< January 28 January 30 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete as unverifiable. The one Japanese source looks pretty doubtful as it appears to be seller company. - Mailer Diablo 03:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Lloyd Glover[edit]

David Lloyd Glover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does notmeet guidelines of WP:V. I can tell he is an artist, just can't find how he is a notable artist Nv8200p talk 00:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, if it's deleted, it can always be recreated later with proper citations. Generally speaking articles without references run the risk of potential deletion until such time as the references can be provided, even if the information appears to possibly be accurate. Dugwiki 21:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does. Articles are frequently deleted in part or in whole because they are unreferenced. The fact that it might be verifiable simply means that it will be easier to recreate the article properly at a later time. Deletion due to lack of references doesn't mean the article can't later resurface in a better form. Dugwiki 22:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No conesnsus. Cbrown1023 talk 04:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lengths of superhero film and television series[edit]

Lengths of superhero film and television series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • As further comment, there doesn't seem to be any real criteria for what material is counted toward these "total running lengths". While the disinclusion of Corman's 1994 ashcan Fantastic Four is perhaps justifiable, the Superman listing is missing substantial material, including any of the animated material (the 17 Fleischer cartoons, the 68 New Adventures of Superman, the 1988 series or the 1996 series) as well as the 1948 and 1950 serials or the first theatrical feature. As further evidence of the difficulties involved with actually computing running time, that first theatrical release was re-cut as the pilot for the first TV series, which is counted. Should the movie be counted separately? The Batman material suffers from similar arbitrary standards of inclusion (missing, for example, the Hanna-Barbera live-action specials, the 1943 and 1949 serials and several animated runs). Serpent's Choice 11:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like a problem with those sections, which you should either rectify yourself, or bring up on the talk page. As deletion arguments go though, it's not convincing. If there is reliable information as to different lenghts, or other series, then include all of that information with the proper annotations. FrozenPurpleCube 13:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, this isn't something that I can fix by editing. The problem is that I can see no way to come up with a total runtime number without resorting to original research. So many of these sources exist in versions with different lengths, that an effort to list all the possible totals would itself approach article length for some of these franchises. Let's look at Superman. Superman and the Mole Men had a 58 minute runtime. It was recut and retitled into two 26 minute TV episodes. Do we count 58 minutes, 52 minutes, or 110 minutes? The 1978 film had a 143 minute theatrical release, a 188 minute International Edit, a 182 minute ABC television broadcast, a 151 minute DVD cut, and a 127 minute VHS/Laserdisk compressed version. Then there is Superman II. Do we add 127 minutes for the original release, 151 minutes for the television premiere, 144 for the ABC recut of the television premiere, 116 minutes for the 2006 official studio recut, or some combination of those values. Now our total -- from just three movies! -- might be 295, 301, 306, 311, 312, 317, 319, 322, 323, 325, 328, 329, 330, 336, 339, 345, 346, 347, 350, 352, 353, 354, 356, 360, 361, 362, 364, 367, 369, 373, 377, 378, 380, 381, 384, 385, 388, 390, 391, 397, 404, 405, 408, 412, 414, 419, 425, 436, 442, 443, 449, or more if we count the Donner cut as a separate movie from the Lester film. When we add the 68 6-minute New Adventures of Superman, do we just add 408 minutes?. They were not broadcast as standalone programs. 36 of them bookended The Adventures of Superboy short in the New Adventures of Superman program, while the rest were broadcast along with non-Superman material in The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure and The Batman/Superman Hour. Does the entire runtime of these programs count? If not, do the Superboy shorts from the first season count as Superman content anyway? What about material that includes Superman alongside other characters? Super Friends? Nearly every franchise has this problem. Without a means to reconcile it, I cannot envision a way to assemble these articles in compliance with WP policy. Serpent's Choice 06:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems fixable to me. I would include either the longest length or the length of the most widely available version, or the original version, or all three, depending on the circumstances. If I was unsure, I'd bring it up on the talk page, or just include it all with the proper annotations. You do not, however, total two presentations of the same material just with different cuts. It should only be included once in the total, even if you can get different totals depending on what cuts you use to create the sum. The same with your questions about the Superman animated material. If you're not sure it should be included, bring it up on the talk page, get the consensus of other editors as to the proper presentation of the information. To me, your arguments make for a good reason to present this information in the fullest and most complete manner possible, not a reason for deletion. Sure, you can get different numbers, but you can get different numbers talking about casualties of war, or the costs of natural disasters. Or even the census. FrozenPurpleCube 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, I felt I should add that your concerns are also going to apply to the articles of the material in question anyway. There is no doubt in my mind that articles on movies/tv shows should include run time information. This is information that's included on the box of the movie/television show. Yet there will be problems like you mention in the article itself. Thus your concern also applies there, and since it will have be resolved for those articles, I don't see it as a particular problem for this article either. Might be difficult at times, depending on the circumstances, but it can be done. FrozenPurpleCube 17:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that being said, I do have some concerns about the list possibly having arbitrary inclusion criteria, since it says it includes "popular" shows and films. It seems likely that there are numerous other shows that should be included, but aren't (eg where are all the Spiderman shows? Flash?). Not to mention that I'm not sure why the list is focussed narrowly on superheroes to begin with. Why superheros and not "sci-fi/fantasy"?
I'm also concerned about upkeep of this list. It seems to me this information is only useful if it can be kept current. But the current list is only as of May 26, 2006. So it appears that noone is updating the list, and even if someone does update it that's no guarantee editors will keep updating it over and over regularly every week (as would be necessary to keep the information accurate.
So even if you assume the information might be useful, it looks like the list has somewhat arbitrary rules for inclusion, is oddly framed as just a list for superheros, and can only be kept useful by constant, regular editorial updates. Sounds to me like a recipe for problems - I unfortunately recommend deletion. Dugwiki 21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I certainly agree with your conclusion, I disagree strongly with your assertion that WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE only applies to those things which are specifically named at the policy. Otto4711 22:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Dugwiki's comment about updating applies only to the "superhero" list; the science fiction list, which is bundled with this delete request, is regularly updated.
Also, if certain series have been omitted that is an argument for improving the article, not for deleting it. I don't think that the series you mention have been deliberately excluded — I just don't think anyone's gotten around to adding them. Last time I looked, incompleteness wasn't a deletion criterion.
Incidentally, the superhero and fantasy lists were spun out from the science fiction one when that became unwieldy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reply to Josiah and Otto -
Otto, sorry we aren't seeing eye to eye since, if I recall correctly, we usually go the same way on afd/cfd. Guess we can't agree all the time, eh? Either way, feel free to post your comments on the WP:NOT talk page where there are a couple of discussion threads on the topic of just how broadly to interpret WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. I've made similar arguments there that I did here, and it is an interesting policy topic in general beyond just this article.
Josiah, normally I'd agree that it's better to improve an article than delete it. However, my concern is that this particular type of article is only useful if it is intentionally and regularly updated. "Incompleteness" isn't a deletion criterion, but articles and categories do get deleted on occasion if they are determined to be too difficult to properly maintain or their information is determined to be inaccurate or misleading. In this case, the list in question hasn't been kept properly up to date, having sat for a year with no updates at all. I'd be more inclined to recommend Keep if I felt comfortable that the article could maintain its information in a timely and more complete fashion. Dugwiki 22:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to put it one more way, if I thought the maintainence problem was short term and could be fixed in a reasonable amount of time, I'd be ok with the article. But my concern is that the lack of maintainence is due to a long term, systemic problem with the list that probably can't or won't be corrected. But hey, if someone can prove me wrong, go for it! Dugwiki 23:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Lengths of science fiction movie and television series has been regularly updated. The fact that the superhero list hasn't been would therefore seem to be more a question of whether there are wikipedians with the interest and inclination than an intrinsic problem with this type of list. If regular updating is the concern, the superhero list should be deleted and the science fiction one kept. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Josiah Rowe, we all appreciate that you are taking this AfD seriously, but it is not always helpful to respond to every single person who disagrees with you. You can make your point eloquently and concisely once and not have to post a comment under every delete vote.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. TigerShark 12:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lengths of fantasy film and television series[edit]

Lengths of fantasy film and television series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - see also the nominations for the equivalent superhero and science fiction runing time lengths. Thoroughly unencyclopedic cruft consisting of how long various franchises, if run start to finish, would last. Otto4711 00:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, my bad for assuming that people would access this nom through the AfD page rather than the article page. See this concurrent nomination of two additional "length of" list articles. Otto4711 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to meet a specific point. It's still an indiscriminate collection of information. It's trivial and probably original research as well. MER-C 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research — the information is derived from IMDb and tv.com. Lengths of science fiction film and television series has links for each series pointing to the relevant IMDb page (although the citation process stalled out a while back, the citations can be added). Similar citations could be added for this page. The fact that the citations are currently lacking is an argument for article improvement, not deletion. Please see the previous AfD nomination for the science fiction series article, in which OR claims were made and rejected. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is original research to the extent of gathering the times and adding them together. Regardless of whether it's OR or not, the information is still indiscriminate and trivial and unencyclopedic. Otto4711 16:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research is defined at WP:NOR as "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." " Addition of times advances no position, nor does it create a novel narrative or historical interpretation. There's a world of difference between a crackpot scientific theory (which was what WP:NOR was created to exclude) and simple addition of times. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Lonero[edit]

Bill Lonero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Endorsements by sponsors are not one of the criteria supported by WP:MUSIC. Shawnc 00:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What notability would that be, exactly? A Train take the 20:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric C. Novack[edit]

Eric C. Novack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is the alleged author of novel Killing Molly, which was deleted from wikipedia due to non-notability, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Killing_Molly, and I was the one who initiated its deletion process. If this person's work was worth being deleted here because it is not notable, then this person is probably not notable enough to be here. Wooyi 00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but in the AfDs the mobbing can also work the other way--once the consensus seems to shift, people come and agree with it, though they may not have contributed much to the actual discussion. --just compare the beginning of any long AfD with the end. It would, however, not be in the traditional spirit of WP to ask that people read the article before voting. The first step might be to automatically delete the comments/vote of anyone who used the word: per X. --its just as meaningless as nn (sort of a smile) DGG 07:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I rewrote the article, but my ego will not turm "self-styled bad boy" if someone reverts me. --Kevin Murray 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I would like to point out that I never self styled myself as the "Bad Boy of Literature" that was a given nickname from Living for Sundance Group and Thought Collide Films and members of Detroit Synergy. Also I appreciate the debate on if I should or should not be in Wikipedia. If the article stays I would appreciate the addition of thedetroiter.com and/or mrbellersneighborhood.com for reference purposes. I have written for both online magazines. Thank you Eric C. Novack

