< September 24	September 26 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was Delete per failure of WP:WEB. --Nishkid64 00:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Classroom[edit]

I feel that this article isn't very significant, and doesn't deserve a place in wikipedia. Simply an article that advertises/tells about the game. Website does not generate many visitors. Fails WP:WEB criteria. Does not even have a page rank on Alexa. GamePlayer623 02:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the article itself, it is stated that it won the daily featured contest on this website. I am not sure that this award in itself is notable but Classroom 1 counts more than 5 million views across the internet. Further research is needed to be done here. But a google search proves impossible here and this must be taken into consideration as well. For the time being, I have decided to reserve my comments about this article temporarily. Maybe a rewrite of this article is required here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MGS_3_:_Crab_Battle for a similar debate over flash movie/game. Specifically, WP:WEB even states that content hosted on newgrounds is trivial. Mitaphane _talk 08:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mitaphane. Mgm|^(talk) 12:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pending revelations of notability. From what I see here, I see none. AdamBiswanger1_{R.I.P. Steve Irwin} 13:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hosting on Newgrounds does not count as a non-trivial source, being pick of the day is.. nice, but then there's a pick of the day every single day. Even if it has been viewed 5 million times, what exactly does that mean? At best it means someone has downloaded that particular flash game that many times, presumably many will be players accessing it multiple times. It's a free game on a site designed to pull punters in by sheer volume of 'phree stuff', people go to get a little rest for nowt then go take a shower or whatever. Imagine if a load of bakers marched across cities all over the world offering free slices of chocolate cake, then declared it amazing that they've shifted x million slices. Well of course they will, I'd have no difficulty in passing out £5 notes and chart CDs either. If someone can show that the 'feature of the day' is significant or that there's some notability citations out there, I'll gladly change the vote, but these flash games etc. seem to be taking liberties. QuagmireDog 09:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Although the game is pretty well known, I've never even heard of the author or his/her website. --FlyingPenguins 02:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not hearing about the author or his/her website before, is not strong reasons for deleting this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 22:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete per failure of WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. --Nishkid64 00:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Narayanan[edit]

Non-notable editor; fails both the WP:BIO and WP:VAIN criteria. Google shows around only 33 relevant Google results--TBCTaLk?!? 23:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think that some of those results actually refer to another person with the same name.--Hús ö nd 01:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious vanity. Author and IP have also posted contact info (cell phone, email, etc.) to this page and Anand, which I've removed. --NMChico24 02:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Jared Hunt September 25, 2006, 05:22 (UTC)
Delete per nom and own research. - Richfife 05:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Although the difference in country might be somewhat skewing, I still don't see an editor as notable if he or she has not done anything that would make them otherwise notable. AdamBiswanger1_{R.I.P. Steve Irwin} 13:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, thoroughly ridiculous article.UberCryxic 19:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 04:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep- How a non-notable person can become the senior editor of a reputed channel.I think he may be notable. But the contributor of the article must provide sufficient links and sources inorder to prove his notability.Adv. P. R. Bijuchandran 14:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gametoast[edit]

Non-notable Star Wars modding forum that fails the WP:WEB criteria. Alexa ranking of 543,182 [1] and few relevant google results [2].--TBCTaLk?!? 23:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that filefront.com publishes a lot of Gametoast material. "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators." --authraw 01:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that FileFront is not considered a non-trivial website, since anyone with a FileFront account can upload material on it. Claiming notability due to having a file on FileFront is no different than having a website on Geocities or having a flash cartoon on Newgrounds. --TBCTaLk?!? 02:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's true. Is it also the same with Gamespot and Download.com? --authraw 02:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unlike FileFront, Newgrounds, or Geocities where the users upload the material; on Download.com and Gamespot, it's mainly the staff that chooses what material to include on the website.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Authraw, I'm concerned that much of the current content in the article is original research. What I mean is that you didn't cite any reliable third-party sources. That's not really a delete concern (I'm going to figure out whether something like Gamespot/Download.com is considered a content distributor, but my feeling is that it is.) but I'm not sure that the current article's contents can be verified. ColourBurst 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't the site speak for itself as far as verification? I mean, if its mention on Gamespot and Download.com makes it "notable", can't the information about the site come from the site itself? That being said, I'm not certain (and never have been) that the highlighted maps are notable in themselves--but the rest of the article seems fine to me as far as being verified.

"Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves"

The above quote is from WP:V. As far as verification goes, it seems to me that the article is covered. Or am I reading this wrong? --authraw 19:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, having material on trivial websites such as FileFront, Geocities, or Newgrounds, does not satisfy WP:V, since anyone with an account can upload material to those websites.--TBCTaLk?!? 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. But I provided two instances where Download.com and Gamespot posted Gametoast material (Gamespot and Download.com). The filefront issue, as agreed, is irrelevant. --authraw 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't matter; take a look at this (From WP:RS):

We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher.

I believe the small section in WP:V was meant for a way to get little bits of information in an article that wouldn't otherwise have it. It was certainly not meant to circumvent the need for reliable third-party sources, and certainly an article should not be filled with self-published information (as that defeats the whole point of WP:V.) ColourBurst 03:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see. Thanks for helping me wade through the policies! Based on this information, I have added my vote. --authraw 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 17:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject matter of this article is almost completely unverifiable. --authraw 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Director's Cuts[edit]

It is a non-notable website that offers little more information than a list of cartoons hosted by the site. GShton 00:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found the Flash movies on this site hysterical, but the site itself doesn't have much notability outside of the owner's appearance on Attack of the Show! and fails WP:WEB. If there's evidence of notability, the article would definately need a clean-up. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 03:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Simonkoldyk 05:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought this was about real-life Director's Cuts (see Worms (computer game), but it's apparently some non-notable flash cartoon site. JIP | Talk 08:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is such a thing as a video game director's cut, such as the aforementioned Worms and the maligned Clay Fighter. But that isn't what this article is about. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.UberCryxic 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article that tells nothing more except for a person's name, the Flash cartoons he made, and his website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamePlayer623 (talk • contribs)
Comment - I am the author of this version of the article. I created it about half a year ago because of its notability from the Rise of the Mushroom Kingdom series, and because its Alexa rank back then was fairly high. It started as a stub, and hoped that it would get expanded; however, it didn't much. Things just got worse for the popularity when the presence of malware started showing up more and more on the site. That is what likely dropped its Alexa rating and lowered its popularity. I'm not sure if what I just said was going anyhere, but that was just my say. --FlyingPenguins 02:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was del `'mikka (t) 18:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Knox[edit]

"is currently in the process of creating a TV show", Does a zookeeper count as being notable, when he hasn't done anything notable yet? Nekohakase 00:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn notable Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Shella * 00:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn, but I have to say (yet again) that I wish we had a NOTYET template that combined both crystal ball and notability--i.e., something that indicated that expunging the article in question is not necessarily a permanent thing. I worry for people who submit something like this, then get scared away when it's voted down. P L E A T H E R _talk 01:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something like this? Confusing Manifestation 10:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Jared Hunt September 25, 2006, 05:23 (UTC)
Redirect to Jim Knox's Wild Zoofari. Mgm|^(talk) 12:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm not sure a redirect to a show that has not aired is the best course of action. The Jim Knox's Wild Zoofari article itself could be brought to AfD as a violation of WP:NOT a crystal ball.--Isotope23 18:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you could kill the redirect for being un-used. When I read the article on the show it appeared to me it was in a far state of development and ready for broadcast in the near future. As soon as there's verifiable info on films we also get articles as long as we know for sure they'll be released (most often meaning they need to be announced by major studios). I didn't go into detail about the show, but I think it should be judged similarly to such film articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete I created this article because Knox could be the next Steve Irwin. I do not know how to write a "proper" article like you, but please do not delete it, just change it to make it acceptable. Or, please add it to Jim Knox's Wild Zoofari. If you must, please delete "Jim Knox" not "Jim Knox's Wild Zoofari". Thank you
Delete per nom GShton 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isotope. Heimstern Läufer 08:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MurraysWorld.com[edit]

This website does not meet any criteria for notability. Specifically, it is "...not notable enough to be described by multiple independent sources..." (the main page is linked to by 27 pages as per Google, none of them notable). Further, the article does nothing to describe the website in an encyclopedic manner; it "...[offers] no detail on the website's achievements, impact or historical significance...." (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) I propose to delete the article and not merge it with Andrew Murray (tennis player); a link to this website as an external fan site already exists on the Wikipedia article. Iamunknown 00:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This site says exactly what and where it is. A fan site for a Tennis player at WWW.Murraysworld.com. It should not be deleted as the reasons are unreal. User:Tommy23 01:36 AM, 25 September 2006 {BST}
- "This site [encyclopedia article] says exactly what and where it [MurraysWorld.com] is." (Please correct me if my inserted assumpions are incorrect.) Exactly! This encyclopedia article is nothing more than a directory listing linking to MurraysWorld.com. It is merely an article describing exactly what the website is, without any historical or cultural context, and exactly where it can be found; it is analagous to a directory listing of a restaurant by cuisine style and location. --Iamunknown 00:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the WP:WEB. Echalone 00:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep reading, it tells about the sites start and what it is like today. It has no reason to be deleted! Thankyou very much. User:Tommy23 0200 25 September, 2006 (BST)
- 'One more thing, you might want to read the area called site history? User:Tommy23 0203 25 September 2006 (BST)
  - Tommy, if editors have read the section on the main AfD page here, they'll know to read the article. It specifically recommends that editors "Please have a look at the article before making a recommendation. Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator. For understanding the situation it may also help to look at the history of the article." Please consider re-reading the linked section. --Iamunknown 03:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Mais oui! 01:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can all find another reason for it to be deleted please inform me. Hope there are no hard feelings Iamunknown. User:Tommy23 0306, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Delete, seriously! Of no encyclopedic value. Thanks/wangi 02:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Wangi, but it may not be of no encyclopedic value to you, but for others it would be. It tells the history of a website that I and other may find interesting. Like many pages on wikipedia. User:Tommy23 0422, 25 September 2006
  - Please have a read of WP:WEB which are notability guidelines for articles about websites. This website does not get near meeting them. Also consider WP:ISNOT. Thanks/wangi 03:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI have given plenty of information to why this page should not be deleted.(see former posts) That is the end of my work. If it gets deleted its not the end of the world for me or any other of the 700 members of MurraysWorld. User:Tommy23 0433 25 september 2006
Delete per nom. Sdedeo (tips) 04:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there is no assertion, much less establishment, of notability. Sorry Tommy23, but the notability of Mr. Murray does not transfer to a website about him, particularly since the connection is tangental. Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. P L E A T H E R _talk 04:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Jared Hunt September 25, 2006, 05:24 (UTC)

I agree, I think it should be deleted, it has no encyclopedic value, it's been set up purely to promote a website and that's not what Wikipedia is about.

Delete per WP:WEB, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and per nom. Ramsquire 20:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator since it does not meet the WP:WEB guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 23:59, 29 September 2006 23:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity DIP Records[edit]

Non-notable independent record label. ghits: [3] NMChico24 00:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nnband (well, nn label.) Sdedeo (tips) 04:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. —Jared Hunt September 25, 2006, 05:27 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Ramsquire 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of those who are "far left" according to Bill O'Reilly[edit]

Unnecessary list. What possible purpose can listing a pundit's opinion of who he feels are "far left" serve? Carlos M 00:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see how this is neccessary. A sampling of the links could serve as a reference that he uses the term 'far left', but this looks like anotherwise unneccessary list. A list of who's-called-who-what isn't neccessary. Kevin_b_er 00:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It was cluttering up the article so moved here. I like to see everything on the article page, but people add so much to Bill O'Reilly that now there are at least 3 spin-offs. --Blue Tie 00:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not necessary and unencyclopedic, pov as to who is "far left".--Shella * 00:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep and Comment The article is not pov. Pov would be to have a "List of those who are 'far left'". This article is "List of those who are 'far left' according to Bill O'Reilly" which is npov and is sourced. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The POV comes in by editors interpreting O'Reilly's remarks, and by selecting O'Reilly's opinions on the matter as listworthy in the first place. Do you support similar lists for Chris Matthews, Larry King, Ann Coulter, Lou Dobbs, and Stephen Colbert? And further lists of their opinions on who is "far right" as well? Where does it end? wikipediatrix 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think quite a few people do not understand the context of how this article was created. It did not just come up out of thin air. It has been in the O'Reilly article for a long time but was quite a long list so I just provided a spin off article. If the Letterman article had a huge list of who he thinks are hot, then someone might end up making that into a separate list (which I'm sure would be afd'd also). I am not trying to proclaim that these lists are worthy of the label "encyclopedic" since so much cruft survives here or seriously fighting for the inclusion of this specific list. I guess I caused quite a stir here by doing this. There was no point I was trying to prove, but this discussion does enlighten as to what is really necessary to put into an article. I would like to invite people who commented here to look at the Bill O'Reilly article itself and see what can be improved. It is "B-class" right now but some imput could make it into a "Good Article." MrMurph101 19:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep also. It's just a list but a long one. There are other list articles here that are not as long either. I just created it per article size protocols. Someone could change the article title if the article is kept if they want to. MrMurph101 00:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kevin_b_er --NMChico24 00:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but replace with a category. --Walter Görlitz 00:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- neither encyclopedic nor informative. —Aetheling 01:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question It looks to me like people want to delete this list entirely. It previously came from an article. Should it be put back into the article or removed from wikipedia? --Blue Tie 01:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say remove it completely. It serves no purpose, and the main article is already long. --NMChico24 01:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it should be merged back into the article. It does serve an important purpose, in that it exhibits O'Reilly's political leanings. -Hal Raglan 00:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is extremely informative about O.'s positions and therefore his bias. Especiallysince the second adjective in this article is "journalist". If he states he is a neutral commentator but favors one position routinely and to the degree demonstrated by this list - that is crucial and objective information. Until this numerically and objective documentation of imbalance is addressed otherwise in the article- it must be kept. Furthermore - the article has been left totally imbalanced - one wonders why since it is so obvious - with continued listing of people on the a list of right he criticizes. SO Carlos M Carlose should either restore the list or offer wording to make the same point otherwise. Getterstraight 02:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)getterstraightGetterstraight 02:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't add it to the article. Wikipedia is not Bill O'Reilly's soapbox. --Wafulz 02:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A cool list but wikipedia is not the place for this kind of thing. If the author is that intrested I would recommend thrid party hosting and a ref link off the main O'Reilly article. NeoFreak 03:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, judging from Getterstraight's comment this is a POV fork. Gazpacho 03:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, leave it out of the main article. It doesn't need a comprehensive list, just some examples that people have verifiably commented on. Gazpacho 03:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge a few back into "Opinions on others politics". There's no need to keep a catalogue of every one of O'Reilly's pronouncements, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An amusing insight into what passes for political commentary in America though. -- IslaySolomon 03:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor information that, as pointed out above, would be soapboxing for O'Reilly. No point to it, really. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into O'Reilly article — Joshua Johaneman 03:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete A cluttered, unencyclopedic mess. Twipie 03:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An arbitrary, OR, and indiscrimate collection of someone's opinions. What's next, List of women David Letterman thinks are hot, List of things Lou Dobbs thinks are bad for America, and List of dishes that are bad according to Chairman Kaga? wikipediatrix 04:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no merge. LC (maybe?) and per kevin_b_er. -->So sayeth M e t h n o r^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}
Delete and do not merge, unless maybe a maximum of four entries were put in the main article to serve the purpose of illustrating a point. There is no need for all of this. GassyGuy 10:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no merge. We really do not need a separate list of the people each and every loudmouth talks about. Yes, it was cluttering up the article. The solution was to remove it from the article as cruft, leaving a few notable examples with some discussion in detail so that readers will understand O'Reilly, which is the purpose of the article. O'Reilly is absolutely not a reliable source for political science, so a list is of no evident merit. Guy 10:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NeoFreak above. It's fine as a third-party page with a link on his wikipedia article, not so fine as an article of it's own or as clutter on his page -Markeer 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no merge per NeoFreak. I find it utterly bizarre that anyone is obsessive enough to even be taking the time to keep track of this sort of thing; it certainly serves no purpose on Wikipedia. --Aaron 16:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per zat Guy, do not merge. The article, in some way, seems to exist simply to make a point. Agent 86 17:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who cares who this guy thinks (POV) is 'far left'? Marcus22 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no merge) and I concur with the opinions of JzG and Wafulz. There is no reason to fork off the opinions of any Talking Head into a seperate article... and no reason to retain it in an article about the person for that matter.--Isotope23 19:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep although the editors who point out that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information have a very valid point, this list although verifiable does have independant notability issues. To some of the editors voting delete, please remember that AfD is not the proper forum for articles with POV issues, or articles that need improvement. Ramsquire 22:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. Articles which are based on an inherently faulty and POV premise from the getgo are indeed fodder for AfD.

wikipediatrix 02:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll glady retract my statement and change my vote, if you show me which policy or guideline supports your contention. Please note [4]which states that AfD is not proper forum for POV issues. The better argument for delete is that the list violates WP:NOT as it's most like listcruft and who BO thinks is far left is not notable.Ramsquire 19:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is list is verfiable. Because of the nature of O'Reily's show I think that this article does serve a useful purpose. Verifiable, notable and useful, its a keep to me. AmitDeshwar 00:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might answer my questions I've put forth elsewhere in this AfD, then: do you think similar lists on this and other topics should be started for other celebrities of equal or greater stature (cough) as Bill O'Reilly? Why or why not? wikipediatrix 02:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly the most ridiculous and pointless article I've ever read. No place in an encyclopedia. 83.67.2.61 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG, wikipediatrix. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the O'Reilly article. Its an important list within the context of the main article to help demonstrate (without editorializing) O'Reilly's true political leanings; as a separate article it serves little purpose.--Hal Raglan 00:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of trivial information.--Peta 05:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --TorriTorri^{Talk to me!} 06:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Merida[edit]

Google turned up very little on this wrestler. Appears to be a small time wrestler that isn't very known. Also appears to be vanity, since the user that made this is called MeliChaCha. RobJ1981 00:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created at the recommendation of fans via the internet. Oftentimes independent workers will provide this information on their own, as there isn't much exposure for them via smaller promotions' sites. AWA NJ1 21:11, 24 September 2006 (EST)
- Comment. Wikipedia is NOT the place for articles on people that aren't very notable. Wikipedia also isn't the place to provide exposure for lesser known wrestlers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge, not an encyclopedia for any article of non-notable things. RobJ1981 01:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a "promotions' site". Uncle G 08:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's attractive, but she doesn't appear to be notable. TJ Spyke 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe what AWA up there meant was other wrestling promotions' sites - not that the entry was meant to act as promotional material. Either way, I don't think the article should be deleted on merit that this information is relevant to people like myself who write reviews or might want to know about a performer who I have never seen before, but would want to learn more about. Just a random user's $.02.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.71.25 (talk • contribs)

Delete. No assertion of notability, nor is there any verifiable sources. With the addition of those two elements, then its a keep. AmitDeshwar 00:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect, since a clear majority seem to think he doesn't deserve his own article. Grand master ka 20:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Offen[edit]

Delete. Not Notable, Fancruft Bill.matthews 00:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete. Fixed now. Yomangani ^talk 01:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original AFD here - Yomangani ^talk 01:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I haven't listened to Stern in a while, so can't I say with certainity, but this guy is one The Wack Packers. The last AFD ended up in merge, obviously there a enough to say about this guy that someone moved the info back into its own article. I'm going to say keep per WP:BIO based on "Widely recognized entertainment personalities." —Mitaphane _talk 08:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So he is a cross-dresser? So is a guy I know, but I wouldn't write an article about him. JIP | Talk 08:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. He's already listed in The Wack Pack article, so there's no need to vote to merge. Also, the article is written in a very unencyclopedic manner. --Aaron 16:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Wack Pack. Let's not make it harder to find information. He doesn't deserve his own article, but it will be confusing if we simply delete and not explain that he can be read about on the Wack Pack article. -- Ektar 19:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect The article itself is unnecessary, but I could certainly see someone searching for Offen- in which case, said search should go to the Wack Pack. -- Kicking222 09:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a keeper. Offen is a celebrity in the world of Stern. Offen has fans who follow his career. He is not just any cross-dresser. He is on the Howard Stern show every week. That gives him a level of notoriety and he should have his own entry. -- frenchwv 08:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Wack Pack. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Wack Pack - He might be too obscure for his own article but is in the Wack Pack and deserves to have some sort of writeup on wikipedia. Kether83 10:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as others have said, he is on the Stern show weekly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.134.2.62 (talk • contribs)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tbmin[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. I thought the company was well-establish, but it turns out it's just a year old. It claims to be the "leading" company, but doesn't define that at all. Anyway, the article is essentially an advert. Google brings up nothing independent. No reliable sources = No verification. Also nominating:

Luis Felipe Trevino Beamonte

I would also recommend we examine Tbmin, since his page is a redirect to the company page. Wafulz 01:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both pages. Spam + non-notable. I'm unsure about how to deal with the user. Maybe just leave his/her userpage as it is, it will redirect to a broken link anyway.--Hús ö nd 02:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam Filpaul 10:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Obvious Advertising. Uses pronouns such as "We" and "Us". However, if a person could change it to a more professional level, than perhaps it is notable. GamePlayer623 02:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vendormate[edit]

This page was created by the company's co-founder. The company doesn't seem to be notable. Closercate1 22:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know how you know it is the company's co-founder. But it was created by Jkatzen (talk · contribs) and it's at least troubling that the director of marketing for the company is Joey Katzen. [5]Pascal.Tesson 01:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if consensus is that it's inappropriate, pull it down. I put up a basic factual stub page for it, b/c it's a real company with a real service. It's remained here for nearly a year without a concern until now; I have an inkling that this AfD is the result of an editor getting vengeful following a discussion on the Logo talk page. Jkatzen 01:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Wow, you got away with it for a whole year?! I'm sure you're oging to donate all of ur procedes to Wikipedia ;-) Closercate1 23:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: if it's useful, it's been written about in one (though not multiple) publications independently: Atlanta Business Chronicle

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm afraid. I wish I could give weight to the fact that Jkatzen is a respected Wikipedian, but I feel I have to put my personal biases aside. It appears the company objectively does not meet WP:CORP. I note the lack of editing experience by the nominator; I think it's standard practice to take that into account when closing the debate. Wmahan . 03:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above; contains no case for notability, and uses credential as a verb. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Grand master ka 20:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logo extraction puzzles[edit]

This article looks to have been created for the sole purpose of promoting the creator's website game (the first in the list), which violates WP:nn Closercate1 22:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I came across this page in February this year when I was searching for trivia puzzles, as I was planning a trivia night. I wanted information about different types of trivia games and came across logo extraction. If there are issues about the creator's site being promoted, then cut those bits, but I still think the remainder is relevant. - Bricks J. Winzer 07:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but Wikipedia isn't a web directory or a search engine, it's an encyclopedia. The only basis for consideration is whether the article merits inclusion, not whether someone finds it useful (this is why we exclude computing FAQs and HOW-TOs, for example). Mind matrix 21:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete AfD now properly listed. Kevin_b_er 00:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is about "class of printed or online games", so I don't see how it is inherently promotional. Inappropriate advertising can and should be edited out of the article, as Bricks J. Winzer said above, but it's not a valid reason for deleting the whole article. Wmahan . 04:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see the issue with this. In practice my complaint would be that I would like to see the article enlarged. I will look over the links though. Nigel ^(Talk) 18:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It shouldn't matter who posted it. The article is worthwhile. Cochese8 19:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Logo. Excluding Wikipedia mirrors, there are less than 500 hits for logo extraction, and just a few for logo extraction puzzles. While this isn't a definitive measure, it does suggest that this topic doesn't necessarily merit its own article. Moreover, the two inline external links in the article don't meet the criteria for inclusion (but that's a separate argument). By the way, I agree with the comment that it doesn't matter who created the article, only whether the article is worth keeping in Wikipedia. Mind matrix 21:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 500 hits for the search string are mostly from the Wikipedia article itself or reference websites the get their info from Wikipedia. After the first two entries in the article (posted by the creator who most certainly has ties to them), you have an entry about a printed article, of which there is no evident web proof and a broken link for FregTK game. That sounds pretty WP:NN to me. I'm glad everyone likes Katzen (see third delete on [[6]], but that shouldn't mean we keep all of his work. Closercate1 23:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since you nominated the article for deletion, it's understood that you want to delete it, so you don't need to "vote" again. Wmahan . 23:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak kepp the notability is a bit tricky to establish via Google because these games might have names that don't involve the keyword "extraction". Still, if GAMES Magazine has picked it up, it has at least some notability. I disagree that the article is primarily designed to promote the creator's website and it's simply normal to have external links in an article that discusses a class of puzzles that first appeared online. Pascal.Tesson 00:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pascal.Tesson. Heimstern Läufer 08:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Daniel .Bryant 01:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

110th Rifle Division[edit]

After reading this I have no idea what this is, other than it is somehow connected to World War II. A Yahoo! search yielded 1,620 hits; 19,200 with Google. DRK 01:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A military unit of this strength and in this historical period is undoubtedly notable. However, this is an orphaned article [7] which is almost completely devoid of context or content. --IslaySolomon 02:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge. The article is supposed to cover the WWII German division. I created German 110th Infantry Division for redirect and merge. NeoFreak 03:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I tried to expand the article and add references. 110th Rifle Division was part of the Soviet Union's army, not the German army. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I misread the portion on the Königsberg pocket and assumed the original author had mislabeled the division. Notable as a division size WWII unit. Needs a rewrite bad though, I'll see what I can't do. NeoFreak 04:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This author has created a bunch of articles about WWII-era Soviet divisions in the last 24-hours. So far, all of them check out as legit, and I think giving a litle time for expansion is not out of the question. Carom 04:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've already added them all to the Soviet WWII divisions category he created and wikified the articles. NeoFreak 05:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carom. It just needs a little love. -- Xiliquiern 11:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Soviet rifle divisions the equivalent of a brigade-strength unit in other armies? Perhaps I'm thinking of Russian tank corps, which were division strength. Anyway it may prove difficult to obtain good information on these units. — RJH (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fixup. Its perfectly feasible to get info on Soviet formations from Nafziger's publications and similar earlier works on the Red Army OOB in English. Hard slog, but more info could be extracted from histories such as Glantz or Erickson. In addition, Russian-language material is available. Not much worse than many of the articles on other WWII formations. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has several sources, thus verifiable. Seems notable. Could perhaps use expansion, though. Cool3 21:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Involved in a couple of notable battles and is a large unit. JASpencer 21:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above. RFerreira 23:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 3BSCompany[edit]

Apparently non-notable company, possible vanity. Google finds no secondary sources. Created by single-article user. RandomP 01:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 09:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping on Gaming[edit]

I believe that this does not meet the criteria at WP:WEB. The article was deleted once via PROD, but re-created by the original author, which qualifies as a contested PROD. Joyous! | Talk 01:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google hits are remarkably low [8]. Fails WP:WEB by a mile. -- IslaySolomon 02:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nominator and previous user. Sarg 06:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete it most certainly does fail WP:WEB. There is no asertion or reference as to why the subject is notable. Altair 14:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & above Nigel ^(Talk) 17:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete How is this more notable thasn the billion and one other gaming message boards out there? The Kinslayer 13:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Completely non-notable. Original prod'er. Leuko 19:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. It would have helped if you had cited sources that mention said awards, keep voters. Grand master ka 20:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raffles Voices[edit]

This article is about a school choir activity. There are 102 unique Google hits [9], but I did not see any that might establish the notability of this choir. They have not released albums like Kashmere Stage Band once did. They do not meet the proposed WP:ORG. I would just suggest a merge with the school article, but it is just as hopelessly cluttered with unencyclopedic information as this article is. I delayed this nomination for over a week with the hope that the creator or other interested parties might improve the article to establish notability, but no edits took place. Erechtheus 05:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Non-notable secondary school choir that fails WP:MUSIC. Possibly merge to Raffles Institution instead.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bands, clubs, and groups at a single school are rarely notable enough for articles on their own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Raffles Institution, school choirs do not meet WP:MUSIC, even if they are the best in the country. RI is known for its long list of all rounded achievements, and some mention in the school's article itself is good. Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable choir: (1) The group received numerous awards at national level, (2) it participated in international arts festivals, and won awards as well, (3) it has held several paid public concerts, at prominent locations including the Victoria Concert Hall, which is the country's premier concert venue; hence it satisfies WP:MUSIC. --Vsion 03:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sdedeo (tips) 04:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 12:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are other Singapore choirs and school musical groups that have articles in Wikipedia such as Nanyang Polytechnic Voice Ensemble and Raffles Institution Military Band. The choir does meet the guidelines in WP:MUSIC, having obtained a category winners award and gold diploma in the Johannes Brahms International Choir Festival last year and many other international competitions. It also had a concert tour in Alava, Spain in 1995 when it took part in the XIV Semana Coral International de Alava. Seeyf 12:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge some information into Raffles Institution: there is a little useful information here, but it is not worth its own article. Heimstern Läufer 08:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/Merge per TBC Computerjoe 's talk 19:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep, real town. Kusma (討論) 08:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ganguvarpatti[edit]

Small none notable town in India--M8v2 21:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: It's got a population of 10,569. It is recognized by Census of India. Since when notability criteria applied to towns? This nom fails WP:CSB. - Ganeshk 01:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ganeshk. --Antorjal 02:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Ganeshk. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many places have less people. This place is notable.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep per every one. Doctor Bruno Talk 02:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Ganesh.-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 02:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above -- Lost^(talk) 04:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: 1. It is Verifiable. 2. What does size have to do with being non-notable? If an area is verifiable, and the article has info beyond the one-liner /empty page stage, there is no harm in having pages on such geographic locations. I also note that this town has 10,000+ people, at least 5 times that of small hamlets spread throughout other countries (Albion, Illinois with 1950 or so people is a prime example). --Ragib 04:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, nomination couldn't be more fallacious. Punkmorten 07:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. We're not looking for whether or not she won an election... We're looking for whether she meets WP:BIO, and as far as I can tell, BlNguyen is the only one who's made any progress towards answering that question. Next time this gets nominated, let's hear some real arguments instead of juvenile mudslinging. And Emcee, "sysop" and "admin" are the same thing. ;-) Grand master ka 21:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Tran[edit]

Hong Tran was a minor Democratic candidate in Washington United States Senate election, 2006. She received some play in the local and national press because the incumbent Democratic senator, Maria Cantwell voted in favor of the authorization to use force that preceded the Iraq War and, while she is critical of the handling of the war, she remains in the "Stand down as the Iraqis stand up" camp and Tran is in the immediate withdrawal camp. Tran may also be the first Vietnamese-American to run for US Senate. However, so far she has received little more than 5% of the Democratic primary vote while Cantwell garnered just shy of 91% of the vote. Bobblehead 01:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Substance of article are election comments. Minor candidate blow outs are common not notable. Election is covered with own article. Rentir 11:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP She is a newsworthy person that ran a campaign that was concerned with the issues of her community. She did not run for fame or glory, but to make a difference. Yes, she was unsuccessful, but mentioning an Asian American contributions to the American melting pot and her desire to and become an influentical candidate has spoken alot about how important she is in the Asian community and the American community in her state.

Bnguyen 20:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tran seems like a talented, accomplished and admirable person, but she has no meaningful level of support or following, receiving roughly 5% of the vote in a party primary. She is a not a leader in the state of Washington. Her limited voting support seems to have been a protest against Cantwell, and not support for Tran specifically. At best, an article about Tran is of local interest, and not appropriate for Wikipedia (there is already an article about the Washington United States Senate election, 2006, as well as an article about Maria Cantwell). --Nottingham 02:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Nottingham Bwithh 02:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per nom. If she'd won, she'd still warrant the space. Williamborg (Bill) 03:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have been the primary author of this article for the past few months. The deletion proposals seem to be in regard to the notability of the subject. Hong Tran was cited in multiple respected publications as Maria Cantwell's main challenger for the Democratic nomination, and was regarded as the standard bearer for the solidly anti-war contingent of the Democratic party in the primary. She recieved a considerable amount of press during the primary campaign, including mentions in multiple articles and one feature article in the Washington Times (in Washington, D.C.), a mention in the New York Times, articles in major newspapers throughout the state of Washington, and feature audio interviews on NPR as well as others. She received endorsements from the Democratic caucuses in four of the legislative districts in the state, including the sole endorsement in Cantwell's home district, the 32nd LD. She is the first Vietnamese-American to campaign for Senate in the state of Washington, and likely in the entire country, according to the Northwest Asian Weekly newspaper. She may continue to influence the outcome of this U.S. Senate election with her endorsement or lack of it, and any other words or actions during the general election, and she may also remain a public figure and run for another office. Hong Tran also passes the Google test, with about 16,800 hits for a search of ["hong tran" senate].

Both Nottingham in particular (Bobblehead as well) have put a lot of weight on the fact that Tran only got about 5% of the vote in her second-place finish in the primary. I have argued that the size of the vote alone does not determine the significance of a campaign or a candidate. Ralph Nader never even got 3% of the vote, yet was a notable presidential candidate. Neither raised or spent lots of money; both ran grassroots campaigns for the purposes of making statements about the political system, about the parties, to influence the political debate and party platforms, and to allow voters an avenue to express their conscience. Some people understand the significance of this; other people don't. I would consider a pro/con style insertion into the Hong Tran article where both sides of this could be heard (with propertly balanced language); I think this is a common way of dealing with these sorts of controversies in Wikipedia.

