< January 8 January 10 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Per criterion a1 Robdurbar 10:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of licensed Risk game boards[edit]

List of licensed Risk game boards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I do not see the use of this list. FirefoxMan 23:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is a work in process. I believe the talk page outlined what I was planning to do. Regardless, I am trying to imitate the List of licensed Monopoly game boards article, in order to bring the Risk (game) article up to GA/FA status. b_cubed 00:08, 10 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 07:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChessDB[edit]

ChessDB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

a google search of ChessDB [1] returns not more then 500 pages. Further more this project was started on 13 dec 2006 which makes me think that the guy uses wikipedia to advertise his product. KaiFei 12:35, 9 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 07:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misfile[edit]

Misfile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Comic doesn't assert notability that would qualify under WP:WEB. While it has a number of books published, Amazon doesn't carry them. Brad Beattie (talk) 00:05, 9 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 07:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluble[edit]

Fluble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article's claim to notability under WP:WEB is publication in a student newspaper, which may be insufficient. However, a google search turns up only 735 hits. Brad Beattie (talk) 00:09, 9 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 即時削除 (G1)--Húsönd 00:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

早速ですが[edit]

早速ですが (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I tried putting the ((notenglish)) tag on this to have it translated from Japanese, but an editor removed it. Apparently someone doesn't want it translated. In that case, it doesn't belong in the English Wikipedia. Fan-1967 00:18, 9 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 07:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Formula One season Testing[edit]

2007 Formula One season Testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article is cruft. Information on testing should be confined to the main 2007 season page as discussed here and here. Journeyman 00:43, 9 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 07:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shy line[edit]

Shy line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. I just don't feel that there's enough material for a full blown article. This is a hockey (that's ice hockey) line that has been together for a year. While I don't doubt that some broadcasters use it, it is also not significant enough to keep around. The article contains WP:OR appreciation of the line's quality of play. If we stick to the actual verifiable content, the article will most likely become and remain a sub-stub. Pascal.Tesson 00:46, 9 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 21:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In da Streetsz Musik[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable record label; only ghits are MySpace sites (search for "In Da Streetz Muzik", not the title of the article, which gives you only Wikipedia sites); it's official website is an "under construction" page; I couldn't find any third-party, verifiable sources that claimed it had released any records. At best, it deserves a few sentences in the Black Child article, but even then, it wouldn't have a reliable source. Gzkn 00:56, 9 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)+(G10).--Húsönd 02:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Lee (twinkie)[edit]

Eugene Lee (twinkie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Obviously not a legitimate article; fails WP:NOTE NMajdan•talk 01:03, 9 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, article is unsourced, so nothing to merge. ~ trialsanderrors 09:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMX-104 R-Jarja[edit]