  • The point is not that you are editing your own article, although that is discouraged but not forbidden; the point is the style of your writting. Good Luck! --Kevin Murray 03:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Young Mase[edit]

DJ Young Mase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (people) and/or Wikipedia:Notability (music) at this time. Also reads as a bio/blog/ad.  — MrDolomite | Talk 21:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haversham Hall[edit]

Haversham Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominating this article for deletion for the same reason as The Cheetah Girls (TV series); it's an article about a show that was canceled before it was even aired. The information on the article is somewhat speculative, violating the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only sources are IMDB and an article in Variety confirming the existence of the show, not enough to pass WP:RS. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete all - Failing WP:CORP. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ardaco[edit]

non-notable company and products. Google only 633 hit [4]--Evpf 22:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. At the moment, there is no evidence of the following:
1. Non-trivial published works about the company/products, OR
2. Widespread use of the products.
Evidence of one of these must be found, or the assumption will be that the company is not yet notable enough for Wikipedia. For example, if newspapers, magazines, or websites have published articles on the company or its products, you need to bring this information to everyone's attention (by adding the info to the article or noting it here.) You state that the products are "world-wide significant" -- show us evidence of this, please. --N Shar 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This and many other information I would like to add to articles but it takes me more time. So I hope you should be more patient and allows me or better help me to improve content of articles. It's really not fair from you because some of you never improve more articles on Wikipedia then me. And I admit that I'm novice on Wikipedia and need help or some more time.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To address the comment above about "Should a company that does what is claimed in the article be included in Wikipedia?" Wikipedia and editors can not see the future of what should or should not be included in the future. Each article has to stand on its own. 01:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, I hope article meet the requirements for WP:CORP. Palat 11:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, but I think a rename may just be in order. - Mailer Diablo 04:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles trivia[edit]

The Beatles trivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The Beatles trivia was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-16. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia.
The Beatles trivia was nominated for deletion on 2006-09-27. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia/2nd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncle G (talk • contribs) 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Earlier discussion closed with no consensus. The article still contravenes the basic policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and since the previous discussion a similar article has been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steely Dan trivia). I am also listing Pink Floyd trivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reason. Worldtraveller 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(See my second comment below) First discussion closed with no concensus, the last closed with keep! Please provide examples of how article has deteriorated or different manners which have not been previously discussed. LessHeard vanU 22:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Worldtraveller has nominated this article for deletion twice (in six months). andreasegde 13:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just bloody keep--Crestville 10:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh De Silva[edit]

Dinesh De Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nom & vote...
Del on this (presumably self-promotional) n-n "business leader" w/ G-Test

20 of about 30 for "Dinesh De Silva" australia -cricket

of which my hits 2, 6, 10, 14, & 18 seem to show so-named employees of 4 companies in apparently 3 countries. Jerzy•t 01:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 22:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box of chocolates[edit]

no reliable source, non-notable Wooyi 01:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Personally suggest the article simply renamed as Tom ap Rhys Pryce. - Mailer Diablo 03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce[edit]

Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article documents a horrible thing which was a tragedy for all involved, and I don't in any way seek to diminish that. But sadly, the fact is that there are two or three murder victims a week in this country, and only rarely do the circumstances of a murder generate the kind of long lasting impact on society that would demand an encyclopaedia entry. The Moors murders, Yorkshire Ripper, Harold Shipman and occurrences like that warrant an article, but I do not think an article on every murder victim is appropriate or desirable. WP:NOT states that subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. Worldtraveller 01:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. This was one of the first known cases were Oyster card use was used as eveidence against someone.
  2. It raised the issue of station security and how private companies where failing to keep rail users safe, even having Tony Blair promise to look into it as a result.
  3. The trial was one of the first to have the families of the victim to speak in court.
  4. David Cameron wrote an article on the issue and spoke out agaiant the governments handling of crime as a result.
  5. A charity has been formed as a result.
  6. Sir Ian Blair highlighted this case as an example of Institutional racism in the media.
Well theres more but should be enough.--FabioTalk 16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was Tom ap Rhys Pryce himself notable? Would he have merited an article if this terrible thing hadn't happened? Think forward a year - will the 700 or so murders that will have happened in the UK in that time have spawned 700 murder victim articles? Does someone automatically become notable if someone else kills them? How about the 15,000 US murder victims? 25,000 victims in Baghdad? 17,000 Colombians? All the references in the article cite news sources. To me that strongly indicates that this is a suitable subject for a news website but not for an encyclopaedia. Likewise with the other cases I mentioned, where if you read what I said you'll say I certainly didn't say I thought they deserved articles. Worldtraveller 11:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yeah, I misread that one line, apologies. Anyway, as per the question "Was Tom apRhys Pryce himself notable?" - That is a completely moot point - The article is named Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce. You're making a lot of "I don't like it" sounding arguments, and I still don't see a single guideline referenced in your arguments. Until a separate Wikipedia:Notability (news) is established with multiple editors bringing consensus (and that really isn't a bad idea, as Zunaid makes some good points below), I feel we should stick by the quidelines we actually have. -- Antepenultimate 15:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OK, you've come up with two latin legal terms, but still no guidelines that actually exist. That said, it probably is high time a Wikipedia:Notability (news) is created - you make some excellent points (although, in reality, I don't believe it very likely that anyone is apt to waste the time to make articles for "every news item" as you said, and such topics that are actually covered by multiple sources probably have merger potential for an existing article). Now, as for your delete vote - I still don't see any actual deletion criteria being applied here, as even you admit that this subject is encyclopedic in its way, and that the encyclopedic elements are present, although diluted. If you feel the article should be cleaned up, then tag it as such, discuss the issue on the talk page, and/or take a try at reworking the article yourself. Deletion of this article, at this point, would be little more than laziness. -- Antepenultimate 15:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there are currently no deletion criteria to apply to newsworthy topics. In the absence thereof I (and I'm sure many other editors) have to resort to long-winded arguments such as the above to explain our rationale. Remember the guideline are prescriptive, not descriptive and exceptions are allowed. This swings both ways: articles may be kept despite failing guidelines, and so too may articles be deleted without obviously failing any guidelines. My point about "every news item getting an article" isn't that editors will spend time creating them, it is that once created there is no possibility, via the current guidelines, for deleting them. As for your cleanup suggestion, my personal POV is to never !vote "keep and rewrite" on AfD's as far too many articles end up being kept without getting the subsequent rewrite done to them (there was some discussion about what to do about "keep and rewrite" on the Village Pump quite recently which touched on this very problem). Zunaid©® 09:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The conflation and confusion of news notability with encyclopedic notability is a major issue. I agree with Zunaid - almost all articles or reports in news channels are covered by multiple sources so even the most trivial or sensationalist human interest story can get a technical pass of current weak general notability guidelines. On another level we also need guidelines (I'm skeptical about leaving anything to "common sense") to start distinguishing between serious news items that are only of news notability and those that are also encyclopedically notable. These are not the same thing. News organizations have different functions and rationales from encyclopedias. Every murder or other major crime is serious and a "notable" event for police, the victims, the crime reporters - yes may even be asked in parliament or raised by some politician but that is a routine function of political systems (especially democratic ones) and not automatically an indication of encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a news report archive or a police report archive Bwithh 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's becoming clear to me that the real problem isn't neccessarily this article, but the lack of applicable guidelines for this type of article. Something should be done about that. In terms of this article, however - comparing this with a trivial or sensationalist "human interest" story isn't really fair, and I say that because this doesn't clear the "multiple independent source" requirement by having only two references - it has upwards of thirty, and there's no reason to assume that the list is exhaustive. Yeah, I know this could fall under "sensationalist" except for some items written above (and if sensationalism is a problem then we're going to have to start cocking our eyebrows at a lot of content within celebrity articles) that Zunaid admitted could have value. Now, as per the no Keep and Rewrite policy Zunaid has adopted, that is fine and it is his right to do so. I haven't had time to peruse the discussion at the Village Pump, but my opinion on this matter is that if less people simply stopped at giving instructions and more tried to follow through themselves - rather than expecting someone else to step up to the plate and do the dirty work - this would be less of a problem. If you feel strongly that something should be changed, I see no reason why you can't Be Bold and work on it yourself. Anyway, if someone would like to start up a discussion pertaining to getting a Wikipedia:Notability (news) policy put together, I would be happy to chime in. Some good discussion (IMO) has already taken place here, and if Zunaid can find other instances of similar AfDs, we may already have some precedents. Perhaps we can save everyone from having to resort to these long-winded explanations in the future. -- Antepenultimate 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment great exposition of the situation Zunaid. Though the list presented by Fabrib isn't designed to be exhaustive, I don't think point 3 is actually correct so that would only leave point 1 which isn't itself an indicator of the notability of this case. MLA 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Eitan[edit]

Wendy Eitan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nom & vote...
Del on this n-n figure's bio; only defenses against A7 & ProD were

(Notability claimed but is weak enough to warrant a prod)

and

(rm { {prod - Google shows few links for "Wendy Eitan". This may be biased, as we should search with hebrew alphabet.)))