It should also be noted that the article has received considerable modifications (about 110 edits) since Nottingham began contributing five days ago on the morning of Sept. 19th (which also happens to be the day the primary election occurred, or the night before, in Washington state time). Bobblehead made this AfD request in response to ongoing "edit wars," mostly over was constitutes NPOV or relevant info. In response to what I consider uncivil treatment and improper edits, I have been attempting to seek neutral mediation for over the past few days. User: False Prophet from the Mediation Cabal had accepted the case for mediation just prior to Bobblehead's AfD request. Assuming the AfD request ends up being evaluated, I will be posting a link here to my preferred version of the article, such that it will show some of the information and citations that have been either deleted or severely modified in the name of "NPOV", "Streamlining", significance, privacy, or any number of other reasons why this article has been trimmed. In some cases, supporting info has been trimmed away and then the original content subsequently deleted for lack of support.Emcee 03:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the AFD was submitted because the edit war was due to a question of notability of the subject. What better way to determine notability than send it through AFD? If it survives the AFD, then the subject is notable, if it doesn't survive, then the subject isn't notable. Either way, problem solved. --Bobblehead 06:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A large amount of the edit war was over disagreement over statements that were alleged NPOV problems. The article was supposedly in the process of being adjusted to better conform to NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BIO standards; I had been trying to work with Nottingham too cool off, set some ground rules, and seek mediation, while still recieving uncivil treatment such as here, where he says, "You have no sense of facts or standards, and you do not understand the difference between facts and opinion. . . Grow up, learn to read and learn basic academic standards." Your response to this was to put up the article for deletion, rather than noting Nottingham's uncivil statements, trying to defuse the situation, and seeking some external mediation. I don't see "ending editor dispute" as a grounds for deletion in WP:DEL.Emcee 18:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; seems notable enough given the low bar we have established on WP. I'd hate to see a WP where ultra-minor league porn stars are notable, but a non-joke primary candidate in a Senate race isn't. Sdedeo (tips) 04:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there are those of us who are pushing for a higher bar too. Any ultra-minor league porn star will most likely fail WP:PORNBIO. And I don't see why political candidates are inherently more notable. We have plenty of ultra-minor league politicans and political candidates who are due for AFD too Bwithh 05:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a non-joke candidate for Senate is more important than many who might pass "pornbio". Sdedeo (tips) 05:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think most minor party candidates who run for office with no hope of even getting a small slice of the vote take themselves pretty seriously too Bwithh 05:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If humility was a requirement for notability, WP would be pretty

e! Sdedeo (tips) 06:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how does one characterize a 'joke candidate'? The WA Dem primary had a person named Mike the Mover that runs in whatever is the highest available position that year and another candidate whose campaign stump was the need to create habitable space stations to house the planet's growing population. Neither one of these candidates consider themseleves a 'joke candidate'. Both also get more hits via a google search than Hong Tran. Not that I think google searches are a good measure of notability or anything. --Bobblehead 06:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because habitable space stations guy doesn't think he's a joke doesn't mean he's right! I think it's pretty clear that Hong Tran is hardly a joke candidate: she ha[s/d] a serious platform. Anyway, in the absence of a consensus policy on candidates, I think erring on the side of inclusion is pretty harmless. Indeed, the whole initiation of this debate -- Tran supporters and detractors fighting over facts about the campaign -- seems to indicate that there is more interest in Tran than, say, US-54. Sdedeo (tips) 06:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the high edit count is due to 2 overzealous editors. Just because 2 people disagree over the content of an article doesn't mean the article is notable, especially when one of the editors is doing so because of the lack of notability.;) One only need to meander over to WP:LAME to see that editors sometimes fight over the silliest of things. --Bobblehead 06:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 3 overzealous editors, including Bobblehead who has contributed almost 30 of those edits over the past 5 days. Another correction: Michael Goodspaceguy Nelson does not get more hits than Tran in Google([10] 772 you include the word 'senate' and [11] 9,460 if you don't), and neither does Mike the Mover, despite having run for office multiple times: [12] 520 if you include "senate" in the search term, (like I did with Hong Tran above), so that you're not including the "Mike the Mover" moving business and others; still only [13]20,400 without. Compare to Hong Tran with senate in the search term (16,800)[14] and without (37,100)[15] Emcee 18:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I count at least ten non-bot editors who have worked on this article. Sdedeo (tips) 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The desire to group Hong Tran in with "joke" candidates like Michael Goodspaceguy Nelson and Mike the Mover is a fairly obvious stretch; I'm not sure why Bobblehead would still try to advance that theory. Someone who campaigns about the Iraq War, PATRIOT Act, free trade agreements, etc. is clearly a serious candidate compared to those whose voter pamphlet entries talk about space colonization or going to war with British Columbia, neither of which has to do with the Democratic party platform or anything else that is considered a significant issue in this election. There was also an entreaty from the Cantwell campaign to Hong Tran to have her join their campaign (which she interpreted as a job offer, based on the context of the call right after the other challenger Mark Wilson had been hired), and which all of the political commentators that I've seen have regarded as a "buy-out" offer (as they still regard the Wilson hire). This is further evidence of her political significance; I severely doubt that Cantwell offered jobs to Nelson or Mover.Emcee 19:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also forgot to mention that Nelson and Mover both: had no campaign websites (albeit some almost uncommented blogs), reported no campaign contributions to the FEC, made no campaign appearances, gave no interviews, and had no feature articles on them in the press (local or national). Tran had all of those. Emcee 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Sdedeo. Mango juice^talk 04:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PeterChehabi 05:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sdedeo. NeoFreak 05:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability, what there was of it, ended with the primary election. Fan-1967 05:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ralph Nader has done a heck of a lot more than run for president. Gazpacho 07:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but his presidential campaigns alone make him notable. Both Tran and Nader did prior work involving federal laws and policies, leading directly to their getting involved as candidates.Emcee

Keep. per Sdedeo.--Stuart D. 08:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She lost by 85%? All notability at this point is null and void. Wildthing61476 16:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nottingham and Fan-1967. If you're just one of those "famous for 15 minutes" types, you don't deserve a full Wikipedia article, especially after those 15 minutes are up. She probably deserves a small section in Washington United States Senate election, 2006, though. --Aaron 17:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When reviewing this article for deletion please note the recent edit history, such as Nottingham's reversion at 04:42, 25 September 2006 that was his fourth in 24 hours, violating WP:3RR. Compare alongside the previous version here to get some idea of the nature of the deletions that have been going on by those who want the article to be deleted, or regardless of the current state of the article make sure you read a recent copy of the "non-Nottingham" version here.Emcee 18:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have read the "non-Nottingham" version, but it doesn't convince me to change my vote, I'm afraid. --Aaron 19:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed Senate candidate, does not meet WP:BIO in my opinion. The references in the article are all local sources... there just isn't enough here to establish a strong case per WP:BIO in my opinion.--Isotope23 19:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't know why the push to delete this article bugs me so much. Perhaps because the people who started this deletion push also have strong POVs re: Tran as evidenced by their editing histories. In any case, WP:BIO links to a candidates criteria page where one finds the only statement on notability: "Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written." It's clear from reading the article that Tran has received significant press coverage from state sources to merit inclusion. Sdedeo (tips) 20:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You earlier talked about Tran's "detractors". Who are her "detractors"? Who has made negative statements about Tran? I have expressed no opposition to her as a person. You now talk about "strong POVs". I do have a POV that she is "a talented, accomplished and admirable person" (I said that at the top of this page). I have never made any edits that say that she is not talented or lacks the ability to succeed in government. That isn't the issue. The issue is that she clearly isn't notable. She lost in a party primary in a landslide, by more than 85% of the vote. There is no evidence that she had special or unique support -- even the newspaper quote of a local Democrat who gave her a shared endorsement was "it wasn't a slap against Cantwell, but also it was kind of a feel-good vote, in that at least (people thought) 'I've said something about what's going on in Iraq' and stuff. It wasn't even about 'we shouldn't be there' but rather about how (the war) has been handled."! Notice that he didn't even mention anything about Tran. Tran's own campaign web site does even appear to have been updated since several weeks before the primary vote. She isn't a leader of the anti-Iraq War movement in the Democratic party. She simply filled the role of "not Cantwell" in the primary, and even in that role she barely received 5% of the vote. --Nottingham 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your continual references to Tran supporters as being in bad faith, being biased, being agenda-driven, &c. &c., and references to Tran as "not a serious candidate", "not the preferred candidate of WA voters", led me to believe you had a dog in the fight. I apologize for not assuming good faith. While I'm hardly an "inclusionist" when it comes to AfD (check my edits), I confess I am surprised that, instead of trying to resolve differences, you continually revert other editors (who are hardly blameless, of course), and then push to delete the entire article. Sdedeo (tips) 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that a lot of Nottingham's criticisms have been directed at me, even more than Hong Tran, and that the edit war seemed to be as much about winning/losing as it was about the interests of Wikipedia and its articles. I am not an innocent party to the edit war, but I don't think this is an appropriate direction for the dispute (as I mentioned, I was trying to seek mediation and defuse this). I do believe Nottingham's edits and deletions in the article themself evidence a strong POV, even if it was founded in something other than an evaluation of the candidate. Examples: adding, "Tran has not identified any Democratic candidates who are more electable than Cantwell, who won the Democratic primary with an overwhelming majority of 91% of the vote."[16]; "Nevertheless, Democratic voters supported Cantwell overwhelmingly in the primary, with Cantwell receiving 91% of the vote, and Tran receiving less than 5%."[17]; and repeatedly deleting the info box and date of birth, on the justification that is was necessary to protect the candidate's (and her husband's) privacy [18][19] which had Nottingham edit summaries as follows:

"(Info box is repeated in bio. Should her husband, who to my knowledge is not a public figure, have his name listed on Wikipedia?)"

"(Why is Tran's date of birth being repeated openly on Wikipedia? Perhaps her age is relevant, but DOB can lead to identity theft.)".

I don't know what else to say about that.Emcee 21:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment You said "I don't know what else to say about that." It seems that what you should be saying is "I'm sorry, I didn't know Wikipedia policy". From Wikipedia's own guidelines: "Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date." See Biographies of living persons. I had suggested that just Tran's age was appropriate instead of her birthday. That suggestion is in line with Wikipedia policy. You appear to make light of the issue of potential identity theft. However, I agree with Wikipedia's guidelines on this matter, and I follow them. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the AfD, although it is another example of how you ignore Wikipedia guidelines. --Nottingham 21:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the talk or edit summary, DOB is on the public secretary of state election filings, her husband's name is on the current campaign web page. Both are on this older campaign page:[20]. Political candidates make themselves public figures and a lot of information is known about them. The reason I mentioned this is because the edit war that birthed this AfD has become relevant to the AfD debate itself, but I will agree to leave it to the interested reviewers to take a look at the edit history and talk page for the article in question from here on out.Emcee 21:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand why everything you write on this page ends up being about me. You are contacting people all over Wikipedia about me. You are making this AfD about me. You repeatedly make unsupported statements about me. I have already complained about your cyber-stalking or Wikipedia-stalking or however one would characterize it. --Nottingham 16:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The references are not all local sources (and some references have been deleted by the editors who want the article deleted). Here is the initial mention (see paragraphs 4-6) in the Washington Times (that's Washington, D.C., not Washington state); and the recent feature on Tran in the same paper. She's not Ned Lamont, but then again, she's not a millionaire and there is a much stronger Republican challenger in Washington state than in Connecticut.Emcee 20:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, The Washington Times mention is not enough to satisfy me. Sorry, I just don't see any notability here. If it is any consolation though, I think Ms. Tran will fare better here than she does in an actual election; I'm predicting a "no consensus".--Isotope23 00:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete per nom. It's really hard to even give more than abstain, but I can't just say "delete". --Dennisthe2 20:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm strinking my above vote and, in light of Nottingham's violation of 3RR, switching to Strong Keep. This is an edit war issue. --Dennisthe2 14:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Abstain, and commentary retracted. My apologies to Nottingham, I didn't have all fo the facts before I shot my mouth off. Not knowing what to make of this mess, though, I'll remain neutral. --Dennisthe2 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and The Washington Times articles alone satisfy WP:BIO's requirement for significant non-trivial press coverage. AfD is not for resolving edit wars. --Roninbk _{t c #} 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Seattle P-I articles are largely irrelevant, since in this case it's just a local paper covering a local election, and the Washington Times article doesn't even mention Tran until the sixth paragraph. "Significant non-trivial press coverage" is supposed to mean entire articles about the individual, not articles where the person happens to be mentioned somewhat. --Aaron 21:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, please take a look at this feature in the Washington Times. I think that's what you were looking for.Emcee 21:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're right; I was looking at the wrong article on the WT site. It's still not enough to convince me to change my vote personally, but this particular AfD is no big deal to me, and it looks like it's going to end with no consensus defaulting to keep, which is fine as far as I'm concerned. --Aaron 22:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The irony is amusing, as The Washington Times is a very conservative paper that likes tweaking Democrats (just like some liberal media like tweaking Republicans) by trying to create news when there is none. Regardless, The Washington Times article in question is the only article that has multiple references to Tran that appeared in a newspaper published outside the state of Washington. However, the article mentions nothing unique or notable about Tran except that her claim that she was not being treated fairly by the state and national Democratic parties, and that Tran is opposed to the Iraq War. The article even claims that voters for Tran appear to be making protest votes against Cantwell by voting for Tran, i.e., not voting for Tran because of Tran's own qualities. "But several voters here said they will issue a "protest" vote for Mrs. Tran, a lawyer with a nonprofit agency, to send a message they are frustrated with their senator." There already are Wikipedia articles on the election and on Cantwell. There is nothing notable about Tran that merits a Wikipedia article. --Nottingham 21:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even as you keep raising the bar for notability (now it is "more than one newspaper article with multiple references outside of the state"), you make factually incorrect statements. How about The New York Times [21]? Sdedeo (tips) 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where have I "rais[ed] the bar for notability"? Where did I ever set a standard for notability? At least it's a good straw man for you to use. Yes, as that NY Times article had TWO instances of the name "Tran" in it, even though the article isn't about Tran (it was published BEFORE the primary, yet it was all about Cantwell's pending race with McGavick). I suppose my comment "The Washington Times article in question is the only article that has multiple references to Tran" should be modified slightly. The Washington Times article is the only out of state newspaper article that focuses on Tran or does more than mention her in passing. --Nottingham 22:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for awhile you decided that anyone with less than 5% of the vote was not-notable -- until you discovered that Tran had 5.1%. Why don't you tell us what would make Tran notable? You should also tell us why an articles about the primary election which acknoledge Tran to be a "key opponent" count as "passing mention" only. Sdedeo (tips) 22:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you Emcee's Sock Puppet? I notice that Emcee has neither a normal User Page nor a normal User Talk page (the User Talk page for Emcee says "Welcome from Redwolf24"). Since Emcee just made the exact same false claim as you, it makes one wonder. You just made the false claim "for awhile you decided that anyone with less than 5% of the vote was not-notable". I never made such a statement or had such a standard, yet Emcee made the exact same spurious claim as you, and was unable to support it when called on it. It could be that you simply read what Emcee writes and repeat it. But, then again, you seem to have an inordinate interest in this topic, just like Emcee does, so, if the shoe fits . . . Regardless, all this has nothing to do with the AfD, which I didn't even initiate. It seems you are more concerned with personal animus now. Suit yourself. --Nottingham 23:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[22] is what I was referring to, but while you lecture others on wikipedia policy, your complete, unapologetic inability to WP:AGF against both me and others you are fighting with makes it useless for me to engage you in further discussion. Sdedeo (tips) 23:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham: My user page is empty because I've never taken the time to put anything on it; not an uncommon thing (I see yours is empty too!). My user talk has a "Welcome" message from Redwolf24, who is a long-standing user, sysop apparently, who was welcoming me to Wikipedia when I created my account in August 2005; this is also extremely common to see. If I were to theorize about sock puppets, I think it would be more likely that I would be Sdedeo's sock puppet rather than vice versa, since he has a lot more contributions on a lot more articles than I do, and also created his account before me. But it would be bad form to accuse myself of sockpuppetry with no other reasonable evidence that I am in fact a sock puppet[23], so I won't accuse myself of that. By the way, if you mess up on Wikipedia, most people won't hold it against you if you just apologize and/or undo it.Emcee 23:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Roninbk. This is a no-brainer for notability, with significant coverage in nationally-recognized newspapers (including at least one non-local one in the Washington Times). | Mr. Darcy talk 20:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- some more coverage. The Seattle P-I is the "second largest" paper in the state, and covered Tran; the Seattle Times, the largest, I discover on a quick google wrote:

Cantwell's key opponent in the primary, Hong Tran, a seemingly grounded, competent attorney, has raised a measly $18,000, with $8,800 remaining after expenses as of the end of June. The incumbent at the same time had raised $10 million, with $6.4 million cash on hand.

There are about half a dozen articles on the primary, all of which mention Tran prominently. BTW, it appears that the anti-war movement in WA supported a guy called Wilson more than Tran -- I guess we should expect a fight to delete him as well? Sdedeo (tips) 21:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, final statistic -- Tran's campaign seems to have generated 93 news articles [24]. In addition to the Washington Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, there are also articles in the Seattle Times and The Olympian (describing her as the "only significant" primary challenger), and mentions in the Washington Post, Forbes, Baltimore Sun, Reuters, and a host of attention on major national blogs like TPMCafe, Media Matters, etc. etc. Sdedeo (tips)<;/small> 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Despite her low showing in the polls, she was a legitimate candidate for a major party for a significant post. She got coverage throughout WA media as well as national. We're still in the 2006 election cycle and I think that, for now at least, she is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Though, I'm pretty sure that (unless she runs for another office), in another year or two, my vote would go the other way. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 22:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep. Numerous, non-trivial, references in local and national media. Seems clear enough to me. AmitDeshwar 00:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable primary candidate - got quite a bit of attention. Rebecca 00:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now' I think that what you do with these types of articles is to keep them untill the next election. Then, if she is participating, you can keep this article. But if a year passes, and this was the last people heard of her, she becomes an irrelivant person on the global/national scale. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 03:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As meeting WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 04:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reviewers, when evaluating these arguments, please note that Nottingham has now been blocked for 24h for continuing personal attacks against User:Rebecca and User:Snottygobble, a sysop and admin, respectively. Rebecca was trying to advise him on his multiple reversions on this article; Snottygobble was attempting to advise him about personal attacks on Rebecca and then on himself, after which Nottingham blanked his own talk page and then Snottygobble blocked him. Nottingham had made the most edits to this article in the last several days, and was a prime motivator for this AfD nomination. In my opinion, this supports my argument that this article/edit war should have been in a mediation process rather than submitted to AfD, and should be kept rather than deleted.Emcee 08:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page has become absurd. Bobblehead nominated the article for deletion, not me. Emcee has made many edits to the article in question for several weeks. Emcee has turned this page (the AfD) into a vendetta against me (not that it matters much, after all, it is just an Internet discussion with people who don't know each other). Emcee has carried on and on and on, including hearsay and false accusations of personal attacks, to the point where he/she has created the false impression that I started the AfD when in fact all I did was write a comment. Period. That's it. One comment. It was only after numerous comments by several people back and forth that I offered responses. Absurdity. This page is about deleting a page about a person who lost by more than 85% of the vote in a political primary, about whom there is nothing noteworthy, and it is a situation where the election itself has a page that references the person. This page is not about me, it is not about Emcee, it is not about Bobblehead. It is an AfD for the Hong Tran entry started by Bobblehead. That's all this page is for. I have made it clear on this page and the Tran entry and its Talk page that I respect Tran's talents, accomplishments, and character. However, those are not the issue. The issue is notability, and Tran is simply not notable. Incidentally, the Tran page itself as Emcee has edited it violates the spirit and arguably the strict letter of Wikipedia's own guidelines by revealing DOB and spouse's name. No one on this page even seemed to care about the privacy and safety of Tran or her husband, even though Wikipedia explicitly mentions this in its guidelines. But, there are far greater tragedies in the world that the existence of a article on a non-notable person.

--Nottingham 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to express public thanks to Dennisthe2 for apparently realizing that at least some if not most of what Emcee has written on this page is not accurate. Quoting Dennisthe2 from above: "I didn't have all fo the facts before I shot my mouth off. Not knowing what to make of this mess, though, I'll remain neutral." As one can see, Dennisthe2 has retracted his vote to Keep the page. --Nottingham 21:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're welcome, but a thank you would have sufficed. I will point out that my retraction is in light of the mess in here, the AfD. After much thought, I'd rather keep, but my vote remains to abstain in light of this insanity. It'll teach me to cast votes for politicians, I guess. =) --Dennisthe2 05:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will leave it up to any interested readers to take a look at Nottingham's talk page (make sure to view the history, since he has already partially or completely blanked it in 3 times in recent days, including twice since his block was ended) and the edit history/talk page of the Hong Tran article where he encouraged deletion on Sept 22 and immediately prior to the edit-war-motivated request on Sept 25. I never said that he submitted the AfD nomination himself, but that he was (I quote), "a prime motivator for this AfD nomination." I agree with Dennisthe2 that this history is a mess, and I assume most people don't have the time to dig through it all. I cited Nottingham's recent block and surrounding behavior because I believe it is a quick way for reviewers assess the credibility of his arguments. I would also like to note that although he is now restraining himself from direct personal attacks on others, I have witnessed no remorse for his previous actions, and the sarcasm that remains in his communications with longstanding user and admin Snottygobble I do not believe are in line with community standards of respectful communication. Emcee 00:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you need to take a deep breath and step back. This page is about an AfD for the Hong Tran entry. That's all. You have no respect for the AfD process and no respect for the Wikipedia community when you bring in other matters. It appears that you believe that by filling this page with non-AfD matters that you can stop the article from being deleted. I cannot understand why else you keep diverting the subject of this AfD page. --Nottingham 00:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In light of discussion over the past few hours - in particular, Emcee's concurrance with my previous statement - would it be appropriate for this AfD to end and a new one for the article to begin? --Dennisthe2 05:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My concurrence was that the history of the Hong Tran article was a mess, due to the edit war. It was heavily redacted during the days leading up to the AfD request, which made it difficult for people to see what the article actually consisted of, and how much press she had gotten. I'm sure it's also difficult for people to sort through all the issues of the edit war itself, which is why it should have been in mediation instead. If you were saying something different than that, then I don't concur. I certainly don't concur with Nottingham's analysis of what you wrote -- just because you said you didn't have all the facts, I didn't conclude that you thought I had given inaccurate information. If you do, please specify, because I believe that everything I have said is accurate. I'm not dealing with Nottingham's allegations anymore at this point because I don't feel it is productive; I would be surprised if anyone who views his talk page history, with it's repeated blanking of admin comments, would give his allegations any credit at this point. My contention was and is that this AfD never should have been nominated in the first place, because it was an edit war issue. In that sense, I agree with your second opinion (the switch to Strong Keep, because it is an edit war issue). I think it is appropriate for the AfD to end, as long as the article is kept; but there is no reason why another one should be started. I would expect that a second AfD would have similar results anyway. I also think that this AfD has shown that there is a significant number of people who think that Hong Tran has sufficent notability to meet WP:BIO, which is the technical basis upon which Bobblehead was submitting it, even if the practical purpose was to end the edit war. Anyhow, it seems that the whole purpose of AfD (since we are in the process, regardless of whether it was proper or not) is to reach consensus. I will propose Keep, with a scheduled re-evaluation after the Nov. 2008 U.S. Congressional elections. Emcee 06:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said "I also think that this AfD has shown that there is a significant number of people who think that Hong Tran has sufficent notability to meet WP:BIO". Of course, this ignores that you poisoned the AfD process by making this page about me, and constantly talking about me. Several Keep votes reference directly or indirectly your constant remarks about me on this page. You don't like me. That's fine with me. You appear obsessed with me, and I am raising complaints with Wikipedia about your Wikipedia stalking of me. I suggested, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines for resolution of disputes (namely that involved parties should try resolution first amongst themselves), that you start an entry called somethinig like "Nottingham is a bad person". Put it on my User Page if you prefer. --Nottingham 16:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Now, that I didn't realize - my statement was in light of the mess here, not there. But, you do have a point, so I'd have to concur with you, at any rate. Incidentally, we need to be careful with figuring out who concurs with who at this point, lest we grow even more confused. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 15:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be noted that regardless of an edit war over the article (which Emcee is as much to blame for as Nottingham) the AFD submission was about the lack of notability for Hong Tran outside of the Senate race. It should also be pointed out that the content in the Senate race portion of Tran's article is already covered in the Senate Race article and if that duplication is removed, there's nothing even remotely notable about her. I proposed on the Washington Senate race talk page prior to the start of the edit war that the article (and that of the other primary losers) be either turned into redirects to the Senate race or submitted for AFD. I'm also curious of the opinion of othes on how better to handle a content dispute that is based solely on the notability of the article subject than to send it through AFD? This isn't the first time an AFD has been sent through in the midst of an edit war and many of them have been deleted at the end of the AFD. --Bobblehead 16:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a more complete (but concise) history of the edit war/AfD request from my standpoint, for Dennisthe2 or anyone else who is interested. I believe this recounting of events can be confirmed by anyone who reads through the talk pages and edit histories involved. Emcee

Start a New AfD Fresh without Making Nottingham the Subject[edit]

Emcee keeps making an AfD about the Hong Tran entry a discussion about me (Nottingham). That has grossly tainted the AfD process -- after Emcee's repeated mentioning of my name, a few comments came in as Keep that implicitly or explicitly mentioned me, clear evidence that the AfD process has been tainted by Emcee's repeated discussion of me on this page instead of the merits of the AfD subject itself. --Nottingham 12:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Dennisthe2, who seems to be an active and neutral Wikipedia observer, has the right idea. Simply start a new AfD fresh. I will gladly not participate other than reprinting my original comment (see top of page; in brief, Hong Tran seems to be talented, accomplished, and admirable, but not notable and therefore the AfD should be deleted and redirected to the election entry). I suggest that Emcee participate in a new AfD without mentioning me at all. If Emcee would like to write 25 paragraphs on the new AfD, as long as they don't mention me, then he/she should do so. I told Dennisthe2 I had no concern with how he/she voted before and during his vote changes. That is clear public record. Nevertheless, I suggest to Emcee that Emcee should show more respect to Dennisthe2 and to other Wikipedia community members by treating the AfD as an AfD, and not make misleading comments about any person's stance to Keep, Delete or Abstain. Emcee is welcome, as far as I am concerned, to start a Wikipedia entry called "Why Nottingham is a Bad Person" or to put such entries on my User Page. I have no quarrel with that. However, I do not understand why Emcee has taken it up him/herself to apparently misrepresent Dennisthe2's opinion. Dennisthe2 has said his choice is Abstain. If he chooses to make his opinion known as Keep or Delete, I am sure he will do that. However, it seems inaccurate and misleading for anyone to quote his prior opinions of Delete and Keep. --Nottingham 12:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what benefit would come from an immediate restart of the AFD process. The mess that this AFD became is still fresh in the involved parties' minds and a restart will only extend the agony. I'm content to let this AFD run it's course (and probably end up in no consensus) and wait until after the November election to send it through AFD again. --Bobblehead 16:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that most people evaluated this AfD based on the edit war or Nottingham's actions anyway. The only "Keepers" who even mentioned it are Roninbk (who mainly addressed the media coverage), and Sdedeo (who wasn't even addressing it in his initial "Keep" analysis). If anything, the edit war only biased reviewers unfairly against the article, as the first several viewers only got to see it in its highly redacted state (before Rebecca reverted it back to a semi-complete version). The last several reviewers all gave a "Keep" rating. Personally, I think re-sending through AfD in November would be an abuse of the deletion process; I'll leave it to the closing admin to weigh in on this. Emcee 17:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commment This current AfD should be allowed to conclude as it stands and if the result of this AfD is "no consensus" and someone (preferably someone not involved in an edit war over this article) choses to renominate it for AfD in a couple of months, it would not be an abuse of the deletion process.--Isotope23 13:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again, Emcee continues in personal attacks on me, instead of discussing the AfD. Emcee talked about "Nottingham's actions anyway". There is no reason I should be the subject of this page, and Emcee is presenting a biased, non-NPOV attack by characterizing my "actions". He/she consistently violates the spirit and letter of the Wikipedia guidelines with constant attacks on me on this page, and for turning an AfD into an attack page against me. --Nottingham 13:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just want to point out Nottingham's use of the term NPOV above. WP:NPOV is a policy that applies to WP articles. Talk pages, AfDs, etc. are places where we express our own viewpoints on the article content and related issues. Saying that my contributions to an AfD page are non-NPOV is meaningless. Furthermore, I am absolutely not issuing any personal attacks against Nottingham; I have noted specific instances of uncivility and his blocks, and pointed people to his writings on various talk pages so that they can review them for themselves to help evaluate the credibility of his arguments. Emcee 16:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What are you talking about? NPOV is a common abbreviation that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses NPOV in the context of its guidelines. Regardless, Emcee has repeatedly made false, non-NPOV accusations against me up and down this page. Instead of it being an AfD, it has become Emcee's diatribe against me. Emcee has not stopped stalking me all over Wikipedia, and leaving messages all over Wikipedia about me. It is sad and pitiful. I offered a solution that Emcee start a page with a title such as "Reasons Why Nottingham is a Bad Person". Instead, Emcee persists in posting non-NPOV attacks on me instead of letting the AfD be an AfD. If this AfD is "Keep", then there should be another one, as per the suggestions above, right afterwards that should not include Emcee's editorializing about me and attacks on me. I am not the subject, the Tran article is. If the AfD is "Delete", then obviously there is no need for another AfD. --Nottingham 20:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess that's why when I search for NPOV on Google and click on the links in the first few pages of results, the only link I can find that has "nothing to do with Wikipedia" (or later wiki variations like Wikinews or Wikibooks) is for the "North Pend Oreille Valley" Lions Club. Try again... Emcee 23:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the LOVE of GOD!!! This is Wikipedia, not high school. Both of you, take the petty arguments to User talk, or somewhere else. We do not want to hear it!!! --Roninbk _{t c #} 09:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cequal Products, Incorporated[edit]

Michael.Niemann (talk · contribs) nominated this as a speedy, but advertising isn't a criterion for speedy deletion, so I'm bringing it here. Original argument said: This article has been nominated for deletion because it lacks importance, and reads like an advertisement. -- nae'blis 02:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; part of a spam campaign in other articles. Sdedeo (tips) 04:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & above Nigel ^(Talk) 17:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relpats-eht[edit]

Web phenomenon, no evidence of notability or verifiability provided. Not every web site with 14-1/2 minutes of fame meets WP:WEB. Thatcher131 02:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sdedeo (tips) 04:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All original research. No references. External links are all forums and blogs. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. (I think there are roughly 6.5 billion people who've never heard of this.) Grand master ka 21:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leoville Town Square[edit]

Website fails the WP:WEB criteria; Alexa ranking of 240,358 [25]. Possibly also redirect to Leo Laporte instead.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Who hasn't heard of this site before? Alternatively, Merge into Leo Laporte Article. — Joshua Johaneman 03:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep or merge per Joshua Johaneman Collaborate 05:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, had never heard of this web site before. And looking for sources from which an encyclopaedia article can be built, I see that I'm not alone. This web site garners a couple of incidental mentions, such as this, on some web logs, and that's it. It fails to satisfy the WP:WEB criteria, as the nominator says. No-one has actually documented it at all outside of Wikipedia. Documenting it inside Wikipedia would therefore be original research. Delete. Uncle G 09:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into Leo Laporte it is his forums afterall. - Mike Beckham 09:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Changed to Delete user keeps adding spam and promotional material from the podcast. Obviously article is just a home for spam now. - Mike Beckham 02:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable website that fails WP:WEB, per nom. As an aside to answer the rhetorical question, I for one haven't heard of this site. That said, it doesn't matter if anyone has or has not heard of it. It matters whether it's encyclopedic, which it's not. Agent 86 19:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Delete the logo and screenshot images, too. --- RockMFR 20:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors (book series) herbs[edit]

Where to start? Not encyclopedic, list cruft, WP:V, ... Content duplicates that already in Warriors (book series) (which i'm not listing for AFD but would appreciate some eyeballs on along with Warriors: The New Prophecy characters (book series), Warriors Characters (book series) and Firestar (Warriors). Thanks/wangi 03:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree, the wiki staff even SAID the Warriors article needed clean-up, and some stuff should be moved to different pages. It does not duplicate any articles. Thylacine lover 03:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've not checked but it's unlikely that any of the few paid Wikipedia staff said that, what is likely is that another editor (just like you) said it should be tidied up. And Warriors (book series) certainly does need a good clean, but its length really isn't a concern - it's non-encyclopedic tone certainly is. Consider "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article." from the WP:ISNOT policy.