AMX-104 R-Jarja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Actually, this is part of a larger AfD i would like to create, but its beyond any practical abilities to do so: I would like to nominate all the articles in the following template: ((Template:Universal Century Mobile weapons)). I see no reason why all these random suits of armor from a fictional series should have their own articles. Merge at the very least. I know this is 'poor reasoning', but if lists of weapons in halo 2 and every other game shouldn't and no longer exist, this shouldn't either. Non-notable even with association. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: In response to this AfD another user set up a similar AfD here. It may be helpful to review details of both cases, in the hopes of establishing precedent. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion does matter, though you must use reasoning to support your arguments. How exactly, is it notable to have every Gundam ever seen, each with its own article? How are they that important to the series? Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're notable to the series because they're the foundation the series is built on. Without Gundams, the series would just be people yelling at each other. --Shady Tree Man 01:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without starships, Star Trek would just be people emoting at each other. But after forty years of TV and cartoon TV and movies and hundreds of books and fan magazines and conventions, there's only one starship from that series that is notable enough to be recognized by the general public: the USS Enterprise. I know the Gundam stuff is relatively big-name compared to most anime, but it's no Star Trek or Pokemon, is it? Why should non-fans be convinced that any Gundam fighting suit, let alone every one, is notable enough to pass general WP standards, just because the series is? Merge into one list per WP:FICT. I would say "delete" except that the suits (as a category, not every one) are the premise of the whole thing. Barno 02:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the general public would recognize the Borg Cube, Klingon and Romulan Birds of Prey, and maybe a few others. I do agree one list would be a better idea in this case. FrozenPurpleCube 08:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To use the Star Trek example, are you suggesting every one of the [3] should be deleted or merged into one article? I don't think we should have different standards for different fandoms. Edward321 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to "have different standards for different fandoms" because of the general standard that more widely noted topics, those with more cultural influence, should be covered in more detail. I don't think every one of the ships in that category merits its own article in WP, but some do, simply because they've been featured in multiple third-party independent verifiable sources, not just fan-fiction, fan-obsessive-detail-suit-specs, and corporate promotional tie-ins with other products. Barno 05:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you’re saying the reason for the difference is popularity? How do we measure that? Should Wilkie Collins and Bret Harte be deleted because the majority of Wikipedians have never heard of either author, let alone read their works?
Do we take into account people whose first language is not English when assessing popularity? A Japanese science fiction fan would react to this suggested deletion much like an American science fiction fan would react to the suggested deletion of the Starship Enterprise articles. Or don’t their opinions matter, since this is the English language part of Wikipedia?
I expect you are correct that the majority of information and commentary on Gundam comes from either fans, the creators, or promoters. How is this different from Star Trek, Star Wars, or Dr. Who? Given five days, how many cited references to the Enterprise, the X-Wing, or the Tardis could you find, especially if you were not allowed to cite either the creators, promoters, or the fans? Edward321 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridiculous, no sources, nothing but a page of made up stats, not an encyclopedia article, per Elaragirl.
  • Unsuitable for a general encyclopaedia, per Proto.
  • Nothing to merge, per Quack 688
and so on. It really is useless. Delete. -- Ekjon Lok 14:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second, all this article is right now is four lines of text and a list of specs, all unsourced. (Those detailed specs aren't necessary for every single mobile suit, btw.). How often does this mobile suit appear in Gundam? Where is it established that it was "built by Neo Zeon during the First Neo Zeon war."? How do you know it has "a set of shields that could be flipped"? If you can answer some of these questions, feel free to edit the article and improve it. Quack 688 10:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not these entries belong here as encyclopedic content (and isn't that a popular buzzword these days...) is a point-of-view issue, but I would like to lay to rest this "unsourced" hogwash ad infinitum. MalikCarr 23:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I think you just finished off my own argument for me - cheers :-p. Seriously, by definition, if an article doesn't list any sources, it's unsourced. I don't think we need a screenshot to prove every single claim, but the article does need to say where it's getting its content from (episode name, comic book issue, tech manual, whatever) - no-one should have to ask. Of course, once some sources are listed, the other debates about reliable sources and encyclopedic content will probably start again, but some sources would still be better than none. Quack 688 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely some suits are not AS notable as others, and perhaps should be merged into a page that covers which series of Gundam the suits come from. But it is ridiculous to suggest that none of them deserve their own page.

Not my words, but the general consenseus of /m/ and a damn good point to boot In other words Strong Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.24.159.50 (talk) 04:24, 17 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters[edit]

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page is redundant and lists things that already have their own articles. It creates more hassle and the template is already a navigational tool. This was discussed a little here too. Dylan0513 01:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we ended the discussion on this article saying that when someone nominates for deletion, the discussion will continue. -Dylan0513 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thought it ended whoops, my vote still stands though. --Whydoit (Why...do it?) 03:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've already discussed doing it and it is out of the question! -Dylan0513 19:42, 15 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, does not assert notability. NawlinWiki 15:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish-American Student Society[edit]

Irish-American Student Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The Irish-American Student Society does not appear to meet the notability requirements of being the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." It seems as though the information might be useful if merged into the Evangel University page, but on the talk page it sounds as though it is not even relevant there ("As this organization is not exclusively a student body out of Evangel, it should not be included on the evangel article"). — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 01:11, 9 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 WP:SNOW. Although this was not a repost, it's just related nonsense.--Húsönd 02:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raid on Black Mesa East[edit]