--Jerzy•t 01:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complex conjugate root theorem[edit]

I have no idea what to do with this article. It was created at Conmplex Conjugate root Theorem, so I moved it to its current location. I also cleaned it up. The only problem is that the Google test totally fails, and the theorem is in any case a corollary of the fundamental theorem of algebra as stated in the article and in Polynomial. So we have a few options:

I abstain, because I can't decide. N Shar 01:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change Vote to Keep the article is no longer a stub and the nomination for AfD has been withdrawn. Jeepday 03:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The proposition in NOT a corollary of the fundamental theorem of algebra.
(2) Even if it, were, the fact that it is such a corollary would be far from the most important fact about it, perhaps harly even worth mentioning in this article.
(3) "Since when do corollaries merit articles on their own?" is colossally silly. Silly, silly, silly, silly. Whether a topic warrants an article has nothing to do with whether it is or is not a corollary of something else. Can anyone cite ANY article that got deleted because it's a corollary of something else? Michael Hardy 17:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rezayat compound[edit]

Rezayat compound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is a housing complex notable? Fails WP:RS and WP:N RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeqq[edit]

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

Contested speedy; procedural nom. Jeqq does not seem to pass WP:WEB -- delete from me. --Czj 01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 14:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funday PawPet Show[edit]

Funday PawPet Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources provided to indicate notability or any sources that show that is passes the web material guideline. This was previously nominated. brenneman 01:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


1,360 Google hits [11] , of which 330 are unique, does not strike me as passing a Google test for Web content.--Nydas(Talk) 15:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot to sign, sorry. However, I would also like to respectfully point out that the nominator's recent activity in WP:AFD suggests (and only suggests, mind) an overarching mindset against the so-called "Furry Fandom", to which this article could be considered a part of. Such a mindset is, by explicit description, not a valid reason to delete. I apologise to the nominator if this is not the case, but your contrib history this week certainly raises that as a valid concern. Arakunem 17:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jinen Ryu[edit]

Jinen Ryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giulliana Weston[edit]

Giulliana Weston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable model. The claim that she has been photographed for multiple magazines is probably correct, but there are only a handful of non-Wikipedia Google-hits of her. I'm open to anyone who can provide evidence of notability from outside the Internet. YechielMan 02:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zurich International Club[edit]

Zurich International Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:ORG. Promotional. Nv8200p talk 02:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Seventy[edit]

Cambridge Seventy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This "Cambridge Seventy" movement seems to utterly fail notability. Its best claim seems to be that a poster was hung in a residence dormitory. Google Search (after removing mirrors) seems to reveal nothing whatsoever that is relevant. If someone can actually find some sources proving that this even existed, that'd be nice, though I suspect it would still be non-notable. Cyde Weys 02:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afterhours fm[edit]

Afterhours fm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I originally tagged this with ((db-spam)) because it was entirely an advertisement, but it's been removed and rewritten a bit. Regardless, the article is not verifiable by reliable secondary sources. I couldn't find any via Google. --Wafulz 02:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate article:

Will add sources now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by H4ns9l (talk • contribs).

From what I understand Alexa rankings are based on sites accessed by IE. The AH community is made up of mainly computer savey users who use other browsers. --68.144.1.36 04:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some links for reference. Are they not good enough? Im still learning, trying to figure out how to make it look more professional. I dont see much difference between this and a site like Digitally imported whos only references link back to their own site. Please explain the problem better so i can make the necessary changes --H4ns9l 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't really "idependent sources" about the subject. Have a read through WP:WEB. If Digitally Imported doesn't get sources, I'll probably end up nominating it for deletion as well. Also, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). --Wafulz 21:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional expletives[edit]

List of fictional expletives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate, unencyclopedic list, with potential to grow forever. - ∅ (∅), 02:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 WSX television ratings[edit]

2007 WSX television ratings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

very crufty page for an upstart wrestling promotion. Had prod attached, but was removed. I can understand somewhat why TNA/WWE/WCW may have ratings pages (although maybe those should also be considered for deletion), but this promotion just started, and it just isn't needed. TV shows in general don't always have pages just for their ratings (not including those episode guides that have ratings intertwined. This page just isn't needed. Booshakla 02:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tallgeese[edit]

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

Non-notable fancruft and/or original research. Doesn't have a connection to reality as required by WP:NOT. Contested prod. MER-C 02:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of you have provided comprehensive evidence that the subject has any real world significance whatsoever, as required by WP:NOT#IINFO. Not to mention the lack of sources. This is merely a plot summary. MER-C 05:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INN. MER-C 07:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was merely answering Blaxthos' question, and wasn't using the articles I mentioned to support any view. Shrumster 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? There's still no assertion of real world significance or notability in the article. And how about rebutting the points in the nomination? MER-C 07:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete some, keep others. There seem to be consensus to delete Unity Area Ambulance, and Harley Street Ambulance Service. Mersey Ambulance Service, Staffordshire Ambulance Service and Surrey Ambulance Service are keeps. Schaefer Ambulance Service was not commented on much, so that is no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 18:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Area Ambulance[edit]

Unity Area Ambulance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local and regional ambulance companies Dicklyon 02:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles that all have the same non-notability problem:

Harley Street Ambulance Service
Mersey Ambulance Service
Staffordshire Ambulance Service
Schaefer Ambulance Service
Surrey Ambulance Service
Can you say what you'd be looking at in the others? I can't see where any of them make any claim to notability; the only links are their own sites. Dicklyon 04:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did a Google search on all of them and not all of them are open and shut non-notable. MER-C 05:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you volunteering to add the evidence of notability? Or are you saying we should be deleting non-notable police and education departments as well? Dicklyon 18:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After examining the recent changes to some of these articles, I'm quite sure that we've got apples and oranges together here. This is the problem with buffet-style AfDs like this. I would suggest to the nom that this AfD be withdrawn and new AfDs be initiated for the individual articles that s/he still feels are problematic. A Train take the 17:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added references to Staffordshire Ambulance Service to show the kind of coverage these organisations get in the UK - in national and local media. This were just a few I found from the 31,000 google hits. Other UK services may have less because they've only been in existence in their current form since last July - but that doesn't make them less notable. Madmedea 22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please, please can we unbundle the UK NHS ones from this AfD. If someone wants to nominate them separately then that's fine because I can provide plenty of non-trival 3rd party references for all of them in a discussion if it comes to that. But they should not be considered alongside services of a very different nature. Madmedea 10:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, I already linked our discussion in my comments above, so that people would know what you were able to find as evidence of notability. Please don't resort to personal attacks (calling my statement a lie is a personal attack). Dicklyon 02:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are proposing to delete these Ambulance articles then you better delete the other hundreds on Wikipedia:

Eric 01:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably see what we decide with the present list before expanding the scope of the AfD. Dicklyon 02:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And then when you get done destroying the hundreds of articles on Ambulance services, then you should go and propose deletion for all the police departments, and then schools, and pretty soon we will have all of Wikipedia tore down. Eric 03:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, I realize you haven't been at wikipedia for long, but you have a strange idea of how it works. I know you have put a lot of effort into removing spam links, and that's part of what it takes to keep wikipedia on an improvement trajectory. Removing unsuitable articles is another part. I have no intention of dedicating a lot of effort to it, but if I did, I might follow up your suggestion, since I agree that most such departments and organizations are in fact not notable according to wikipedia criteria. But the large number of articles presently escaping scrutiny should not in any way influence the action on these that are currently nominated AfD. Dicklyon 03:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gharrio[edit]

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

Self described neologism Goodnightmush 03:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrance Williams[edit]

A congressional page who also started a group in Michigan. nn. Just H 03:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scatha (band)[edit]

Scatha (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 03:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Federation of Teenage Republicans[edit]

Get 'em while they're young? nn. Just H 03:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Belton[edit]

Mark Belton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Please see the prior AfD; an overwhelming majority voted for delete but the discussion was ignored for procedural reasons. Sdedeo (tips) 03:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment the nominator of the prior AfD was User:Aqua Nation who is currently a banned sock of User:JB196. Signed Jeepday 03:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Planet (band)[edit]

Daily Planet (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band's main claim to notability is the theme song for a barely notable television show. When I Googled the band (a process complicated by the common nature of the name), I found one media mention which is mirrored on some other sites. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC, but there could be more info about there. janejellyroll 03:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are lesser known now, as I believe they are less active. That may be why it was hard for you to find much info on Google. Tim Long 03:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the theme song isn't their only significance. Check the links. If they weren't well-known at the time of their activity, I don't think Christianity Today and The Christian Post would have covered them. Tim Long 03:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Reunion Records is a major label with well-known artists. Tim Long 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's notability for Reunion Records, not for the band. janejellyroll 03:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if both albums were released on Reunion and it is a major indie label, then the band passes WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 10:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only their second album was on Reunion. Their debut came out on SPV. Caknuck 17:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Lind[edit]

Delete. 980 Ghits, of the results that relate to this Kelly Lind, most are from his own sites, MySpace, or the sites of his subjects. None show publication in mainstream magazines, gallery shows or anything notable consistant with WP:Notability. Ckessler

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Edward VI Five Ways school song[edit]

King Edward VI Five Ways school song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article gives the lyrics of the school song for the British school King Edward VI Five Ways. I first thought of merging but the school article is already pretty long and should not be burdened with this. I believe WP:NOT pretty much discourages such lyrics articles in any case. Pascal.Tesson 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the school's fairly long history, I doubt that there is still any copyright on this song, if there ever was. Pascal.Tesson 05:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If deletion is carried through, leave a note on my talk page, and give me a day to either squeeze it into the Five Ways page, or at the very least copy the lyrics onto my computer. Alex Holowczak 19:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Assuming it is in the public domain, why not Wikisource it? Tiakalla 07:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Because I didn't know that existed. If I add the category to the page will it avoid the page being deleted? Alex Holowczak 21:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Conservatives of California[edit]

Young Conservatives of California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The founder of Young Conservatives of California created a page for his organization as well as one for himself, as far as I can tell no reliable source exist on this topic and they do not meet WP:NOTE not to mention blatant WP:COI violation Daniel J. Leivick 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the creators page.
Brendan Steinhauser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Gogo Dodo 06:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shearman[edit]

Alex Shearman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

massively non-notable and/or vanity frymaster 04:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 18:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network (2nd nomination)[edit]

ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted through a mass-nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batang Kaharian, but this one was much fuller than the others, so listing separately. No vote. Chick Bowen 05:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claremont College Rugby Football Club[edit]

Claremont College Rugby Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable. frymaster 05:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RMS-099 Rick Dias[edit]

RMS-099 Rick Dias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced and non-notable fancruft and/or original research. Merely a plot summary, with no connection to the real world whatsoever asserted. Contested prod. MER-C 05:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSN-04 Sazabi[edit]

MSN-04 Sazabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced and non-notable fancruft and/or original research. Merely a plot summary, with no connection to the real world whatsoever asserted. Deprodded to add sources, but that was at least two weeks ago with no edits since then. MER-C 05:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by another admin. -- Gogo Dodo 06:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1/0 (literal translation)[edit]

1/0 (literal translation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I prod'd this article before I noticed that it had already been prod'd and deprod'd. Surely there's some speedy criterion that applies, but I'm not really sure which one. Clearly unencyclopedic in any case. Trovatore 05:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? Delete it again. MER-C 05:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1HOPE4U[edit]

1HOPE4U (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable music group, search returns only 264 Ghits [15], article resembles advertising.Candy-Panda 05:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boyz in the Sink[edit]

Boyz in the Sink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional music group. Candy-Panda 05:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan J. David[edit]

Aidan J. David (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

reason non notable actor no statement why he is important enough to have own article Oo7565 05:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep as having met WP:MUSIC. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deitiphobia[edit]