Warriors (book series) herbs really is just fancruft and an indiscriminate collection of information. Thanks/wangi 04:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- purely a list of disconnected information. Sdedeo (tips) 04:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of these uses aren't specific to Warriors - poppy (to take the first one as an example) is well-known to be the source of opium, which will indeed "numb pain and make (the patient) drowsy". In fact, there don't appear to be any herbs here, besides "rat bile", which are used differently in this fictional universe than they are in the real world. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only are herbs used in a certain book or series not particularly encyclopedic, as noted above there aren't even specific to the Warriors series anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. Badbilltucker 21:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that if you delete this article, you delete all of the herb info to, right? Also, it's not "rat bile" it's mouse bile. Most of the herbs uses are correct. Thylacine lover 03:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Jones (porn star)[edit]

Contested prod. Second prod added by User:Chidom with reason "He has made one film; not important enough for an article." This is a procedural notice, I remain neutral. See WP:PORN for a relevant standard in development. Note that as a gay porn star, the normal WP:PORN standards don't apply so clearly. Mango juice^talk 03:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just read more information at this model's bio at the studio website: Bel Ami; it turns out he hasn't even made an entire film. He has a photosession on video that lasts 11 minutes and 48 seconds; his appearance in the porn film is 3 minutes and 22 seconds.—Chidom ^talk 03:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One scene does not a star make. Fan-1967 05:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all the above. Badbilltucker 21:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stormtrooper effect[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Creating AFD discussion as my prod was disputed. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and that's what this article is. There are no verifiable references to cite. We certainly don't need an article about this. I think its mention in cannon fodder or Redshirt (stock character) is more than enough. Also, it should not be shorted to a simple definition either, wikipedia is not a dictionary. I know it's a cliche in use, but just because something is noteworthy doesn't mean it's appropriate for wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Notability for info on this. Also, one could argue that the stormtrooper effect is a neologism without verifiable sources and thus an innapropriate article. When and if there are good sources to make an article for this phenomenon I'd encourage it, but as it stands this article is not appropriate. See Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms for further info. Crypticgeek 03:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; amusing, but totally original research. Whoever wrote it should save a copy and post it somewhere else. Sdedeo (tips) 04:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful info and Redirect to cannon fodder. EnsRedShirt 04:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per above. MikeWazowski 04:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful info and Redirect to cannon fodder, per EnsRedShirt. (SEWilco 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Merge and redirect, per above. FrozenPurpleCube 05:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. T1g4h 09:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wikinazis have no sense of humor. Shame on you! This article is a fabulous insertion of intelligent comedy into your otherwise boring and sad worlds. Instead of seeking to maintain the beige tinge of Wikipedia overall, you should embrace professional style attempts to add a little pop to your supposedly "world embracing" online pedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.149.50 (talk • contribs)
- Delete - Yeah, what Wikipedia really needs is more hilarity. -- Plutortalk contribs 15:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. Not that we don't have a sense of humour, you're just not funny. ColourBurst 17:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence why I said to Merge it. I quite liked the article, but can see it fitting in with the cannon fodder article quite well ;) T1g4h 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC
- Delete per WP:NEO and Godwin's Law --Roninbk _{t c #} 20:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a neologism that originated here. It seems a highly notable name for an easily verified cultural phenomenon; what is recent is the name. Google says it finds 18,000+ hits. This particular article seems to be well liked by several bloggers.[26][27] This may not be "policy" but it makes me think we should think twice before deleting this article. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: whatever the result, please try to keep the cannon fodder article on topic and not overfilled with trivia. Although things like Homer Simpson references may look more important today the article should be rather about the tens of millions who died in wave attacks. Pavel Vozenilek 18:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. No reason to merge because it is unsourced. No reason to redirect unless someone can find a reliable source tying this the concept of cannon fodder.--Isotope23 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Yes, there is some good idealism here and I like the idea. It seems like an intelligent contribution, for the most part, and has some good info to it. Since there isn't a definite source, I think we should keep the best info and the redirect to a more definite article. (Unregistered user, submitted September 2006)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.21.207 (talk • contribs)
Merge if you must, but don't delete The phenomenon is well-established and documented, it is only the name that is not. This is a fitting article that documents an archetypical cinematographical tool that has since expanded into video gaming. The tool should not be ignored simply for a lack of taxinomical pedigree. Find a way to keep it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooseblw023 (talk • contribs) user's first edit
Keep: It's a "good article" candidate, for heaven's sake; see the discussion page. I believe this properly documents an important meme. I also disagree in that it is original research; it cites the use of the stormtrooper effect in creating dramatic irony. I bet if a professional screenwriter cleaned it up a bit, it would regain "good article" in no time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sim (talk • contribs)
Keep: Seems legitimate to me and describes an important, if humorous, aspect of film and video games. Could certainly use more sources though, this type of thing is well documented given the vast multitude of Star Wars fans. -- gxti 00:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice violation of WP:NOR and a host of other things as well. Whispering^(talk/c) 01:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The phenomenon exists, and there's no other name for it. Cannon fodder is a different phenomenon altogether. Stormtroopers are bad at offense, whereas redshirts are bad at defense.

Kla'quot 07:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The two main accusations by those who dislike this article is i)it is original research, and ii) that it makes them laugh. Against accusation i this is patently untrue as the "Storm trooper school of marksmanship" has appeared in print form as far back as 1989 and against ii what's wrong with some humour now and again???? KTo288 11:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per all above. There are a heck of a lot of google hits out there for it, it was a former good article candidate and from a cursory read this article is pretty well-written. True, it is not very well sourced, but sources can be added. Merging is not ideal because this really does desribe something distinct from cannon fodder, which I personally think needs a re-write more badly than this article does. Since sockpupetry seems to be a concern on this discussion, I would like to point out that this nomination was Crypticgeek's 7th edit. Irongargoyle 12:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the information present can be verified, if citations are needed then that should be correct, not deleting the article! It is equivalent to killing a person to cure their hiccups: surely a better solution is available. A ‘citation are needed tag’ and a general effort to find them is all the is required, not deletion. --BerserkerBen 17:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merging to cannon fodder is a bad idea, as these are two different phenomenons. Needs sourcing, but it should be verifiable for the most part. BryanG^(talk) 04:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs clean-up and a few better sources, but it's something that's been talked about elsewhere. Confusing Manifestation 10:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So we're supposed to keep badly written, unsourced material that consists only of orginal research instead of deleting it or merging it as appropriate? I'm a newbie to wikipedia relatively speaking, but I'd rather have good encyclopedic articles instead of bad ones languishing around waiting for someone to actually source and verify them. Crypticgeek 13:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP is a work in progress, which is why anyone can edit and contribute. If we delete this now, and somebody does decide to cleanup & properly source everything, they'll have to start from scratch. Better to have an article tagged as unverified needing cleanup than to force an AfD every time somebody tries to codify a plot device in fiction that may no longer be a neologism. Wl219 20:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful info and Redirect to cannon fodder. Palendrom 01:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's similar to cannon fodder, but not quite the same. dougmc 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment try to find some sources (for the term in wider use), if they can't be found then merge into various articles as per previous suggestions sheridan 15:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but trim heavily, and verify if possible. As is, it contains long crufty lists. --tjstrf 19:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but trim and otherwise clean-up. This is a notable and distinct literary concept fully worthy of coverage. This is true even though it's associated with sci fi fandom and hence annoys certain editors. --Saucepan 21:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is clearly not original research. An article which has survived for well over a year, and the basic frame has been there for many months, should not be deleted lightly especially with so many contributors. Mallanox 00:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable nickname for common plot device in movies. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 08:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kacey (porn star)[edit]

Non-notable erotic film actress. — Joshua Johaneman 04:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep. I see her all over the web and I don't go to "those sites". --Yamla 04:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The quickest test for notability under WP:PORNBIO is film count: IMDB shows 31 films, IAFD says 36. As well there's no sign of having won an AVN award (nor even so much as a nomination listed on Wikipedia right now) and she's not in the AVN Hall of Fame. So if she's to be kept, someone's going to have to do some fancy footwork to convince me. Tabercil 04:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I didn't know that convincing Tabercil was the determining factor on whether this article is to be kept. WP:PORNBIO is NOT policy nor even a guideline yet, and I think it's clearly flawed. Kacey is well known in the industry, as any cursory research will show. wikipediatrix 04:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL... it's not. But what I was trying to say is I couldn't find any ready objective reason to keep her, and the basis behind WP:PORNBIO is (as I see it) to try and set some form of clear standards as to who to keep and who not to keep. I pointed out the quickest tests for objectivity weren't met by Kacey, which means the notability criteria will likely be statements such as "I've heard of her" and "she's all over the place". That, to my eyes, seems like a weak argument... but I'm just one voice. Tabercil 11:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PORNBIO makes a number of false presumptions about the porn industry, including the statement that all porn actresses are spammed across search engines to inflate their ratings. Until someone can verifiably show that most of Kacey's Google hits are "viral marketing spam", I see no reason NOT to include her since passes the Google test and can be shown to have a fan base and a considerable body of work (no pun intended). wikipediatrix 19:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She doesn't seem like a notable pron actress. TJ Spyke 05:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is one of those instances where I think that WP:PORNBIO fails to cover enough of the industry. Dismas|^(talk) 08:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Oh WP:PORNBIO! You have some 'splainin'g to do! - UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO and isn't even overly notable in her field.--Isotope23 19:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable as per WP:PORNBIO and WP:BIO, or any other standards of which I am aware. Badbilltucker 21:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tabercil. Being well known in an industry doesn't seem like enough to me. -Kubigula (ave) 02:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IMDB page shows multi-year industry presence in numerous films. Article does good job of explaining Kacey's specific skill set. No reason to delete one of the paving stones on the road to comprehesive encyclopedic coverage of participants in this major industry. --JJay 17:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IMHO she perfectly fits in the WP:PORNBIO #7, ("Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche"). I arrived to this article through Reality porn, and think Kacey it's the perfect example. She looks and always has appeared in films like an amateur. (By the way, lots of people know Kacey and other so-called amateur actresses, while don't know even one Playmate of the year...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.57.251.5 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The proposed WP:PORN BIO fails us once again. RFerreira 23:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay, RFerreira, and Reality porn guy. Drjayphd 00:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments made above, this is a fairly notable adult entertainer. Yamaguchi先生 22:20, 29 September 2006
Keep at least as notable as a pokemon card. ALKIVAR™ 02:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSBBW[edit]

Unsourced definition; wikipedia is not a dictionary, and especially not a dictionary of rambling comments on strange internet acronyms Sdedeo (tips) 04:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and WP:NEO. Mango juice^talk 04:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. JIP | Talk 09:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whereas terms like 'BBW' and 'feeder' are established, there seems little point in speculating over offshoot terms where no clear precedent has been set. If the BBW community can make up its mind on exactly how they wish to classify the weight ranges (or someone can point out a source showing they have), the article can be recreated if necessary or I'll change my vote. 86.139.126.59 10:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 86.139 is me, curse my not clicking 'remember me' this morning. QuagmireDog 10:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BBW. Real term, but not used much - as it just starts arguments because the "dividing line" between "Supersize" and "Regular" is as arbitrary as how many grains of sand make a pile. The topic of this article could never be more than stub anyway, any useful information woudl be best merged into the BBW article anyway. "Hypersize" is definately a neologism though - never heard that one.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chłodnik[edit]

None notable kind of soup. Stub article can't be expanded any further. Prob doesn't taste good either--M8v2 21:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. M8v2 created this AfD but didn't add it to the daily log. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. If this belongs anywhere, it's Wikibooks, but the info is so bare bones, I don't think it would be useful there. Mangojuice^talk 04:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A single sentence belongs in Wikibooks? Surely you jest. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick Google search suggests that chłodnik is a Polish soup dish similar to borscht. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It would be nice if this article was more than one sentence though. wikipediatrix 05:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Wikipediatrix and Zetawoof. A quick google search suggests that it is a notable soup. Should be expanded. --Stuart D. 08:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, it is different from barszcz, as it is cold and the beet may be replaced by fruit. Zhurek or żurek is of course even more notable and has no article yet. --Pan Gerwazy 11:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poor stub, but notable as many kind of dishes; I would caution the nominator to consider his comments in the future so they are not as offensive.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have rewritten it completely and it is now a worthy stub. To M8v2: it is notable - just maybe not well known outside Eastern Europe. And it tastes great! To Zetawoof: it is quite unlike plain borscht - believe me. ;-) Misza13 17:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure it does - I'm just comparing it to another "ethnic" soup with a somewhat better article. Zetawoof^(ζ) 17:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is the soup related to the cold borscht? // Liftarn 15:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wikipediatrix and improve the article. Yamaguchi先生 23:39, 29 September 2006
Keep - being a stub doesn't mean it can't go anywhere. Dylan 03:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep, real town. Kusma (討論) 08:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Łęczna[edit]

Small none notable town in Poland--M8v2 21:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All towns are notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Notability doesn't apply to towns. Mango juice^talk 04:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its a town so notable. --Simonkoldyk 05:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all towns and cities are established as notable Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 06:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, nomination couldn't be more fallacious. Punkmorten 07:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Shaffer[edit]

None notable person. Feels WP:BIO. Further proof check his IMDB profile.--M8v2 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Madballs and Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation were notable, and Ralph Shaffer is notable because of his work on those projects. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per TruthbringerToronto--mathewguiver 21:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep, real town. Kusma (討論) 08:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spuž[edit]

None notable town in a none notable area--M8v2 22:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a municipality in Montenegro. All municipalities are notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Municipalities of all sorts should have their own article. --physicq210 04:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is not an issue with towns. And "none notable area"? I just don't get the argument here. Mango juice^talk 04:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, reason for nomination is incomprehensible. wikipediatrix 04:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep - and the same with the other towns nominated today. jeez. Grutness...wha? 05:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Small towns are fine. this is not a municipality however. Bwithh 05:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, nomination couldn't be more fallacious. Punkmorten 07:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. —freak(talk) 15:49, Sep. 27, 2006 (UTC)

Motorhead (game)[edit]

Obscure non notable game.--M8v2 21:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The game is not obscure and came from the guys which gave you Pinball Dreams and Pinball Fantasies. At the time it was one of the better racing games around. --Frodet 21:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as a notable game and legit gaming stub. The AfD nom is a "former vandal" and this reeks of vandalism through abuse of templates. NeoFreak 05:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Simonkoldyk 05:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies WP:SOFTWARE, asserts notability strongly e.g. "Motorhead was nominated for the BAFTA Interactive award in October 1998. It has so far sold more than one million copies.". MER-C 09:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Frodet and User:NeoFreak. JIP | Talk 09:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's Notable but it should be expanded.--Team6and7 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above GShton 21:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-created the article at Motorhead (game) and made Motorhead a disambiguation page. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is no disambiguation between Motorhead and Mötorhead. This is not the topic of this AfD. Please revert. --Frodet 10:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please think of the people who come to Wikipedia looking for information about the band. It is a very, very notable band, and the average user doesn't put umlauts in search engine windows. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is an encyclopedia — it's about enlightening people and there is no disambiguity involved. For those looking for the band (and who is to decide which is more notable?), arriving at the game, there is a dab link to the band, for the convenience for the users who don't use umlauts. Furthermore, if you had bothered to read the talk page, which you failed to correctly move together with the article, you would have seen that this was already discussed there and no consensus was reached. Again, please revert and list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Frodet 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. I disagree. It is fine the way it is now. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 20:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MER-C. This is a game that passes WP:SOFTWARE. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 01:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, is this a serious nomination? Explain how it is non-notable, please. RFerreira 04:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An obvious keep, is this nomination for real? // Liftarn 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Balian[edit]

Contested prod (which I'd added, if anyone needs to know). Basically, what we have here is a high school student who seems like a talented young man and probably has a bright future - the key word being "future", as in not right now. The closest thing to notability is a collection of awards for public speaking and the fact that he spoke at a ceremony for an important religious figure. As a speaker and debater myself, I know it's not easy to win those sorts of awards, but they don't really equate to notability I don't think. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 04:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity. Sdedeo (tips) 04:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 05:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Furthermore, it is unsourced. PJM 12:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, vanity page. AmitDeshwar 00:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete ((db-bio)). Not only is there no claim to notability (hundreds of people when speech awards each year, that's not a claim to notability), it's a clear vanity page with one of the most blatant PoV's I've ever seen on a purportedly serious article. -- Chabuk 03:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity, non-notable person in the here and now. We can't userfy it to the person's page? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - nn bio. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. If he maintains this level of accomplishment, I'm sure he'll be legitimately back on here someday, but as of September 26, 2006 the article doesn't suggest that he's done anything encyclopedic. Bearcat 23:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Forums[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable discussion forums for the website Narutofan (whose article has been deleted and namesapce salted) which fails WP:WEB guidelines of notability. Proposed to be merged with the main Naruto article, but as I argued on the article's talk page, there's nothing in the article that's relevant to the series. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 04:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Sdedeo (tips) 04:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 04:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing worth merging. wikipediatrix 04:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet web notability guidelines. Merging would create problems with spam. --Kunzite 05:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are we sure the forum hasn't been mentioned by a secondary source? NarutoFan and its forum are a very controversial site due to how Tazmo sells fansubs for profit. So it may have been mentioned by a news source. Xuanwu 05:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof generally falls on the those advocating to keep an article. However, there's nothing in Lexis Nexis on it. --Kunzite 21:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 06:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB, and there's nothing mergeable. --Coredesat talk! 07:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If necessary, a link could be added to Naruto, but that's it. JIP | Talk 09:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Naruto. JASpencer 21:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: vanity/spam as per Narutofan. I don't care how many registered (and not necessarily unique or active) members an internet forum has and if I did I could find out by just going there, along with most of the other information in the article. Shiroi Hane 22:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There seems to be no evidence of secondary sources. Xuanwu 19:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chrishan[edit]

The subject of this article fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. The only real claim to notability is an album supposedly to be released in 2007. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Creator sought to use semiprotection template and edit summary to avoid edits. Article has been deleted pursuant to speedy and prod. If deleted this time, perhaps it is time to salt. Creator is apparently an A&R rep using an account name that mirrors the supposed label of the album release, so there are also spam/vanity elements to this article. Erechtheus 04:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, future maybe album, rumours and maybees regarding production and a lot of bad links --ArmadilloFromHell 04:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete this article was authorized by SoulRiver CEO Chris Dotson if you have concerns then email HIM at cdotson@soulriverrecords.com or I can have John Esposito CEO of WarnerElektraAtlantic (WEA) contact you. This album is in productino phase and time IS booked with producers. I am just doing my job guys. --SoulRiverUSA 04:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Contributions to this project that are within its scope are welcome. As you can see, there is considerable question as to whether this is an appropriate article at this point in time for this encyclopedia. The question is not whether your PR has been authorized by whoever you work for -- it's whether it is acceptable based upon project policies and guidelines. WP:NOT a wire service or MySpace. Erechtheus 04:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.
Delete per nom. WP:NOT a crystal ball or a dumping ground for self-promotional Spam. wikipediatrix 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response It seems that you think this article is merely opinionated and unverfied, and you can believe that, but if you took the time to look up this you would see this is all correct. This isn't a fairytale and i cant believe how hard it is to do PR. Im not your run of the mill exec. I can have this put onto this site by other means of this administrator of someone of higher authority. Im not sure you actually see how you are preventing me from doing my job. This is no "speculated artist" or well, i can just have the President of Warner give the administrator a little talk.SoulRiverUSA 05:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If mis-using Wikipedia as a hosting service for advance publicity material is your job, then I suggest that you change to another job, because your current job now has the attention of other Wikipedia editors, who will make it impossible for you to perform that job by removing your contributions of publicity material. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a publicity vehicle. If the president of Warner calls the Wikimedia Foundation and demands free web hosting for artist publicity, an event that I suspect to be highly unlikely given (for one thing) that the president of Warner almost certainly knows a lot better, xe will be told the same thing. No, you cannot have your advance publicity material "put onto this site by other means", and everyone that you talk to will tell you this. Please confine your PR activities to your own web site. Uncle G 10:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's easy to do PR. It's not easy to do whatever this article's creator is doing—which looks very similar to putting up posters on walls right over where it says "POST NO BILLS"–♥ «Charles A. L.» 20:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. With SoulRiverUSA's comments I'm inclined to believe this is a joke. Leaning towards a speedy. NeoFreak 05:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah, we all believe that the president of Warner Bros. is going to call a Wikipedia admin. I also have some beachfront property to sell you on the moon. Very nonnotable. GrahameS 05:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SoulRiverUSA, Please read up on what Wikipedia is and is not before making the hole you're in any deeper. - Richfife 05:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons given at length at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/He Ain't Gonna, delete. Uncle G 10:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, running the risk of being uncivil: OWNED. NeoFreak 10:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:MUSIC and WP:NOT a crystal ball... and if this keeps up this AfD could end up being BJAODN-worthy.--Isotope23 19:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC and as per Uncle G's excellent commentary. Gold star for that fellow. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete garbage. Danny Lilithborne 19:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:VAIN. Indeed, the article's creator seems very proud of the fact that it's an ad. I'm willing to change my position to keep if SoulRiverUSA will add a statement here to the effect that if summaries of negative reviews are added, he won't delete them, and will in fact augment them.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 20:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The man admitted this was nothing more than an advertisement, authorized by a CEO. Be gone with this already. Once it gets released and some media coverage, feel free to recreate. AmitDeshwar 00:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is Darren Clark telling you all is well, you can delete the page; I will just put it on again once the single charts, I assume it will be in the next month. Sorry about the confusion that was stirred amongst you fellows. SoulRiverUSA 01:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Anyone here confused? - Richfife 01:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third different person that User:SoulRiverUSA has claimed to be, thereby admitting that this is a Role Account, contrary to Wikipedia rules. Please read Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#'Role'_accounts, which states "If you run an account with multiple users, it is likely to be blocked." Furthermore, WP:USERNAME prohibits using your own company name as your Wikipedia username. wikipediatrix 02:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't need your permission to delete the article any more than we care who "authorized" it. That's not how Wikis work. That said, once the single charts there may be a case for notability—although again, because this is a Wiki and more specifically because of WP:NPOV, the article will be out of your control and not all the information there is necessarily going to be something you'll want there. Thing is, not only is Wikipedia NOT for ads, I can't imagine why any halfway competant flack would even want to create an ad that can so easily be changed and over which they would have so little control.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you AmitDeshwar & ♥ «Charles A. L.». This simplifies everything. Im confused about what ♥ «Charles A. L.» said could someone clarify? SoulRiverUSA 02:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tractorspit[edit]

Seems very much like a non-notable neologism per WP:NEO; also note no sources per WP:RS. Crystallina 04:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this isn't even a dicdef! The article doesn't even describe what "tractorspit" is, exactly, besides "a form of cultural reportage". This is about as specific as describing science fiction as "a kind of book". Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no context. wikipediatrix 04:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge and redirect to Clerks. --- Deville (Talk) 17:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trooper Clerks[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. No external press coverage that I found. The official website has an Alexa ranking in the 1,600,000 range. Crystallina 04:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal merge to the Clerks movie article as an example of Clerks being referenced in pop culture. I love Trooper Clerks, but it isn't notable enough for an article. Erechtheus 04:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per previous deletion discussion here. 10,000 google hits (359 unique). Irongargoyle 16:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The film in the previous discussion was shown at the Cannes Film Festival and makes other claims to notability that this does not. Crystallina 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment One of them was at Cannes. The others weren't and some got fewer hits, but all were kept. Irongargoyle 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I didn't see the others nominated. My point still stands upon seeing them. All of them received media coverage. (One was at the Toronto Film Festival.) However, the article in this AfD does not claim to have received any media coverage; that is why it is different than the above examples, and why it fails WP:WEB as well as WP:RS. Crystallina 21:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable webfilm. I think this even got some coverage on CNN but I can't find the link. 23skidoo 23:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment NewsAskew covered Trooper Clerks pretty well. Here is a list of their mentions. I don't think there is anything there to augment notability, but I'm willing to reconsider my merge recommendation if anyone finds something. Erechtheus 00:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notanility or non-trivial media coverage.--Peta 05:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Clerks article (list under Trivia, perhaps) --Rglovejoy 06:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted by Evil Monkey per CSD A7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryulong (talk • contribs)

Macchina[edit]

Contested PROD. Delete as patently non-notable. A specific program designed by a high school marching band? The very essence of WP:NFT, also fails WP:RS and likely violates WP:OR, probably WP:VANITY. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It's not a contested prod. The author just decided to remove it and my speedy tag from the page. Ryūlóng 04:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —freak(talk) 06:09, Sep. 30, 2006 (UTC)

Alison Garrigan[edit]

ATTENTION!

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

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

non-notable actress who's appearing in a local community theater production of Rocky Horror in Ohio. Fails WP:BIO and reeks of vanity. wikipediatrix 04:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then burn the remains to ash, per nom. Some of the stuff that makes it here never fails to make me laugh. NeoFreak 05:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's the shiznit in the Cleveland theater scene, but hasn't extended outside that. The GHits I find seem to be all the usual local theater Ra! Ra! puffery - Richfife 05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Why did she play Dr. Frank-N-Furter? Isn't the whole point of that character that he's a man dressing up as a woman? JIP | Talk 09:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave. You all seem to be getting very hot under the collar about an article - like a group of shiznits. Who cares. There should be better reasons for deletion. It diverted me for a couple of minutes. Soane 16:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Are you dissing my shiznittery? - Richfife 16:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I guess so. I have now looked up the word. So I would say to you all: relax. Your venom is unbecoming. If each of you is worth a user page AND a talk page here, this person is worth one page. And there are countries smaller than Cleveland (Monaco is half the size of Central Park).Better in than out. Soane 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I was kidding. On a more serious note, notability requirements on Wikipedia are an important way of keeping it from being completely inundated by random information about all 5 billion plus people on the planet, rendering it completely useless. As it is, "How come I can't have an article when they can!" is a constant refrain from every person that can drink a glass of beer really fast or stand on their head or got straight A's once. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and hubris popping is sometimes part of that. - Richfife 17:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LeaveI would leave it. I thought she was interesting and would want to know more. NIghtjar 21:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave I'd like to know more too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.14.119 (talk • contribs)
Leave It seems worth keeping to me. There are articles about small towns of interest to a couple of thousand people. I am sure she is of interest to more than that. As a bisexual woman, as a dressmaker, I say let her stay. I don't understand the impulse to kill articles anyway. People should add to articles. RuthieK 20:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator, she does not yet meet our WP:BIO perhaps later. Yamaguchi先生 22:06, 29 September 2006
DElete Reasonably NPOV article but simply doesn't demonstrate enough notability. Spartaz 22:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Grand master ka 22:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of the Mushroom Kingdom[edit]

Not notable. Does not meet WP:WEB Simonkoldyk 05:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I have seen this on several websites. It's also distributed by UGO [28]. TJ Spyke 06:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and common sense. This article has been around since 2005!? Unbelievable! As a response to the above, UGOPlayer hosts loads of flash cartoons (roughly 2000 of them at least) . This one isn't even in their top 50. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I list in the deletion discussion of Video Game Director's Cuts. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 17:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newgroundscruft. Danny Lilithborne 19:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Rhindle The Red 20:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, I nominated its parent site VGDC aswell earlier today and was planning on nominating this per deletion. GShton 21:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Each installment has garnered various accolades on Newgrounds. The first two have received over one million views each. Even if it's not the most widely known, I believe that it deserves its own article. --Spartacusprime 17:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, but does it meet the notability guidelines set in WP:WEB? So far, there's no evidence this Flash series (which I personally enjoyed myself) does, thus it doesn't deserve an article. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 18:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Newgrounds (among others) distributes it, and that site is both well-known and independent of the creators. Thus, notable. Spartacusprime 20:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Please see WP:WEB newgrounds does not count as they host anything instantly. --Simonkoldyk 22:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment If that's really how the WP:WEB guideline worked, every one of Newgrounds' 300,000 animations would have an article, as would all 40 million DeviantArt submissions, all the pictures on Flickr, all the videos on Youtube, etc. Wikipedia is not a web guide, and does not seek to catalog content on other sites, even popular ones. If there's been significant media attention or some evidence that this flash file has been the topic of academic study, that might change things. Otherwise, it's just one of millions of silly web files. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If I can remember, they had a little 3-4 minute feature about it on Attack of the Show, complete with an interview with the creator. ShadowMan1od 20:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 20:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is fairly well-known among the Flash community. I think this article and the article on VGDC are somewhat similar in terms of notability to the article about Joseph Blanchette, an article that was once proposed for deletion but was kept after the debate. The Chinchou 07:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis should always stay as this page shows easter eggs and this is extremly popular. Mariokid19 06:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Please - this is a very lengthy article for something that is only marginally notable at best. What exactly is the flash community btw? Spartaz 22:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Dakota 23:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James (Sword of Truth)[edit]

Fancruft that fails WP:N per WP:FICT. A minor character in the Sword of Truth series that doesn't need their own article. NeoFreak 07:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, this one is completely non-notable, and there's nowhere to redirect it to. - Runch 15:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should be kept long enough to move/merge into the SoT WikiProject. Merrit 19:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 06:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect, content already merged. --- Deville (Talk) 17:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weselan[edit]

Fancruft that fails WP:N per WP:FICT. A very minor character in the Sword of Truth series that doesn't need their own article. NeoFreak 07:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mud People then Redirect as outlined for some of the other characters. - Runch 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. --Gray Porpoise 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge just as Runch suggested. This shouldn't be deleted outright until it is moved/merged into the WikiProject Merrit 19:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I merged the article into Mud People. - Runch 17:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. The keep arguments don't seem strong enough to outweigh even the "per nom" delete arguments. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Brandstone[edit]

Fancruft that fails WP:N per WP:FICT. A very minor character in the Sword of Truth series that doesn't need their own article. NeoFreak 07:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and (more or less) concensus on Talk:Sword of Truth#Sword of Truth Characters. - Runch 15:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let it stay up until we have it entered into the SoT WikiProject. Merrit 18:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Igbogirl 17:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stubbleboy 17:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Ultra (band)[edit]

Contested prod, apparently a hoax as evidenced by the talk page. No relevant Google hits, no reliable sources. I was almost about to rougely delete this one, but would prefer to have this discussion for later reference. Also nominating Rob Kokarinen for deletion. Kusma (討論) 07:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice hoax. AmitDeshwar 00:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. "Kokarinen" is not a surname anywhere in the world and Josef, Edwin and Rob aren't Finnish first names. Finnish metal scene wasn't very big in the mid-80's, so surely a band like this would not just disappear. Prolog 10:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never heard.. Neofelis Nebulosa
Speedy Delete Seems we have already discussed this. Time for a rouge deletion to come along to the one.

The result was keep. Grand master ka 22:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tien-Min Li[edit]

I was debating whether this article should be deleted for lack of notability, and while my feeling is that we should keep (weakly) it, I decided to AfD it to see what the consensus is. As I see it, reason for deletion would be non-notability. He's far less notable than the lengthy term as a legislator would suggest, as not only were "mainland representative" legislators in that era not subject to elections, but they were rubber stamps for KMT central government policy with little influence themselves. However, the lengthy service itself might make him sufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This person (purportedly) lived from 1908 – 1993. Deciding notability should be a simple matter of applying the primary notability criterion. Xe is notable if xe has been documented in detail in history books (which are published works). The article unhelpfully cites no sources, of course. Uncle G 09:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a link to the Legislative Yuan Web site that gave his committee assignments (and therefore confirmed the length of his service). However, I can't verify the rest of the information from reliable sites. --Nlu (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added as references two reviews of his books. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Peta 06:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Grand master ka 22:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BOiFINDER[edit]

Contested prod, spam/advertising, no alexa rank, not even launched yet according to article. Khatru2 08:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 09:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also fails to assert notability. MER-C 09:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mad Delete No notability.UberCryxic 19:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - worthless MapleTree 01:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE This is a wonderful website for gay people and this entry adds cultural value to Wikipedia. It displays information on a site that has major value to one of the largest 'sub-cultures' in America today. If you delete this entry you are slapping gay men of America across the face and showing that you do not care us and that you are anti-gay. Which is not fair. Fashionking 18:51, 26 September 2006
DO NOT DELETE Site is legitiment; www.boifinder.com. Please do not delete. Article offers links to other LGBT sites also. Not spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexrjordan (talk • contribs) 08:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom and as a Google search shows no non-trivial results that might make it satisfy WP:WEB. This isn't about whether or not the site exists, and it's not about being anti-gay, it's about notability and not using Wikipedia to promote a website. Confusing Manifestation 10:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE What makes these Wikipedia articles any different? (Downelink XY PlanetOut Friendster MySpace) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.155.176 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
DO NOT DELETE Wikipedia is linked on www.boifinder.com/links.php page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.155.176 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Seems to be a lot of meatpuppets around today. Spartaz 22:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Dakota 23:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Jolly[edit]

Contested WP:PROD. The ((dated prod)) tag was removed and restored several times. Original PROD reason was "vanity page". Original autor is Richardjolly, so this is quite possible. Delete for failing to meet WP:BIO: the given external links give little information about him, and do not interview him about his person, but about some game. Kusma (討論) 08:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the game is notable, but working on it doesn't make the subject notable. Vanity. MER-C 09:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete both articles. --- Deville (Talk) 17:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empires of Ambition[edit]

Also Scarab (Empires of Ambition). NN online forum; fails WP:WEB Percy Snoodle 08:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 09:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, just 16 unique Google hits, which is extremely low for a web/forum/sci-fi/wargame topic. Perhaps this AFd should be expanded to include Scarab (Empires of Ambition) as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - agreed. Will do. Percy Snoodle 12:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment done.
Keep – You know, it’s generally considered civil to inform the creator of a page that you nominate its deletion. Anyway, yes, 16 hits are not much. Rather surprising, seeing how EOA is pretty big. But I doubt you can judge the importance of an organisation on its unique hits. Seems the number has changed to 19 now, anyway. Grobtak 20:37, 26 September 2006
- Comment sorry for not informing you. Can you quantify "EOA is pretty big" for us - perhaps it meets the notability criteria in some way we're missing, but otherwise its obscurity in terms of google hits is all we have to go on. Percy Snoodle 08:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – Hm. I wouldn’t know how I can accurately ascertain just how important an organisation is. If you ask me, such a thing is completely subjective. But Empires of Ambition has made a lot of projects, including a movie, a Dawn of War mod, a tabletop game... Which already makes it much more than just a website. I admit that EOA does not meet the notability criteria as far as I know, but you have to remember that that is just a guideline, not actual rule. On top of that, it is rather disputed, if you look at the talk page. Think about it: “Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content”. Makes sense. Then, it says that websites needs published works to be notable? Why does an organisation that by definition works purely online, need to have published works that are not on the web? It doesn’t make any sense. Grobtak 14:44, 27 September 2006
    - Comment this isn't the place to be discussing the validity of the notability guidelines; rather whether Empires of Ambition meets them. However, your comments on the guidelines would be welcomed at the guidelines' discussion page. Percy Snoodle 08:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Nevertheless, that article is not an official rule. As such, just the fact that the Empires of Ambition article does not meet those criteria doesn’t mean it needs to be deleted. Grobtak 19:08, 28 September 2006
        Comment Yes, the notability criteria are guidelines. No, that doesn't mean we should ignore them. "Arrr, they be more like guidelines, really" isn't an argument which establishes that EoA is notable. Perhaps you could give some indication of why you think EoA is notable, rather than criticising the criteria by which AfDs are judged? Percy Snoodle 08:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:WEB by a mile. Giant onehead 22:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Then look at my above comment. It’s a guideline, no more. Grobtak 8:11, 28 September 2006
  - Keep – I can only say what has been said: it is a guideline, not an actual rule. Empires of Ambition has been on the internet for over a year and, whilest it's population has oddly not expanded much, regardless of our attempts at advertisement, I can easily clarify at as "Pretty big". Orky
Delete Sorry but if the population hasn't expanded despite your advertisment than I think we can pretty much call this spam and move on. Spartaz 22:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I don't think this can really be categorized as spam. Spam is useless information which serves no purpose. This article in question however does indeed serve a purpose, and that is detailing the fictional universe people have created. Orky

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Belial's Key[edit]