Raid on Black Mesa East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete Recreated similar page after successful deletion, no sources, no reference pure cruft. Daniel J. Leivick 01:17, 9 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. JIP | Talk 11:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Johnson[edit]

Taylor Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTE. No discernable Google matches. Possible vanity article. NMajdan•talk 01:20, 9 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 (G4).--Húsönd 02:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"poli" metropolitan internet system[edit]

"poli" metropolitan internet system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable; horrific linking, looks like it was copy and pasted from somewhere, terrible grammar and spelling... overall, just a bad page that is almost beyond repair and doesn't belong on Wikipedia anyway. Mrmoocow 01:23, 9 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 08:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewash City[edit]

Whitewash City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Spam to print out your very own Wild West town Steve (Slf67) talk 01:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The place for it is its own website. Wikipedia does not exist to promote obscure websites.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 21:00, 9 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 08:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Way to Your Heart[edit]

The Way to Your Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article makes no claims to notability that would suggest inclusion under WP:WEB. Brad Beattie (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Technically, MER-C, but this article has been around for a long time and was created in good faith by a reputable editor - User:Merovingian. I'll point him to this discussion, rather than us just nixing the article as a speedy. ⇨REDVEЯS 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is that assuming bad faith, or just jumping the gun? I see no reason why an article should be speedied when it isn't damaging the encyclopedia or anything else, triply so when it's already in AfD. --Kizor 23:39, 11 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 A7 by EdwinHJ. Tevildo 22:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whimville[edit]

Whimville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article makes no claims to notability. Fails WP:WEB as a result. Brad Beattie (talk) 01:45, 9 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 08:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Ninja Comics[edit]

White Ninja Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Comic doesn't meet the notability requirements in WP:WEB. The previous AFD in mid-2005 reached no consensus. Brad Beattie (talk) 01:51, 9 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 redirect to CO2 dragster per WP:HUEVOS by User:Tubezone Tubezone 02:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co2 cars[edit]

Co2 cars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not only is it extremely unclear what kind of "Co2 car" is being discussed here, but a wooden kind of car does not seem notable at all. Lunar Jesters (talk) 01:52, 9 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 08:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice History[edit]

The Apprentice History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete article that is redundant to the article about the TV series The Apprentice. Article title is also incorrectly capitalized. Doczilla 01:58, 9 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. Creator request. -- ReyBrujo 04:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalinda Gray[edit]

Kalinda Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Concern: "No referenced assertion of notability to demonstrate the subject meets WP:BIO criteria." The only coverage I can find in secondary sources consists of passing mentions in a few local publications [6] and a photo in The Orange County Register [7]. Muchness 02:18, 9 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 08:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webfossil[edit]

Webfossil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neologism with few Google hits outside of ads and plugs for the company. This article is spam for that company. De-prodded without changes by someone with the user name Webfossil, so there is a conflict of interest as well. - IceCreamAntisocial 02:18, 9 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 08:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bozrah deliverance[edit]

Bozrah deliverance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Presumed original research JeremyBicha 02:28, 9 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 as vandalism, per WP:CSD#G3. -- Merope 03:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver economic[edit]

Vancouver economic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nonsense --SamMichaels 02:36, 9 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 closure, re-implement redirect from prior AfD and protect it this time in lieu of speedy G4 deletion. —David Eppstein 06:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devonte_Hynes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Devonte_Hynes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The consensus for the previous deletion nomination debate (see below) was that the Devonte Hynes page should either redirect or be deleted, and yet soon after this decision, the page was resurrected by an anonymous user (IP 147.143.56.14). This resurrected page still fails to establish notability. The bands that Devonte Hynes has been involved in are not notable, and neither is Devonte, so I think the Devonte Hynes page should be deleted, and probably also protected to prevent resurrection. Medlat 03:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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



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

The result was Redirect to Test Icicles. There is a rough consensus to delete, so if the redirect is reverted without improving the article and establishing individual notability I might revise this closure and implement the consensus, but for now redirecting seems sufficient. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devonte Hynes[edit]