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

Non-notable music group. Candy-Panda 06:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep but source with WP:RS. No bais agianst re-nomination if sources are not found.. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Star United[edit]

All Star United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable music group, no sources besides the official website. Candy-Panda 06:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of crisis hotlines by country[edit]

List of crisis hotlines by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is obviously a collection of information, and the information by itself is not encyclopedic - plain and simple. I suggest deleting this article, and possibly merging the information somehow or throwing it all away. Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 06:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellaz Systems[edit]

Ellaz Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Insufficient assertion of notability, and does not appear to be actually sufficiently notable. Delete. -Nlu (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep, multiple releases per WP:MUSIC. Article tone and sourcing addressed during AFD. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altar Boys (2nd nomination)[edit]

Altar Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable music group, unsourced claims such as "The Altar Boys helped pioneer Christian rock music" Candy-Panda 06:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go Fish (Christian band)[edit]

Go Fish (Christian band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Candy-Panda 06:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Marshalls (Skating)[edit]

US Marshalls (Skating) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable figure skating competition. Marshalls Winter Event is what is commonly (and disparagingly) known to figure skating fans as a "cheesefest". It is a non-qualifying competition that does not matter except for TV ratings and so the skaters can make some money. It's a popularity contest, pure and simple, and its format, if you can call it one, depends entirely on what the TV executives want. It is not judges or scored by ISU rules and it is not a figure skating competition. It is a figure skating tv show, like Brian Boitano's Skating Spectular or Kurt Browning's Gotta Skate. The only difference is that this one has eligible skaters and pretends to be a competition. It should be noted that the spring event sponsored by Marshalls has given up the pretext of being a competition and has been just a showcase for the past two seasons. Awartha 06:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Relist all. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acar[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Articles fail to establish any encyclopedic notability. CyberAnth 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Taco salad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ambrosia (fruit salad) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Piyaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):
Bonjan Salad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Karedok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fattoush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Raheb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Failing that Keep on Piyaz, Acar and Ambrosia, delete on the rest. I have a feeling that Taco Salad is actually an American fast food invention, if that's the case then exploring that angle could be a reason for keeping it. Artw 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some information on taco salad here: [17] Sounds like that cookbook could be used as one source and there are probably others. Not sure it would be enough for notability or not so I have no vote Plymouths 23:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mindows[edit]

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

Neologism; the article says it's a term used to describe a minimal version of Microsoft Windows, but most references I can find to it seem to be misspellings of Windows, an intentional turning-upside-down of the W to make an M, or a portmanteaus coined by individuals (a Mac with Windows, e.g.). -/- Warren 07:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faithmouse[edit]

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

Non-notable, unreferenced, unverifiable article that is full of original research. /Blaxthos 08:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Gayme[edit]

Good Gayme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

First, Google turned up no results for the authors "Henrique Schadenfreude and Tony Kalifo PsyD." Second, the supposed series has not yet even been published, so even if this is real, I don't see how it passes WP:N. Third, the entire article is unsourced. Fourth, the "theory" section. Just read it. Come on now. janejellyroll 08:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, hoaxes are not eligible for speedy deletion. janejellyroll 09:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Circle Quest Alumni[edit]

List of Star Circle Quest Alumni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Star Magic Artists List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Star Circle Batch 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) added on 05:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

This is unencyclopedic list; no references, no explanations, no context, whatsoever. Wikipedia isn't a directory and a indiscriminate collection of information. PROD was contested. --Howard the Duck 09:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also added: Star Magic Artists List. A notice has been added at Philippine noticeboard. 09:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dicefreaks[edit]

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

The site has been nominated for one award at a regional gaming conference. I'm not sure if WP:WEB has been met because I am not sure how notable the actual award is. I had a dialogue on the talk page about WP:N and the only thing that can be pointed to is this single nomination, so I'm bringing it here for debate. janejellyroll 10:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to clarify that an ENnie is not a merely regional gaming award - it's the most important web-based roleplaying game award around. Note how Green Ronin also mentions it in its article. Also note how Dicefreaks has been mentioned on the Hag Countess article for a while, now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DDSaeger (talk • contribs) 12:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 07:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Waugh[edit]

A page on an individual of questionable notability - he might pass the test, but others need a look. Also, the author of the article is one User:Awaugh. You can do the math. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 14:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vorarephilia[edit]

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

Yet another paraphilia. Under a thousand Google hits, Google Scholar gives one passing mention (a single sentence in a single paper which alludes to it), Google News has nothing, Factive has nothing, the links at the bottom are not to reliable sources (only to forums and other cruft). So: a neologism, a fantasy fetish, and one which has little if any documentation in the relevant academic community. Sounds like sexcruft you say? You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  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 ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page 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 votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

((subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]))
  • Academically undocumented = unsourced, in this case. What do we use as reliable sources? Guy (Help!) 11:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been given all the rule books and it still makes no sense, what could be more a reliable than an actual voraphile talking to you right now? MJN SEIFER
  • I have seen the term voraphilia also being used to mean having a love for words. -- Jreferee 19:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are missing the point. There are no credible references for the term, it's a neolgism. We have deleted all sorts of articles on combinations of random latin words with -philia or -phobia attached, for exactly the same reasons. Where are the academic references which establish this topic? I found one paper, which had one paragraph that mentioned it with no real detail. Leaving aside the puppet parade above, where are the multiple non-trivial reliable sources? Guy (Help!) 11:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there another term for the concept? The fetish does exist, as has been established here, and this seems to be the best word to describe it. If the problem is that it’s a neologism, just redirect the article to a suitable pre-existing term. The fact is, the term exists on the Internet, and if someone comes across it, he’ll want to look it up. And again, where are the academic references for all the anime fancruft? Why shouldn’t the same rationale used for them be used here? —Frungi 13:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You are, mostly, correct in your understanding of the term vorarephilia and it's controversy here. This is called a neologism. Wikipedia has rules and guildlines for dealing with neologisms. The guidline in a nutshell as covered at the top of the page and states: New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term. If you follow the rabbit hole a little deeper you will also find the definition of what wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. I would recommend you read the entire guildline which can be found in the links I've provided to get a better understanding of why this articel fails to meet the standards of a wikipedia article. NeoFreak 01:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up. Given the definition of neologism (I particularly like: 'A meaningless word used by a psychotic.') and Wikipedia's guidelines towards their usage, I must unfortunately recant my previous keep request and agree with the delete option. While I personally believe that a decade of usage should be more than long enough to raise a term from being considered as 'new' to accepted, I could find no definitive rule to follow as to when a word would no longer be considered a neologism (despite a websearch of various online dictionaries). Therefore, it is up to the individual to make that decision and Wikipedia has the right to decide that for themselves. I am always quick to use Wikipedia as my initial reference source for information, often forgetting the encyclopedic nature of these services. For now, terms such as vorarephilia would probably be best left for dictionaries, despite my wishes for it to appear as an entry here. My only question would be on the validity of having entries for all of the other 'fetishes' listed at the bottom of the entry on Vorarephilia, where most of those have no scientific validation either. Amberax 02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Omega Sigma[edit]

Sigma Omega Sigma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject organisation is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia Wikipeterproject 11:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden gerson[edit]

Hayden gerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Little to no support for the claims of notability made in this article. Gerson has founded a MySpace group with 17,000 members - what do people think of this? The group's name, "People Helping People," is pretty generic and therefore hard to search for, but Google searching for "People Helping People" Hayden or "People Helping People" myspace doesn't turn up anything to show that the group has made an impact outside MySpace. Beyond this, the unsourced claims that this 23-year-old [22] real estate agent/mortgage broker is an "industry leader" and "an opinion leader in the field of finance" seem a bit exaggerated. Note: PROD tag removed by article creator, who supplied a couple of external links that are unfortunately not reliable external sources. FreplySpang 11:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD:A7. There was no claim of notability in the article.--Isotope23 17:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Rickard[edit]

Tony Rickard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obvious speedy deletion tag removed by an IP editor . . . so I'm sending it here. janejellyroll 11:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XBOY[edit]

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

Unverified rumor first propagated in '04 (debunked here), recently resurrected as an offshoot of Zune hype[23]. Unconfirmed rumor then, obvious hoax now. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing those up. Coincidentally, Xbox (handheld) was posted again; a couple of these titles need some serious salt'n. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect. - Daniel.Bryant 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spit roast (sex)[edit]

Spit roast (sex) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced stub concerning a neologism used to describe a sex position. The only outside source mentioned is a humorous digression in Kevin Smith's Chasing Amy, and in that instance the position is referred to by a different (though equally ridiculous) term. A charming rendition of the act, likely done up in MS Paint, does little to establish credibility. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mp-nuts[edit]

Mp-nuts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 12:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Sunday[edit]

Everyday Sunday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Candy-Panda 12:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JC Lamkin[edit]

JC Lamkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet notabiity guidelines of WP:BIO. Local radio personality with no significant media coverage other then blogs and a small mention in a national publication. Nv8200p talk 13:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Retain Entry This entry is a Peabody award candidate, civil rights activist and publisher of the social change website, WhatThePeopleREALLYThink.com at which she has covered stories such as "Katrina Survivors: An Update", Lybon Mabasa the President of Socialist Party of Azania, and Dick Gregory. Additionally, she has interviewed astronauts and CEO's. In summary, she has the most significant media coverage than any other entry on wikipedia.

Respectfully submitted,

Ken— Preceding unsigned comment added by KenHouston (talk • contribs)

Apparently the understanding of why I placed emphasis on the word "significant" has been lost, so may I clarify...in over the millions of entry that wikipedia has, you may find less than 5 figures who have done more to serve their country, community and the arts than JC has, i.e. "significant"

KenHouston 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Ha! Ironically, you were only able to name four figures (I specifically said"you may find less than 5 figures"...all of whom are dead. Furthermore, there is nothing subjective about my statements nor the article itself....everything I wrote was pure fact. She is an undeniable force in activism, media, and business. No person, dead or alive can say that. It's just the facts, Sir.

KenHouston 01:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reply to Weak DeleteCosmicPenguin

No offense but if ^that^ is your criteria then I am afraid that you are going to have to delete several entries for radio personalities from wikipedia because there are personalities listed here who, unlike JC Lamkin, have never had any notable interviews nor awards. They are much less noteworthy, have zero articles written regarding their work (via blog, newspapers, magazines or other). Nor do they cross professional, activist and artistic lines; yet they have been approved and warmly received on wikipedia. Let me know if you would like me to list their entries so that you may lobby to have them deleted, also.