An obscure black metal band, speedied as A7 but contested. Nothing on allmusic, nothing on Amazon, one former member who was once amember of an even more obscure band. Guy 09:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thryduulf 09:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first twenty ghits are basically lists of lyrics. Doesn't meet the requirement of many independant sources verifing notability. MER-C 09:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC with international tours [29], including three concerts just in a small/medium-sized country like Finland [30] concert review, signed to a notable record label, Drakkar Entertainment, released 11 recordings, including three full-lengths, three EPs and a compilation, mentioned as the "fathers of US black metal" [31], Encyclopaedia Metallum page [32] ID is 270 showing the band was among the first ones added to the database, covered in Decibel magazine due to their controversy [33], one band member in Arghoslent and one in Ancient [34], over 1000 listeners on Last.fm [35]. Also, it's not fair to assume that Allmusic.com and Amazon.com want to cover bands associated with nazism. Prolog 12:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am tempted to vote Delete because a lot of those articles either barely mention the band or are from places I would question as good sources. However, my main problem is that, although the article mentions that they are signed with Drakkar Entertainment, I do not see them listed on Drakkar's site - Ektar 19:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prolog. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band gets 37,400 google hits; see metal archives, rockdetector, Belial's Key last.fm, [36], Belial's Key, [37], [38], etc. Also, several wikipedia articles link to it (Black metal, NSBM, Neo-Nazism, list of black metal bands for example). IronC hris | (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above --N R S ^T/_M\^B 17:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above Punkmorten 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prolog and others above. Seems clearly to pass WP:MUSIC. AmitDeshwar 01:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, they are not on Drakkar Entertainment but instead on DRAKKAR Productions, http://www.drakkar666.com/ which is a label that has been established in the underground for a very long time before DRAKKAR Entertainment came along. Assuming that Amazon.com and Allmusic.com would possibly cover a decent variety of underground artists is laughable. sulphursouls
Keep. Just becaus ethey aren't on allmusic.com doesnt mean they arent a noteable band. Other bands such as Turisas were't there before as well, until recently. Bloodredchaos 10:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I abstain from voting.--83.118.141.133 15:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Due to the controversial nature of their music, it is perfectly understandable why allmusic or amazon might not associate with them. Silensor 17:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, particularly Prolog. --Myles Long 17:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prolog... I'm the one who speedy undeleted it. ALKIVAR™ 22:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prolog but someone with time should add a section about the controversy to the article. JoshuaZ 02:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prolog. Sufficiently notable to meet WP:MUSIC in my opinion. RFerreira 23:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does not meet my taste in music, but I believe it does agree with the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 09:50, 30 September 2006

The result was delete, not notable or verifiable. Thanks/wangi 20:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arghoslent[edit]

Obscure racist metal band, not on allmusic, not on Amazon, article appears to be original research. Guy 09:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - passes the google test which throws up a couple of interviews and independant reviews. MER-C 09:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hardly "obscure" with almost 1000 listeners on Last.fm [39]. The band has received 12 reviews on Encyclopaedia Metallum, including 7 just for their newest album [40] and has been covered on notable third-party sources such as Rockdetector [41] and Chronicles of Chaos [42]. Also, I'm pretty sure they have toured US and Europe at some point of their career, but I can't seem to find tour info so that doesn't count. Prolog 10:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. --Bill.matthews 15:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Non-notable band, apart from being racist. Wikipedia is not an advertising agency. Google hits don't matter here. --N R S ^T/_M\^B 17:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gosh, if 1000 last.fm plays and some interviews is all you're looking for, my band could easily have an article! Fails WP:MUSIC utterly. Grandmasterka 22:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My comment included results of a quick Google search and not a thorough research per WP:MUSIC guideline, but at least I'm not an ostrich. As a Last.fm user, I usually check the artist's page on the aforementioned website, as the site is very widely used and is WP-notable, and also because I'm curious. Is there a specific reason why I shouldn't report the listener count here (and not have my entire comment belittled because of it)? Also, your band seems to have only 424 listeners, despite the fact that it's streamable through the site - unlike Arghoslent, seems to fail the Google test when searching with album titles, and I doubt you are well-known in your own genre, have a 16-year-long career and are a subject of controversy. So what is the reason for comparison? I must also quote myself from the Grand Belial's Key Afd discussion; it's not fair to assume that Allmusic.com and Amazon.com want to cover bands associated with nazism. In fact, I don't think even bigger metal medias and labels want to associate with these bands. As for what they are or what they represent, they seem pretty notable to me. Prolog 08:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, you did your research! My whole point, though, was that I could present a bunch of arbitrary criteria for inclusion if I wanted to get around WP:MUSIC, the agreed upon standard (1000 MySpace friends!) But that still wouldn't make us notable. Grandmasterka 17:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Like I said, I'm a curious person! That's fair enough, as I do understand my prime arguments; "old, controversial and underground fame" are not supported by WP:MUSIC. Prolog 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As stated, the band is hardly obscure, being that they have shared members with one of the most popular black metal bands of all time, Grand Belial's Key (who, in addition to another well known band, Haggard, are signed to the same label as Arghoslent, Drakkar) and have been covered on notable third-party metal e-zines such as Rockdetector, Maelstrom, and Chronicles of Chaos. They have also accumulated considerable controversy, going so far as to have their record label boycotted. They are a prominent American band in a largely European dominated genre. They have done national tours America and Europe. While they don't sell lots of records or win Grammy's, what metal band does these days? A pretty relevant band in the genre, if you ask me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ep282 (talk • contribs) . _{This is their first edit ever.} Grand master ka 03:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom, and the band isn't even notable enough to create a proper website... they are currently using a free cjb.net one. - Deathrocker 11:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I fail to see why what they use to host their website has to do with their notability. What about the tons of notable bands that are using a page on MySpace as their main website these days? What about popular bands that don't have an official website altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.246.75 (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep. 15 year old career, signed on Moribund Records, two full-lengths released by labels, several EPs, covered extensively by metal zines all around (as listed above). If Turisas survived the vote for deletion with having only one full-length album, or if Grand Belial's Key is on here, so should Arghoslent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrigan Targaryen (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep. I created this page because I thought they deserved one. A simple, rough outline page on the Metal Archives simply isn't enough. I'm sure there are plenty of other pages on Wikipedia that are just as worthy of deletion for whatever reasons, yet this one gets targeted mainly because the band members are racist? If anything, the band needs an intelligent page such as this to get across what they are about, since most people probably don't like the idea of trawling obscure metal message boards for snippets of information. At least on here, all the info, and links to anything else of relevance, is in one place and people interested can check it out. The article is written in a way so as not to offend people, it simply outlines the bands ideologies and music, if people don't like it, then they don't read it. I didn't create this page to force it down people's throats, I created it to inform those who wished to know. Their fanbase and general popularity on the underground is rock solid and sure, they've attracted a fair amount of criticism and controversy, but who hasn't these days? What's different from Arghoslent singing about Jews to Madonna performing to thousands whilst hung on a crucifix, pretending to be Jesus?

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlea Evans[edit]

The only information in this article is about the subject's time on Big Brother, and this information would be better on the relevant season's article. jd || talk || 09:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete about 30000 Ghits may not be notable yet--Jusjih 09:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable outside of BB; and the BB content is just fancruft. He was a part of BB -- that's the article that should accommodate her. Fails WP:BIO -- the references are more about BB than her (and are superficial at that). The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reality TV cruft, not notable outside TV show. MER-C 09:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article was already up for deletion and the result was Keep. Here's the link to the previous debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashlea_Evans A-Supreme 14:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BIO, like most US BB contestants, based on non-trivial coverage from multiple sources. The fact this was nominated a second time, without any new reason given, and not bothering to mention/address the prior nomination, is something I find concerning. People shouldn't re-AFD things till they get the desired result (it was only mentioned by somebody else). Since no reason for a new AFD was given, I'll assume no good one exists. We aught not vote on AFDs based on how much we like/dislike a particular genre of entertainment. --Rob 05:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 2nd AfD: Without proper notification as such, should disqualify it to be considered. Never a good idea unless a really long time between both nominations. I assume there will be few sources about Bush that do not mention him mainly for his presidency. So, George W Bush Afd? — SomeHuman 4 Oct 2006 00:37 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Brown Hat[edit]

Originally deleted as a non-notable band (I found the original article and put the tag on, no idea who deleted it), this new incarnation of the article has the band touring and releasing an album. Sadly, Google's never heard of them or their "platinum album" BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the original author has taken to removing the AfD notice in the process of adding and changing text. The album is now listed as going platinum in "Skandinavia" (although Google still denies all knowledge of its existence, let alone such sales). BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nn. - Longhair 09:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 09:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - asserts non-notability: "an obscure 00's band". Might even be a speedy A7. MER-C 10:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly hadn't noticed the "obscure" part of that. The original version just said "a 00s band" or something, so I assumed it was the same here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 10:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will have to check further into the subject of the article but this statement, "Their tour of europe was an emense sucsess and their third album "The Things You See When You Don't Have A Gun" went platinum in asia", shows that it is not A7 IMO. Not saying the statement is true, but that is why we should have a full discussion here. Cheers, Ansell 11:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per this google search, showing the lack of press surrounding the band. Myspace and school newsletters dont qualify as reliable sources. Ansell 09:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Michael Johnson 04:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given the ridiculous statements, seems like a hoax to me. Lankiveil 05:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Just another struggling band, it looks like. Maybe in time the'll get some notoriety, but for now this isn't the place for an article about them. Marriedtofilm 03:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC

The result was Speedy deleted -- Longhair\^talk 07:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Farmer[edit]

This one comes courtesy of a contested (i.e. the text was changed from one selling coffee beans to one selling gold bars) speedy. Charitably, I think we're dealing with someone using Wikipedia to advertise. Uncharitably, am I the only one smelling something Nigerian Letterish about the whole thing? BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Jusjih 09:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense, no context, or WP:SNOW. Take your pick. If there was an article the snow clause was written for, this is it. Irongargoyle 16:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Totally nonsense/potentially fraudulent. AmitDeshwar 01:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Tagged as no context. --NMChico24 04:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Donnellan (reality television contestant)[edit]

Nothing in the article suggests that this guy might be notable, and most of the content is Big Brother information. jd || talk || 09:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Jusjih 09:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable outside of BB; and the BB content is just fancruft. He was a part of BB -- that's the article that should accommodate him. The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IMDB lists him as Lord of the Dance troupe member. If that's not enough, I don't see why we can't merge and redirect this to the appropriate Big Brother season to avoid recreation. If he's not notable outside Big Brother a search for his name should turn up Big Brother. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Big Brother (USA season 6). Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hrejsa[edit]

Former Big Brother contestant. Information about what she did on the show doesn't make me think she is notable; information about what she's done off the show definitely doesn't make her notable. jd || talk || 09:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First nomination here. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom 18800 Ghits--Jusjih 10:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the appropriate Big Brother season to avoid recreation. If she's not notable outside Big Brother a search for her name should turn up Big Brother. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this was done after the previous discussion, there wouldn't be a 2nd nomination now. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reality TV cruft. Not notable outside TV show. MER-C 10:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please expand on why you prefer deletion of redirecting or merging? "Not notable outside TV show" and "cruft" don't explain why redirecting wouldn't be a viable option. WP:FICT has a similar redirection policy for small fictional characters that should also apply to reality show contestants as per precedent. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate show. --Peta 06:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect: Hasn't done anything notable since her stint on Big Brother (USA season 6). Plus, the show's article has a nice section dedicated to each contestant, and this article doesn't have any information that would call for an individual page. A-Supreme 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's more notable than many of the other Big Brother contestants with pages because of her relationship with James. She was on a hit show with more than 7 million viewers and was at least mentioned in the many articles on James. --Benjaminx 05:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Varela[edit]

The article doesn't make me think this person is notable; just heaps of unimportant stuff. jd || talk || 10:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Big Brother. ~~Keep~~ Thinking again, I think merging with Big Brother is a better option. She doens't deserve her "own" article, nonetheless some space on WP. I think her participation in Big Brother and an entry in IMDb makes her somewhat notable. Though in a bad shape right now, I think if someone was interested in adding images, other information such as details of her participation in BB, this could improve somewhat. —Jared Hunt September 25, 2006, 10:41 (UTC)
Keep: Usually, I recommend deleting various articles of reality contestants who haven't won their shows or haven't done anything else notable. However, there is biographical information about Varela and what she's been up to since she was on Big Brother 4. People exploring Wikipedia can surely come to this page and find information about Varela. She surely has more biographical information in her wikipedia article than, say, Diane Henry and James Rhine (both of these contestants' articles are pretty much about their experiences on Big Brother). Because of the biographical information, I see this article having some value. A-Supreme 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless this section is expanded: "Dana Varela is involved with diabetes and leukemia organizations..." It is this which is setting her out from the other muppets. It needs to be referenced too. Apart from that, it's about her hobbies and interests. The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn; the existence of content that one thinks may be useful to a couple of motivated fans is no reason to subvert WP:BIO. Eusebeus 13:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He Ain't Gonna[edit]

The article, written in July 2006, tells us that this song has not been published yet, but "hopefully" will be published in September 2006. It hasn't been. The article tells us that this is part of a forthcoming album called Curious. The only actual thing that is curious is that 17 (Chrishan album) also claims to be the forthcoming debut album for this artist, and makes no mention of this song.

In fact, this article, 17 (Chrishan album) (AfD discussion), and Chrishan (AfD discussion) are all part of a systematic mis-use of Wikipedia for a publicity campaign by 3mgworld (talk · contribs) and SoulRiverUSA (talk · contribs) that extends back as far as May 2006. (See the history of Chrishan, which I have undeleted for the purpose of this discussion, and notice how the names and release dates of the "forthcoming" songs, movies, and albums have changed as the months have gone by, just as they have in this article in fact.) This publicity campaign has been acknowledged by SoulRiverUSA writing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrishan: "this article was authorized by SoulRiver CEO Chris Dotson", "I am just doing my job guys", "i cant believe how hard it is to do PR", "Im not sure you actually see how you are preventing me from doing my job". According to edits made to Toledo, Ohio and List of people from Minnesota by 71.220.6.8 (talk · contribs), "Chris Dotson" is the 16-year-old "Chrishan".

Wikipedia is not a publicity vehicle, and none of this (the albums, the songs, and the movies) is verifiable. Uncle G 10:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Dotson is the kids name as well as his father's. Read your stuff first. First as you should know in the music industry things are subject to change such as JoJo's album "The High Road" and many others. NOTHING in the music industry is exact. Omarion's album was scheduled for Oct. 3 now its Oct. 17. There were songs on JoJo's page that aren't even on her album anymore that were produced by Ryan Leslie. Chrishan is also friends with JoJo and Omarion so I dont think he would talk to them if he were a sham. Chris Dotson is the CEO look up and don't talk before you know the facts. SoulRiverUSA 12:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links for you [43]

[44] SoulRiverUSA 12:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This is serious crystalballery and has no place in an encyclopedia. Also; the fact that the article is a bare-faced attempt at PR does not help matters at all, never mind that the artist involved fails WP:MUSIC. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 13:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest delete possible per above and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrishan. Erechtheus 17:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:MUSIC and WP:NOT a crystal ball.--Isotope23 19:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Delete possible for this and all other articles related to this pathetic hoax. wikipediatrix 19:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We ain't gonna... be keepin' this jibba-jabba. Delete Danny Lilithborne 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cearly advertisements, as stated above: articles creator admits it is just PR, doesn't understand what Wikipedia is. AmitDeshwar 01:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, fails the crystal ball. Yamaguchi先生 22:27, 29 September 2006

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth Community[edit]

This article was tagged for notability in June, and the tag remains with no apparant comments as to why it does pass WP:WEB. At that time it was also Proposed for deletion - this was removed, however, am unable to establish why given edit history since. Asp 10:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relevant information is already in the Google Earth article. PrometheusX303 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on Google Earth. --Elonka 05:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 05:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush, Boy President[edit]

WP:OR--Wdaoo 10:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Jared Hunt September 25, 2006, 10:39 (UTC)
Delete per nom (again) --Alex | talk / review me | 12:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN local program. Unless national syndication or substantial internet listenership can be proven, this is simply not noteworthy enough. Irongargoyle 15:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- How much traffic must be enjoyed before this program is deemed "Substantial" by Irongargoyle? And is this the only objection to the article's existing? Hopefully the fact it's a political satire isn't the underpinning argument against keeping it up, as the show enjoys a considerably substantial listenership. The reasoning behind "local programming" being nixed seems rather vague as well, considering the station the show airs on has it's own entry. If "local programming" is too small to warrant its own entry, then why would the station broadcasting such programming be worthy of an entry? It's too "local" to be noteworthy then. That seems to be the logic that's following. But if the station itself and the individual programs ARE worthy of a wikipedia entry, why wouldn't the shows themselves be, as it follows the shows would have the same audience as the people listening to the station. -- PDXnut 11:01 25 September 2006
Delete per Irongargoyle. I don't think WP:OR is an issue here, but this is a minor bit on a local radio station. This level of minutae is simply not an appropriate use of Wikipedia.--Isotope23 19:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Rhindle The Red 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable now, although subsequent developments could change that. Badbilltucker 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Irongargoyle. If verfifiable information showing a "substantial" listening audience (per PDXnut) can be shown, then keep. And by substantial I mean actually substantial. If the whole town listens to it, thats signifigant. AmitDeshwar 01:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shameless promotion of a local program. --Spartacusprime 17:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

WWE: The RAW Family Reunion[edit]

Crystal ball article about an edition or WWE RAW that has yet to occur. The only notability of the event its that it's an hour longer to commemorate a year on the USA network. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Jared Hunt September 25, 2006, 10:39 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 11:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Since it won't occur until next week, we don't know if it will be notable enough to deserve an article. TJ Spyke 22:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a special episode featuring all 3 Brands of WWE! WackadooXanadu 11.27, 27 September 2006 (Aussie EST)
Delete now, recreate later - it's a crystal ball, but once it airs it's notable enough for inclusion as a supercard. kelvSYC 20:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forever - So what, it's just a season premiere of a wrestling show that happens to be slightly (if that) more special than the others. Special doesn't = notable. Giant onehead 22:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now, recreate later
Delete - non-notable show. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete now,recreate laterwhile some are saying delete forever,there are also some articles about shows that should be deleteed if you think the articles about every non-ppv show should be deleted.lol. 01:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this info is absolutely needed (which is unlikely at best), why not do a small write up on the main RAW article? Giant onehead 02:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genovianlanguage.byu432[edit]

nn and or language--Wdaoo 10:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom , for starters. Also consider that this is an article about a language that doesn't actually exist in any form, fictitious or not. There's either something enormous i'm missing or this is cruft of the highest and most baffling order. Far too many uses of the word "will", as well. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article, as it itself states, is an attempt to mis-use Wikipedia as a free wiki host for a project to develop a new language. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host. It is an encyclopaedia. This is not an encyclopaedia article and there is no such language. Delete. Uncle G 12:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Entirely speculative, and an attempt to use Wikipedia for project hosting. May I recommend Wikia or pbwiki? Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Sainz[edit]

nn people--Wdaoo 10:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO. Almost a speedy A7. MER-C 11:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Vectro 02:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was

The result of this debate was delete — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teamlorio.net[edit]

ANNOUNCEMENT: It should be noted that AlQoraton was NOT the creator of this article, as has been suggested below, rather towards Jamino (me) should be directed any discrepancies in regards to posting regulations. It has been put forward that AlQoraton asked members to post their views on this debate via the TeamLorio.net web-forums. However, as he didn't write this article, it should be understood that rules and regulations regarding the posting of Articles on Wikipedia are unclear to him as, obviously, he has previously had no reason to have read them. However, as I seriously doubt the members of the TeamLorio.net forums will be deterred from defending this article merely by the notice posted above, I must also stress as the sModerator of the Forums in question that NOBODY from TeamLorio.net simply makes an account to tip the scales of this debate. This achieves nothing. This message has also been posted on the Forum itself.--Jamino 17:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodded, no where near WP:CORP/WP:WEB. Vanity wouldn't suprise me. Andeh 14:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa.com - Traffic Rank for teamlorio.net: 4,778,194[45]

According to Google [46], only [47] links to the website.

Website forum has 86 registered members[48]
Delete Per WP:CORP quite clearly Vanity. --Charlesknight 14:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PJM 14:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All company-references removed and article meets WP:WEB. AlQoraton 16:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain to me which part of WP:WEB it matches with? Just so there is no confusion. (for disclosure purposes it should be pointed out that Alqoraton is the creator of the article) --Charlesknight 17:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2 and 3 of WP:WEB. (for disclosure purposes it should be pointed out that I am NOT the creator of the article, merely an insider and frequent editor.) --AlQoraton 17:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to your user page you are part of Teamlorio.net. Also, what notable awards has the website won? I couldn't find the word award anywhere in the article.--Andeh 17:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Alqoraton, braindeath on my part.

following Andy's question - I do not see how it matches criteria 3 of WP:WEB which is basically about non-trival distribution/broadcast. What is the source of this non-trivial distribution? --Charlesknight 17:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All teamlorio.net animations are posted on/distributed by Newgrounds. Several have been on the frontpage and won Portal awards. --AlQoraton 17:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well at first glance, that would suggest it actually fails WP:WEB which states that Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial. --Charlesknight 17:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but then why are Joseph Blanchette's, David Firth's or other well known Newgrounds author's pages not up for deletion? I don't see why teamlorio.net, as a Flash production team, couldn't have a Wiki-page if they can. --AlQoraton 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are always welcome to list them for deletion if you believe they should be deleted according to the deletion policy.--Andeh 18:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but it doesn't answer my question. Just look around people, there are more well-known Newgrounds authors on Wikipedia. Why is teamlorio.net different? --AlQoraton 19:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's not, but Wikipedia has over a million articles there are ALWAYS articles here that should not be. The fact that those are here and maybe should not be, just means that nobody has gone around to AFDing them. However now you have raised their profile to the community, I'm sure that if they are not notable they will be AFD'd shortly (which is generally the result of someone saying "hey what about article X!"). I'll be checking them out myself when I get a moment later.--Charlesknight 19:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO and WP:WEB are very different things, you are referring to people, this article is on a website.--Andeh 19:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article ISN'T about a website, it's about TWO people (not ONE, like the other examples) making Flash cartoons. So you're saying separate pages for TheGreyPilgrim and Mithrandir with the same content would be OK? --AlQoraton 20:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if it isn't about a website or company, then it must meet WP:BIO. Which it doesn't appear to meet at all.--Andeh 20:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flash artists are also professionals who get a great deal of public interest, just like musicians, actors, authors, painters, etc. WP:BIO also clearly states "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.". And just for the record: I'm not trying to get other Flash artist's pages deleted. I'm trying to understand why the examples I gave have been here for over a year or even longer (without anyone noticing they, apparently, don't meet Wikipedia policy) and this page gets flagged withing two months. To all so-called "patrollers": I advise you to start looking for some SERIOUS breaches in Wikipedia policy and stop coming up with a new policy every time to make your story plausible. And I also invite you to first suggest an alteration of the article, not immediate deletion. --AlQoraton 21:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and I would suggest that you read WP:CIVIL (To all so-called "patrollers": I advise you to start looking for some SERIOUS breaches in Wikipedia policy and stop coming up with a new policy every time to make your story plausible). Ranting at fellow editors does not help your case. --Charlesknight 21:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making my point. --AlQoraton 21:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Andeh 10:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)--Andeh 10:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets WP:WEB so lets keep it. I agree that simply hosting your webpage on Newsgrounds is not signifigant but thate fact that it has been on the front page and given awards suggests that it is in fact notable. Evidence of those things should be presented though. AmitDeshwar 01:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if WP:WEB says a site is trivial, why does it matter where on that site something appears? --Charlesknight 09:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vanity? Where? Is the Salad Fingers Wiki also up for deletion due to vanity? How about the World of Warcraft Wiki? The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air Wiki? Any Wiki describing another product of entertainment? No. This Wiki simply disects another product of entertainment, one known as Team Lorio. At NO point during the Wiki does it claim that Team Lorio is the best, or better than anyone else, nor does it even claim to be GOOD beyond what results have provided proven facts to subtantiate. Also, if you're going to post in this debate then at LEAST provide a comment that supports what you're saying, rather than just insulting something that need not be insulted. Wiki-Management, I challenge you to find any form of vanity in this article. If it exists, which it does not, I will remove it. I wrote this article, and great care was taken to ensure all guidelines were met. Therefore is there ARE any breaches then this article should be flagged for ALTERATION, not deletion. That is absurd. Jamino 15:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up for deletion because some users may believe it is vanity, it is up for deletion because there is no evidence that the site or ex-company is notable enough per Wikipedia's notability standards (WP:WEB).--Andeh 16:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:WEB in every conceivable way. It has not won any well-known awards. It hasn't been distributed via a site that is independent of the creators (submitting it to Newgrounds makes it difficult to claim independence as it wouldn't be in there without Team Lorio putting it on there and the notes make it clear that Newgrounds hosting is considered trivial). It hasn't been a subject of multiple non-trivial published works. IrishGuy ^talk 19:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails to assert notability (see WP:WEB) and is something of a vanity page as well hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlQoraton (Team Lorio's Mithrandir) comment's on the website linked to in the article say it all but there doesn't seem to be a plausible reason to keep a page about teamlorio.net on Wikipedia. --Charlesknight 13:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to stay as objective as possible by not referring to teamlorio.net as us or using Mithrandir as a nickname. Don't make me start and don't twist my words! I was referring to your (as in all the people who posted Delete) opinion on the matter. And what's with the damn "ATTENTION" sign? Don't make it look like teamlorio.net is forcing people to come here. They can make up their own mind. --AlQoraton 15:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: the Attention sign is what we post whenever it appears that someone outside of Wikipedia is attempting to sway the vote. In that case, we remind them that what counts is the strength of your arguments, not the number of bodies you can muster. Wikipedia, after all, is not a democracy. Second, you're getting too worked up over this; please review what we have to say about civility on Wikipedia before you post next. Captainktainer * Talk 04:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the sign is ment for, I can read. But in that case: why does the sign specifically say If you came here because you were told so at the teamlorio.net forums? This is just an insult to teamlorio.net's integrity. They are not telling anybody to come here, so to keep this discussion as fair/clean as possible I would strongly suggest to remove that particular reference. And second, I already reminded Charlesknight to stop posting a new policy every time to make your story plausible. I've read WP:CIVL...so allow me quote myself: Thank you for making my point. --AlQoraton 11:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An insult to your integrity? hum... so how does They are not telling anybody to come here match with And if you want to help, make a Wikipedia account and post a Keep message on that discussion page.. There is no problem with doing that - however getting on your high horse and claiming to do A when you are actually doing B - well that DOES demonstrate you have no integrity.

Informing people on what they could do is something different then telling people to come here and post a message. Like I said before: they can make up their own mind. --AlQoraton 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notice is there as the forum message was encouraging fans/members to come here and vote keep, that is a simple notice to deter any users to do that and instead participate in the discussion. Interesting enough, recently.. "The board administrator requires all members to log in".--Andeh 17:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the result of an options reset via a version upgrade. Also, that does not in anyway restrict you from checking what is posted on the forums. All you must do is simply create an account. In light of the previous comment in regards to AlQoraton's integrity - Obviously the members of the forums are going to want the article to be kept. They wouldn't be members otherwise. Jamino 17:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the following reasons, all of which are grounded on Wikipedia policy:

No reliable sources external to the site or Newgrounds.com are available within the article.
No external reliable sources testifying to the notability of the website are available. Generally, I don't believe notability in its own right is a reason to delete. In this case, teamlorio.net has not obtained sufficient press coverage to allow us to write about it from a neutral point of view. Because there is not enough external criticism or analysis to allow us to write about it with that key policy in mind, the article should not be on Wikipedia.
Substantial quantities of the information within the article are unverified, even if we were to accept the official site as a reliable source. Captainktainer * Talk 04:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a tiny fan club does not meet WP:WEB Vic sinclair 09:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, meets the sportsperson clause at WP:BIO as mentioned below. Daniel .Bryant 02:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Keriazakos[edit]

non-notable people--Wdaoo 10:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very notable indeed if he played for those teams mentioned in the article. Meets WP:BIO. MER-C 11:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep professional Major League Baseball player. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not nn. Punkmorten 18:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Peta 06:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wood and Wires[edit]

One released LP. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC Related to Things go unnoticed and Mouthstatic which are (or will be deleted) for similar reasons. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 12:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthless intent[edit]

Article on a website that fails to assert notability. MER-C 10:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. So much internet, so many nn forums. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another NN web forum, fails WP:WEB. I'm starting to think a speedy delete tag for articles on websites, that do not assert the significance of their subject, might be a good idea. --IslaySolomon 16:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non notable Nigel ^(Talk) 17:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12-12-12[edit]

original research--Wdaoo 10:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched, and the only person writing about this date is the person proclaiming xyrself "Cyberspace Global Ruler" and propounding a "world peace by 2012-12-12" plan. No-one, not even xem, has documented any practice of using this date as a placeholder or other marker that I can find. (In contrast, 1999-09-09 was, and still is, widely documented as a purported marker.) Delete. Uncle G 13:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. --Bill.matthews 15:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost forum[edit]

non-notable websites--Wdaoo 10:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 11:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. At best this should be an external link on the main LOST television program article.--Isotope23 19:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, though it might be appropriate as an external link somewhere. --Elonka 05:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolatlas.com[edit]

Monograph of single purpose account User:Schoolat, schoolatlas.com gets 117 unique Googles -wikipedia&start=150, Alexa rank is 2.4 million, most inbound links seem to be add-it-yourself directories and listings, Yahoo shows 1,200 inbound links (Google gets 170 million and my personal site served from my house by ADSL gets around 10,000). All in all, I see no objective evidence of significance. Guy 10:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 11:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Voice-of-All 15:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless article.--Poetlister 16:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of the Playground[edit]

Term (in quotes) gets around 160 unique Googles, but many of these are not for the site. Alexa rank is over the half million mark, Yahoo lists about 7,000 inbound links. Claim to notability is unsubstantiated as the law of the playground is a common term outside of the website. Guy 11:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a television series based on this. Appears to pass WP:WEB, seems OK. --Alex | talk / review me | 12:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there is a programme with this name, but I don't see any evidence that it's based on this website. It's a common parody of "the law of the jungle" and a phrase in reasonably widespread use. Guy 17:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this does seem non notable Nigel ^(Talk) 17:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB per Guy's comment above. JoshuaZ 23:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and poorly written. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 09:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The TV series is based on the book and website. It's the first credit in the TV show. I can produce a screen capture if you like. 12:08, 29 September 2006

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap Towns[edit]

Devoid of encyclopedic value MartinSpamer 11:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable book. --Alex | talk / review me | 12:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable books attached to a notable publication. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book caused controversy when published and continues to stimulate debate. I also can't help but notice that Kingston upon Hull, is one of the key pages for the person nominating this page for deletion - and it's also one of the primary Crap Towns in the book. I think the page would benefit from an additional section highlighting the controversy caused by the book. User:Stetay | 16:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually been added and removed several times. Artw 20:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly unnotable book - Chris j wood 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep, but edit - I still think the book is unnotable, and as pointed out below the magazine that did the survey has a grand circulation of 3000, but on reflection it was published and so I suppose it deserves its place here. But the article still reads far too much like this is WP's list of crap towns, rather than a review of a book. So needs editing to put into context. - Chris j wood 10:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this book sold thousands, had a sequel and a number of imitators/parodies. - fchd 18:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough. Thanks/wangi 18:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there seems to be susbstantial coverage. Equendil Talk 18:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial UK book phenomena with a web presence. Artw 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is not referenced on the article. Perhaps you would like to improve the article by adding it. Might help its case. -- Chris j wood 09:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I remember media attention on the book when it was first published, but I'm not sure it's notable enough to merit its own article. Mark Grant 22:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Crap Towns caused quite a media splash at the time, though I would not describe The Idler itself as a "notable publication" - it's a fairly obscure magazine with a circulation of just 3000. [49]. AdorableRuffian 09:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was indeed significant media interest upon publication. Badgerpatrol 01:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book itself is not particularly good or well-known (Like many, many other books in Wikipedia), but it does have notability (notoriety?) for the stir it caused on publishing. (On a related issue, it's true that The Idler has a small circulation, but it is well-known. How many very famous magazines/journals would need to be deleted if circulation was the only criterion?)