Devonte Hynes (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 02:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • ExpansionI wanted to expand on my reasons for keeping this article. While the article should be edited down, Hynes is the subject of articles in several reputable sources easily found in a google search, he is also an artist on a major record label that produces work from some of the UKs biggest bands like The Arctic Monkeys. If this article is deleted and the Martin Perreault is kept it will make me sad :( . --Daniel J. Leivick 01:34, 10 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 08:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euphres[edit]

Euphres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Zero available info on this painting; All google results are either on the Euphrates River, or are mirrors of WP. Therefore, unnotable Blueaster 22:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I followed all the steps... All well, thanks, bot. Blueaster 18:59, 3 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, Agent 86 02:58, 9 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Peters (TV anchor)[edit]

Susan Peters (TV anchor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Does not satisfy WP:BIO. Amnewsboy 08:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Personally, I have no qualms with Susan -- I think she's a great anchor... but generally speaking, I don't think local television news anchors meet WP:BIO or WP:N (a similar debate is ongoing over Little Rock anchor Jancey Sheats). Do we write articles about Susan's co-anchors, the other anchors at KAKE, the anchors at the other stations in town, and the other stations in Kansas as well? Amnewsboy 09:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just find it strange that Amnewsboy has nominated only two local anchors for deletion: Susan and Jancey. Both from the two previous (smaller) cities where he has worked as a television producer. I presume he now only considers local television personalities from the largest 31 markets to be notable. I think Wikipedia is an appropriate place to chronicle the qualifications and broadcast histories of smaller market anchors. Official biographies listed on station web sites seem to be spun with a bias in favor of their current employer.64.24.4.114 00:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With all due respect -- my professional career has absolutely nothing to do with this. (I have no idea where you got that I ever worked in Little Rock, BTW.) If you have an opinion on the matter in general, I'd suggest voicing in with the WP Television Stations Project to reach some sort of guide that we can all live with -- and please, be civil. Amnewsboy 03:30, 8 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion but that was a local Emmy which there are a ton of. Quadzilla99 04:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a ton of Grammy Awards but they're still notable.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the awards, a television anchor is at the top tier of the broadcast journalism profession ("just an anchor" is almost like saying someone is "just a rock star"--sure, the subject of this article is not Dan Rather but we don't limit musicians only to John Lenon either). Add to this the fact that a new anchor is a significant public personality, seen by at least hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions), and I think it's clear that she and anyone similar are way over the minimum bar for Wikipedia notability. Tarinth 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel strongly on this one way or the other, but it is an award much more impressive than anything I've ever won - it's not trivial and is widely recognized and I'm a little surprised it's a bone of contention (she won an Emmy, but it's just a local Emmy). --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are 20 regional chapters of the National Television Academy[9]. Using the Nashville/Mid-South chapter as a sampling, each chapter awards 60 Regional Emmys year[10]. As a rough guide, that means that there are 1,200 Regional Emmys awarded annually. This anchor has won 2 Regional Emmys + some more obscure and even more local broadcasting awards (San Deigo Press Club/Best Reporting in Kansas UPI award etc.... The Golden Mic award appears to be a local charity-awareness award? Anyway, unable to verify her receiving this award [11]). I'm skeptical that a regional Emmy award is sufficient indication of encycloppedic notability, and have been unable to verify her winning these awards either. Wikipedia really needs a guideline for assessing awards/prizes/fellowships/contest wins etc though - most of them out there are not encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 06:46, 9 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 as repost of deletion from last year. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hemispheric Partners[edit]

Hemispheric Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article could go somewhere, but right now, all it is is just the name of the company, its founder, and its official web site. It has stayed this way since June, so I don't think that this article is going anywhere anytime soon. Diez2 03:04, 9 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 by Opabinia regalis, no notability asserted. Tubezone 06:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Los Machín[edit]

Los Machín (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Ooo, wow. A group of digital art curators in Spain. Anything else? No notability, no verification. Diez2 03:28, 9 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 and merge into appropriate page(s). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bentiromide (data page)[edit]

Bentiromide (data page) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Orphaned data dump, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Contested prod. MER-C 03:27, 9 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 08:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jlt[edit]