Kind regards,

Ken— Preceding unsigned comment added by KenHouston (talk • contribs)

Comment To inundate wikipedia with entries in order to obtain a "keep" on any particular article would be a blatant offense under WP:POINT.Ohconfucius 03:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't think that I understand. The JC Lamkin article is the only entry that I've made to wikipedia.KenHouston 04:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood. However, each article is a stand-alone, so just because other crap exists, an article which does not meet WP criteria should not be spared. We do it all the time, so please feel free to nominate any candidates you judge "unworthy" stating your reasons, and they will be considered on their merits and on your arguments. Ohconfucius 01:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, she is an independent filmmaker. I thought that I pointed that out earlier, but this info must have slipped through the e-cracks because clearly there is an overabundance of information that proves that JC Lamkin is wikipedia-able (yes, I just made up a new word, but it fits right :-).

But, seriously...her most recent film "The Struggle for Safer Streets" is an entry in the Blacklily Film and Music Festival in the category of social change documentary. Here is a link to the Blacklily site for fyi purposes: http://www.blacklilyfilm.org

I probably should have mentioned that earlier, too; but frankly, she has so many achievements that I am an not quite certain which achievements I should list and which achievement will just piss off the editors (btw, she is a candidate for the Peabody in two categories, Public Service and Documentary ;-)

Kind regards,

Ken

Also.... Also, she has been nominated as one of Pennsylvania's outstanding technology individuals, again in TWO categories. More info: http://www.tccp.org/html/1,1128,gala_nominees,00.html

-Ken, again— Preceding unsigned comment added by KenHouston (talk • contribs)

The article is well written, but:

  • In the interests of transparency, Ken should declare his interest in the subject matter. KenHouston's only contributions are to the article in question, and to this debate; The photo in the article is listed as public domain and attributed to Ken Houston.
  • Gypsy Lane Technologies scores 164 Ghits, and the results show that it is a micro-enterprise which sells graphic design and computer training services, and which is engaged in community action (admittedly it won a $1000 prize from the Micro-enterprise boost program allowing it to purchase a video camera).
  • Women In Ministries scores 115 Ghits, most are for the generic use. The http://www.womeninministries.com site is down at the time of writing.
  • The Women's Opportunities Resource Center appears to be a cooperative local to the Philadelphia engaged in micro-finance, scoring 78 Ghits.
  • The Anita T. Connor Award does not appear to be a significant award. It scores 1 relevant Ghit
  • WhatThePeopleREALLYThink.com is unranked by Alexa
  • I find no articles on "Lamkin" on Bizwomen.com, whether for 2004, 2005, or 2006
  • the Bluetooth.org link is a personal blog of someone who was interviewed on "Technically speaking"
  • the USAToday article is a trivial mention per WP:N
  • nominations for awards don't count for much, only winning major awards do.

Conclusion: Delete, not a cat's chance in hell does the subject pass WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 03:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - 2.3 This number is big

"A commonly seen argument at AfD is "Subject has x number of y, that's notable". In fact, editors are fooling themselves if they think they know how many subscribers makes a notable journal on calligraphy, how much revenue makes a notable cardboard box producer, and how many pandas make a notable zoo. Not to mention the other 97 different 'big numbers' that could be used to justify arguing 'keep' in an AfD every day."

and 4.2 Google test "Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, these arguments should never be the only criterion for a deletion."


also, the as you call it "personal blog of someone who was interviewed on "Technically speaking" is actually the executive director of the Bluetooth special interest group...whose membership holds over 6000 major corps. Thanks. KenHouston 04:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


KenHouston 04:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: the link was not omitted - it gave a404 error message, so I performed new searches. Ohconfucius 01:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep "RE: WhatThePeopleREALLYThink.com unranked by alexa", I for one certainly hope that you are kidding by even mentioning the alexa ranking since WhatThePeopleREALLYThink.com is the ONLY internet resource available that captures exclusive and otherwise unavailable culture and social change initiatives and leaders...actually, come to think of it, the website itself should be a wikipedia entry, too.

KenHouston 03:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As an independent filmmaker whose film is appearing in a film festival, this entry meets the criteria KenHouston 03:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


KenHouston 04:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

she is listed as the producer and director in the closing credits. Regarding the other items in question, they are verifiable, if not metatagged by google then via email, phone, etc. At any rate, I'm going to stick with my original position ...."Keep" KenHouston 04:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep – PeaceNT 11:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Bad Pig[edit]

One Bad Pig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable music group. Candy-Panda 13:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted Gnangarra 19:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music Towers[edit]

Music Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not seems to satisfy WP:WEB Alex Bakharev 13:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 14:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A True Church[edit]

A True Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I previously deleted this article as a hoax. The original creator insists that it is not a hoax, so I have undeleted it and am bringing it here for discussion. The "pastor" of this "church" is "Darwin Fish", which is the first clue that it is a parody church (like Landover Baptist Church), not a real church. At any rate, the church's website gets 249 g-hits [25] and "A True Church" along with "Darwin Fish" gets 103 g-hits, mostly self-generated [26]. So whether the church is real or a parody, it does not seem notable. BigDT 13:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete sources in line with WP:N/WP:BIO would have helped here. W.marsh 16:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart R. Ross[edit]

Stuart R. Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

US businessman with weak notability against WP:BIO. He is credited with importing Smurfs to the US market IMDb "Trivia"; and with starting a TV channel. But he's not "a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works". The article was created by User:Intoon which is the name of one of his companies, so there's probably conflict of interest. Mereda 13:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA 07 English cup[edit]

FIFA 07 English cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Spurious vanity article - exactly zero Google hits Ian Cairns 13:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Conveys an Emotion[edit]

Eric Conveys an Emotion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Some humor web site. It had been around since 1998 and is defunct since 2004. Was tagged with a speedy deletion tag, but I figured since there were lots of editors and the article has existed for almost a year (and, 1998 is moderately old for a website) I should move this to AfD because with a wider audience, someone may be able to clarify. Mangojuicetalk 13:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't get. I see you changed your vote based on a nomination, but since when did nominations count for anything?? Ohconfucius 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fellow nominees in this case are quite remarkable. To be counted among them is significant, much more so than nominations for other kinds of awards. In my opinion, anyway. Mangojuicetalk 17:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you were the original nominator and you've changed your mind can't you just post that you withdraw the nomination and this will all be over? Plymouths 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Technically, no, since there has been at least one delete vote that hasn't been retracted. Mangojuicetalk 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baytown Bert[edit]

Baytown Bert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bio, self-promotion. Article created and only edited by the subject except for a ((wiki)) tag. Jay Maynard 13:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was transwiki to Wikibooks. Majorly (o rly?) 18:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sample chess game[edit]

Sample chess game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I found this page while going through the old Refreshing Briliant Prose pages. THis page is full of orignal resarch and has no citations. The few claims not based on the chess board are unverified. In additon, this looks more like a guide how to teech somone how to play chess. I believe that this falls under What Wikipedia is Not, as this is an example of a game of chess which tries to shoe people the basics of the game. The Placebo Effect 13:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It could be added as a chapter or subsection of Wikibooks:Chess, which is a really a beginners how-to book in itself. ~Matticus TC 17:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is surely not WP:OR nor "made-up game" - most of it (perhaps except few last moves) is one of the oldest chess analyzes in existence, done by Pedro Damiano already 500 years ago and since then cited without substantial changes. The whole game is probably taken from a chess book and looks like a standard introductory text without newly researched pieces of information. In fact it is not a "game" from the today's point of view, but rather a well known trap, already repeated thousand times against unexperienced players. I personally played the first moves for White at least three times, and the result was always similar.
  • This article is not a self-containig article, of course, but an important supplement to other articles. Let me allow to cite from its talk page: Some paper encyclopedias have full pages which are not mostly text: maps, or diagrams of the legislative process, or little picture galleries with examples of eight different kinds of lace, or whatever. In the more vertical (and more nonlinear) format of a web browser it makes sense to put things like this on their own pages, rather than break up the main text column with them (and they won't necessarily fit to the side of it). So not every Wikipedia page has to be exactly an "article". The page Sample chess game does not belong on Wikibooks because it is not a textbook or part of a textbook. Rather, it is a supplementary document for the encyclopedia articles Chess and Rules of chess. Such supplementary documents should probably never be given featured article status, since they are not encyclopedia articles per se (thus I oppose this nomination), but there is no good reason to delete them, or to transwiki them to other Wiki projects whose stated criteria they are equally unsuitable for, either. (If anyone wants to get gung-ho about every Wikipedia page being an article per se, rather than some pages serving subsidiary functions, they will have to delete or transwiki all "List of" and "Timeline of" pages, to begin with.) DanielCristofani 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding YechielMan's idea to replace the game with a well known master game: In my opinion it is better not to overload the excellent master games with comments for beginners. I think that this old trap, repeated thousand times against unexperienced Black players, is well chosen for the purpose.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opposition to keeping it rests with the original research problem. Providing reliable sources would remove that problem. If the article were trimmed down and sourced, it could be saved. Here are two sources: 1, and 2. YechielMan 19:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few article have links to wikibooks. I don't see how moving it their would be a problem. The only problem I have with this page is that it is not sourced and doesn't seem like something that should belong in any encyclopedia. The Placebo Effect 21:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just as much an example of what you can and should to do IF someone plays the opening. I feel that the source is stated, it's not going to be found at master level because it is known not to play that. It isn't in many books because the same can be said. Just because it doesn't fit like most articles/example on chess is because black has very limited amount of possiblities. It is still a very accurate and detailed example of how white must play to effectively get a checkmate without black balancing out. I vote to keep this article. I am teaching chess to children and beginners and there just isn't other sources out there that have this information. It is not a sample of any chess game that I'd want to play as black. It is obvious to even a beginner chess player that it isn't inaccurate. I vote to keep this article (not delete it completely) and allow it to be edited as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.144.101 (talk) 31 Jan 2006.