The result was Merge to Ragdoll physics. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tetka[edit]

The previous discussion is here; however, the discussion failed to take into account that this fails WP:WEB and lacks any sort of external coverage other than blogs- see WP:RS. Crystallina 12:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge: Contrary to the comment at top, the previous discussion did (albeit in limited fashion) take into account WP:WEB, but in any case the article is probably not particularly useful in its own right but should simply warrant a small section or merely a link under Ragdoll physics. I was looking for material on the algorithm and Google happened to find this one first, obviously because of outside links, but I'm pretty sure I'd have found the "main" article in due time. If nothing else, something mentioning Tetka should probably be preserved for its historical value (as being influential in spreading awareness of Ragdoll physics if nothing else). PeterHansen 18:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 17:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qobble[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Alexa ranking=5,825,727 [50]. Zero Google News hits [51]. ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. --JonHarder 18:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giveaway[edit]

Article is spam for a commercial site. Rob (Talk) 12:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply a couple of lines of half-arsed non-specific VSCA. Hardly worth the trouble. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 12:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 13:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Merika[edit]

Unreferenced and speculative at best (Note that requests for references and citations have been in place for over a month with no responce). Much of this seems to be Original Resarch. Without any clue as to who came up with the theory or who supports it we can not tell if it is notable or not. Blueboar 12:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep from a Google search, the theory seems to exist, and has been referenced in multiple places on the Web, and in print, for example, a The Guardian article [52]. That's not much, but still barely worth keeping, methinks. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Still no references added to the article. It remains unsourced. Blueboar 23:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added references. They're weak, in the sense that they're relatively off-hand mentions of the theory in each case, the books and article are not really devoted to this theory per se - but, again, I think they're enough, given that our article is relatively critical of the theory. If you don't want to search for the two books, which may be a bit obscure, you can search for "La Merica" using Amazon "search in this book" and Google Books. I've provided a link to the latter, it gives info for many items in the article on one page. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Better... but these are general references. Much of the material is still uncited and borders on OR... all highly speculative. I would still vote for delete unless major improvements are made. Blueboar 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Gosh, you're demanding. It's not as if we're going to be facing a libel suit and need to go by the very strict standards of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or something. It's just a theory, a fairly hokey theory, and our article says as much - I haven't checked the edit history in detail, but wouldn't be surprised if you wrote much of the criticism section, if so, good work. It's not controversial mainly because no one takes it seriously. But it's also an existing theory that is referred to; therefore, as the world's largest encyclopedia, we really should say something on it. We're by no means endorsing the theory, we're just saying it exists. The references clearly say there is such a theory. If you want to delete individual unreferenced items from the article, fine, but the article as a whole should stay. (By the way, then you really should get a copy of the Templar books, rather than just rely on the Amazon search.) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Given that none of the references are used to cite any given statement, I could delete the entire article line by line, and we would be left with a blank page. Far easier to simply delete the article as Non-notable. As to the "the theory exists" argument... Just because a whacko theory exists does not make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The theory has to be notable and subscibed to by more than a few authors. See WP:NOT.
(unindenting) Actually, being subscribed to by a few authors is what makes it notable. "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent sources." Wikipedia:Notability. That's what a few authors are. And by actually deleting the article line by line [53], including the things that have been referenced in the very references I just provided, you're verging into WP:POINT. Did you notice the part where I wrote that if you want to claim that the books don't back the facts you really should read the books? You apparently didn't even follow my Google Books link, because just that page backs most of the article. Please restore your edits. If you think the article should be deleted entirely, you've done the right thing by starting the AFD, wait for consensus to agree with you. Blanking the article content is not the way to do it. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK... you obviously care enough about this article for it to be kept for now... so the nomination is withdrawn for the moment ... however, to keep me from re-nominating it, you are going to have to put a lot of work into the article. Specific citations are one item on the list... Let's take this discussion to the article's Talk Page (I will copy it there)... and we can work on seeing if my concerns can be met. Blueboar 18:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest simply changing the word from Theory to hypothesis till there is enough citable evidence to support it. The word hypothesis supports this much better and can resolve this whole argument. I do have to say that there are places asking for citations that do not need it. I would ask the editor, and challenger to go back and rethink if you want regurgitation from some supposedly qualified article, or if you want the evidence to be substantial and still follow the hypothesis base.

I have no problem with changing "theory" to "hypothesis", but that does not solve the problem with this article. The primary problem has to do with the fact that the article does not meet the standards set out in WP:V and WP:NOR. The article does not even say who came up with this theory or hypothesis. Since starting this AfD, several editors have posted to the talk page, expressing a desire to keep the article, but none of them have been able to supply even a basic citation to verify the statements. Note that I am not looking for "proof" that the claims made in the article are "true"... I am talking about simply providing citations to show that the claims even exist! In fact, no one seems able provide a citation to show that the Title term "La Merika" exists! Who coined this term? Without a citation, even the TITLE of the article becomes OR. Blueboar 14:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have to reinstate this AfD nomination... discussion on the talk page has not led to any progress on the reasons why it was nominated in the first place. Again, serious issues with WP:V and WP:NOR. Blueboar 15:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This theory seems bonkers (and I've never heard it until tonight) but under WP:FRINGE "Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. Even a debunking or disparaging reference is adequate, as it establishes the notability of the theory outside of the small group of adherents." Simon Jenkins in the Guardian surely meets this. JASpencer 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. The Jenkins article does mention the idea that Henry Sinclair may have sailed to America before Columbus, but only in passing - as part of a larger article on other theories. He does not discuss some of the key parts of this theory (such as how the name "America" is supposedly derived from "La Merika"). It is a start, but not enough. and it does not solve the key part of WP:FRINGE ... the part that says such articles should be referenced extensively. This article isn't.

Delete - There doesn't appear to be any appetite to actually substantiate anything other than existence. In that sense it's not sufficiently notable to justify keeping.ALR 20:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Alex | talk / review me | 14:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIOGRAPHY Personal Life Of Miriam Colon[edit]

Very little content Alex | talk / review me | 13:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedied this. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Burger 2[edit]

No proof available here or anywhere on the Internet. Article seems to be simply made up. BertieBasset 13:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a hoax. --Alex | talk / review me | 13:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no real information there, and what little there is is unsourced.E946 15:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without some other claim to notability, speculating about a forthcoming film is crystal balling --IslaySolomon 16:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not listed on IMDB, google searching "Good Burger 2" came up with links to a book called "Good Burger to Go". Possible hoax/crystal balling/wishful thinking. I'm filing this under Good Burger 2: Burger Off. QuagmireDog 16:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 19:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May not be a hoax, but speculation based off of rumors. This interview shows that Kenan Thompson has no knowledge of a sequel(last few lines) PrometheusX303 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PrometheusX303. Unless there is some evidence the sequel is going to be made, this is just speculation. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 22:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this is a hoax perpetrated by a user who keeps asking questions about it at the Reference Desk. He seems to have some sort of weird fixation on the topic. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand a fixation on hamburgers, but not on a non-existent film starring Kenan and Kel. QuagmireDog 19:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Maxamegalon2000 01:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither studio nor actors have confirmed the existence of a sequel. Pure crystal ballery. Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with speed, haste, and quickness!! Hoax. Dismas|^(talk) 20:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT until reliable sources become available. Yamaguchi先生 22:14, 29 September 2006

The result was keep. Grand master ka 22:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Richey[edit]

Possibly NN. Saved from ((prod)) UtherSRG (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Elected politican of US state legislature. Multiple external verifiable sources. Catchpole 16:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BIO as a politician. Also, I removed a rather long discussion copied here from the talk page. It had no bearing on this AfD.--Isotope23 19:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Subject is former member of both houses of a state legislature, sits on a state party executive committee, is a public figure, is a former appointed official in a governor's administration, is an active political consultant, and is linked to some 15 other Wikipedia articles. -- BillyHathorn 13:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep Londeix, keep Malmasson, and no consensus on Chiti. Luna Santin 03:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Yves Malmasson[edit]

User:Musikfabrik has admitted to having been used for company promotion. All these articles by him seem non-notable: I may be wrong.

Also:

Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except Malmasson, who probably just scrapes through notability. The other two look desperately obscure. Moreschi 15:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not voting on Chiti or Malmasson as my objectivity has been questioned, however, without comment

Gian Paolo Chiti [54]

But, since I have no connections what so ever with Jean-Marie Londeix (Well, Paul Wehage knows him, but you certainly couldn't call them friends...) and since Musikfabrik's one damning edit to that article consisted of changing "Jean-Marie Londeix" to "Londeix, Jean-Marie" in the categories listed, I will vote an very enthusiastic

Strong Keep Londeix, who has more than the required number of recordings to , is an important teacher and has generated an important part of the Saxophone repertoire. (CF "Saxophonists and Their Repertoire, First Edition" Harry Gee, editor Indiana University Press). Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Londeix; 17,500 ghits, extremely notable saxophonist. He is also listed in the New Grove, in the saxophone article itself, as one of the leading saxophonists of his generation. Keep Malmasson, sufficiently notable. Keep Chiti; he's head of the composition program at Santa Cecilia in Rome, gets 1200+ ghits, and shows up on the web with enough performances, publications, and commentary to pass the notability bar, at least for me. Antandrus (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is extremely important to KEEP Londeix. As one of the grandfathers of the classical saxophone tradition, it is important to keep his article, though its augmentation seems necessary to justify this and therefore explain his prominence as a saxophonist. I will second the above claim about Londeix' mention in the New Grove as it testifies to his importance.

Keep Chiti *Keep Malmasson - Yes, I'm biased, but they is qualifies per Antandrus above Jean-Thierry Boisseau 22:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would helpful to update Londeix - as written, the article doesn't support his notability. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K then, keep Londeix - but I'm still very unconvinced by Chiti. Moreschi

The result was delete (per WP:WEB and WP:CSD A7. Luna Santin 03:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

macTV[edit]

Not well known. Small podcast. Tdcool 19:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Worthless article on a non notable podcast that makes no claims of notability. AmitDeshwar 01:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Necromancy (disambiguation)[edit]

This dab page is unnecessary: "necromancy (fiction)" and "necromancy in popular culture" are properly daughter articles of "necromancy", not completely separate topics which need to be disambiguated. They should simply be linked to from the necromancy page (and probably merged together into a single "in popular culture" page). Silence 01:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the nominator is absolutely correct to note that disambiguation pages are only used when multiple articles exist which share a base name. If there were a heavy metal group called "Necromancy", for example, it'd belong on this dab page. I don't see any such articles here, though - Necromancy (fiction) really should be titled Necromancy in fiction, as it isn't a fiction called Necromancy. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles should be linked in the main necromancy article and properly renamed as suggested. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was moved as per nom. This is a problem which does not require deletion and has been dealt with. MER-C 10:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neferkare[edit]

This article uses a name that is used by multiple kings, and should be Neferkara I — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markh (talk • contribs) 23:38, 23 September 2006

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. You're in the wrong place, you're looking for Wikipedia:Requested moves. Moving articles doesn't involve deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pecanland Mall[edit]

Is there any notability beyond being "the only mall in Monroe" Johnbrownsbody 22:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having more than 100 stores is a good sign of notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not provide any encyclopedic value. If notability or WP:CORP are considered, that is further reason to delete as this article does not meet either. Agent 86 17:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. "A 1999 report by APBnews.com and CAP Index which ranked shopping malls in the United States by risk of violent crime in their neighborhoods identified Pecanland Mall as having the second-highest risk." makes this a more interesting than average mall. being the only mall in a town is not that impressive, I know several towns across the world that have just one (or *gasp* none at all). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect to Monroe, Louisiana since it is the only mall there. RFerreira 22:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Luna Santin 03:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling promotion[edit]

I'd just like to say that I considered this entry's previous content, a listing of all of all known professional wrestling promotions around the world, an unprecedented and indispensible resource for English-speaking wrestling fans everywhere (which, of course, is the very type of content a user-modified encyclopedia should strive to provide). I was shocked and saddened to see this immense patchwork of efforts removed from Wikipedia, and strongly encourage anyone with the capabiltiies to restore this entry's former information to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bboyce17 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 23 September 2006

Well, as someone said, if the former information is to return, then it must be done on a proper list page. 24.7.217.221 20:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and comments: I believe that this article is worth keeping due to the fact that it lists every wrestling promotion that ever existed. As such, the page should be redone as a list page. 24.7.217.221 16:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just as is - no need for it to be a list, especially since all that will do is attract crowds of non-notable backyard feds. It's a good definition and collection of links to major groups now. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have Category:Professional wrestling promotions that contains all notable wrestling promotions. The category is much more inclusive than the list ever was, (looking thru the diffs proves this,) and is much easier to maintain than a list would be. --Roninbk _{t c #} 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article should stay and be revised their is alot more information on how they are run and with some effort can really be an informative article GShton 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up the listcruft. This could be a useful article on defining what a promotion is and what it's role in the wrestling industry is. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vidya Shilp Academy[edit]

Copyright infringement, attacks and nonsense will be deleted without warning. Please check your factual data before posting - Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raveeta (talk • contribs) 09:17, 25 September 2006

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a private school in India. I improved the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Schools are not inherently notable. No sources, no claims of notability. AmitDeshwar 01:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't matter if it's a private school in Victoria or not - it fails the notability test. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 09:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Private schools tend to attract students with influential parents. Are we sure this school had no famous alumni? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a ~~primary~~ school that was founded less than ten years ago. I can't imagine any reasons for keeping it. Aside: the "famous alumni" criterion for the newly proposed WP:SCHOOLS is idiotic. Because Omarosa went to some elementary school, that school deserves an article? -- Kicking222 14:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Truthbringer accurately alerted me to the fact that this is not merely a primary school. Taking that into consideration, I stand by my previous opinions. -- Kicking222 15:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is an all-grades school, not a primary school. "Vidyashilp Academy is ... committed to providing primary and secondary school education in the global context." Since it includes secondary grades, it is therefore notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom --Bill.matthews 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable to the community of Bangalore, India. And TruthbringerToronto has done excellent work refactoring this article. bbx 23:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per bbx and TruthbringerToronto. --Myles Long 23:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per bbx. ALKIVAR™ 00:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete per notability concerns. Luna Santin 03:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple And Pink[edit]

Non-notable machinima series. Just another Red vs Blue parody. No sources to prove notability. At least the article isn't a mess like some of these have been. Drat (Talk) 14:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. Drat (Talk) 14:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiable, reliable third-party sources. Googling +"Purple And Pink" +machinima -wikipedia gets 7 unique hits, only 2 of which are relevant. — TKD::Talk 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Although this is nearing the end of the AfD process, this article could be speedily deleted under the recent expansion of CSD A7 to include web content that makes no assertion of notability. — TKD::Talk 23:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the perfect example of a very solid wiki article, that is done with limited information, yes it is short, but the only reason you don't hear more of this is christiany inability to accepect new forms of outreach. and to be honest is almost all halo 2 machinima attempts (to a degregee) Red vs. Blue, i know that this wiki may seem to be unable to good sources, but we're having the same problems with This Spartan Life wiki, too (all we can find is stuff on blog 5, or the same article just worded different) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downskated (talk • contribs)
- Reply. The difference between Purple And Pink, and Red vs. Blue and This Spartan Life is that the latter two have been covered by several third parties. The sources for Red vs. Blue include The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, and others. This Spartan Life has been covered on G4 TV, Wired, and others. Purple and Pink has basically YouTube, which really isn't a source. — TKD::Talk 09:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per TKD Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 09:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PATH programming language[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The language is cute, and all, but I don't see any signifigance beyond that. With some exeptions I don't see esoteric languages as being notable. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 22:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and cover this briefly in Funge instead as part of a general treatment. That should suffice. flowersofnight (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 21:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found this from an external link, and it described PATH as I expected. The Funge page doesn't have this content. --Argav ۞ 15:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pcalc programming language[edit]

Delete. Toy language that does not illustrate any novel or interesting principle. Reverse Polish notation is a well-known concept already. flowersofnight (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 21:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Equendil Talk 00:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, with no prejudice against this article being recreated (and undeleted) if the band gets signed and produces an album. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy Fantastic[edit]

I don't see how this band is notable. This article was most likely created because the former lead singer Pete Bennett, whose article I nominated for deletion last month because I didn't think he was notable, was a member. According to the article, the band isn't even signed, and most of the article is about Pete anyway. jd || talk || 14:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a notable band, that just happened to have one of its ex-members in Big Brother. If it is in a bidding war between top music labels then it must be notable. --Alex | talk / review me | 14:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or they could be trying to take advantage of the popularity they hoped the former lead singer would have provided? jd || talk || 14:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - They could be, but it's not been proven. I suggest it should be kept until they are signed - which is very likely to happen - and we'll see how they go from there. --Alex | talk / review me | 14:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band has absolutely no notability aside from the guy from Big Brother. Saying "keep until signed, which is likely" is crystalballism. At the very most, this should be a merge into Bennett's article. -- Kicking222 09:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the article it states there is a bidding war to sign the band - I said it likely because they may decline both offers. --Alex | talk / review me | 13:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I thouroughly hate Big Brother, I can't deny Big Brother makes people famous, so this is a band with a notable member. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bennett is a former member, his former band isn't notable, and I question his notability (15 minutes and all). Sandy 13:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wanted this deleted last time and now they're even less notable than before! So my delete vote this time is stronger than my delete vote last time! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually, being in Big Brother, even if that made you notable, wouldn't be enough here, notability of a member must be through music-related projects. From WP:MUSIC: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Would a band be notable if a guitarist were also a noted college physicist? Guyanakoolaid 08:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having (or having had) a band member who is a big brother contestant doesn't make this band notable or worthy of inclusion -- timdew (^Talk) 20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guyanakoolaid. The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piet programming language[edit]

Delete. Amusing idea, but not really illustrative of anything in particular. Perhaps treat briefly in Funge as a variant on the notion. flowersofnight (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 21:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Equendil Talk 00:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its unique enough to keep. And forgods sake stop nominating it. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 06:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's nothing wrong with it.
~~Keep~~ How can you do this to me? Piet | Talk 07:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw my vote ;-) I shouldn't positively discriminate because of the thing's name. Piet | Talk 07:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quit it. Just because you can't code Piet, doesn't mean you should delete it, Xoloz. --User:Thematrixeatsyou/sig 09:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep I've given up !voting on these esolang nominations for now, apart from the ones worth keeping. Piet is verifiable, moderately unusual, and seems more notable than the average esolang, according to Google. --ais523 14:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Most "Piet"s refer to Dutch individuals called Piet, not the programming langauge. Could you point out the secondary sources which make this language verifiable? —Ruud 23:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure how much credence you give to the two in the article... I would consider implementations (which seem to be based on the original dangermouse page) as secondary sources, in which case you've got at least [55] and [56] (different authors, different websites, different languages; this was just from the first 2 pages of Google results, which are mostly true positives; the proportion of correct results drops off about the 7th page). I haven't mentioned the (non-Wikipedia) wiki and blog coverage here (which gives notability but not verifiability per WP:RS). --ais523 09:24, 3 October 2006 (U T C)
Keep for the reasons stated above Swalot 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Esoteric programming languages are part of the informatics culture and should be mentioned. LHOON 13:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QUOTE programming language[edit]

Delete - a joke, according to the article; the single reference is unavailable, and the name is impossible to search for. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not even Turing-complete! -- Gwern (contribs) 20:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Turing-(in)completeness should absolutly not be a criteria for deciding wheter or not to include an esoteric programming language. —Ruud 21:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 21:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ruud. Equendil Talk 00:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S0 scripting language[edit]

Delete. NN Equendil Talk 19:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything about it on Google - not even an interpreter or a syntax reference! Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 21:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Luna Santin 03:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altia, Inc.[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. Altia refers to many different companies and things: Altia, Inc. gives very little Google hits, but this may be due to the way the name is given. Altia + Photoproto (the only product which had its own article) gives 37 distinct Google hits. Fram 15:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is shown. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise in advance if this is the incorrect manner/format to communicate regarding this article entry -- I haven't been a user of Wikipedia for very long. Please advise if this is incorrect.

Regarding notability: Searching for "Altia Design" at Google Book Search and Google Scholar returns multiple results. Additional book and periodical publication names/dates/ISBN information can also be provided if necessary. Altian 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to use quotes in your search term ([57]), or you may get unrelated hits. This still returns four hits, I'll look at it later. Fram 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Problems with reliable sources, original research, and bias riddle this article. Based upon the content of the previous deletion discussion, as well as the dearth of input here, there exists consensus that this article should not exist. - brenneman ^{L} 06:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SGGS on meat[edit]

Previously kept by default at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SGGS on Meat, but a strong majority in favour of not having an article here (merge + delete advocates significanctly outnumber keep). Keep arguments included it is important to sikhs to learn about what their holy text tells them. It is important to convey this message to sikhs (sorry, no, Wikipedia exists to convey information to a general audience, not doctrine to a given faith). We have an article on Sikh diet, which is where what verifiably neutral information on this topic should go. We also have this article on the Shabads from Guru Granth Sahib (SGGB) on meat. Sikh diet is hard to understand, poorly formatted and so on, which does not help, and I am afraid I do not understand either article well enough to perform the merge. Those who do, evidently have no interest in doing so.

Above all, this article, "SGGS on meat", is both an apparent POV fork of Sikh diet, which says that meat is acceptable to some Sikhs, a position disputed by this article by reference to the Guru, and original research, a mixture of polemic and quotes from the original source, including in non-Western scripts referenced in each case to the primary source. Maybe there is a place for this on some sister project. Guy 15:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guy, I am sorry but I disagee with you. What you say here is not correct. SGGS on meat as the name suggests is an article dealing with what the SGGS says about meat. As I am sure you know, SGGS is short for Sri Guru Granth Sahib which is the living Guru or spiritual teacher of the Sikh, who are the fifth largest organised religion in the world. ^[1]. Sikh diet is an article which is about what the Sikhs are allowed to eat or not eat and other dietary habits of the Sikhs. The articles do overlap but are concerned with separate and independent issue relating to Sikhism. This is no OR as it is an article based on quotes (facts) from the Sikh holy book as are the Parables of Jesus for Christanity, especially ones listed here and also Fables and Parables. Let's be fair and non-discriminatory in this matter. I believe that we need to revert to my last edit of this article - see my comments below. --Hari Singh 04:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a Sikh and interested party oin Sikhism I would have agree about deleting this, namely because the biased nature of the article. The meat issue is dealt elsewhere within the wiki and Sikhism, there is no need to include a specific one for SGGS and Meat. If this is to be allowed then current ammendments that are being undertaken by our memebers at sikh-history.com should be allowed. --Sikh-history 15:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is an important issue for Sikhs and for others. To understand dietary habits of Sikhs (and of other religions) is of significance to life and the importance of diet cannot be denied. Diet plays an key role in the lives of all and it is a matter relating to an important religion of the world. Don't you think that the world would be interested to know about the dietary habits of the Sikhs? We have similar dietary articles for Christianty, Buddhism, etc. and so I think if this article is deleted then in fairness those others should also be deleted.
The article has been vandalised by User:sikh-history who has a set agenda - See his contributions which all relate to only one-set-POV. He has since 23 September been changing various articles to his POV in relation to diet and Sikhism. He is not like a normal user adding to a range of articles in the best interest of Wikipedia. He is deliberately changing this article and others to result in the deletion of these articles from the database so that this matter is not brought to the attention of the world as this would suit his view.
I suggest that the article is reverted to the version that I last edited. It would be unfair and discriminatory if articles similar to this one are kept while this one in particular is deleted. See previous lengthy discussion about this and the parables articles here. The article had been improved since it "avoided" deletion last time until User:sikh-history has starting to "tamper" with it and has been "dumping kilobytes of text from other sites" see discussion here with User:MER-C --Hari Singh 03:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

The result was delete. Grand master ka 22:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InFact[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable product; author's sole contributions consist of related spam. Prod tag was removed by author. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice^talk 14:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not-notable. No external references. AmitDeshwar 01:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution (MMOG)[edit]

Non-notable MMOG. Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Not even an assertion of notability is given. No reliable sources. Prod removed by anon without improvement. Delete. Huon 15:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the article's talk page, and probably a Keep:

This page is, or rather will be, a valied Wikipedia entry. It is an article on a MMOG with a growing community and is definitely not an article that should be cosidered for deletion. yes it is a work in progress and improvemnts will be made to the entry in the near future as more and more users of the website contribute, in true Wikipedia fashion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brzak (talk • contribs) 16:39, September 25, 2006 (UTC), copied by Huon 17:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reason on article's talk page seems to be crystal ball gazing. Agent 86 20:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment you must not be a player of EVO.Evil oranges 22:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Whether I am or not is irrelevant. All that's relevant is whether this article is encyclopedic, which I still believe it is not, even with the new edits. Agent 86 17:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reason major changes to article made, notability reasons added. Recently featured on digg.com PS - sry for the mix up on adding the article to this section ;)JMJimmy 17:07, 25 September 2006 (EST)
- Comment: The revisions have not persuaded me to change my mind. The lack of notability is highlighted by statements such as "The game is still considered to be in the beta stage of development". Smacks of crystal ball gazing. Agent 86 22:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Gmail is considered to be in the beta stage. Evolution is a full, 100% functional, game with 3100 active members. Like Gmail, Evolution is undergoing frequent updates & improvements that necessitate the beta term. I think the significant difference between the traditional beta and the current usage of beta should apply, in that the traditional referrers to a program that has a limited membership chosen by the developer whereas the current beta term referrers to a working product in development with unlimited access by the general public. ". JMJimmy 22:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The above comment says that "Evolution is a full, 100% functional game with 3100 active members. Like Gmail, Evolution is undergoing frequent updates & improvements that necessitate the beta term." This is not the case, as shown by this game's bugs, down time, and the fact that most of the 3100 active players are inactive. I also think it's unfair to compare Evolution to Gmail because Evolution's been a beta since 2001 if I'm not mistaken, and very little has changed since that time. The chances for Evolution to be fully completed are slim to none. DepressedStone 20:21, 26 September 2006 (PST) The above opinion is not by User:DepressedStone, but by 71.104.31.159 (contribs). --Huon 09:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what basis in fact do you have for these statements 71.104.31.159? 5 major code revisions, major new features added in each, plus bug fixes all throughout. Downtime is a reflection on the hosting company and has nothing to do with the article - also no basis in fact as the only downtime experienced in recent memory has been due to scheduled maintenance on the servers. Due to the game's structure the 3100 active members are active since July 19th 2006 when the round started. All inactive accounts were removed at the end of the last round. 15:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If this post is by DepressedStone, it is worth noting that DepressedStone was banned from Evolution due to causing a public nuisance by posting fradulent information in the game's forums. --Neondragon 04:18, 29 September 2006 (BST)

Keep this WILL become a decent wiki article. the players of EVO are very active, and this will soon be a useless talk page.Evil oranges 01:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the article should just be a short entry for now. Not notable enough for a full blown article yet.--Hatch68 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 12:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Kinslayer 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment can we have a reason, or are you wanting us to delete your page? your vote reads "DELETE The Kinslayer". Evil oranges 02:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Sorry, sure! It's been going since 2001, it has only 3000 odd members and is not notable in the slightest, there are a gillion more notable web games. I say delete, and if by the slightest of slight chances this game actually becomes notable, then it can have a page. The Kinslayer 07:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This is the logic I have come to hate about Wikipedia. Chron X was a similar sized game, now pretty much defunct - gets a page, Eve Online, not really notable, small community for the age of the game and the advertising that was put behind it - also insignifcant compared to RuneScape or World of Warcraft - gets a page. A small company with no funding, based around a community of players, steadily growing over 5 years (most games begin declining after their 3-4th year peak), can't get a page because someone thinks creating something like this community "is not notible". Creating a web based game of this complexity and depth is notible in itself - to keep it running and consistantly grow the community for 5 years with no money is notible in intself. Wikipedia is becoming too elitist and who decides, and at what point is a community based around a game created by a 15 year old is notable enough? 5,000? 25,000? 100,000? 500,000? I'm sorry these comments are not soley based on impartial facts, and I agree there's more work to be done on the article, but it makes me angry both when the above occurs and when I took another article, changed it to fit Evo, and expanded on it signifcanly - yet it's not good enough for Wiki. All because people who may no nothing about programming or games, and who have most likely never taken a look at it, deem it "unnotible" or "crystal ball gazing". Again, I'm sorry, but I feel strongly about this. The amazing thing is, I didn't even know about the game until it was featured on Digg a week or so ago and I can see the importance of it after playing it for a short time. JMJimmy 12:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'Comment'. EVE Online got lots of ink in the CFG and MMO press. Has this? —Wrathchild ^(talk) 12:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Jimmy, the more you say, the more you sound like you have a biased interest in this, and the less impartial you sound. The Kinslayer 12:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There are no reliable, independent sources for Evolution. Digg doesn't count, because the content is user-supplied, and the guy who wrote that article clearly was connected to the MMOG. The Evo Wiki obviously isn't independet. While I didn't check EVE online, I could easily find an external review to add to the Chron X article (and if I hadn't been able, I would have nominated Chron X for deletion, too). If something similar could be found for Evolution, I might change my opinion - but right now, the article fails too many of Wikipedia's guidelines - see WP:RS and WP:OR. --Huon 13:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Ok, taking a step back, I can understand it doesn't have sources to cite other than random blogs that mention it such as http://www.robocrow.com/?q=node/2 however traditional media would never pick up a story about a non-commercial game unless it was a blowup sucess. I suppose I have an issue with the wiki rules more than the fact this article is up for deletion. The rules seem to only want to document information that has money behind it in one form or another. JMJimmy 19:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rome wasn't built in a day, give it a chance. 87.102.12.100 14:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not about giving it a chance. It's about whether or the not the game as it is NOW warrants having an article, And it doesn't. And FYI 99.9% of the time, if a game like this hasn't made it in FIVE years, it's not gonna make it.The Kinslayer 14:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's not about "making it" the game isn't trying to be a commercial success. It's about documenting something that a 15 year old created that is followed by thousands around the world. And to your earlier comment, I'm bias in that I care, yes. I have no affiliation with the game other than that I've played it for a short time, and feel it is deserving of an article. JMJimmy 19:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 17:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:RS. Wickethewok 15:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wickethewok. note: I made listed pages links for convenience. Altair 17:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While I'm in favor of keeping articles about released commercial games, this strikes me as a hobbyist project that doesn't seem to fit those criteria. In particular, the article doesn't provide any information about why a significant number people would be interested in looking for this in an encyclopedia. Keep in mind that there are other plenty of other options for promoting your project, such as starting your own wiki. Also, Digg is not a good primary source, because there are no restrictions for listing things there. --Alan Au 20:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These Alexa rankings show how Evolution has surpassed Planetarion.com in terms of web site traffic, and Planetarion has a Wikipedia article. Also, this isn't an attempt at publicity, but seeing as you mention starting our own wiki, I'll happily supply you with the link to it. Thirdly, while there are no restrictions placed on articles submitted to Digg, what is notable are the 456 users who decided to digg the article. --Neondragon 04:18, 29 September 2006 (BST)
  - Comment. Planetarion already survived an Articles for Deletion debate. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Planetarion for more details. Also consider that Planetarion had tens of thousands of players, while Evolution apparently has only 3100. --Alan Au 03:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - So far, the only real reason people seem to want to keep this article is for crufting reasons. Also, only 456? Out of the billions of people online? Thirdly, Planetarion regularly eithe rwins or finishes in the top five of the Game of the Month poll over at www.mpogd.com. The Kinslayer 07:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - How is this any different than Digg? It's just user submitted voting just like Digg. And it's interesting that a single editor choosing to place an article in a paid media forum is valid yet 456 editors in an unpaid media forum are not valid. Go figure.JMJimmy 13:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - The reference was to the fact that Planetarion wins awards, making it notable, whereas Evolution has won nothing, and has not one single claim to notability. 'something that a 15 year old created that is followed by thousands around the world.' (your words) is the best description you can come up with, and your this articles biggest (and only) defender. Thousands across the world equates to less than .001% of the total net population, and even less of the worlds population. TENS of thousands might possibly swing this discussion, but there aren't, so it wont. The Kinslayer 14:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pan Dan 21:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - This has been up for a while now. Maybe things should be brought to a conclusion? The Kinslayer 08:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Leo Badillo[edit]

Non-notable, does not meet wikipedia:notability (people). Assuming the username of creating user user:Jldb0131 is initials, it seems likely that this is an wikipedia:autobiography. Thue | talk 15:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Fails WP:BIO, WP:PROF, WP:RS and WP:AUTO. 8 unique google hits. Nothing on Google news to back up the interview claims. Irongargoyle 15:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, he's definitely in marketing. - Richfife 15:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with Jingo Badillo. - Ektar 19:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Triviaa 21:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Irongargoyle. AmitDeshwar 01:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Grand master ka 22:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Fast[edit]

Orphaned article about a military officer. No references, just innuendo. I doubt she's notable and Wikipedia is not a sopabox. kingboyk 18:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 22,600 unique ghits. There seem to be plenty of sources, but the entire Abu-Grahib prison scandal is pretty enigmatic, seeing as it takes place in an ongoing war. I'm not surprised that this is orphaned. Musaabdulrashid 23:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice^talk 15:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article's language is somewhat loaded, but subject is notable. - Richfife 15:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just slap a cleanup tag on it and go. No need for AfD here subject is clearly notable. Whispering^(talk/c) 00:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chegg[edit]

Non-notable,vanity,npov vio Shafta 19:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD nomination was originally started by 64.5.88.47 who may or may not be Shafta (though I'm guessing it is). Yomangani ^talk 19:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Musaabdulrashid 23:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, looks like spam. BTLizard 11:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chegg is valid and has a number of press sources online backing it.

Keep - Chegg seems to be legit. Large number of users, wide geographic spectrum. --216.165.126.107 16:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Looks like they know where their towel is - Richfife 15:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails web.--Peta 05:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failure of WP:WEB and also WP:CORP.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Nair[edit]

Non-notable, vanity? Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 15:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless evidence of notability can be provided. Nothing in the article suggests notability, Google results in little of relevance save wiki mirrors, and both external links are now non-functional. Espresso Addict 03:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It stinks. Reading the article I missed information if they had a puppy and what it is called.Kuntan 04:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete - UtherSRG (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curse ov Dialect[edit]

Reads more like an advert than an article. Dubious notability Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 15:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It reads exactly like an advert, and the reason for that is that it was copied and pasted wholesale from this advert. Uncle G 16:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starcraft 2[edit]

repeat deletion

The following have already been deleted: StarCraft II (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/StarCraft_II) and StarCraft 2 (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_25#StarCraft_2). Content is still speculative. Olin 16:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a repost, but honestly: Blizzard has said they don't have any plans to make this game yet, though they might in the future. The rest of the article is WP:OR fan speculation. Mango juice^talk 16:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal-balling and based entirely on wishful thinking. Until the game is officially announced (if it ever gets released), this kind of speculation is useless on WP and belongs on fan-sites. QuagmireDog 17:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete crystal-ball. -Markeer 20:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the Protoss Fleet Beacon, this article looks like a crystal ball. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing has changed since the previous deletion: Blizzard's official position is still that Starcraft 2 (or II, or whatever) is not a current project. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as much as I would love to have Starcraft 2 come out this article is just crystal-balling. Whispering^(talk/c) 01:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, Speedy Delete Same as everyone else says, the article is blatant crytsal-balling. The Kinslayer 14:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 17:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wish it would come out, but till there is an announcement from Blizz no need to have the page. WCX 04:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until reliable sources are available. Yamaguchi先生 22:28, 29 September 2006

The result was delete. Grand master ka 22:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interlink Software[edit]

This article is advertising spam for a non-notable software comany hawking "Business Service Management" software - in plain English, that's a contact database. No real criteria of notability are shown in the article; it mentions that they have 40 clients (but they're "blue chip" clients!) It also claims that they have been cited as an "example vendor" in a number of obscure publications, and gives another reference backed up only by an email link. Finally, the article contains passages of sickening prose: Interlink Software are leading Business Service Management (BSM) into a new evolutionary phase, offering end-to-end visualization of the health of business services. Delete. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an encyclopaedia article. It's a corporate advertising blurb. Most of it is written in the first person. It offers corporate references to potential customers at the bottom, coming close to abuse of Wikipedia as a resource for conducting business. It comprises a deluge of peacock terms, including the 10 uses of the adjective "best" in describing the subject. It is unsourced and egregiously non-neutral. Its sole author is Interlink (talk · contribs), who has copied this blurb onto xyr user page. Whether or not an encyclopaedia article could be written on this company (I couldn't find any sources after a brief search.), this text should go. Delete. Uncle G 17:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as vanity of corporation that is borderline notable. Gartner quotations are interesting, and even significant, but improperly linked with email addresses. Searching Gartner's site (you have to enter "Interlink Software" yourself) gives 12 results, which is not bad at all. But you have to buy the articles to find out what they say. Get rid of the PR hype and I will revise my opinion, but this form of this article has to go. Regrettably an edit is likely currently to leave only the company name. Fiddle Faddle 19:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2008-09 in English football[edit]

As with 2009-10 in English football this failed a previous Afd as "no consensus", however the second nomination on that article seems to have pretty strong consensus as a Delete as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nominate on same grounds. QmunkE 16:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. QmunkE 16:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this season is nearly two years away from starting and nothing concrete can be said about it yet. Qwghlm 16:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, re-create nearer the time. - fchd 18:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless at the moment. Punkmorten 18:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.UberCryxic 19:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 16:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Ensure it can be recreated using this title nearer the time, of course. doktorb _words^deeds 13:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Wait til 2008 to start it up again. Spartacusprime 20:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, heck! Does this mean I can't create "American Football, 2016-2017???"

