CORRECTLY)[reply]

Because WP is not a Crystal ball - this game hasn't been released yet. Also, WP is not a Soapbox - the article is an advert. --Mnemeson 12:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article is not an advertisement, it's simply information about the game. all this information is readily avaliable on the zulu-online website and it will be released (again sertain movies that are listed on wikipedia haven't come out yet but they are still here)216.125.163.56 13:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Altirion[reply]

There are so many people in the world who want something they've done or something they like or something a friend of theirs has done to get all the recognition it can get. Hosting all these pages at Wikipedia takes some money, and people donate that money to a non-profit foundation with the expectation that it will be used to provide web-space for some things but not other things. In order to talk about why movies get in before they're released and most software doesn't, I have to use the "notable" word so I won't talk about it! It would cost very very little to just sneak one more article into Wikipedia, but, like the grade-school teachers say, "If we make an exception for you then we have to make an exception for everyone else too." It's a really boring reason but it's the truth. Of course, for all I know, in a couple days when an administrator comes around to actually make the deletion, they might agree with you instead of us! Flying Jazz 21:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, if it's any consolation, the game does look pretty cool. Kubigula 21:39, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lrfd[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary per WP:NOT Blood red sandman 22:30, 2 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 TO DELETE. Herostratus 18:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Idol/ Pop Webcam Competition 4[edit]

listcruft; repository of information; WP:NOT Yy-bo 22:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Gidol - the details arn't that important --T-rex 03:05, 12 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maidstone Wrestling Association[edit]

Non-notable wrestling organization, PROD removed with no explanation TJ Spyke 22:45, 2 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. Catchpole 21:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ovidijus Vyšniauskas[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 22:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, in Eurovision subculture, an act receiving nul points (zero) is perversely notable, sometimes moreso than the winner of the relevant year. BigHaz 23:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not understand that coming in dead last was a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. But if it is, then that's OK. However, the article also fails to meet WP:V, as there are no reliable sources referenced -Nv8200p talk 02:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not in so many words, no. I'd argue, though, that being the first Lithuanian to compete is the contribution ahead of coming dead last. Either that or the more wishy-washy conception that anyone and everyone who competes in the ESC has made a contribution to the record of that field. The fact that an act fails to record a point is also notable, since the overwhelming majority do. Naturally, this makes them last. BigHaz 02:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to add this: I'll add the source into his article right away, which as far as I can see should get around the verifiability issue. BigHaz 02:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted as a ((hoax)) article. (aeropagitica) 16:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern occultists[edit]

hoax article created by Flinders who was a sock of Mattisse. If it were a serious article, it would violate the no original research policy —Hanuman Das 22:50, 2 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 all articles. (aeropagitica) 15:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metro New York District Young Religious Unitarian Universalists[edit]

Non-Notable local organization; prod removed without comment. Brianyoumans 22:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Added to AFD: Massachusetts Bay District Young Religious Unitarian Universalists, Ohio-Meadeville District Young Religious Unitarian Universalists, Pacific Southwest District Young Religious Unitarian Universalists, Florida District Young Religious Unitarian Universalists --Brianyoumans 23:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect, there is nothing to merge. --- Deville (Talk) 00:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headingley ground[edit]

hoax article started by NothingMuch, a sockpuppet of Mattisse, patent nonsense —Hanuman Das 23:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:FrancisTyers Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 23:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian expansionistic wars in 1990's[edit]

To my opinion the sole reason of the creation of this article will be obvious to anyone if he/she sees Wikipedia:Attack page. Not only that it is slightly offensive, it also violates Wikipedia:No original research, as it states no source at all and its Google search shows a total of 0 results. The same can be said through Wikipedia:Cite. It's also poorly and amateurly written and all in all, it's just an attempt to creat a page parallel to Yugoslav wars, but anti-Serb POV orientated - so there is no need to have this article ever dealt with, because we already have one neutral. This could be a desperate attempt to present a POV version of the Yugoslav wars.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCATE Accredited Institutions[edit]

A more up to date list is on the NCATE website, and this is what categories are for. Nickieee 23:24, 2 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, if a politician has never held an office. Moreover, the claims of his being known in Juventude Socialista seem to be belied by this gsearch. In short, I can verify exactly nothing in this article, and as argued below it seems unlikely Sá would meet WP:BIO if we could. --- Deville (Talk) 23:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Sá[edit]

Non-notable. Was originally PROD, but User:Kilo-Lima for some reason is confused by an IMDB entry for someone else of the same name, and Google hits without quotes and accent which match irrelevant pages (see Talk:Pedro Sá). This person is simply a "board member" in Portuguese politics: he has never held elected office, or done anything especially notable above anyone else of the same position. He has an unpublished work - as stated in the article itself. There is really nothing here which asserts the encyclopædic importance or significance of the subject. Delete. EuroSong talk 23:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, exactly... this is how I found it actually, by doing a search for Eurovision links. I too am a fan of Eurovision, but I don't warrant my own encyclopædia article :P EuroSong talk 10:07, 3 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 closed; article is bit-for-bit duplicate of Kitty's Dish, redirected as such. --james(talk) 13:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's Kitty's Dish[edit]

Already listed for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty's Dish. As I noted there, it's about a not-notable animated television pilot. "Even though the pilot tested highly with focus groups it was not picked up as a regular series." Originally PRODDED. Prod removed without comment by User:Lesserredpanda. <200 Google hits, not all about subject. Most are about, well cat food, Nancy Reagan and Kitty Kelly. We should probably merge the two, but I don't know how.  :) Dlohcierekim 14:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lesserredpanda is heavily onvolved in the creation of the article. I am boldly marking her comment as a vote to keep. :) Dlohcierekim 15:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 00:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skyscraper Square[edit]

No evidence of this term being used for that place can be found on the web - seems to be a neologism. H005 23:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 22:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waud[edit]

Internet slang that appears to be unverifiable original research ("Due to the unpopularity of this slang"). RN 05:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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