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

The result was keep, no consensus to redirect. Further redirecting can be discussed on the article's talk page etc. - Daniel.Bryant 22:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwinnett ARES[edit]

Gwinnett ARES (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

disputed PROD for local radio club delete Cornell Rockey 13:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

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

The result was qualified keep. Unlike its counterpart List of amateur radio emergency service groups, this article is not entirely made up of external links. However it is clear from the discussion that it is expected that external links should replaced by external links - the format should be along the lines of List of amateur radio organizations/Internal link version but without external links alongside each entry. Where possible a short stub detailing why the organization is notable should be created. WP:NOT#LINK is policy and cannot be overriden simply because editors find it incovenient. A stubs and lists with many redlinks are fine (Wikipedia is a work in progress), but link farms are not. WjBscribe 00:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of amateur radio organizations[edit]

List of amateur radio organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This has survived a previous AFD; See (previous AFD). Needless to say, consensus back then cannot overule core wikipedia policies on external links and what wikipedia is all about. The subject of the current article runs contrary to WP:NOT#LINK and WP:NOT#DIR. Plus, this page will not be complete. Instead of maintaining this page, create articles on notable amateur radio organizations and categorize them. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I commend you for your good work for that club... but what your suggesting would cause each sentence in the current article to become its own Article, how long till each of thoes Article were removed for lack of content? Simply put, what we have for now is the best solution. I have no objection for individual club members making articles such as you did and changing the link at that time. I dont believe removing this current list would be doing anyone a favour, esp. someone looking for a club near them. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 23:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have an AFD policy that cites an article should be deleted just because it is a stub. If it is a stub, it gives authors (and club members) the chance to improve it. As long as the club is notable, and has independent third party reliable sources, any attempt to AFD it will meet with failure. The list is NOT the best solution. It would have been different if it were a list of wikipedia articles, but a list of external links are a strict no no. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs are in fact encouraged as one of the good ways of building articles. DGG (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin: Voting may be influenced by posts to the relevant wikiprojects: [46] =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 18:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meatspace[edit]

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

Appears to be a dictionary definition. Notability in question. Navou banter 13:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep. (I am the nominator and an admin, so I suppose I will speedy keep this.) Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Olsen (Football)[edit]

Greg Olsen (Football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This has been speedy deleted twice for being a non-notable person. Please check User talk:Thomas.macmillan#Greg_Olsen for more information. I would like to come to a community consensus on this issue. Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mctaggart[edit]

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

Autobiography of a musician. Google hits give mostly credits on albums - looks like he's a session musician mostly. Was de-prodded by another editor because the article lacks sources (?). - IceCreamAntisocial 14:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, advert. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kernun firewall[edit]

Kernun firewall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally started out as borderline db-spam material but has since been reworked. However, it still shows little evidence of notability; kernun firewall returns just 74 unique Ghits. All but one of the links provided in the article are to the makers' websites and sites only marginally related. Article creator User:Trustednetworksolutions was blocked shortly after creating the article due to a commercial username, but appears to have created a new account User:Pepino Vavra to continue editing, which brings up WP:COI issues. Contested prod. ~Matticus TC 14:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete, CSD A7. -- Steel 15:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caliber for the Heroes[edit]

Caliber for the Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not found, google search found insignificant and insufficient data to provide rationale for article --Janarius 14:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 15:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian L. French[edit]

Brian L. French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

lacks notability Mayumashu 15:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AOTurkey[edit]

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

Non-notable malware. References verify that it exists; beyond that the rest is mostly unverifiable. The article was speedily deleted a few times, contested prod. Weregerbil 15:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FHM High Street Honeys I Touch Myself controversy[edit]

FHM High Street Honeys I Touch Myself controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is probably original research, it's unverifiable, and there are no reliable sources cited. It appears to be either an essay, or an article written as such. SunStar Nettalk 15:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WORKSsitebuilder[edit]

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

Notability has not been aserted and neutrality may not be given. Tikiwont 15:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately didnt put in any sales patter as I didnt want this to be seen as an advert. However I am happy to extend the product details to have a list of features and functions in-line with some of the open source offerings if that makes more sense? mememan
With point (2) I actually wanted to say: shed light on the whole Category Content management systems, but unfotunatly did I mark this up in the text, so it wasn't visible. Tikiwont 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. —xyzzyn 15:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge if there's anything worth merging. I'll redirect the page to Serbian Radical Party, so any editor can add in stuff in. Majorly (o rly?) 18:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serb Montenegro[edit]

Serb Montenegro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is solely about a single mention of one foreign to Montenegro political party that wins less than 1% of the votes in Montenegro itself. The whole article is about one sentence mentioned by members of an ultra-nationalist party in a foreign country in a single interview. This fictive "demand for autonomy" has never ever been mentioned outside of that interview. You may notice that the article's only source is a direct report to that single sentence. If we keep on going like this, then we should have an article for every thing invented in the South Park series. Truly. :) --PaxEquilibrium 20:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nolej Studios[edit]

Nolej Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nolej Studios) ended in no consensus with very little participation. The article is about a very minor company with no claims to notability and no WP:RS about it. It exists, but that's about it. Fails WP:CORP. Most of the about 300 Google hits[47] are bannerswaps, weblistings, directory entries, ... Fram 16:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ananse International Film Festival of Ghana[edit]

Ananse International Film Festival of Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reads like an advertisement - article creator's only other contributions insert mentions of this festival into other article. Google search on term brings up no returns, search on "Ananse International Film Festival" returns 13 unique on 28 total. Non-notable, Delete TheRealFennShysa 16:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troubled mind[edit]

Troubled mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

First off, the article is almost unreferenced. It uses a MySpace page as its only reference. Second, the "notable work" Play takes you to the Wikipedia page describing what a play is. In the disambig page, I don't see anything that stands out as the "Play" that this article describes. I say Delete. Diez2 16:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old House Woods[edit]

Old House Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Earlier prod removed without comment by creator (whose only edits are this article). It had been tagged "WP:NOR, WP:V, Wikipedia is not for stories told around the campfire at summer camp." I agree. Mereda 17:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 18:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

$pread[edit]

$pread (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

This article serves no purpose other than self-promotion for $pread Magazine. I nominate for speedy deletion. It is nothing more than spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturo2007 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 28 January 2007

It's silly to delete this article. I just found it while doing research on sex workers. There's not a lot on Wikipedia on the topic and most of it is "up for deletion" because people have political problems with one side of the issue or another. I imagine that's what is going on here. There are many magazines and for-profit entities that are listed in Wikipedia. Why not this one? It won the Utne award, so it must be relevant in the indy scene. It's noteworthy in and of itself that prostitutes are producing it.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Pie Presents: Fraternity Row[edit]

American Pie Presents: Fraternity Row (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am proposing deletion of this articled because it is one sentence about a movie which may not even exist (I couldn't find an IMDB page). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catriona Grant[edit]

Catriona_Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

Strong keep I have recreated this article again, however it gets speedily deleted sometimes within minutes of creation. Catriona Grant is a well known political figure in Edinburgh and socialist politics. I have nominated this for deletion only to try to have a proper discussion about whether this should be kept or not.Ms medusa 15:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect. Majorly (o rly?) 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Me Down[edit]

Hold Me Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no sources listed, no content with referances. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alankc (talk • contribs).

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indie911[edit]

Indie911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an ad, not an article. Funkbomb 19:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Max[edit]

James Max (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only contestants who win a reality show, or who have a noteable media career afterwards and/or before, recieve their own articles Dalejenkins 18:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible[edit]

The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

POV/forking, article content is covered in several other articles (already have too many LDS movement articles) gdavies 01:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative KeepChanged opinion to Keep based on discussion with nominator below.
--Richard 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator, please provide list of other articles which cover this content. Also, please explain the charge of POV forking (i.e. from what article is this a POV fork?). Lastly, I dispute that there are too many LDS articles. Would you argue that there are too many Catholic articles? --Richard 08:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Book of Mormon, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, Standard Works, Criticism of Mormonism, and Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible are the main ones. The article is basically a "Criticism of the Book of Mormon with regard to the KJV" (with only one source and serious POV concerns). This could be considered a POV fork from Criticism of Mormonism, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, or Book of Mormon. Unless we can get a whole lot more sources and bring it into conformance with NPOV, I think it definitely needs to be deleted. gdavies 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, I disagree. I've looked at the articles listed above and my general conclusion is that the article nominated for deletion is not a POV fork (i.e. it is not an article created to push a POV that is not included in another article). The POV (that there are similarities between the Book of Mormon and the KJV) is represented in all relevant articles and this article is a subsidiary article to Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. Thus, this is not a POV fork.
I don't particularly like the naming conventions used in the various titles and I suspect some restructuring of content between articles might be an improvement. However, I don't see these as arguments to delete the article nominated here. --Richard 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, I'm fine if we keep it, I just wasn't sure if sufficient third party sources had written about it to justify its inclusion as a separate article. It's not so much a POV that there are similarities between the BofM and the KJV but what these similarities might mean/how they got there that is a little slippery in my mind... the article seems to exist merely to provide more detailed arguments against the historicity of the BofM based on these similarities... While I think the content could be covered more lucidly and in better conformance with NPOV in the body of Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, I wouldn't have a problem with a well-sourced and more detailed article (emphasis on the well-sourced). If sources can't be found for the body of this article, I think that it should be shortened substantially (to avoid the appearance of a usenet discussion with little more than unsourced arguments/counterarguments). gdavies 01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, I have no problem with keeping it. The problem I see is that it's sort of a side issue that hasn't gotten a lot of attention (only a handful of edits since it split off) and by its nature is difficult to find sources. gdavies 19:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if not now, later someone will make an article about the Linguistic Analysis of the two texts (or more specifically, about the first text and its sources in the second text). The subject matter discussed is valid, interesting, documented elsewhere, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, i.m.o.