Delete. It's not like WP has loads of excess bandwidth and disk space available. RickReinckens 05:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Token Keep vote - could be useful ahead of time for fixture info and whatnot. How far ahead of time are such things released? Lankiveil 02:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well, the 2008-09 season doesn't start until August 2008, almost two full years away. As for when fixtures are released, whether lists of fixtures belong in Wikipedia articles is still up for debate as to whether they pass WP:NOT as "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". QmunkE 07:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep all three. Daniel .Bryant 02:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1-Methylindole, 2-Bromo-1-chloropropane and 5-Methylindole[edit]

Disputed prod. These appear to be just arbitrary chemical compounds with no particular significance to them. Using standard chemical notation it is quite possible to create hundreds of thousands of arbitrary compounds (e.g. 2,3-dichloro-cis-butenol and so forth). Wikipedia is not infinite. Note that I would have no objection to merging these some place sensible. >Radiant< 16:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose That there is an importance tag in the article does not mean that it is not important. Please leave them as a stub (indoles are important building blocks for organic synthesis and even have been tested as anti cancer drugs themselves, and 2-bromo-1-chloropropane is a simple chiral organohalides, chirality of these compounds is of interest to pollution). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could update the articles to say so? Thanks! >Radiant< 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could, but I don't have any references at hand, and well, there are many pages needed updating (certainly not only these), and my wikipedia-time is at the moment consumed by adding new functionalities to Wikipedia, preparing scripts for that change, fighting spam/vandalism and, sorry to say so, answering to people who want to delete pages because the Wikipedia database is about to overrun. Sorry, but I am sure there are people in Wikipedia that are willing to help to add data to pages having an ((importance)) tag (sorry for the cynical tone, but I think 'random' page-deleting also consumes time that could have been used more effectively). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I admit I have a difficult time assessing the notability of these compounds, but they do generate a solid number of ghits and they appear to be discussed in several scientific papers. However I could be easily swayed from this opinion by somebody more knowledgeable about chemistry. :-) — RJH (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The methylindoles are, as noted by Dirk Beetstra antioxidant compounds of medical interest (PMID 15281219, for example). All three of these entries need additional work, but they shouldn't be deleted.... -- MarcoTolo 00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This argument seems more like why WP should have a page covering the topic of methylindoles rather than why each individual one should stay... GassyGuy 15:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to that, but this is a ((afd)), not a ((merge)) request. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I put a note on WikiProject Chemistry and WikiProject Chemicals , a member of which probably wrote the stub, and will likely be able to justify or not these stubs existence. Olin 15:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 5-Methylindole is notable as an interesting system under UV photoexcitation experiments. See [58] for a little summary. The same thing with 2-Bromo-1-chloropropane and 1-Methylindole. These compounds have novel sorts of conical intersections and nonlinearities from an experimental and theoretical perspective. I won't go into the technicalities here, since it's just an AfD. There is nothing to worry about a host of compounds being added to Wikipedia under this blanket definition of "interesting" - there is only a limited class of compounds under consideration at the moment. One would not include something like "2,3-dichloro-cis-butenol" - ab initio methods for calculating the UV spectra for that system would simply be intractable in the current state of affairs. --HappyCamper 15:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although I am unfamiliar with these particular compounds they do not seem arbitrary. It seems that a couple people here have references to be added to teh article. Remember AfD is a time to improve the article if possible and if you bother to research it add what you know and the reference. I think that any arbitrary adding of compounds such that it would overwhelm would have to be systematic and would appear as a series of analogs.--Nick Y. 16:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is amazing to see how the apparently similar methylindoles have very different properties, see also 3-methylindole , indole and 7-methylindole V8rik 18:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I agree with Radiant that WP is not infinite, these are simple enough compounds to deserve their own articles. Physchim62 (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable enough to the scientific community. RFerreira 23:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Grand master ka 23:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of epic metal bands[edit]

Unsourced, miscellaneous list of bands from different genres (power metal, symphonic metal, folk metal). There is little enough agreement on the validity of the term "epic metal", finding bands that everyone agrees is epic metal is totally unrealistic. IronC hris | (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The short article on epic metal itself names most of these bands already. List would only be needed if the article grows and a view point is reached about what can easily be called "epic metal". Dace59 16:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dace59. All bands that are more widely considered "epic metal" are already on Epic metal, which itself is more of a term than a genre. Even if all the entries would be sourced, this list is redundant. Prolog 16:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - If there is an article on the genre itself then why delete the list of bands ----N R S ^T/_M\^B
Because the list is original research. Punkmorten 18:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom, list cruft, metal cruft. a term that gets slammed to any kind of band really and makes no sense. Epic metal should be AFDed also. Spearhead 20:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with epic metal, if the information can be sourced. Olin 15:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Luna Santin 03:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnav Tripathy[edit]

the article claims the subject is a mathematician. It does not back up the claim. The article describes a good math student. Math students are not really worthy re: WP:BIO. Jayron32 16:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Many mathematicians take courses at a local college. Tripathy attends a high school, but takes college math courses. In this sense, he is just like most other mathematicians. Tripathy is a notable name, and there are obviously enough sources to support keeping this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.114.157 (talk • contribs)

Delete. Mathematician = person who works in the field of mathematics, either professionally or as an amateur. Math Student = person who takes classes in the field of mathematics. A notable mathematician should be one who has made significant contributions to the field of mathematics. What axioms or theorems has this person created? What novel proofs has he done? Cite a textbook or a professional journal that shows this persons work in mathematics. You can't because he is not a mathematician. The subject has made NO contributions to the field of mathematics. He takes classes. He does his math problems in those classes REALLY FAST. A student of a subject, even a really smart student, is NOT a noteworthy subject for an article. --Jayron32 02:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, you are obviously not a mathematician. IMO is not about doing problems, it is a place where mathematicians gather to prove theorems and come up with new ideas. Speed has nothing to do with it. I am not an expert on this person, but I am sure he has contributed useful things to his field, we just need to find a source familiar with Tripathy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.114.157 (talk • contribs)

Still delete. OK, he's a Mathematician. But is he a notable mathematician as defined by WP:PROF, WP:BIO or WP:NN. If he is notable as a mathematician, the article needs to furnish proof of such by citing references to his work in a peer-reviewed journal or some equivalent. What work has he done that merits that level of notability? If he is notable as a competitor, then where is the proof required under this guideline:

"Third party verification from a reliable source outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized as performing at the highest level."
If he is a competitor, we need to see evidence that he is widely recognized. I will warrant that merely finding third party sources that state such would be fine. Are there articles by outside sources that review his performance at IMO? Are there articles out there that talk about his performance as a math competitor? If so, cite them. If not, his notability is unverifiable by wikipedia standards.
Under BOTH claims, (that he is a notable mathematician, OR that he is a notable competitor), this subject fails the litmus test. If the article can be proved with valid citations to verify his notability as a mathematician OR his notability as a competitor, I will change my vote. However, until and unless that happens, this guy still doesn't pass the notability litmus test. --Jayron32 01:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's seemingly a self promoting bio piece. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activites that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third party verification from a reliable source outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized as performing at the highest level."

- Official Wikipedia policy. In order to argue that this article needs deleting, you must argue that IMO is not the highest amateur level of mathematics in THE WORLD. Since Arnav competed at IMO, the only way this article should be deleted is if the above is determined. IMO is obviously the highest amateur level of mathematics competitions in the WORLD, therefore this article should be kept. Also, @ Khukri: I am not Arnav Tripathy, as you can easily find out using my IP address, and the confirmed location of Arnav Tripathy. --Mysmartmouth 23:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As we are talking about an academic subject, the relevant test here is WP:PROF (or something similar, I know it's not a fully fledged guideline). The subject fails it by a long, long, way. Mr Stephen 23:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. He's not an athlete. Yeah, you can argue he's a competitor but you would just be stretching the intention of that part of WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 18:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Performing well at IMO does not make anyone notable (but, well done). Mr Stephen 23:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Just because he's not an athlete does not mean he is not notable. He won a gold medal in an international competition where almost 500 people from 90 countries competed. If he had won a gold medal in swimming or ice skating or gymnastics or track at such a competition no one would claim he was "non-notable". He has also competed on two other national teams. And let's get real--this kid is still in high school and he is already taking graduate level math courses at a university! The claim that he is an "up and comer" is obviously justified. The article does need to be corrected that "Arnav Tripathy is considered by many to be ... one of the top mathematicians in the world." Obviously, that is not correct. Even though he won a high-school level competition, obviously no one considers him on the level of full professors at top universities--yet. RickReinckens 06:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Well, the reference that backs up the claim "he is already taking graduate level math courses at a university!" is broken~~ I fixed it. Even when it's fixed, the basic problem remains, in that performing well at student level courses does not make him notable. Mr Stephen 11:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. per above. --JohnPatricks 00:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a new editor and this is his only edit to date.--A. B. 04:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The IMO is for school students under 20, and 1/12 of all participants in the finals win gold medals. Espresso Addict 03:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not totally true. You do not have to be a student to make IMO, and 1/12 is not a definite number. Also, you ignore how hard it is to even make the US team for IMO. 6 out of over 200,000 initial AMC applicants make the IMO. That's definitely noteworthy in itself.

Reply. In response to RickReinckens; the fact that he is in high school and taking graduate level math classes is irrelevent to his worthiness to be included in Wikipedia. Being a really smart student is not a valid guideline for notability under WP:NN, nor are any of the claims that MIGHT make him notable are verifiable under the WP:VERIFY policy. Look, I am sure that this guy is a really nice kid, and I am positive he is very smart, but if that was all that it took to get an article, the Wikipedia servers could not hold all of the articles that would appear here. Articles, ESPECIALLY biographical articles, need to go through a vetting process that assures that the persons included therein are have really done things worthy of noting. This guy has not. The threshold question for notability is: Do sizeable groups of people know this person who has not met this person. No one defending this article has produced any proof that that is the case. Lets look at the TWO claims that are made for his inclusion: 1) He is a mathematician. If so, cite his published work as a mathematician. If he has not published any work, than he is not a verifiably notable mathematician. 2) He is a competitor of the highest level, on par with other competitors in such endeavors as sport. If so, cite a third party source that has noted and reviewed his performance at said competitions. A local newspaper article merely noting his participation and placement doesn't really qualify. Have math competition journalists noted his performance? Did math competition analysts review the problems he worked, or the theorems he proved or whatever? Was he featured in an article on the top Math Competitiors? Has his math competition techniques been included in the popular math competition press? If any of these things are true, then all you have to do is cite the sources so everyone can see his notability. ALL of the things that people have said so far about this subject may be TRUE, but if they are not verfiably notable, then he does not warrent inclusion in Wikipedia. --Jayron32 05:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, I think at this point the only plausible reason for inclusion is reason #2. If you visit the Art of Problem Solving forum, the largest forum of professional and amatuer mathematicians, you will not find a single person who doesn't recognize his name. As for what you asked, there are no real math competition journalists or analysts. His techniques have been featured on AoPS, and the top two mathematical societies in America have recogzied him in their newsletters and journals (I added sources just now). This is a huge thing, because if you read the rest of the articles in these newsletters, you will see on what a great scale Tripathy's acheivement was.

Please consider changing your votes after viewing the additional sources I added. --Mysmartmouth 02:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - FWIW the sports analogy seems apt to me, although obviously not an exact parallel, and I agree with Mysmartmouth's points.HeartofaDog 00:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being won over slowly, but still delete. OK. I checked out the two new websites. They mention Arnav Tripathy's participation in the event, and even his winning a gold medal. But they are little more than press releases. The MAA site doesn't even mention him beyond the picture caption, and the AMS site mentions him in a single sentantce. Mere paricipation, and even placement, in such a competition does not prove that mathematicians find this guy noteworthy. Look, on the web you can find my participation in the National Academic Quiz Tournaments national championship for 1997. That doesn't prove anything about my skill in acedemic compeitions. Could you please provide a link to the AoPS forum, especially threads relevent to Tripathy's performance and skills as a problem solver vis a vis his noteworthiness as a math competitor of the highest degree? If indeed the discussions that you say are going on are indeed going on there, that would provide a relevent to Tripathy's notability. THAT would show that he is thought of as a top mathematics competitor by people who follow the field. I will concede that THAT is what is needed to prove his worthiness. Provide the link, and if it says what you say it does, I will change my vote. --Jayron32 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't want to make too strong of an appeal to authority but I am a mathematician and frankly most of our community doesn't pay much attention to the never-ending flow of wunderkinds. Yes the kid is probably good, probably even excellent and has a decent chance of having a nice career in a notoriously difficult field. But let's face it, the article is not and cannot currently be built around reliable independent third party sources. For instance, the first sentence is:

Arnav Tripathy is considered by many to be the best high school mathematician in the United States, and one of the top mathematicians in the world.

Now, come on, let's please stop the nonsense. And the sentences

The American Mathematics Society, the largest organization of professional mathematicians in the US, as well as the Mathematical Association of America, recognized Tripathy in their newsletters.

and

Also, Triapthy was honored by Congress for his success in the 2006 US Physics Team

are laughably misleading. The AMS and MAA don't recognize Tripathy, they just report (in passing) that he is one of the contest winners. Good for him and I wish him all the best. Congress did not honor Tripathy. A few well-intentioned congressmen honored the members of the US Physics team. As for the argument that he's just as notable as an athlete competing at a high level, I'm sorry but I fail to be convinced by that argument because, like it or not, even talented mathematicians do not get the same kind of exposure as athletes. Quick, name one winner of a math olympiad of the past 20 years? The debate should not be over the value of his achievements (which is undeniable) but on the possibility of making this an article of encyclopedic value based on reliable sources. Sure it's as hard, if not harder, to win the math olympiad than to be a college quarterback but it's also very hard to raise five kids when you're on welfare and WP:BIO is not about how impressive the person's achievements have been. Pascal.Tesson 18:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply Thank you Pascal for helping me to make my point. The trouble with this subject is that it is, by its very nature, hard to verify notability. Wikipedia has a far greater capacity for articles than a print encyclopedia, but it DOES have certain standards of notability and verifiability. I am trying to give the supporters of this article the opportuniy to prove that. So far, all attempts have been seriously lacking. The things I mentioned about the "math competitions press" were half tongue-and-cheek. Is the subject worthy of an encyclopedia article? Who knows, maybe he is... Can you prove his worthiness, even if he was so? For this guy probably not. The standards set in place for inclusion in wikipedia are verifiability and notability. Even if he is notable among mathematicians, that notability is not verifiable. Again, I point to the WikiPedia policy that the suporters of this article have cited. It actually works against the arguement they are trying to win:

"Third party verification from a reliable source outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized as performing at the highest level."

The closest we have is third party verification of participation and placement; and even that is weak. So far we have no proof of the widely recognized threshold. A few dozen of his buddies at high school know about him. A few hundred people he faced at his math competitions have heard of him. I would figure "wide recognition" ought to include more people than could fill a gymnasium... I am not making light of his accomplishments. I have personally been involved in accademic competitions for a large part of my life. That doesn't mean that I think that the best accademic competitors need to be part of wikipedia. The nature of the competition itself lacks notability. Is that fair? Probably not, but we don't live in a society that places that rewards academic success or brain-power in that way. Wikipedia is not the place to change that. Wikipedia should only reflect the values of the society it reports on. --Jayron32 23:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I feel that the arguments in favour of deletion have been much more rational and in line with the existing guidelines and policies, we might end up keeping this article as a no-consensus. If that is indeed the case, the article needs a definite rewrite to be neutral and verifiable. In particular the quotes I mentioned earlier have to go as they are clearly misleading and not based on fact. Pascal.Tesson 13:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the Art of Problem Solving (AoPS) forum. You can browse around, but I sugggest creating a topic such as "Have you heard of Arnav Tripathy" or "Give your opinions on Arnav Tripathy" or anything of that nature, and gauge the responses. Obviously, I've never seen something like that used in an AfD, but the results will show you what percentage of the top math students and mathematicians know Tripathy. EDIT: If you scroll down that page and look at Pakman2012's post, it shows an example of the reverance shown toward Tripathy (though by itself it is an admittedly weak example). However, I'm sure if you look around you can find more posts like this. --Mysmartmouth 01:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another source added to the article. (this one) By the way, the vote is 5-5 at this point, and seems deadlocked. I think Pascal.Tesson's idea is not unreasonable. --Mysmartmouth 01:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) the AfD process is expressly NOT democratic. The adminsitrators use these discussions to inform their decisions, but winning a mere tally of up/down votes is not enough to keep or delete an article.

2: I checked out the forum. If, as you say, I must ask around to find out about Mr. Tripathy's skill, then his skill isn;t notable to prompt discussion in absentia of my hunting around for what people think of him. Merely some guy mentioning that he'd like to compete on his team isn't enough to verify notability.

3: External sources implies that people OUTSIDE of the competitions have noted his performance WITHIN the competition. Even the discussion on the forum you gave seem to consist entirely of people who are themselves competitiors. By analogy, any forum where people play a game and talk about other competitors would be enough to meet the threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Certain competitions (soccer, tennis, auto racing, and even poker, and some could claim spelling bees) have fans OUTSIDE of the competition. There are people who watch and know certain, say, poker players who they have never met and indeed, the fans of poker may not even play poker at a competitive level. There are poker tournament journalists, and a poker press that reports on poker players performance, skills, etc. Thus a poker player DOES make the notability threshhold merely for being a good professional poker player. Math competitions do NOT make this threshold. The competition ITSELF may be notable, in that the IMO might, as a competition, make press. However, since no one outside of the competition are really fans of the competition, the participants of the competition themselves are not verifiably notable in the sense that there is widespread press coverage of their performance. Is this fair? Probably not. But, society has determined that poker players are notable and math competition players are not. The utter lack of coverage of these competitors proves that. Wikipedia is built on societal concensus. This consensus (as determined by society as a whole) is that kids who compete in math competitions aren't that notable. Thus they aren't notable on Wikipedia. --Jayron32 03:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments First, I'd like to make it clear that what I said about rewriting is not simply "reasonnable" as Mysmartmouth put it but it is a necessity per policy. Furthermore my personnal opinion is still that this guy does not meet WP:BIO. I did a search for Arnav Tripathy on the forum and what I come up with are trivial references to his name. In fact, he's one of the users so people often call him by his real name. The whole idea of establishing his notability through the fact that people on that forum know him is like saying that Can't sleep clown will eat me should be an article not on the Simpson's joke but on the Wikipedia admin Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs). After all, ask anyone on Wikipedia, they know him! Sure, but no one else does. Pascal.Tesson 11:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the above comments, so having left a message on my talk pages to reconsider, I'm sorry it's still a Delete for me. Regards. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin Two comments on this debate were made by 24.31.114.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). His edit history is quite short and, oddly enough it contains

a long conflict with Khukri (talk · contribs) who supported deletion in the present case
an edit to the user page of Mysmartmouth (talk · contribs) who was vocal here.

Now I won't accuse anyone of sockpuppetry, but I think that anon's vote should be discounted as highly suspect. Note also that among the other supporters, JohnPatricks (talk · contribs) is (as pointed out earlier) a single purpose account. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 12:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Delete. I rarely insert adjectives in front of "keep" or "delete", but I feel I should this time. Arnav Tripathy may be an absolute genius, but he is not notable under Wikipedia guidelines. The article makes numerous unjustifiable statement from the very sentence: "Arnav Tripathy is considered by many to be the best high school mathematician in the United States, and one of the top mathematicians in the world". Well who are these many people? Where is the source for this information. To make such a statement, one must have quite a great deal to back it up. If one removes such statements, the article becomes nothing more than a collection of math competitions that Tripathy has won and lost. Math competitions are very well and good, but winning a few does not make you notable. If Tripathy had some sort of presence in the national media, he might well be notable, but winning math competitions is not an inherently notable feat. As for his participation in the International Math Olympics, Tripathy didn't even finish in the top 10. If indeed he is "one of the top mathematicians" in the world, why couldn't he manage to even place in the top 10 at a competition essentially designed for high school students? If Tripathy is notable, I would venture to say that the star players of every US state championship football team are notable. I could go create 1000 such articles now, but that would be a gross violation of WP:POINT. In any case, if Tripathy is notable so are about ten or twenty million other people. I'm sure the guy's smart but he is not notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool3 (talk • contribs)

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BGB (emulator)[edit]

Delete per failure to establish compliance with WP:SOFTWARE. Long essay on talk was unhelpful. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sufficiently important a piece of software for Wikipedia. SM247^{My Talk} 06:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for emulators, I think looking at multiple emulation review sites, and hobby development (such as "demos") sites gives a good indication of how an emulator "ranks". review sites have people who try emulators, and given them a rating, and a comment/opinion. sometimes they also have user voting. another thing is the author of KiGB, one of the most accurate and known GB emus, has a selection of what he considers "best other emus" on his site, for benchmarking purposes: [59]. these things show there's a few GB emulators which are "in the race", or most popular, "best", etc. i think such things count as peer review, according to wikipedia's guidelines. a rough selection, in no particular order, is: no$gmb, bgb, visualboy advance, kiGB. I think inclusion in linux distribution is a less good thing for emulators because it biases towards GPL emulators, and linux distros have to look at "everything", not just emulators. while i listed a number of review sites considering bgb to be the best, on BGB's talk page, it seems that's irrelevant, and bgb (54000 google hits for bgb gameboy) is worth less than eXboy (84 google hits for exboy gameboy), and wzonka-lad (1110 google hits for wzonka-lad gameboy)Bewareircd 13:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some people from a gameboy hobby community (#gameboy on efnet): dox: is a coder of demos, tools, and an emulator (hash). bgb is his emulator/debugger of choice. site: [60]. lord nightmare, involved in gnuboy. has done research on sound chips including the GB's. uses bgb. <LordNLptp> the fans and authors of a select few, typically bad, emulators tend to be the ones which get put on wikipedia. <LordNLptp> gnuboy is pretty much dead, the main site is down and i have probably the last remaining copy of the 1.0.4pre sourcecode <dox> bgb came a bit too late.. when gameboy was already dead <dox> ppl used no$for dev. but it was a bit buggy. martin knew about bugs and problems, but never fixed them.... Bewareircd 17:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Bewareircd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Keep I googled "gameboy emulator", the first site i got was a comparison page "http://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/gameboy/" which rated bgb highest among the gameboy/gameboy color emulators (there is one higher entry on the page but that is an advance only emulator). going a couple of entries further down finds another review site with a similarly glowing review of bgb. and at the top of the second page we find bgb itself.

If this is to be deleted so should every other gameboy emulator article and for fairness treated as a group deletion. WP:SOFTWARE is only a proposed policy and is insanely biased towards free software. Plugwash 21:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NBD (but it's not a bad idea) - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete in its present form. WP:SOFTWARE requires "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." (And although it's not an official policy, it is an extension of WP:V which is. Satisfying WP:SOFTWARE is as simple as editing the article to include links to review sites. And by the way, the emulator-zone article isn't really a review site, as the only information given a star-rating for the program (which is subject to change by site users.) and a list of features. As such, it serves as a "listing on software download sites." which is considered trivial by WP:SOFTWARE. --Roninbk _{t c #} 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - close call but what swings it for me is the absence of independent reviews within the article. despite AfD and little in the way of encyclopaedic material. BlueValour 22:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice^talk 16:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yank sox 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of independent coverage of the software by reliable sources. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral if this is deleted, then do have an equally critical look at the other GB emulators. there's similar short pages lacking external references etc, i think most can go.Bewareircd 16:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. I'm comfortable deleting the article at this point because relisting it only garned one extra !vote. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Igva[edit]

Procedural nom. I see some problems with this entry, but it's certainly not unsalvagably incoherent or a G1 speedy as the nominator claimed so I am listing here instead. I need to get an idea if there's a place this can be merged to (per WP:FICT) or if it's verifiable to begin with (if it's not, it should be deleted). I'm not sure how notable the author is either, which is kind of important for the relevence of this entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roza Mira My Russian is beginner level, but I think [61] is pretty clear (20,300 google hits for a supressed Russian author isn't bad, and they do appear to be about him, from a random sample.) So I'd say the author is notable. The problem with this article is that it's longer than the article about the book Roza Mira. This content should be merged into that article. There is much longer article about the book on the Russian wikipedia. The book was supressed and not translated until 1997, so evaluating its notability in English is sort of dicey. It would take me some time with the dictionary to verify that the Igva article isn't nonsense using the Russian one. (Might be good practice though.) There is no link to an article about 'Igva' from the Russian article however. Dina 13:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also not seeing the words for UFO or alien in the Russian plot summary so I suspect the second half of this article is original research and needs to go. Dina 13:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't merge. This topic is not that important to Roza Mira, and therefore I can't see any reason to keep it around, even as a redirect. Mango juice^talk 16:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice^talk 16:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mangojuice--Peta 06:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Steel 00:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minkowski Challenge[edit]

Not notable: "Minkowski Challenge" only returns one result on Google. Seems to be based on a forum discussion. Cordless Larry 16:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are the goggle searches indicator to the importance of a matter?

Moreover the debate in the forum didn't turn up with the google search, perhaps google is not quite updated on certain forums.

I think that "Paris Hilton" turns up millions of pages on google, far more that Aldous Huxley or William Blake, does this mean that Paris is more important to humanity ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.35 (talk • contribs)

Hello,

I am Arthur. I have started the article myself. I agree to the anon. before me and i would like also to mention that Cordless Larry has immediately tagged the article as "non sense" just as it was posted. He didn't then mention anything about google searches. It seems that he is not neutral in his essential desire to abolish this entry as soon as possible. Arthur_B 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I nominated it for speedy deletion, and now I'm nominating it under AfD as the previous nomination was contested. I don't have any bias against this kind of article - I'm going by is the fact that a Google search returns very few results, and the high number of red links in the article. I haven't edited or nominated for deletion an article on this topic before. I was just patrolling new articles for notability, and came across this. I'm not sure how the Paris Hilton/Aldous Huxley comparison is relevant. Paris Hilton may well return more results that Huxley, but they both return many results, whereas there is only one for "Minkowski Challenge", so I hardly think the comparison is valid. Cordless Larry 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Larry probably tagged it as nonsense immediately because it appeared to be nonsense. I doubt it's anything personal or any kind of conspiracy.

Verifiability, not truth - A 3rd party needs to have reported on this for it to remain.

Google is not the end all to notability, but it is an accepted method of trying to approximate notability.

With only 1 hit being returned, it looks like something that was made up in school one day. --Onorem 17:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No chance for this article to become encyclopedia. Violation of WP:OR, WP:V, and Wikipedia:Notability. --ScienceApologist 17:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SA. It isn't speedy deletable since it isn't nonsense. JoshuaZ 18:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per SA and above. Non-notable.--Ramdrake 19:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SA and Cordless Larry. AmitDeshwar 01:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, lacks reliable sources. Guettarda 09:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for all of the above reasons really. Jefffire 12:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons, also note the book author's website suggests a non-notable author who doesn't understand Wikpecia licensing. ..dave souza, talk 12:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 20:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Clement[edit]

Delete. I don't believe that this subject satisfies the criteria of WP:BIO. No sources are given to support the claim that he is a "well-known software developer". Google hits for "Raymond Clement"+IBM total 19, while those for "Ray Clement"+IBM total 26, most of which are about a Canadian research scientist. (As I wrote when I initially proposed the article for deletion.) ... discospinster _talk 17:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable.- Triviaa 22:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Daniel .Bryant 02:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strides Arcolab[edit]

delete - NN UtherSRG (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't agree with the nominator's finding of non-notability. Gazpacho 19:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article needs to be expanded though. IrfanAli 20:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, the nominator is using the common-sense real-world understanding of notability. There are tens of thousands of dull and marginal niche corporations like this who will eternally be unknown to 99 percent of the world's population. However, here in Wikipedia-land, companies like this are deemed "notable" by WP:CORP, so unfortunately, I have no choice but to vote Keep. wikipediatrix 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Definately notable , a listed company with operations over several continents . Shyamsunder 08:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This page should be kept because the company is notable and one of the fastest growing indian pharma company

The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) 20:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flextronics Software Systems[edit]

delete - NN UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, prima facie notable and verifiable. Gazpacho 19:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Vile prose like "A specialist in convergent network solutions, FSS offers both Products (Licensable Technologies) and Full Spectrum Outsourcing Services to its customers for Wireline, Wireless, Next Generation Fixed or IP networks" does the article no favours. But the article does make a fairly strong prima facie case for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted by Firsfron :This article was created in the last 48 hours and all of its revisions are unquestionably copyright infringements taken from http://www.netsweeper.com/solutions.php, with no assertion of permission. (CSD A8)) - Yomangani ^talk 23:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netsweeper[edit]

pure advertisment; could be a good article here (?) -- but not this. If you vote keep please edit the article. Sdedeo (tips) 17:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as this is a copyvio. --W.marsh 18:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was as a non-notable web flash animation series. (aeropagitica) 20:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Ninja[edit]

De-proded. Non-notable flash series with no verifiable & reliable claims to meet WP:WEB. Only 240 unique Ghits for "Maximum Ninja". Scientizzle 17:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Random Flash series, no notability asserted. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ToSeek[edit]

I am pretty sure this article is not encyclopedic nor is it likely to become that way anytime soon. It doesn't seem to work with web guidelines and much of the article appears to be original research. --ScienceApologist 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. It's non sense at the core. (and a vanity entry too) Equendil Talk 19:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. wikipediatrix 20:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The term does nothing to assert notability per WP:NEO guidelines, and the person described in the article deosn't appear to meet WP:BIO guidelines. It doesn't appear to fit any of the CSD guidelines, though. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. While the delete !votes are quite compelling, there were also enough strong keep !votes (such as Cyberskull noting that this map made Battle.net's Hall of Fame) to bring this out of a consensus to delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eve of the Apocalypse[edit]

Insufficient assertion of notability for a fan-made Warcraft map. WP:WEB not met. Wikipedia is not a game guide. "Eve of the Apocalypse" warcraft -wikipedia gets only 109 unique Ghits. -- Scientizzle 17:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense of the Ancients (2nd Nomination), but Eve of the Apocalypse was barely discussed

Keep Apart from the fact that there's actually 140 Google hits, the facts that it has actually survived 2 nominations for deletion (the second one being this, I can only state my opinion that being an oficially recognized mod for a bestseller game qualifies EotA for inclusion here. Discombobulator 18:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the link. If you add -wikipedia, it is only 109 hits. I also added your other nom link above. -- Scientizzle 18:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a source for EotA being an "oficially recognized mod" (Officially recognized by whom? Blizzard?)? Do you know of any coverage that would meet WP:WEB? It survived 2 nominations, yes, but the 1st was 2 deletes, a merge and a sock's keep (for no consensus); it survived the 2nd nom by riding the coat-tails of Defense of the Ancients...this article was hardly discussed. -- Scientizzle 18:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I know, editing without an account was allowed back then. The IP is mine, anyway. EotA may have been discussed less then some other maps at the second nomination, but notice that there were several votes picking EotA out as worthwile of staying. Proof of it being in the hall of fame is here. Discombobulator 23:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't believe placing 2nd on the battle.net Hall of Fame counts meets "The...content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation" since battle.net is run by Blizzard and only covers their three games. -- Scientizzle 03:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An encyclopedia article for a video game map? Ridiculous. Sandstein 09:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more of a mod then a map. Think Counter-Strike. Discombobulator 23:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If other Warcraft III Maps are allowed to have articles, why shouldn't this one? If this one goes, perhaps Defence of the Ancients should be considered (although trust me, it won't get deleted without the fanbois swarming and refusing to let it be deleted). This map is as notable, and was spotlighted by Blizzard, as the second map. --BGBkstroke 10:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You basically argued the same thing on AfDs for "other Warcraft III maps," Dark Deeds & Footmen Wars. (This strikes me as a ridiculous contradiction to your own argument: "don't delete this article becuase other Warcraft III custom map articles exist," then you vote to keep the other articles, too?!) The discussion here is about Eve of the Apocalypse, and Eve of the Apocalypse should be considered in its merits alone. There is no "fairness" involving Wikipedia articles--a subject either merits an article, according to Wikipedia policies & guidelines, or does not. If other Warcraft III custom maps have articles, they are to be considered on their merits. -- Scientizzle 03:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per most of the above. Hard to see how it will meet WP:V even before we get to notability. JoshuaZ 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not a game guide, but this is an informative article- not telling you how to play, but what this game is about. Same with Footmen Frenzy. --Adam Wang 14:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable. nn. Ziggurat 22:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The custom maps for the WC games are for the most part not notable, that includes this one. Besides the link to Battle.net (reliable source?) there has been no attempt to show notability. Altair 14:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Battle.net is Blizzard Entertainment's official multiplayer site. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Altair 15:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Altair 15:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails verifiability and reliable sources. Wickethewok 15:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, the map made the Battle.net hall of fame, seems notable enough to me if Blizzard Entertainment picks it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CyberSkull. Havok (T/C/c) 09:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reasons as previously statedby others above. The Kinslayer 10:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - I guess being listed as a Battle.net Hall of Famer gives it sufficient notability. The Kinslayer 10:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As has been pointed out above, this fails WP:V and WP:NOT a game guide. -- Steel 18:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The little information that acts as a "game guide" can be re-written or removed. And no, it dosn't actually fail WP:V. Havok (T/C/c) 10:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I would have thought Battle.net would have counted as a reliable, verifiable source of notability. The Kinslayer 15:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. After discounting all the new users and sockpuppets, I found approximately 50-50 consensus to delete the article (I won't go into exact numbers), which is insufficient for deletion. Relisting this AfD won't work, because of the sheer number of !votes made by all the new users and sockpuppets, so any further AfD (to gauge a more accurate consensus) would have to start from scratch. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Throne[edit]

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Still in beta testing. No claims of notability. No sign of third-party references. (Fairly well-written, though.) —Wrathchild ^(talk) 17:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ((notability)) removed from the article on August 18 without comment. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 17:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If pages for other online games (runescape, WOW, etc) are on Wikipedia I see no reason why this page should be deleted. It may need to be edited some, but not deleted.

Jowan2005

- Do you really need to have it explained to you why Dark Throne is not in the same league as Runescape?? wikipediatrix 20:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't really think that has anything to do with the page being deleted. It is still a very large game and if other online games are included then there is no reason for Dark Throne to be removed. It would be one thing if the Dark Throne page was just advertising the game, but it isn't, it explains the game and how it works.
  - Look at all the games of this type on Wikipedia. Not all of them are as big as runescape or Dark Throne, yet they're still on Wikipedia. If you remove Dark Throne all of them should be removed too. (or at least games around the same size as Dark Throne if you're using the size of the game as your reason for the page getting deleted) List of MMORPGs --Jowan2005
    - Dude. Dark Throne is still in beta testing. Game over. (Tell me some of the other articles you're talking about, because they probably do indeed need to be deleted also.) wikipediatrix 20:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is there some rule that says no beta-tested games can be on Wikipedia? Like I said before, look at List of MMORPGs I'm sure you will find a lot of things you would want to delete (although I don't think they should be deleted)--Jowan2005
        I'm sure there are, but this is a discussion about this one. The others will be found and handled in due course. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 03:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh OK, and while you're at it might as well get rid of all other pages on betas since that is your main reason for wanting to delete the Dark Throne page. Lets just get rid of Gmail, Writley, Windows Vista, anything talking about IE7, etc... --Jowan2005
        I agree. If the only logical reason you can come up with is that it is in Beta testing, then there are probably 1000 articles that should be deleted. Dark Throne is a very popular MMORPG. And if it is proof you need that there are 300,000+ players, then i submit this pice as evidence. The below information is on the lowest ranking account in the game: "sirmendez is a level 1 Human Assassin Overall Rank: 342,689." (i did delete the extra space) This proves thus that are are over 342,000 players in this game, way more than a lot of text-based MMORPG's, and as mentioned above, way more than many of those that are directly competing with Dark Throne, for players, ads, and more. Also, one question comes to mind reading these arguements. If the best two reasons that you can come up with are that the game is in Beta testing, and that the game when Googled can only come up with a handful of sites, then why do you even argue? — Possible single purpose account: Phoenix2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Because it fails WP:WEB, something you've chosen to ignore. The article (in terms of describing the game not the band) has existed for 18 months yet not a shred of notability has been established. The amount of subscribers is completely irrelevant, even more so as Dark Throne is free to play - if it didn't have a lot of subscribers it would have been AFD'd on sight long ago. A lot of the beta products mentioned above are some of the most widely reported on software packages in the world, which is why they're different. Being in beta stage is not the issue, being in beta stage whilst using Wikipedia as an advertising medium is. I would be delighted to change my vote if someone somewhere could come up with some verified information on this game, but so far there's been nothing but fluff about Dark Throne somehow being able to dodge WP's rules 'just cos', which is no reason for keeping the article. QuagmireDog 23:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Outwar , Kings of Chaos , and Earth 2025 are all similar games to Dark Throne, except for the fact that Dark Throne has a larger userbase than all of them combined. Unless planning to delete the other three, that are Dark Throne competitors, do not delete this entry. Wikipedia is not supposed to be biased. Don't compare it to other games like WoW or Runescape. Compare it against games and listings for similar games on wikipedia. All three games above are listed with no notice of deletion. Just because the "Beta" tag is on Dark Throne, doesn't mean its less finished or important than the others. Only asking for fair treatment here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.251.11 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 68.185.251.11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Earth 2025 has been awarded a Webby award, meaning it's established notability. Kings of Chaos is tagged as not citing its references, it may be sat on at a later date. Outwar doesn't appear to establish notability and could also find itself in trouble. Thanks for the heads-up. QuagmireDog 08:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the user base is so large, why isn't that information in the article? Can it be verified? Where are the cites to write-ups about the game from other sources? Outwar and Kings of Chaos at least have been running for years. To me, however, they're much more notorious for the amount of spam their users generate in looking for inbound links. Remember: Wikipedia is not a primary source. This game has to establish notability in the world to get an article here. I wish you luck with that. If it happens, we will gladly have an article about it. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 12:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why should Beta be a notation of Wikipedia worthiness? There are many products and websites that are in Beta but don't publically announce it. This seems like a strong handed draconian judgement coming down on site that deserves a place on Wikipedia just as much as the next guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.40.193 (talk • contribs)
Delete, no notability established, game still in beta stage yet no sign of any non-trivial coverage. Google search for "Dark Throne" and Lazarus produces nothing but the main site, some links from free online game sites (you know, the advert funnels) and of course the Wikipedia entry. I can understand fans of the game wanting this article here, but until some notability is established it is just advertising. Regardless, hope Lazarus make a go of it. QuagmireDog 08:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in addition to above vote, fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 4,353 (very good), but WP appears as one of the first links and after trawling through several pages I could only find links from blogs, forums, message-boards etc. Dark Throne players have waged a very successful advertising campaign for this game, something Lazarus is probably grateful for, but that's all the WP article seems to be. I will keep trying to find some reviews via the Alexa 'linked-from' list but if there is any non-trivial coverage it should have been linked before now. QuagmireDog 00:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin This: [62] has come to light. Now in the case of a lot of these webgames etc. we aren't talking about the designer/publisher providing the information - it's the game's fans. The result however is fairly similar - articles being used as adverts, a lot of noise and bluster without any hint of WP's policies and guidelines being satisfied etc. Please look at the nature of DT (it's a game laid atop a system of using the gamers as advertisers to draw in traffic) when considering the Alexa rank and then take a look at the total lack of citations in both the article and this AFD. I feel very strongly that the spirit of WP has had no look-in on this article and that it is advertising for a game which is, at its roots, advertising. QuagmireDog 17:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Searched first 100 of 405 sites linking-in to darkthrone.com, except for 3 different-language versions of WP I found nothing except a handful of link-farms (Google has it listed for instance) and a mass of messageboard/blog pages. QuagmireDog 00:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used wholinkstome.com and without any effort I found Dark Throne on a list of top online games, so you must not be doing a good job at your little search. Anyway, it does not matter. The game has had millions of players and belongs on Wikipedia for reasons stated on other parts of this page. --Jowan2005

Provide the link to this site then so it can be shown that it is considered non-trivial. My 'little search' was an attempt to find some evidence of notability, yet instead of providing the link and perhaps helping to keep the article you've instead come back with a snotty remark and zero evidence. QuagmireDog 01:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other assertions on this page do not demonstrate this article meets WP:WEB, as of yet not a single argument has provided any evidence of this. As soon as they do I'll change my vote (as indicated before) and other viewers will doubtless vote keep. So, the task in hand.. QuagmireDog 01:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's http://mmreviews.com/ If you want to search for more sites try using http://wholinkstome.com/?url=darkthrone.com--Jowan2005

Thanks. I had a look on that site but couldn't find a direct reference to the game (I searched Dark Throne in the box but it didn't come back with a Dark Throne piece, so perhaps the link-to was from an article within the website posted by a user? I'm not sure even if it did that mmreviews.com would be considered non-trivial. Ideally a review from a good MMOG site would be a good start. I'll have another go with wholinkstome at some point to see if I can find one. In the meantime, other Wikipedians can add to this debate (and might be able to shed some light/point to some potential sources). QuagmireDog 02:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed about keeping this page. As already mentioned, the game has over 300,000 members actively playing, and over a million users who have played at some point before. It IS popular, and just because it's in a testing stage does not qualify the article for deletion. The article is very-well written, and the full, nontesting version of the game comes out "soon". Would we just REDO the page then? Honestly, I see no reason to delete this. --NecroWraith 21:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Darkthrone is an amazing game so keep this page !! Jonsi88 01:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Jonsi88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Keep -- Why should it not be kept because it is in its Beta stage? Should the article on Cold Fusion not be kept because it does not exist yet? Should the article of Rush Hour 3 not be kept because it isn't made yet? The Big Bang is only a theory, I guess it should be gone too, because it's all 'fluff' and has no actual evidence.

Ha. CrazyCasey 01:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Darkthrone has an established and large userbase. A large reason that it lacks coverage or reviews by third-party sites is that there are very few sites that cover browser-based MMOG's.--kenobi.zero 11:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Then if it's not getting a mention even on those, then how is it notable? —Wrathchild ^(talk) 12:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What are you talking about, it is! There are over 2000 links to it that I found using MSN (use wholinkstome.com if you really want to see). Right on the first page there were links from those types of sites. --Jowan2005
    - "there are very few sites that cover browser-based MMOG's". Okay. Where is the coverage of the game on those sites? I don't expect it to be covered by the New York Times or USA Today, but a notable site in that niche writing about the game would indicate notability. That's what I'm talking about. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 14:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ NOTABILITY INCLUDED-- Here is a case study that was done and published in regards to Dark Throne- "Dark Throne: A Case-Study of Gender Relations in a Created Online Society" http://ambershadows.net/hosted/dtstudy/darkthrone.doc This is a 30 page case study that you can verify with the University listed. -- Jason68.185.251.11 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 68.185.251.11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Comment I have struck through this vote since each user can only vote on the topic once QuagmireDog 21:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it on a cheesy gamer fansite, and not hosted by the University itself? wikipediatrix 18:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There could be many reasons for them not hosting it anymore. Maybe they don't have a lot of room for hosting? Maybe they take down papers after a set amount of time? It does not matter where it's hosted. The source is still the same. (the University is still the source)--Jowan2005

I'm sorry, but it does indeed matter where it is hosted. Please study WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I will just host it on my college's server and everything will be fine. --Jowan2005

Comment I'm just not happy with the general attitude of some of these replies. "Cheesy gamer fansite" Looking at the article itself, you can see it is a well thought out, well written case study on Dark Throne and relationships in an Online society. The author could have written about any online, but picked Dark Throne. You guys asked for notability and here it is. As for questioning the link, it was primarily published and read offline. Just because its primary audience viewed it offline doesn't make it any less note worthy. Not all of the entries on wikipedia can only be verified online. -- Jason68.185.251.11 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fan site for a gamer's clan is not a valid source for Wikipedia, as per WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not represent a good article, at all. Much information on the game is missing (such as the actual meaning of the powered-up versions of soldiers, how many citizens are created through houses etc.), yet there's plenty of needless details about the website and the IRC channel, a plug about charitable donations without any evidence at all etc. etc. That document has not been shown to be 'published' by the University, just that the writer is a student or affiliate of that university. That the writer of the case study chose Dark Throne most likely because they are a Dark Throne player - this is not some stamp of notability but a 'cushy number', nice for them to be able to write about one of their hobbies, no use as notability. QuagmireDog 21:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So then you agree with me when I said 'It may need to be edited some, but not deleted.' in my first comment. --Jowan2005

Quite the opposite, the reasons for this AFD are stated by the contributor who listed, my reasons for supporting the deletion have already been stated (repeatedly). Clean-up is a seperate issue. If the article is kept, then clean-up can and will be happening anyway - I've already started. That doesn't mean that the article passes WP:WEB, that anything resembling notability is presented in the article or has been presented here on the AFD or that I've changed my vote. The offer has always been there that I'd back keeping the article, but neither you or I have managed to find anything that meets the criteria. QuagmireDog 06:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not making sense. What 'vote' are you talking about? "this is not a vote". Dark Throne has been played by millions of people, ran a charity to help sick kids, had an article written about it by a college, is bigger than most other games of its type on Wikipedia, and you think it should be deleted? I don't understand what more you need. You ask for something, we show it to you, you say it's not good enough. If the Dark Throne pages is deleted then there are hundreds (if not thousands) of other pages that would need to be deleted as well. The only thing that needs to happen is the page be changed a little to include information about its size, the charity, and more explaining about the game with less out-of-game information (IRC channel info and some other things) --Jowan2005

Though this isn't a vote, in terms of counting hands, my own judgement means that I 'vote' for the topic to be deleted. WP:WEB, WP:V, there in black and white, if you cannot or will not attempt to work through this by addressing the problem then I cannot do anything more. QuagmireDog 09:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sigh*. Reading again I can see why you think I'm being needlessly obstinate, let's go through this again.. That document has not been published by a university, it was found on a forum site. It was written by a student, an undergraduate. It's research. It's research that has not been given a critical review by a university or journal or anything else, it is original research, IE speculation. It is not profesionally published, it is trivial and offers a POV about the subject that hasn't been stamped by what would be considered an objective organization. Adding content from that, no matter how much time the writer put into creating it, is no different than writing "according to Stanley, my elderly neighbour...". It isn't usable, it's no good, it's not what we've been looking for, it isn't even directly about the subject, it uses DT as a case study to evaluate something else. This isn't about "your efforts aren't good enough!", this is about all the pages given thus far not being up to the standards laid down in the guidelines and policies, which are quoted about this discussion like confetti. I feel more than a natch deflated that after all this discussion you seem to feel that I'm just trying to get in the way for the hell of it. All I have ever been interested in is that DT's article can stand up to the same scrutiny that every article on the WP has to or will have to in the fullness of time - 18 months is plenty long enough to find something. QuagmireDog 14:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thats not what I'm saying. I am saying that if this article was submitted to, used by, read by, and published offline by the University, that it has established notability. You could verify it with them if you really wanted to. Additionally is there anything we can get Lazarus Software to verify, so this page can be kept? -- Jason68.185.251.11 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why all the circumspection? "The University" Can you not name the institution? More importantly, why aren't these claims of notability in the article? —Wrathchild ^(talk) 00:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm really trying to be reasonable and calm here, but you are sending me very unprofessional replies. The institution is listed right on the document, and I could easily type Southeastern Oklahoma State University. I didn't think the university I was referring to was in question. Anyone reading it knows that I was referring to the University listed on the article, so please do not be condescending. I am not giving you a hard time, and I am not causing problems. I am following your steps to try to keep this article up. I asked another question which was still not answered: "Additionally is there anything we can get Lazarus Software to verify, so this page can be kept?" I will also be more than happy to put up a section in regards to this article and case study on the Dark Throne article in the next 24 hrs. -- Jason68.185.251.11 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't download Word documents from unknown sources. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kind of puts a bind on all of this discussion, doesn't it? Still did't answer question I asked twice before, so we can try to get Lazarus Software to help. Is there anything that they can do or verify so this page can be kept? -- Jason 68.185.251.11 04:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the document, it hasn't been shown that it is published in a journal etc. and thus regarded as something which can be regarded as non-trivial. It is a case-study, part of a student's workload, rather than something that has been held up to scrutiny in terms of being published. As it stands it is WP:OR which is completely unusable. To put it another way, if I lifted parts of that document and inserted them into the article, particularly about the DT community's belief and acceptance that widespread cheating happens, I would be challenged. Contributors to that article would ask exactly where the information came from and (rightly) rip it to bits and label it as an attempt, by me, to attack Lazarus and to show DT in a dim light. Due to Lazarus trying to pull in the punters with promises of 'prizes', such accusations (if shown to be substantiated) could be extremely damaging. Now whilst it is quite fair that such things shouldn't be used to push an agenda, by the same token they are not usable to establish notability.

With Lazarus providing info, there lies the rub. We're a tertiary source, taking our information from secondary sources. General information about the game could (and IMO should) be able to come from the primary source, but the whole point of establishing notability is that 'non-trivial' sources have provided information/opinion about the subject from which we can make an article. I have been looking around some more, trying to find a site which says something, anything about the game rather than just providing a link. Up till now, all MMOG sites I've found via Alexa or the site provided by Jowan have been nothing more than message board posts pointing to the site (of no encyclopedic content whatsoever) or simple links from MMOG funnel-sites, perhaps with a few lines of text giving viewers an idea of what DT actually is (again, non-notable source which doesn't even offer any context regarding the game's qualities or attempt to offer anything other than another gateway for their users). So far I found one site which actually talked about the game here: [63] Notice the asterisk at the bottom of the page - the first glimmer of hope I get and it's taking info from WP -.- .

I haven't stopped looking for info on this game yet and I'm just as happy to argue for the article being kept if some decent info can be found, but I must admit I'm struggling to find any mention of DT at all on many MMOG funnel-sites, which is even more surprising considering DT's high Alexa rank. I'm left with the distinct impression that Lazarus have done extremely well out of WP, but I'm curious as to why it's taken over a year and a half for this article to even come under the microscope. This issue with MMOGs/Flashgames etc. and notability should be hammered out somewhere, it's a hell of a lot larger than we can discuss here. Oh, dang nearly forgot, does anyone have a link to info about the charity donations Lazarus drummed up/donated? I don't think there was one but such info deserves to be on their article. QuagmireDog 07:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Taken from the source of the paper on DT:

"We are a website community devoted to literature, Role-playing, and general chat amongst a lively community of friendly people. All are welcome at Amber: writers, gamers, quiz freaks and spammers alike. We also play host to Heaven's Gates : Darkthrone's first clan, who have their own section of the forums."

It's a forum site. There is no evidence that this piece has been published by the university, this site hosts a DT clan. Just because it exists and has been submitted as part of a course doesn't mean that it's anything other than WP:OR.

Even after looking myself and everyone's had time to do the same, not a single piece of anything even remotely connected to establishing notability has surface, despite it repeatedly being said that there has.

Every time I try to look something up on Google I get WP on top of the results. This article claims that Lazarus has done these charity runs - where is the evidence? I'm not seeing any (and I've tried). Where is Lazarus' homepage? There's none listed, again I've looked for it, nothing there. There are plenty of things need verifying, yet precious little to verify them with. It was given a 'please add citations' tag ~~nearly~~ over two months ago, there's a message on the talk page asking for some cites dated the 1st of August. If those actually tending the article can't find anything it's hardly surprising that nothing's come up during the AFD.

The article reads like an advert, even giving details of the IRC, how to log in etc., the web address stuck in amongst the text at the top, plug for Lazarus' charity work in the DT article instead of in the Lazarus article (not that there's any evidence of Lazarus existing beyond DT). There is something VERY wrong with the DT article and the Lazarus article accompanying it, I'm no longer giving it the benefit of the doubt. QuagmireDog 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe [64] is the charity mentioned, also uses the term 'run', the NY Children's Hospital is listed there and it is focussed on gamers and game companies helping kids with donations - I like it. Whilst there is no mention of Lazarus on there, it fits the bill (though some confirmation of this fact sure as heck wouldn't hurt). With all due respect to the article's editors, if this is the right charity, why on earth has it taken me to find it, after this information was added to the article on 19 October 2005? After issues with cites were brought up 2 months ago? Come on guys, these things need backing-up with evidence and unsubstantiated claims shouldn't be lying around for months on end. QuagmireDog 18:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That charity has a WP article here, the above link to the website includes a raft of press coverage about the charity, there -might- even be a reference to Lazarus there somewhere. QuagmireDog 07:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that I can see. It's a pity that the contributor who inserted the text didn't add the name of the charity concerned, nobody's confirmed that this is the right charity (though it appears extremely unlikely that it could be another). QuagmireDog 15:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR 66.246.72.108 06:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources found in the article or through Googling. Most G-hits are forums and whatnot. Wickethewok 18:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found in the News Archives of Dark Throne, for the Community Update #2, about a year ago, found at: http://www.darkthrone.com/communityupdate2.dt?mode=communityupdate it states the following:

We are pleased to announce that, once again, we will be holding a charity drive to support Children's Hospital. Last year we thought it would be a great idea to hold a charity drive and raise money to help those who are sick and less fortunate over the holiday season. Players managed to raise over $10,000.00 for Children's Hospital in New York.

Like last year, players will have the ability to donate via paypal or the mail, and everyone who donates will receive one of three new charity medals that will appear on your profile page. Players will also have the ability to win a variety of prizes which will range from game testing, to console games, dvd's, and more.

To help us announce this year's charity drive, we got Cash Cunningham, the Board Chairman of Children's Hospital to thank players who donated last year and tell you a little about this year's charity drive:

   Dear “Dark Throne Players”:

   On behalf of the Women & Children’s Hospital of Buffalo, please accept our heartfelt thanks to all of you who went online and made a donation in last year’s charity drive to benefit the hospital. As a group you successful raised $10,363; a portion of which we gave to the Child Life Department to use for the purchase of toys for patients spending their holiday in the hospital. The remainder of your donation went to the help the Hematology/Oncology Unit; a unit which cares for 98% of the patients under the age of four diagnosed with some form of cancer or blood disorder.

   We are most appreciative of your efforts on behalf of the young patients we serve and would like to thank you in advance for participation in this year’s charity drive. Please know that by supporting Lazarus Software in their benefit for the hospital you are enabling our doctors, nurses and health care professionals to provide the very best care for the more than 45,000 patients who are treated here each year.

   On behalf of the staff at the Women & Children’s Hospital of Buffalo Foundation and our Board of Directors a most heartfelt thank you.

   Very truly yours,

   Cash Cunningham
   Board Chairman
   Women & Children’s Hospital of Buffalo Foundation

For more information about this Hospital and the foundation, please visit http://foundation.wchob.org and look for our official Charity Drive page to go up on Dark Throne very soon. On this page we will be including all of the important information such as mailing addresses, contact information for the hospital, and specifics about how to donate online.

anymore credibility needed to that fact? if so, i am sure a little digging in the archives can bring up some more info. I belive that in the 2005 Charity Drive, a little over $12,500 was raised, but don't hold me to that amount. Phoenix2009 01:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Phoenix200 DT Supporter[reply]

It's still sourced from DT as opposed to outside, but thankyou for providing the link - should the article be kept then it will make a great starting point to verifying the info. It illustrates why those adding this kind of information should provide the cites themselves, rather than giving everyone else legwork. QuagmireDog 10:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Deeds[edit]

No assertion of notability for a fan-made Warcraft map. WP:WEB not met. Wikipedia is not a game guide. "Dark Deeds" warcraft -wikipedia gets only 274 unique Ghits. -- Scientizzle 17:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Dark Deeds Warcraft] gets 153,000 hits and the 2nd top result is the wikipedia page. Also there are several other warcraft 3 custom maps on wikipedia and a category which Dark Deeds is listed under. See Category:Warcraft custom games -- ToastTheif 6:50pm, 25 September 2006 (EST)

Delete per nom. Let some gaming wiki have it. —dustmite 23:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As ToastTheif mentioned, other Warcraft III custom maps are being kept on the site. While I agree that this article is not notable (like every other), it seems as though it isn't quite fair that they haven't all been deleted (as they all should be, or none should be)--BGBkstroke 01:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait...you're admiting that the article is "not notable," but you're voting keep because other articles haven't yet been deleted? And you basically argued the same thing on the AfDs for "other Warcraft III custom maps," Eve of the Apocalypse & Footmen Wars. (This strikes me as a ridiculous contradiction to your own argument: don't delete this article becuase other Warcraft III custom map articles exist, then you vote to keep the other articles, too?!) The discussion here is about Dark Deeds, and Dark Deeds should be considered in its merits alone. There is no "fairness" involving Wikipedia articles--a subject either merits an article, according to Wikipedia policies & guidelines, or does not. If other Warcraft III custom maps have articles, they are to be considered on their merits. -- Scientizzle 02:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable map in a game. If the map were used in a major tournament that might (maybe) constitute a weak claim of notability but this doesn't even have that. (and Scientizzle I don't think you mean to link to tautology there)JoshuaZ 03:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right... -- Scientizzle 03:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete nothing but gameguide/stats info in this article. There is absolutely no claim to notability, and it is quite disturbing that there are links to images of gameguide information someone uploaded on imageshack.us. Altair 14:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Altair 15:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Altair 15:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT (a gameguide that is). Wickethewok 15:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Wickethewok. I might understand if the article made at least a token claim of notability, but otherwise there's no reason to keep the article. --Alan Au 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - As per previous posters. The Kinslayer 09:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P-P-P-Powerbook[edit]

The result was speedy keep due to bad faith nom, WP:SNOW, and an AfD determining keep a mere month ago. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC) closed as unnecessary duplication of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (4th nomination), which is the actual debate here. All relevant comments are moved there. Punkmorten 06:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing third nomination of this article. No opinion. Previous nominations:

Neutral - FrancisTyers · 18:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of SA and I love the story, but without any kind of independant, reliable sources that it is even real, let alone notable, it'll have to go.--Drat (Talk) 18:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of encyclopedic notability and I don't see any possibility of encyclopedic notability. It's not even a meme. Its just a "I thought of a funny thing to do today" anecdote. Falls under WP:NFT in my opinion. Take it to Encyclopedia Dramatic or Uncyclopedia etc. Those are the places for this kind of thing. Not Wikipedia. Bwithh 18:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many times is this going up for AfD today? Anyway, looks like a good candidate for ED if it had more lulz. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless secondary sources added -- The first nom had a bunch of people who said they saw it on the news, but none of that news coverage has been cited in this article. If it can be found and cited, we should keep, but without it we have no verifiability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did anyone even look at the article's sources? Two newspapers: The Register and The Independent. Anomo 20:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article needs better mention of it. One article in the reg isn't enough, but if it can cite several articles specifically about it, then we've got something. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you mean? The article has two newspaper sources? I have seen articles kept just for having one sources in a newspaper. Anomo 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) The Register story is trivial - it's categorized under the "Wild Wild Web" section, which is The Register's section for tabloid-style internet news in brief stories with a large dose of lurid sleaze stories. From the current edition, amongst more mainstream brief news stories, there are reports on a sandwich half-eaten by Britney Spears being sold on Ebay; a "Dead Steve Irwin" being sold on Ebay, and various titallating reports with some sex angle.
2) The Independent story does not refer to the P-P-P-Powerbook incident at all.
3) Media coverage, even widespread coverage in leading news channels, does not automatically equal encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 20:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.... How come it passed its 2nd AFD with lots of keeps and its third are tons of deletes? What changed? Anomo 21:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I thought this was cool and I hate to say it, it really isn't that notable per the commentary here. I'm not sure El Reg can hold it. Weak Delete. --Dennisthe2 20:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. wikipediatrix 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note This is actually the fourth nomination for this article. --Roninbk _{t c #} 21:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook Result: No Consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (second nomination) Result: Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (third nomination) Result: Keep (Redirected from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (2nd nomination))

Delete; subject could be better covered at scam baiting. --keepsleeping slack off! 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7 and g1, no assertion of notability and a lot of patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 19:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfons hanson[edit]

Apparently a bunch of the stories told by the writer's teacher. Originally listed for speedy deletion as patent nonsense. I had the following conversation with the writer on the page's talk page:

What's your beef? How can you say this is patent nonsense if you don't know who he is? Alfons, my DT teacher often tells us stories of his life, and has pictures to back his stories up. He also tells us he invented funk in general, however, can't back this up, so i haven't written it. dig?
• A teacher's random stories aren't notable, are unverified, and have no place in an encylopedia. Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Clamster5 17:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• I beg to differ. He's played a large part in the bass community and the development of slap techniques. They aren't random and are varifiable.
• Then list web sources on the page that reflect that. Unverified and possibly made-up material isn't accepted on wikipedia. Clamster5 17:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• I might add that word of mouth is just as an effective and reliable source of information than any old website. No doubt any sources i give you will be debated for their reliability purely because of the nature of the content.
• I'm going to list this on AFD so you can debate this out with someone else. Clamster5 17:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Clamster5 17:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete None of the claims can be verified. Appears to be a hoax/tall tale. Wildthing61476 18:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongshutthefuckup As i said, theres no point in me giving you a link, because you will just debate the reliablility; not for the site, but for the content, and your "alreadymadeupminds"

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cram Game[edit]

Advertisement for nn web game that was just released today. If the game becomes notable, I'd suggest relisting, but not right now. Wikipedia's not a web hosting service. Wildthing61476 18:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I must admit, part of the reason for the post was to draw attention to the game, I do think the code for a Dynamic IP Server is of interest. Is there another article where this code could be placed at least? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.211.51.107 (talk • contribs) .

Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to spam things, just to get attention for it. RobJ1981 22:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would have to be on the cover of every tech magazine in the world for software released TODAY to get my vote to keep. Blatant spam. Irongargoyle 23:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, dynamic IP techniques like this one aren't particularly unusual. The author should probably take a look at DynDNS for future projects, though. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Daniel .Bryant 02:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Embryo space colonization[edit]

Article appears to be largely hypothetical original research. Aside from this subject's use in fiction, there aren't any sources cited to verify that there is any interest in pursuit of embryo space colonization. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept has been used in numerous science fiction books and tv shows, which alone is sufficient to justify an article. Its presence in science fiction makes it not OR here. It does not have to be a funded NASA program or published research by a scientist to be a proposal. Synchronous communication satellites aldo first appeared in science fiction, as did space travel.Edison 22:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Without verification, there's no way to know whether or not someone just thought this up one day at school. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However sources should be added, it should be made clearer this is purely theoretical, and lastly it should mention its main use at present is in science fiction.--T. Anthony 02:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would not say it's even of theoretical interest, but just hypothetical. The ties to fiction are (barely) reason enough to keep the article, and the introduction should be rewritten to make this clear. The whole thing could use better sectioning, too. Michael Kinyon 02:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rewritten to eliminate any original research, but the idea is definitely worthy of an article Nik42 03:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not the repository for original "neat" ideas. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Aside from this subject's use in fiction, there aren't any sources cited"? You might as well say "aside from the sources cited, there aren't any sources cited." The numerous examples in fiction are more than sufficient to establish that this warrants an article. Bryan 05:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't discuss the subject's use as a literary device. It discusses it in original resarch fashion as a viable enterprise. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which means it needs a rewrite. I can't do that at the moment as thing in my life intrude, but it is doable.--T. Anthony 16:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Noteworthy, and appears in a bunch of books, apparently.
Keep -- part of several classic science fiction stories... AnonMoos 12:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't something thought up one day in school. RFerreira 23:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Fraser (journalist)[edit]

A biography which would appear to be written by the person themself. Not notable enough really to warrant an article (none of the WP:BIO notability guidelines are met). Thanks/wangi 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. He has not garnered any significant attention in his field (no major awards or the like). —dustmite 23:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Bascially, a reasonably accomplished but not very notable freelance journalist. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, musician with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 21:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory scalera[edit]

nn musician. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. "His talent, charisma, and overall charm "...is not enough to satisfy WP:NMG. PJM 18:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, along with Moraine (band). - Ektar 18:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Creator requested deletion. ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Innerdep[edit]

Website advertisement with little context. Fails WP:WEB. ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some context has been added, but still don't see how this is either a notable website or concept. Google search provides 10 results --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment creator of article has requested its deletion [65]. Will close and delete. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Jackson (Steelers impersonator)[edit]

nn con-man. - Ektar 18:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably a good idea to spread the word about this guy, but not here. - Richfife 18:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, as well as WP:V, could not find concrete source in a Major network other than the paper sourced to. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VANITY Hello32020 20:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question How is this Vanity? I can't imagine Jackson himself posted the article. - Richfife 20:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there an article on "People who allegedly have impersonated celebrities and committed crimes."? (I assume the title would have to be shorter!) This really should go in something like that. Perhaps a series of articles grouped by year or by decade. People tend to remember the name of the person impersonated, not the impersonator, so keeping the article as is really helps no one. RickReinckens 05:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' High School and College[edit]

This article was prodded and deprodded: while it's possible the school is notable I can't see anything in the article itself to indicate that it is. Mark Grant 18:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be expanded --Alex | talk / review me | 18:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but rename correctly, because this cannot be the school's full title. Secondary schools generally meet the criteria to be kept. But, unless this one is given the correct title, it is actually nonsense. Fiddle Faddle 19:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schools are inherently notable. Billy Blythe 19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thought You know the article as it stands needs rather a lot of work, especially renaming. I think it is a misjudgement to say that it is inherently notable as it stands. Fiddle Faddle 20:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was going partly by the proposed WP:Schools policy, which it doesn't seem to meet based on any information included in the article: claiming that _any_ school is notable simply by existing seems silly to me. Mark Grant 23:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This school, like all other schools, is notable. We must not allow the Wikipedia project's most precious articles to be removed by deletionists. --ForbiddenWord 20:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems absurd to me to claim that all schools are notable. Most statements of the form 'All X are Y' are easily disproven, and this one certainly seems to fit that bill. Valrith 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment FW, you make these claims again and again. You have thus far failed to give any reasoning behind the claim that all schools are notable nor have you somehow given any backing to your claim that these are somhow are "most precious articles." To be blunt the claim about the preciousness of these articles is ridiculous to anyone who works on this project on more than one area, and the totality of the statement "We must not allow the Wikipedia project's most precious articles to be removed by deletionists" is unecessarily divisive and uncivil. JoshuaZ 03:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have renamed this article so that it has a name now associated with Allahabad. Thsi will also allow better notability to be established. The prior name was too generic. Fiddle Faddle 20:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SCHOOLS unless notability is established. —dustmite 23:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember WP:SCHOOLS is only a proposed guideline. --Alex | talk / review me | 12:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the main point is that nothing about this school makes it particularly unique (at least the way the article is written now). The guideline is just useful to cite. —dustmite 15:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but overhaul This can be justified, but the article doesn't yet do so.--Holdenhurst 15:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOT all schools are notable and this seems to be one that's not. Valrith 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 10:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are notable and articles about schools outside the developed English speaking countries are especially welcome in Wikipedia. Piccadilly 22:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have some minimal sympathy that post-seconday education has inherent notability to it, but if anything were a counterexample to that claim, this would be it. We don't have independent sources about the school, the school has no notable alumni nor anything else that makes it in any way anything different from 1000s of other schools. JoshuaZ 03:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Boys' High School and College, Allahabad article is larger and makes some claims to notability. If these are sibling institutions, then I suppose that mantle of notability transfers itself.Hornplease 09:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Catchpole 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:SCHOOLS. --Vsion 01:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lapal primary school[edit]