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

The result was keep per consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Old-Time Gospel Hour[edit]

The Old-Time Gospel Hour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable program, has few links to it. Candy-Panda 12:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Williams (Scunthorpe United Footballer)

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. -- Longhair\talk 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paper cup[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Wehwalt 18:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vasko Tomanov[edit]

Speedied and then contested, I see no credible claim to WP:BIO here. As it was contested though I will give this the benefit of a community discussion.--Isotope23 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John-Paul Wilkins[edit]

John-Paul Wilkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local politician. Previously a local councillor, no longer since May 2006. Google returns very few matches, no significant media mentions. David Edgar 18:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet Relay Chat clients[edit]

List of Internet Relay Chat clients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is (almost) merely a list of external links. Wikipedia is not Yahoo – Ezeu 18:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no version of this article asserted notability. NawlinWiki 19:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EPW[edit]

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

I originally prodded this, but the prod was removed by a different editor who replaced the text with what it is now. There used to be a lot more to this. In any case, it used to appear to be unsourced crystal ballism, now appears to be unsourced with no claim to notability. Despite the fact it is probably speediable in its current form, there are better articles in the history of the page. J Milburn 18:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:SPEEDY criteria A1 or A7, or the previous version about the stick figures would probably be G11 or A7. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above. --Sable232 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 15:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aullay[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional creature. Prod contested by author. Sable232 19:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask it why[edit]

Ask it why (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Speedy tag was removed by someone claiming the band was "most influential" but had nothing to back it up. Sable232 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 15:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monster Hunter Monsters[edit]

List of Monster Hunter Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I used a ProD tag, but it was contested by a IP user. My reason for nominating this page is simple: It reads like a game guide and is a list of monsters from a minor series of video games, which Wikipedia is not. Lists like these have appeared on the game's articles before, and are always deleted for the same reasons, so why should an article be made for it? SuperDT 19:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punzhu puzzles[edit]

Punzhu puzzles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem like there's a sufficient assertion of notability for this publishing company. Author correctly points out that Dell Magazines could use more sources, but that company is an offshoot of the well-known major US publisher Dell Publishing. No independent sources given for this one. NawlinWiki 19:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"...a sufficient assertion of notability" might have been addressed in recent changes to article deletion notes. In short, no Internet search (using various terms/phrases) on either firsts mentioned in proposed article resulted in any company or entity other than Punzhu Puzzles. I agree that Dell Magazines is indeed a large and well known U.S. publisher, and through their Wikipedia article you may visit their site to purchase their magazines, but is producing a product for profit (their firsts) more notable than providing various puzzle magazines for free? Or more notable than providing a copyright grant to freely share/copy puzzle magazines with others? I don't know. --Nanaimobar 21:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Edge[edit]

Michael Edge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN singer/songwriter per WP:MUSIC, no sources. Contested prod. Delete. Mangojuicetalk 19:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arkona (Russian band), Arkona (band)[edit]

Arkona (Russian band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arkona (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence that this band meets WP:MUSIC; no assertion that their three albums were released by anyone other than themselves. Was speedied and restored by another admin, so bringing here. NawlinWiki 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Sorrowful God
  2. Voiceless Void
  3. Orcish Blood
  4. Arfael
  5. Ordalion
  6. Mor
  7. Black Obelisk
  8. Cerber
  9. Pagan Reign
  10. Kuwalda
  11. Serpens
  12. Umbral Presence

Note that the earliest release of the label was in 1999. I move to withdraw the deletion nomination. Óðinn 07:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and here are the "multiple non-trivial published works"

In English[edit]

  1. here
  2. here

In French[edit]

  1. here
  2. here
  3. here

The publications in Russian are so abundant that I won't even list it here. The point is: the band is known worldwide.Óðinn 08:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was:Speedily deleted - vanity. - Mike Rosoft 17:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baumer ( M.F.J.B.)[edit]

This seems like a vanity page Definitely not notable. Postcard Cathy 19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete A7. - Daniel.Bryant 21:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James gatewood[edit]

James gatewood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I cannot find any confirmation for a famous rapper/ rock star/ adult film director with this name. I suspect this article to be a hoax. FisherQueen (Talk) 19:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 17:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royaldutchshellplc.com[edit]

Royaldutchshellplc.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article poses all sorts of problems with WP:COI and WP:OR because it was written by the website owner. It is also an attack site. However, in my view the test is notability. The URL has some notability because Shell went to court to try to obtain it and lost, which was reported widely. Does this mean that the WEBSITE on the url gets automatic notability and inclusion? Problematic: on one hand it had to have some content to win the court case, on the other hand I cannot see much discussion of the website itself as opposed to the URL case. Opinions welcome: especially if we keep this article advice on whether it should discuss the site the URL or both! BozMo talk 20:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the co-owner of the website and author of the article which is the subject of this proceeding. The website, its owners, and the domain name have been mentioned or the subject of numerous news or feature reports by major news organisations and news publishers e.g. The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Times, MSN Money, Yahoo, Reuters, The Gulf Times etc, plus many other publications and major websites around the world operating in many languages. The site has also been recommended by Fortune Magazine/MSN Money as one of two websites for information about Royal Dutch Shell Plc: the other site being shell.com. I will supply links tomorrow. The reports and the content of the Royaldutchshellplc.com article provide information on which a judgement over notability can be made. A further extensive article about the website and its owners is due for publication in a global specialist magazine within days, hopefully in time to be taken into account. It appears that the site will receive over 2 million hits this month. I will provide the exact figure on Thursday and will be able to provide proof on request. The website is also involved in multiple High Court Injunctions brought collectively by eight Royal Dutch Shell companies against a Shell reserves whistleblower Dr John Huong in respect of articles published under his name on our website. The defamation and other proceedings are not against us. However, a High Court hearing is due on 8th February when an application will be heard for my war disabled father, Alfred Donovan, who will be 90 in April, to travel to Malaysia to be cross-examined. The hearing will also deal with an application by Shell for Dr Huong to be imprisoned for contempt. I am not sure if the court proceedings are relevant, but I thought it best to disclose this in view of the imminent hearing. The vast majority of articles about Shell posted on our website are from major news organisations. I will try to calculate a percentage figure but it is probably above 97% overall. We have a Live Chat box which is used frequently by site visitors. Some Live Chat postings are anti-Shell. Some are anti-Donovan. All remain on display. Shell has an open invitation to supply rebuttals to any articles authored by us which we have promised to publish unedited. The site is entirely non-profit with no adverts, no subscription or any other fees; no donations are sought. We have operated websites relating to Shell for many years and have never approached them to sell domain names or anything else. Even if much of this information is not directly relevant, it might be of some assistance in considering issues. User JohnaDonovan: 23.55, 29 January 2007.

Thank you for your friendly way of dealing with this matter. I had returned just to mention for the record that we publish all news stories about Shell, positive and negative. However, I will briefly respond to some of the points you have made. I will later today provide links to other articles mentioning or focused on the website. With regards to alleged stealing of ideas, Shell settled our first three UK High Court actions against them for 260,000 UK pounds plus costs. We also received a letter of apology from a Shell Chairman, Dr Chris Fay, for the way we had been treated. I doubt if you want to know more, but I will happily supply further information on request regarding why we still feel aggrieved and continue to exercise our right to criticise Shell on our website. Unfortunately it is a long drawn out saga stretching over a decade. Shell is free to sue us for libel if anything we allege on our website is without foundation. User: JohnaDonovan: 00:40, 30 January 2007.

John, that would be good - If you can show that the site satisfies the WP:WEB requirements particularly with verifyable references from reliable sources I'm happy to revisit my opinion during the 5 days of this discussion - Peripitus (Talk) 03:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the record on the article discussion page shows, I was up front from the outset in June 2006 in admitting bias and have on at least two occasions requested that someone else should redraft the article. There was mention at that time of it being deleted. I do not recall how far the process went. If it did go to a vote, that presumably is on the record somewhere. I said that I would accept a decision to delete without rancour and that remains my position. I will post the promised links later today. User: JohnaDonovan. 08.44, 30 January 2007.

Sure. I think it didn't go for a vote then: there was a mal-formed request for comment and I have hesistated a long time on an AfD.--BozMo talk 09:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extract from the comments of "Stephen Parnell" on 27 January: "I am not a Wiki editor and am relatively inexperinced as a contributor so I will leave further comment and action to those who are. But I would hope and expect that those who run this excellent website would remove your trivial and prejudiced entry as soon as possible." It appears that he has decided - assuming he is a male - that it was not safe to leave it to more experienced contributors. Of course he is perfectly entitled to vote, but anyone who has read his less than diplomatic comments on the Royaldutchshellplc.com discussion page would have no doubt about how he would cast his vote, no more than they would about how I would vote. It is regrettable that he has still not had the good grace to apologise for his ill-tempered accusations against me which he now knows were completely untrue. I find it very disappointing in view of the universal good tempered, often constructive dialogue which I have previously found in encounters with all other Wikipedians. It seems fair to say that he and I do not get on. User: JohnaDonovan. 13.15, 30 January 2007.

Rather than clutter up this page with a list of links, I have compiled a list on a separate webpage. Apologies at the time taken to provide the links promised above, but other events intervened, coincidentally including a long interview with a journalist from a quality national newspaper. The contact results from the Prospect article. The intention is to publish a story about the website and the Sakhalin-2 connection this weekend. I have the emails confirming this development. However, on past experience the story could be spiked for any number of reasons, so both this and the other pending article mentioned above should obviously be entirely discounted from consideration at this time. I assume that if a collective decision to delete is made, then I could resurrect the article at a later date and provide evidence of further publication of major articles to support the claim of notability. If on Thursday the preparation of the weekend article is progressing and is likely to be published, I may ask for a delay in the decision process until Monday so that the article can be taken into account. User: JohnaDonovan. 22.00, 30 January 2007.

Promised website stats for January 2007: Traffic viewed: Pages: 1,211,211: Hits: 2,046.347. Articles about Shell and related matters from independent news sources published on website since its inception: 12,800 approx. Articles authored by the Donovan’s which could therefore be considered biased: 300 approx. I estimated that our articles accounted for 3% of all articles published on the site. That was about right. User: JohnaDonovan. 16.15, 1 February 2007.