A primary school is never notable just by reason of existing, nor even by being verifiable. It must be notable of itself and that notability must be asserted in the article. Every school is not sacred. UK primary schools are ten a penny. This article is linked to by no real article, and has no real content. Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. There are no sources referenced. Note that Oftsed, if cited later as a source, has little relevance, because every UK state sector school has an Ofsted reference. I prodded it. Ironic was the statement when deprodding deprod obviously notable school, since the article has this simple line in it: Lapal Primary School is a primary school which situated in Halesowen, West Midlands, England. That is it. There is no notability. The school just exists. Period. Fiddle Faddle 19:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 20:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This school, like all schools, is notable. Current policy is to keep all notable schools. Allow for organic growth and expansion. --ForbiddenWord 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are so many problems with the above I don't know where to begin. I see at least three issues. First the matter of a questionable premise - the repeated assertion that all schools are notable even though most people don't think that. Two the irrelevant tautology- obviously everyone agrees that verifiable sourced notable schools should be kept but to claim that is a policy is simply wrong (in fact, if something were agreed to be notable but not meet WP:V it would be removed. WP:V overides pretty much everything). Third, this once again has the usual buzzwords about organic growth which I have yet to see a defintion. What does this mean? How is organic adding anything to the phrase, and how is this somehow relevant? JoshuaZ 03:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does not meet criteria at WP:Schools Catchpole 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not all schools are notable, and primary schools in particular are hard to establish as noteworthy since they lack the signficant extracurriculars of higher institutions. —dustmite 23:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nom points out, there's really no information here at all. Unlike colleges and (to some degree) high schools, primary schools have a rather significant hurdle of notability which they must meet before an article really makes sense, as there is generally very little variation in curriculum and teaching style. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Punkmorten 06:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nom says it all. -- Kicking222 09:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halesowen — The same information is on the Halesowen page, and a redirect is cheap. — RJH (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The school not only exists, it is ranked in the 98th percentile in Science according to a 2004 study by BBC News. The criteria proposed by WP:SCHOOLS have now been met, three independent sources have been cited. Silensor 02:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Two of those sources are trivial - one Ofsted report and one demographic directory style listing from DFES. My delete vote stands. Catchpole 10:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any claim that the Ofsted report is trivial cannot be based upon actually having read it. It is 16 pages long, and contains a lot of detail, ranging from local historians visiting classes to parents' dissatisfaction with notices of closure. For comparison, this is what a trivial published work actually looks like. It contains a name, address, and 1 sentence of description. It's a directory entry. The triviality restriction in the PNC is aimed directly at excluding such directory entries, raising the notability bar such that it must be shown that there is more than a simple directory entry's worth of source material available. Uncle G 22:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Ofted is trivial. Look at how the triviality condition is used for WP:CORP to understand what trivial means. It excludes things which are standard or expected for something in that category. If trivial meant what you thought it meant, almost any corporation would have an article and many humans (including me) would fit WP:BIO who very obviously don't. JoshuaZ 03:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 02:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until Notability becomes policy... which it ISNT... our standard will be verifiability which IS policy. The school verifiably exists, and should be kept. Silensor also makes some very good points. ALKIVAR™ 04:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable and significant. Piccadilly 22:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Assertions are not arguments.
Weak delete By and large not notable but he science percentile may be a plausible argument for keeping. JoshuaZ 03:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For all of the past reasons. It is not written anywhere that all schools are notable. Vegaswikian 05:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most schools are notable, atleast to local people, as is this, 300 pupils is enough. bbx 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G, this article complies with proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline. Yamaguchi先生 22:16, 29 September 2006

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Practice Court[edit]

An article on a single class at a single law school is not encyclopedically notable. Scientizzle 19:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it woudl be notable even if it were rewritten as a generic topic. It's a little like a "Practice swing" for a baseball player or a golfer. Fiddle Faddle 19:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, there are mock trials, which can be a sort of "practice court". Though I've never head anyone use the latter term - I'm not sure if it would be a useful redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salahx (talk • contribs)
  - Except that a mock trial is also an inter-collegiate contest. You make a good point. It might make a useful redirect, but I can't see that the term is widely enough used to need it. Fiddle Faddle 06:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with leave to Merge to Baylor Law School, it would be silly to allow articles for every mandatory course at every law school.-- danntm ^T _C 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Alex | talk / review me | 12:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muzza[edit]

I'm not sure what this jumble of words is supposed to be about, but it sounds made up. Prod removed by anons who proceeded to add more nonsense to it. Danny Lilithborne 19:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh strong delete. --Alex | talk / review me | 19:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it, whatever it is. (At the very least, Unsourced, Original Research, and I'm pretty sure it would be POV if I could figure out what it was trying to say.) Fan-1967 22:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As patent nonsense. Completely unsalvagable POV rant that is so badly written no sense can be made of it. Irongargoyle 23:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - CSD G1. If I could make any sense of the rant, it might have some glimpse of salvagability, but alas, to the fires of CSD. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 23:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as db-nonsense. Let's see if it sticks. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rola (card game)[edit]

Non-notable, made-up game. Prod has been removed by the main editor. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Pretty much the same case as the recently deleted "Pringles (game)". Hús ö nd 19:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Words are all capalized in Subsections. Seems like it might be copied off a site.--Team6and7 20:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. I can't find any outside information on this. —dustmite 23:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheat Happens[edit]

The account used to create this, User:PWizard seems to have been solely created to add linkspam to the CheatHappens.com site [66]. Is this site notable? Richard W.M. Jones 19:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No. wikipediatrix 20:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried very hard to find anything that qualified for WP:WEB and failed. I think on that basis and WP:NOT a linkfarm it has to go Fiddle Faddle 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I found the article interesting and useful (I did not know there were such sites), I have to agree that the site does not seem to satisfy the WP criteria. RickReinckens 06:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael oneill[edit]

unable to specify which Michael oneill it is, published 5 CDs, but none are notable due to independent label Onionmon 20:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability or sourcing since February. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be any one of about ten different people as per AMG but I'm not sure any of them would qualify as notable. ObtuseAngle 23:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DaeLuin[edit]

This article fails WP:WEB. Out of 96 unique web search hits, there is no coverage that would augment what is in the article to satisfy that notability guideline. Prod removed on the basis that I listed the proposed WP:SOFTWARE in addition to indicating that the site was NN -- I'm still not sure what the point was there. Erechtheus 20:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:WEB. As such, no credible, third-party sources are avaible as required by WP:V. --Satori Son 04:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Catastrophe[edit]

NN band per WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. Barely claims importance at all, but claims to have an album out so I thought speedy was inappropriate. delete. Mango juice^talk 20:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —dustmite 23:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete should be speedied for A7. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why should this article be deleted? i have produced for this band?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liamgaughan (talk • contribs) .

2. Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. There! wikipedia says this article can exist!

A7 good point- but then, unremarkable is simply a matter of opinion, isn't it. I'm pretty sure this band are remarkable to some people lol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.69.94.242 (talk • contribs) .

How about, the day that wikipedia gets desperate for the 300kb or so, of space that this article takes up, they could remove it? ITs not like its a fake band, and its not harming anyone. (liamgaughan) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liamgaughan (talk • contribs) .

- Comment: The problem with your reasoning is that Wikipedia has certain standards to keep. Specifically, only encyclopedic, verifiable information is appropriate. Without these standards, Wikipedia would turn into LiveJournal or MySpace. This band simply doesn't belong in an ecyclopedia. Also, please remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) to save people the work of signing them for you. —dustmite 04:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Turks[edit]

DeleteThis article should be deleted for the following reasons:
The term Turco-Persian is not used in modern times when referring to things in this article.
There is already a Turko-Iranian page that is exactly the same as this.

This article is redundant and unnecessary, and it has nothing new to offer.Khosrow II 20:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Khosrow II 20:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Khosrow II, This is your real face of Iranian propaganda, Turko-Iranian and Persian Turks are different things, Turko-Iranians are Turkic peoples and Persian Turks are Persian peoples. This is enough for not delete it. -Zaparojdik 10:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zaparodjik, what dont you understand about this article already exists in another form? Also, the term Perso-Turkic or Turko Persian is only used in regards to empires and kingdoms of the past.Khosrow II 13:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The article is a pov fork.--Eupator 12:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have never heard the terminology "Persian Turks" LOL But it was a wonderful joke and funny for a minute or so Khorshid 15:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khorshid and other accounts of Khosrow II do you laugh also the article Turko-Iranian? Yes, really LOL -Zaparojdik 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Turko Iranian is an actual term used in the modern sense. Like I have told you before, Turko-Persian is used only in regards to Empires such as the Mughals and other such ancient concepts, but not in modern times.Khosrow II 21:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... there is already a Turco-Persian article.Tājik 23:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Tajik. --alidoostzadeh 17:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no Persian Turks, Turco-Persian is the correct term. --ManiF 21:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete G11. - Mailer Diablo 16:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marketbright[edit]

Advertisement —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StopItTidyUp (talk • contribs) .

'Delete This really does look like an ad. Few Ghits and the Wiki page for deletion is one of the highest! Nigel ^(Talk) 12:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Jay[edit]

Unverifiable and unsourced article about a rapper, who is putting out album in 2008/2010. Crystalballing at best, appears to be NN. Article had been created and deleted via CSD for notability. CSD removed numerous times, requestion deletion/saliting of article. Wildthing61476 21:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Has already been speedied twice. I have also nominated his record label KNS Records. -- RHaworth 21:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've also added Toine to this AfD. Wildthing61476 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles because they fail WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC. Erechtheus 21:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Salt the earth. Guyanakoolaid 07:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously, you guys. Maxamegalon2000 21:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KNS Records[edit]

plus redirect at Kool N Smooth Records.

Record label started by Yung Jay (creator of the article) and his cousin Toine - both up for deletion. Has not actually released anything yet. Non-notable. -- RHaworth 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Erechtheus 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:BAND, WP:VAIN... and on and on... —dustmite 23:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All And salt. Yung Jay is on third AfD after 2 speedy deletes. Guyanakoolaid 07:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy redirect. This stub contains only one sentence, but that sentence tells us exactly what to do here. — CharlotteWebb 23:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Kentucky Technical College[edit]

This college merged with Bluegrass Community and Technical College. I believe delete is the appropriate course, but a case can be made for redirect. Acdixon 21:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, which seems like the best way to deal with a merger when the merger partnres don't have much individual history. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect for now, when notability is clearly demonstrated we can give it its own article. Ashibaka tock 17:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ChatAutism[edit]

http://searchirc.com/network/chatautism,yearly demonstrates that roughly 40 people use this network, so this is basically like having an article for a single IRC channel. Ashibaka tock 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though in a way this is a pity as I'm sure it serves those who use it very well. But it does not seem notable or correct for Wiki Nigel ^(Talk) 12:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment happy to see rediredt or merge Nigel ^(Talk) 15:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that I probably could have redirected this to Aspies For Freedom with little complaint, but just in case the creator swings around I guess an AfD discussion could be helpful. Ashibaka tock 15:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a special network, so there are special things to say about it, so it deserves an article. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 15:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I personally think that given the network is to my knowledge the first and I believe still the only IRC network specifically relating to the autism spectrum that in itself would make it noteable, however the article needs some work I think first to make that clear and to satisfy the requirements properly. MttJocy 15:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AS MttJocy said above - chatautism is the first and only network dedicated to the autistic spectrum. It is most certainly noteable.
Delete As a network it's about three computers and and only 40ish users (including everyone who has voted 'Keep' here). The page exists here only as part of the something-out-of-nothing promotion campaign by AFF. It's pure fancruft. CalG 18:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep but cleanup. (aeropagitica) 20:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine of Kentucky (second nomination)[edit]

DELETE Regions have cuisine: Kentucky is not a region but is a part of at least 2 regions. Those regions should have cuisine articles. Applachian portion of the state would have had Appalachian cuisine, Southwest area would have had cuisine typical for the south and Bluegrass region probably a mix of midwest and South. This article certainly doesn't inform about the differences. Steam power did not turn the native forest into arable land. Not relavant to this topic. This article is not cited and is poorly written. This article seems to have been started as a joke and other people seem to be unintentionally playing into this joke. This article doesn't seem to acknowledge the 20th century and modern grocery stores. Fast food corporations shouldn't be considered part of an area's cuisine. There are lots of chinese restaurants in Ky that doesn't mean they came about because of the area's cuisine. Just because Whitecastle started here doesn't mean that is the cuisine. That is a corporation. This article isn't worth fixing because if you remove all the errors, irrelavant material, slander, and non-neutral pov there wouldn't be anything left.-Crunchy Numbers 20:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see plenty that could be salvaged, such as "Dishes or recipes of note in Kentuckian cuisine", and if other sections were redrafted, they could include a good deal of encyclopedic info. I agree that "Fast food" should definitely be nixed. Further, we don't delete articles just because they don't include citations. I am a Kentuckian, and I see enough in this article that rings true. Clean out what doesn't, and there would remain a minor, yet good article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment: I don't see this listed on the AfD listing page. If others can't find this listing, then nobody else will participate. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Comment: "Dishes or recipes of note in Kentuckian cuisine"- Is Ale-8-One a dish or recipe? Beer cheese-this is the first time I've heard of it. Bourbon balls-my mom made those once from a recepe in Southern Living magazine. Johnny Cake-saw those in a movie one time. Stack cake-never heard of it. Maybe I should have set this up as a merge with the Kentucky article: The minor portion left after cleanup could be a paragraph or two in the main article. Then after people add more it could be branched off again. There would also be more light shed on some of these difficult to verify "facts" if it was in the main article. In the meantime I'm finding these wikifiction gems all over the net in articles copied from here. Thanks wikipedia.-Crunchy Numbers 14:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've heard of beer cheese. I ran into a couple beer cheese makers at the Kentucky Crafted show in March. At any rate, many items in this list are hard to source, but experiential things are usually hard to source; that is, Kentuckians most likely contributed to that list from experience, so I don't think we should discount it lightly. Further, I see no issue with having a small article, if that's what we have left after modifications. It would be more than a stub, and certainly, it's a topic that will be expanded. Apparently, the consenus will be to keep, so merging it would be considered bad form. It causes no damage to sit as a separate article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I saw some people making lye soap at the Appalachian Festival in Cincinnati this spring. Funny I've never seen anyone in Appalachia make it. Of course the Foxfire books tell how to make it. Is experiential unsourced material the same as original research?-Crunchy Numbers 16:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - In the case of culture and ongoing events, the question is pretty much irrelevant. There are often things we collectively know that aren't well-sourced. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        When you say 'culture and ongoing events' are you referring to Current events? According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published. Please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:... 4. Opinions on current affairs ... 6. News reports. My understanding is that for things like the earth is round or that humans breath air and need oxygen we don't have to provide sources. For other things we know but others don't necessarily we must provide sources so that they can find more information and/or verify what we have written. I found some good articles about the cuisines in Louisiana. "Louisiana cuisine" is a category with one line that states Louisiana cuisine includes Creole and Cajun cuisines and others. Those articles are well written and seem to have sources. I wonder how the people in Louisiana would feel if someone added twizzlers and slim jims to the list of Cajun foods because a new slim jim factory gets built there. Or maybe the contents of a local 7-11 should be included. I would like to propose a challenge to anyone who can find reliable sources for this article. I will cook them a gormet dinner of squirrel liver with fava beans.-Crunchy Numbers 16:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has a few facetious or unsupported lines in it, which will doubtless be edited out. There would be lots of verifiable, notable and encyclopedic content left. There is indeed cuisine peculiar to Kentucky. It can have its own cuisine and still be related to 2 neighboring regions. Yum, sweet tea and barbecue, catfish and hushpuppies. Edison 22:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs work, like every article on Wikipedia, but it has worthwhile information. Citations will be hard to come by for some of these facts, but I don't think it's preferable to delete the article rather than marking it as unsourced. I had never heard of burgoo or beer cheese until I came to Kentucky, and they are pretty popular foods here. Kentucky has a foot in more than one region, and it would be a disservice (and inaccurate) to simply say that Kentucky's cuisine is a hodgepodge of Midwestern, Appalachian, and Southern food. Finally, I think some editors object to the mention of squirrel and other antiquated dishes - I don't know anything about this, nor where to look it up, but that doesn't mean it wasn't true at one point. This article has already been posted for deletion (for the same reasons) and the consensus was to keep it. Lamont A Cranston 11:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thanks for reminding me about the previous deletion nomination: all those people who voted to keep it then proceded to do nothing for the past year. I never suggested to say that Kentucky's cuisine is a hodgepodge of Midwestern, Appalachian, and Southern food. What I said was that the Appalachian portion of the state is Appalachian. The South western portion is mostly Southern. These days the differences are less and less. I've lived in both places and others and back in the days when people cooked I went to lots of dinners at people's houses. The Kentucky article already points out that Kentucky is part of these regions. I don't object to the mention of squirrel. I find it offensive and deceptive however when things are taken out of context. For example comparing the diet of people from Kentucky in 1825 with modern day America. People today who eat squirrel are called hunters and they have to buy a liscense. And forget about getting their wives to cook it for them; if it isn't wrapped in plastic with the name of a grocery store stamped on it, it isn't edible. -Crunchy Numbers 15:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lack of attention by Wikipedians isn't very pertinent in this case, as the article is not that bad. It's clearly salvageable, and some improvements have already been made. Further improvements can be made to distinguish regions and history. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just remembered there are several restaurants in Cincinnati called "The Red Squirrel" but they don't seem to serve any Squirrel meat. Maybe someday when Kroger and other restaurants start selling it they can Start.-Crunchy Numbers 16:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does need work, but there are many foods that are specifically identified with Kentucky as a state, not with vaguely defined "regions": from mint juleps and Bourbon whisky to Kentucky Fried Chicken. This certainly is not a subject about which nothing encyclopedic could ever be said, and what's there is a reasonable start. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fried chicken is typical of southern cooking. But the first Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant opened in Salt Lake City. Have you seen the Kentucky Fried Movie? I went to France last spring but couldn't find French Fries on the menu. They had heard of Freedom Fries but wouldn't serve them. Bourbon is a product of Kentucky. It seems to be most popular in Chinese restaurants at the malls where they pressure you to take a sample of bourbon chicken on a toothpick as you walk by. But they do that at the downtown mall in Indianapolis also. I didn't realize that the regions of America are so vaguely defined. I wonder how Kentucky Fried Squirrel would go over as a brand?-Crunchy Numbers 15:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The KFC recipe is of Kentuckian origin, not Southern in general, although there's no question it's a Southern derivative. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It needs work but there are many foods that can be associated with the state of Kentucky. The page can easily be suvdivided into regions using headers, per standard, such as "Regional Cuisine" and then divide it up into "Applachian", etc. I will agree that fast food corporations founded in Kentucky, such as KFC, would be better suited to the "economy". Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge. Cuisine of California offers precedence for a state-based cuisine article; if the Kentucky cuisine is REALLY entirely regional and not at all state-based then the information from this article - plenty of which is good - must be incorporated elsewhere before deletion. The above comment regarding regional subheading and moving (detailed) restaurant info elsewhere would be a good idea, although I do think KFC merits a mention in passing. Nach0king 17:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only is the subject notable, there is precedent to retain such articles. RFerreira 23:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn. Whispering^(talk/c) 00:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Heights High School[edit]

~~Contested prod. May be notable, but at this point the article contains no encyclopedic content and is purely POV. Khatru2 21:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)~~Keep concerns addressed. Khatru2 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it is expanded and written like an encyclopedia article.Keep now it has been changed. --Alex | talk / review me | 21:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it suddenly stops sounding like a biased article. Some P. E rson 21:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I fixed it. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Luna Santin 03:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Gym[edit]

Looks like a not especially notable franchising company. Its also an orphan article. -- Solipsist 21:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure if it meets WP:CORP, but it does get some decent coverage [67]. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The site is responsible for a large amount of documentary video - primarily by parents of their children at The Little Gym. [68] While this may or may not bear out the letter of the publishing requirement, it does show the extensive following the company has with parents of toddlers. --Ereid01 talk 14:02, 03 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Williams[edit]

This article is just dead wrong. Put that however you like in terms of it failing WP:BIO, being a WP:HOAX, or the like. The article describes Calvin Johnson (football). Somebody seems to have decided to make a WP:POINT about the use of the citation needed template, so that editor deprodded the article. Erechtheus 22:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't know if this is a hoax or an honest mistake, but it's wrong either way. —dustmite 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Scottmsg 02:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as a non-notable group/organisation, as per WP:BIO & WP:CORP. (aeropagitica) 20:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stagcorpe[edit]

Contested Prod. Article originally said "company", now says "organization". Either way, unable to Verify its existence, much less notability. Google ([69]) only comes up with a few myspace-type pages. -- Fan-1967 22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Fictional organization"? Little context, no verifiability. —dustmite 23:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Incompletely nom not allowed to run to completion. Somebody must assert a strong reason why we should overturn a twice-AfD'ed article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saryn Hooks[edit]

Incomplete nom started by Springnuts. No reason given. Yomangani ^talk 22:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First AFD here, second one here Yomangani ^talk 22:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Witdrawn by nominator. (aeropagitica) 19:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BAO Team[edit]

spamvertisement as suggested by another user in the talk page. I'm biased a bit to keep it for undisclosed reasons. But I'm nominating it for deletion for the good of wikipedia, because it is still unencyclopedic. Please include all pages that are merely redirects to this page. Thanks! zephyr2k 22:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages nominated:

John Miguel Jr

Sample redirects:

Alfa Capili found in John Miguel Jr redirects to BAO Team

Timothy Joseph Cruz found in John Miguel Jr redirects to BAO Team

Nestor Maningding Jr found in John Miguel Jr redirects to BAO Team

Galo Matagay III found in John Miguel Jr redirects to BAO Team

Ryan Tuaño found in John Miguel Jr redirects to BAO Team

Evilhero found in BAO Team and John Miguel Jr redirects to BAO Team

Deletion again??? BAO Team represents the hacking/carding culture in the Philippines. How come some of you posted that this is just a little IRC war. How come warez/hacking groups are welcome here? Zaphyr damn it! YOU are a Filipino. If there's something wrong why don't you just edit it. Are you related with User: Mike Abundo? If so, I supposed you just like to sabotage or retaliate. or Mark Cacho (user: kurenai jiku)? the alleged carder.

Nomination withdrawn. But it still needs to be cleaned up to make it not look like a vanity page. zephyr2k 10:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Luna Santin 03:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DefJay[edit]

Non-notable radio station; prod removed without comment. Valrith 22:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this radio station is "the most listened to", how can it have an Alexa ranking of 455,376? Punkmorten 06:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as a ((hoax)) with a chain mail as a source and the first Google hit being a link to the same article, it is highly unlikely that Cliff Burton would be remembered in this way without some official source acknowledging the day. (aeropagitica) 19:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Live Is To Die Day[edit]

This is a non-notable event. 3 search engine hits do nothing to document the celebration of this anniversary. What happened to Cliff Burton is very sad, but it is well documented in other places. If there was some indication that this weren't just something made up in school one day, perhaps a redirect to the song article would be appropriate. As it is, this doesn't appear to be a search term. Erechtheus 22:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as either a hoax or a non-notable event coined at a school's lunch hour. Prolog 10:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an editor representing himself to be the creator sent me email indicating that he was the victim of some chain mail that led him to believe this wasn't a hoax but that he has concluded it is a hoax. Erechtheus 19:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of iconic smokers[edit]

A rather lengthy and pointless list that clearly shows bias. The fact that there are (Deceased) tags after many of the people listed are clear signs that someone is trying to discourage smoking. This information is irrelevant to the list itself. It also contains some people who are obviously not "iconic". Who decides what is "iconic"? The list clearly needs major revision and possible deletion. GShton 22:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure Wikipedia is about this kind of seemingly endless list. Cordless Larry 22:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Significant problems with neutrality, relevance, objectivity, etc. Too many editorial comments about other characteristics or traits of those listed that have nothing to do with the "article". The introduction offers no clear criteria as to who ought to be on the list. Matter of opinion as to who is "famous" or whether someone is "clearly recognized" as being identified with smoking. Too many unsubstantiated statements as well. Agent 86 23:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for clear NPOV and soapbox. If this were genuinely an article about examples of media portrayal of smoking or something (which might be OR anyway), it wouldn't make a point of detailing the health problems of each individual. Look at the Colin Ferrell entry, which ends with the weasel sentence "he is also said to have a bad smoker's cough" or the following Kevin Federline entry 'mentioning' that he has bronchitis (with no citation or evidence of causality for either entry). I have no problem with someone doing a study about the effects of smoking, and the nice thing is there are many groups that HAVE done such studies, and have posted the results on their websites. Wikipedia is not the place to make a pointed anti-smoking article. -Markeer 00:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soap box, NPOV, NN, having no value as an article and for being a hit-list. Why else are those 'deceased' markers there? ;) Now if you'll excuse me.. *goes outside and lights up* QuagmireDog 03:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I've struck through my above vote and reasoning. Whilst I'm not convinced that 'iconic' is something that's going to prove servicable as a concept for inclusion, I'm no longer comfortable with voting for deletion considering the work that the article contributors just put in. Also, now the deceased markers are gone, hitmen will have to go the extra mile in order to gather info <.< QuagmireDog 07:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless "in popular culture" list. Walter Raleigh is missing. Pavel Vozenilek 11:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All different kinds of smoking are firmly embedded into culture. There's no reason to get rid of this article. It's informative, and offers noteworthy information on where certain famous people stand in relation to smoking.--Josh 17:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I thought the deceased tags are useful in a mixed list of living and dead people, but I have removed them. I agree it could use another thorough revision. (look at the talk page for some of the previous efforts.) Just remove anyone with unsubstantiated claims, and add walter raleigh. — Zanaq (?) 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep, but modify to remove the health aspects and deceased markers. I believe that NPOV is the only issue with this list, and by making it an objective list, it will be more encyclopedic. People like Edward R. Murrow and Jean-Paul Sartre are iconic smokers -- it is part of their image -- and should be listed with others. --Guroadrunner 04:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the additional problem is determining an "objective" standard. By what criteria is someone iconic, and by what standards do we determine that smoking is part of their identity or "image" (especially further back in time when there were far more smokers as a percentage of the population)? Given the prevailing norms of the past, a list of "iconic" non-smokers would be shorter. In fact, how is "image" defined? With your two examples, I doubt "smoker" is the identifying characteristic that leaps to someone's mind. Agent 86 19:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kwertii 09:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, this is a subjective list; who is to say what defines iconic? RFerreira 22:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Canjth 16:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Extreme Cleanup, I strongly disagree with this article's nomination for deletion. First we need citations and a lot. We can then rename to list of famous smokers. How is this in anyways any different from List of celebrity cocaine addicts or List of iconic drinkers? I don't believe we should delete an article for NPOV if the problem can be fixed with a cleanup, which I believe it can in this case. Valoem ^talk 20:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The page itself is based upon NPOV and should not have existed in the first place along with the pages you listed as they are simply pointless lists made for the sake of making lists.GShton 01:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: List should not be renamed to 'list of famous smokers' since that is too long a list, and unmaintainable. see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_smokers. He who claims this list is based on POV probably hasn't read the discussion page. — Zanaq (?) 05:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep after a rewrite. Daniel .Bryant 02:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dolin Thomas & Solomon[edit]

Non-notable, advert. Cordless Larry 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Weak keep~~ ~~Delete~~ ~~A few lawyers directory listings and a little trade press, but nothing to assert notability with. Fails WP:Vanity at the very least.~~ Fiddle Faddle 22:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A great deal of work is going into the article to assert notability. It is not yet "not an advert", but it is moving that way. I see every indication of this work continuing and have left encouragement on the author's talk page, Sufficient work has done for me to alter my opinion to reflect a Weak Keep (above) Fiddle Faddle 14:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm good with this. Changed opinion to Keep. Fiddle Faddle 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I politely disagree, Nixon Peabody and Harris Beach both have entries with the history of their law firms. Please let me know if there is something specific that should be changed. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dts1234 (talk • contribs) .
- Polite disagreement is always pleasant. Please look at the article as it stands now. There are now several banners reflecting what required to be done in order to allow it to remain, assuming that DT&S is of itself notable and deserving of an entry. Each article is freestanding and there are no precedents set by other articles. If the others are non notable as well then they should be so nominated for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 12:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes to the Wikipedia entry for DTS - please let me know if is now acceptable or if it needs any other changes. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dts1234 (talk • contribs)

I made some more changes to the entry for DTS (9/28/06). I was able to find the tv broadcast, but the rest of the newspaper articles require a subscription. I fixed the footnote format issue and I also deleted a couple of words in the body of the text to try to make it sound more neutral. Please let me know if anyone else has any other suggestions. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dts1234 (talk • contribs)
Comment Unless anyone disagrees, may we close this as Speedy Keep? Fiddle Faddle 14:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep now that the article has been substantially improved. (aeropagitica) 19:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sham peer review[edit]

~~Looks like nothing more than advertising.~~ Gnusmas 22:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Yomangani ^talk 23:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ramsquire 23:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolute WP:SPAM.-- danntm ^T _C 03:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now turned into a proper article by Uncle G. Gnusmas 15:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significantly improved article. It still needs some work though to be more encyclopedic.--Nick Y. 17:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Epic 3[edit]

Fails WP:SOFTWARE and WP:WEB. Jeff Silvers 22:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wasn't articles on the first two fan made games in this trology also deleted? I'm sure I saw them nominated before. TJ Spyke 23:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a fan-made game. Not notable by any measure. SubSeven 02:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An unreleased fan game. Delete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of this is WP:OR; it's also unreleased and crystal-ball. ColourBurst 05:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ball, not notable--Nick Y. 17:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, fails too many guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 22:28, 29 September 2006 22:28

The result was no consensus. Luna Santin 03:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred de Grazia[edit]

This is a vanity article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ers00 (talk • contribs) .

Delete - unverifiable and is a vanity page. It would have been an idea to engage the user before coming to AFD though. Yomangani^talk 23:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. My first nomination for deletion and I didn't read the instructions carefully enough. Thanks for letting the contributor know. Ers00 23:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He sounds like a really interesting scholar. Published reviews of his books are one way to demonstrate an author's notability, and I added three reviews as references at the end of the article. If there are POV problems, they can be edited out. While the main author of the article was Amideg (talk • contribs • count) (possibly Ami de Grazia), other editors have worked on the article, which makes WP:VANITY less of an issue. Verification of his prolific work as an author can be found at http://catalog.loc.gov/ , which lists 55 works under his name. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Look a little closer at the other editors. They're bots.70.184.72.38 18:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a pretty obvious keep. I get 30 hits on his name as author in the Swedish National Library Catalogue. Some parts of the article need verification or cleanup, but I see no valid reason why the subject wouldn't be notable enough. up+land 05:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator's only contributions relate to this AfD. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well, if you're implying that I'm only out to get Alfred de Grazia's goat, please let me assure you that I'm not. I agree that he's an interesting (if rather obscure) figure, and it's because I wanted to know a little bit more about him (from a more or less NPOV source) that I came to find Wikipedia's article on him. But I was disappointed, because the article just parrots (or plagiarizes?) Mr. de Grazia's own biography on his own site: http://www.grazian-archive.com/autobiography/DeGrazia/degrazia.htm. Besides that, the phrasing and the inclusion of irrelevant minutiae strikes me as vain. So I took it to be a vanity article, based on Wikipedia's vanity guidelines:

"Vanity information is considered to be any information...that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author."

"...if [the vanity information constitutes] an entire article, the article is then usually submitted for deletion. ... Those that offer some claim of notability, however remote, are usually sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion."

"Even in the cases of decidedly famous people, these people's unrealized aspirations, thoughts, and hobbies are seldom included in Wikipedia, unless they are directly salient, and, more importantly, verifiable. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability prohibits the inclusion of things that are not verifiable from independent sources."

"...the best rule of thumb while determining whether or not any such edits may contain vanity materials, is to ask oneself, "Would this same type of material normally be found in a print encyclopedia?""

Do you still disagree that this is a vanity article? Ers00 22:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is written a bit vanity-like, but de Grazia is (was, as of Aug. 31) a thinker who was published in scholarly magazines, and who published his own journal, backed by no less an authority than SAGE Publications. Besides, he's fascinating. Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan Stanich (talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 September 2006

Keep. I disagree that it is a vanity article. De Grazia's scholarly accomplishments are serious; while much of his thinking is outside the mainstream, that is part of what makes this entry interesting and relevant. The man has often been way ahead of his time; to give just two examples, he proposed using computers to study social networks in the early 1950s, and developed ideas for scholarly citation indices (and why they were forces for conservatism) in the 1960s. JeffUbois 13:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC) JeffUbois[reply]

Keep. I am the author of this article. 55 books officially listed, published by the likes of Alfred Knopf (Public and Republic), Doubleday (Eight Bads, Eight Goods), Wiley, Scotts Foresman etc. should qualify anyone. Alfred de Grazia is the founder of the AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST, still in existence, and one of the most respected magazines in political science. He has been listed in past editions of Who's Who in America and Who's Who in the World (no less...) He has taught at prestigious universities like U. of Minnesota, Brown, Stanford, NYU and others, yet his activities have reached far beyond academia. He is a prime example of a very rich and productive American life of the XX century. At 86, he is still fully active. Including, in the past three years, two fiction movies and one book... (But the article speaks for itself...)24.149.255.225 16:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)amideg 24.149.255.225 16:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily deleted for no notability, no content, and no context. Also, the only author of the page nominated it on AfD. Not sure why, but it seems to count as a deletion request by the only editor. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inverloch and District Lions Club Inc[edit]

About an infamous club Nathannoblet 00:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-encylcopedeic article. If heavily modified to confirm notability/reliable sources then could exist. AmitDeshwar 03:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]