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

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 17:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gunther Eysenbach[edit]

Gunther Eysenbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Questionably notablility. This page seems to be a vanity article. Google pages on person seem to also be created by him. This biography was created by him -- Wikipedia strongly discourages Wikipedia:Autobiography Partex 20:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected to Fools and Heroes. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR as everything else is already done. Serpent's Choice 06:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summerfest (LARP)[edit]

Summerfest (LARP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

If this article contained only notable information, it would never progress beyond a stub. This is better off as a paragraph in Fools and Heroes. Quentin Smith 20:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Bastard's Day[edit]

Saint Bastard's Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable. Three Ghits for "Saint Bastard's Day" and one for "St. Bastard's Day", and two of those four are this WP article. Seems to be a WP:NEO. Gimmetrow 21:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Syndasound[edit]

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

Non-notable company. 403 hits on Google[52]. No incoming links. No references. Fails WP:CORP.—Ketil Trout 21:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstborn (band)[edit]

Contested Speedy, I thought I've give it the benefit of a community review. This is a procedural nomination; on the face of it they don't appear to meet WP:MUSIC but I didn't dig down too deep.--Isotope23 21:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect all to H engine. Majorly (o rly?) 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H-block[edit]

H-block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

fails WP:CRYSTAL. Redirect to H engine, the original target. — Swpb talk contribs 22:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as redirects, recommend Delete for all 3. — Swpb talk contribs 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Bloom[edit]

Nicole Bloom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN college student/climber. Main assertion of notability is that she died relatively young in a climbing accident. Fails WP:BIO and WP is not a memorial. Very few of the external links are about her, and only sources are death notices from local and college newspapers. "Nicole Bloom" michigan gets around 120 Ghits. Booshakla 22:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look at WP:BIO more closely, does she meet any of it? Not even close. College students die all the time, and memorials are up for just about anyone. This is not even close to being notable. Booshakla 03:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response. A couple of points need to be clarified. First, what consitutes a "non-trivial" publication? We articles from a student paper and an unaffiliated local paper. Also, what is a newsworthy event? A hiking accident may or may not be newsworthy, depending on factors such as where it occurred. Third, what is the relevance of the biographical material? You see it as a memorial, but maybe it's appropriate context for the accident and the Nature Conservancy memorial. To some extent, I'm playing Devil's Advocate, because by a strict reading of the rules it should be deleted. However, I'm leaning more toward a "no consensus" approach. YechielMan 05:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colossal (band)[edit]

Colossal (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable band, entirely unreferenced RHB Talk - Edits 22:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis mp3 Player[edit]

Curtis mp3 Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a large/popular make of mp3 player, no sources/external links Tom H 22:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of software engineering[edit]

Criticism of software engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Please! do I even have to give a reason here? WP:NOR, WP:NPOV not notable. Why not have a criticism of existence while we're at it? Article has had tags on it for months with no discernable improvement Rumpelstiltskin223 22:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voter's Mind[edit]

Voter's Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I've looked for reliable references but can't find anything that will satisfy WP:SOFTWARE or WP:WEB. In fact I can't any references at all; Google only points to the official page. Prod removed by Ktitus14 without comment. Marasmusine 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.--Jersey Devil 02:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WKWL[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable, no reliable sources found. Only Myspace site and an angelfire page found on Google. Readro 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Kentucky Wrestling League is a completely notable wrestling promotion. I'm the owner, Dillon Scarbrough, AKA Michael Hickenbottom, and I'm working on completing this article myself. I will get the proper notations and cites in order. HBKidJr 19:27, 29 January 2007

DO NOT DELETE How is it that WWE or TNA or any other wrestling promotion can have their own site discussing the history of it's business, but I can't? Yes I am the owner, but no, this isnt for self promotion. Please allow me the time to complete this article before it's deleted. After I'm done, if it's still not up to standards, remove it with my permission. If I wanted to self promote, I wouldn't choose Wikipedia to do it with. I wanted to show the history and passion of this independent wrestling promotion. I'm a new user, let me get familiar with the functions and it will be corrected.HBKidJr 19:39, 29 January 2007

ReplyI'm the person that runs the league, yes, but if you read, you will notice that I haven't bashed any other promotions or been biased in any manner. I've edited this in a completely informative way. .HBKidJr 19:46, 29 January 2007

Reply These WKWL pages hurt no one and are informative to the people in the Fulton County, KY area. They just don't happen to be important to anybody debating this on here, therefore they must be deleted. There's no article on Fat Krakker because I haven't had a chance to edit it yet. It WAS coming. If you notice, the article on Hickenbottom isn't finished yet, nor is the official article on the WKWL. Just because we don't sell out huge arenas doesn't mean we don't deserve a spot on this website. No, we're not listed under independent promotion lists because I don't have a promoter's license, however, I can still operate under conditions of law because I don't charge admission. I come from a small town, therefore the newspaper doesn't have an archive of news articles, but I have a feeling that even if it did, it wouldn't matter. I could post a link to a scan of the newspaper articles from the area, but it wouldn't really matter.HBKidJr 23:59, 29 January 2007
Added Link I added a link to the page that references us as a wrestling federation. It's been listed on the Backyard Wrestling Link since 2001. .HBKidJr 00:47, 30 January 2007

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn, no delete vote – PeaceNT 07:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from free will[edit]

Argument from free will (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is completely unreferenced and is really OR. It should be properly sourced or deleted.NBeale 22:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of this AfD debate the article has now been refed and has (currently) 9 references. This is what I had hoped would happen. I withdraw my nomination for deletion NBeale 16:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD “debate” consisted of you nominating the article for deletion, and everyone else saying it should be kept. In that respect, it seems that nominating the article for deletion was a little extreme, especially since it is obvious that the article is not (and never was) OR. If you really want references added to an article, the correct procedure is to add the Unreferenced tag. 17.201.38.216 21:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep PeaceNT 13:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visual modularity[edit]

Looks like a research article for an academic publication rather than encyclopedic entry Alex Bakharev 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the subject original research or just the current text ?If just the current form then edit with an axe !.It does appear to be a real term used in cognative/vision psychology, with numerous articles. I don't know enough to be able to make the article balanced but it does look largely like it just needs expert attention. It's noted in [56],[57],PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1990, Volume One: Contributed Papers (1990), pp. 365-378, Visual Cognition (DOI:10.1080/13506280444000454) and numerous other places. 4 Google scholar hits and 4 in google books is not large but is certainly seems to be real, used and and worthy of an article Peripitus (Talk) 03:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David Eppstein, I have made changes to the introduction and scrapped the summary on your suggestion. --Neuropsychology 11:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster Squad[edit]

Disaster Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

independent film shown only in Cleveland, Ohio Donald Albury 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. However, I'll leave this as a redirect so someone else can add any relevant information. I could see nothing that was sourced. Majorly (o rly?) 18:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesy Poofs[edit]

Cheesy Poofs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable piece of television trivia that is not the subject of reliable, independent, third-party sources. Fails WP:N and WP:FICT. Chardish 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess I mean Merge. And I forgot to sign again. Arakunem 17:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Bunglais[edit]

Contested speedy Alex Bakharev 23:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of armies by name[edit]

List of armies by name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list serves the same purpose as a category with little room for expansion. Lists are helpful when they arrange data in ways that it cannot be arranged in a category, when they contain substantial numbers of redlinks to assist with article creation, or when they contain data that cannot be expressed in a category. But none of those really seem to apply here. BigDT 23:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Bucketsofg 18:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O Zittre nicht, mein lieber Sohn[edit]

O Zittre nicht, mein lieber Sohn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I can hardly imagine, that an article about a single aria out of a larger opus would meet any notability criteria - though Wikipedia:Notability (music) does not even mention arias. Yet: Lyrics belong in WikiSource, but tend to be copyright violations and Songs are not generally notable, and should be listed under album or artist as appropriate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Music) FordPrefect42 23:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Wiki policies (deletion, notability, etc.) but I found this article to be very useful. It was exactly what I was looking for: technical discussion and lyrics. I hope it stays somewhere (Wiki or WikiSource(?)), as long as it's easy to find again, at least with a hot link from a non-deleted, more notable topic page ("Magic Flute"? "Der Holle Rache ..."?). As far as copyright is concerned, isn't a libretto from 1791 out of copyright? I suppose a particular translation might be copyright protected (if less than 95 years old) but I don't know the source of the one supplied on the main article page.AdderUser 13:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The five lines of useful information might easily incorporated in the article about The Magic Flute. The lyrics should not be in wikipedia at all, but rather in wikisource, because it is the right place for it. Copyright matters are not the main point here, but you got it completely right: the original text is in the public domain, but the translation cited here is copyright protected (cf. [61], scroll down to the very bottom). --FordPrefect42 17:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started and wrote most of this article. I believed (and still do) that the lyrics fall under fair use, but if not, I'd be willing to get rid of the translation. The lyrics themselves are no longer copyrighted, as noted below. Many musicians, myself included, find it very helpful when an article about an aria (especially on wikipedia) includes the lyrics. Musical scores normally do not have the lyrics organized aside, only under the appropriate notes. This format makes it easier to study, analyze and perform better. Also, I believe that the aria is famous enough to deserve its own article. True, the gist of it could be put into the Magic Flute article, but when an aria is famous enough, it deserves its own article. There's a reason why there's an entire "Arias" category in wikipedia. In short: 1) This arias is famous enough to have its own article 2) This aria is sure complex enough to be analyzed in much greater detail, thereby needing more focus by future editors to expand it which I believe can only be done in a stand-alone article 3) if the translation of the lyrics is indeed copyright violation and not fair use I'd be happy to remove it, perhaps supplying my own translation. This article should not be deleted. John Holly 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Can you find a non-copyright or appropriately licensed (GPDL, Creative Commons, etc)? Can you provide some references showing its notable place as a distinct piece in and of itself? Vassyana 11:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-copyright or appropriately licensed version of the lyrics translation? I guess that scouring the library for at least a distinctly old libretto translation could help; I myself cannot do that any time soon. The rest of the questions refers to references indicating the aria's notability? I'm afraid I cannot at the moment. Given enough time I could reference at least a couple of books. It'll be easy to just point out that every musical dictionary enlists this aria (along with Der Hölle Rache, Isis und Osiris and Die Bieldnis as notable arias) under The Magic Flute as a notable aria. Musical dictionaries might also mention this aria as an entry, being the first classical aria to use the F6 note. John Holly 14:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. No point deleting useful information. Kla'quot 06:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, just to make my point clear: The lyrics should not appear in Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is no source book. A link to WikiSource or the Aria Database is sufficient. "Source text generally belongs on WikiSource." (cf. What Wikipedia is not). For the rest of the article: keep by merging into The Magic Flute, but delete this article. This aria is certainly not outstanding enough to legitimate splitting up the information about the Magic Flute into various mini articles. --FordPrefect42 12:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete--Jersey Devil 06:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CRKD[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Prose is not NPOV, and generally it seems like an unencyclopedic article. Readro 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

   If the prose is changed to NPOV, will it be passable on wikipedia?Raysaagar 15:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Can we rewrite this article, so that it will not be deleted ?Kishan4uall 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to rewrite it at any time during this proccess. Iced Kola(Mmm...) 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have rewritten much of the page into what we hope is NPOV. is the content exceptable? raysaagar
   we're not using it as free webspace. its a article in creation, its not completed yet.Raysaagar 15:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Leventhal[edit]

Jonathan Leventhal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy A7 because he's apparently designed games and won an award. Looking closer, it turns out that the games are redlinked, and the award was from some film school. Googling this name brings up MySpaces and blogs, and the nature of the content suggests this is a WP:AUTO case. Steel 23:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Judy Blume Diary[edit]

The Judy Blume Diary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable blank journaling & calendar book, despite the quotations included. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sailor[edit]

Hello, Sailor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable; not closely associated enough with Zork to be merged and redirected. --Yath 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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