Jlt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There is nothing here that makes this Indian magazine notable. It fails WP:CORP and should be deleted. Diez2 03:30, 9 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 08:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Report on Knowledge[edit]

Princeton Report on Knowledge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable student publication as it hasn't been subject to multiple independent reports. Google hasn't heard of them. Contested prod. MER-C 03:31, 9 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 deleted by EdwinHJ. MER-C 06:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gods Bible[edit]

Gods Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Original research essay. Unverifiable (WP:V), no reliable sources (WP:RS) and is original research (WP:NOR). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:12, 9 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. - Bobet 00:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc.[edit]

Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

vanity article created by a role account used by the organization the article is about. Does not satisfy WP:CORP for clubs, societies, and organizations. - ∅ (∅), 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have noticed that Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) states that"References or links to their page should not describe it as "policy." We also understand this to mean that there has not been any formal concensus established criteria/policies for religious "congregations/organizations, under both of the proposed criteria. We must ask what specific critera were you employing in your sudden proposal to delete our African Ancestral Religious Organization? Please assist us by stating the criteria justifying your proposal. We are able and willing to respond to your request if you can offer a more specific established policy that we can read, understand and respond to accordingly. Thank you for the link and we look forward to your response..--MWHS 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main concern of the nominator and Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) is the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), especially the section Criteria for clubs, societies, and organizations, as well as the guideline Wikipedia:Spam, particularly the section Advertisements masquerading as articles since the tone of Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc. is not what one expects to find in an encyclopedia. Dmoon1 03:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is also applicable and strongly advocates that members of organizations such as this not write articles about themselves; if you're notable, someone unaffiliated will eventually write an article about you. -- BrianSmithson 05:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your feedback. We have reviewed all of the wikilinks listed, and based on our understanding,could not find any of the suggested guidelines which would indicate to us that we are in violation. The very ancestral & religious nature of the Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc., precludes it from being a forum for WP:Spam#Advertisements,proselytizing or recruitment. It simply is not possible. Additionally in reading the suggested guidelines on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest page, we have avoided linking any Wikipedia article to our religious corporation. Wat was also clear in reading each article was that all were simply general guidelines as oppose to official policy, the article further stating that the most severest penalty which may be imposed in the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is that it "may put the editor at serious risk of embarrassing himself or his client." Nonetheless, in consideration for your concerns, what we have done is to re-read the MWHS article, and can always agree that the article can be improved so as not to offer the appearance that our intention is to recruit. In that regard, we are open to anyone rewriting the article or submitting a link to an example of how a Religious organization is presented in encyclopedic form.Thank you again for your comments and feedback.--MWHS 19:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the main problems of the article is that it copies almost word-for-word the text found on the MWHS website. This brings into question the neutrality of the article, among other things. Dmoon1 19:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have edited it to what we believe you are suggesting. Again, if you have a link to an example,we will review it and consider all suggestions for editing. Thanks.--MWHS 20:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providing Reliable/Verifiable Sources

As a non-profit Religious entity, the MWHS can easily be verified through the following reliable sources:

All of the above meets Wikipedia:Verifiability policy/standards. Again, as Wiki administrators, if you can assist us by providing an example of how a Religious entity is presented in encyclopedic form we will certainly re-edit the article.--MWHS 23:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Viv, that only proves that your organization exists, it doesn't mean you're notable enough that we need an article about you. You see, we don't only delete articles for being in violation of policy, we delete them because we simply don't need them. Wikipedia is not a collection of every single thing that exists; this is an encyclopedia, and what deletion debates are about is whether the article merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. So far the consensus seems to be that your organization is hardly any more notable than the bowling alley across the street, and the "ancestral & religious nature" of your organization has nothing to do with it. It's just that there are a lot of bowling alleys in the world, and we simply don't need an article about each individual one. We have an article about bowling and that's enough. Likewise, there are a lot of religious organizations in the world, many of them claiming "ancestral" status, and your organization is no different. Sorry. - ∅ (∅), 13:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We believe that the MWHS has met all of the challenges presented to us to satisfy both Wikipedia:Verifiability policy/standards,and Wikipedia:notaility. Yet your response offers nothing other than a personal opinion as oppose to wikikpolicy of which we are not in violation. We also take offense to your disrespectful tone in addressing our organization founder and your derisive characterization of our religious organization. My name is Anagossii, the MWHS secretary whom you are corresponding. We have been respectful of you and it is policy that you extend the same. It is clear that you are determined to delete the article no matter what is presented. You may do so. However, in the meantime, we have made a copy of this transcript and will fax it to the Board of Directors at Wikipedia along with a letter of complaint. We believe it is important for them to obtain first hand knowledge of the tone, and spirit, and (what we believe is) abuse in which some of its admins and editors are responding. We must know directly from them if they (Board members) are in complicity or are quietly sanctioning such behavior.. Anagossii--MWHS 15:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think comparing a religious organization to a bowling alley is helpful to anyone. (A little more WP:CIVIL, please!) The Mami Wata article indicates the general subject of Mami Wata has significant notability in Africa. The difficulty is in coming up with evidence that this North American organization has attracted attention in its own right. It is perhaps unfair that non-Western religious movements, whether new or traditional, are somewhat handicapped in this respect. For what it's worth, the organization claims to constitute a denomination rather than a local church or congregation, so it's not clear that the Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) policy, which may require special evidence of local notability over and above that of the denomination, applies. Although it can be debated which policy is applicable, evidence of notability from one or more independent sources appears, fairly or not, to be an element underlying essentially all the variants of the notability policy. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful to check e.g. the University of Virginia's Religious Movements website, [14]. --Shirahadasha 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Shirahadasha. You are correct MWHS does not proclaim to be a separate entity from its ancestral roots of the Mami Wata traditions in West Africa. Our society was aided in its very establishment by elders of Mami Wata from Togo, West Africa. Within our own religio-cultural milieu, we are very much notable for having established the tradition in North America since the suppression of African religions in America during slavery and Reconstruction. Additionally, within our organization we display the photo and credentials from Togo of our founder and other legal documents that are required by both our tradition and the state and local county. The bigoted and disparaging manner in which our African Ancestral Religious Society and its members are treated here is indicative of its long history of racism, suppression and discrimination in the USA. However, we are not deterred. We understand this history and the motivation behind it, and will continue to contribute and challenge what some of these editors and admin have made self-evident.Apokassii--MWHS 15:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are requesting that the naysayers demanding deletion of this article, provide tangible evidence and convincing argument that the MWHS is not deemed notable under Wiki notability policy in spite of the numerous Reliable sources provided. If sufficient Wiki policy and agrument cannot be provided within two days, we have no choice but to consider this issue settled, and will remove the AfD message. Anagossii --MWHS 00:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Your vote is acknowledged. However, again, we are requesting that the naysayers demanding deletion of this article, provide tangible evidence and convincing argument that the MWHS is not deemed notable under Wiki notability policy in spite of the numerous Reliable sources provided. This would prove more helpful to us. Anagossii --MWHS 19:38, 17 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. Tubezone 04:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seo thailand[edit]

Seo thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A how-to guide on boosting a website's visibility on search engines. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:18, 9 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.

2010 BCS National Championship Game[edit]

The result was Redirect to BCS National Championship Game. Johntex\talk 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2010 BCS National Championship Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Violates WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Plus there's almost no information right now and probably won't be for 2 years. Delete this, thought if you guys prefer a redirect that works too. Wizardman 05:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I support Mecu's suggestion of a redirect to BCS National Championship Game. And I would support this action for the 2009 article and beyond.--NMajdan•talk 20:45, 9 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, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student Pirate Club[edit]

Student Pirate Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nom - speedied once already. Self-sourced student club - should be merged with the school's main or team article. Rklawton 05:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question The picture on the article, is there any way that they could confirm that all those pictured were members of the group? Don't know if that would be criteria for IfD. SkierRMH 05:32, 10 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. --Coredesat 20:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Madden[edit]

Bill Madden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, three album releases all on his own label. Almost all editing by two new accounts, both of which only edit Bill Madden. Google search brings up this Bill Madden as top hit, because of URL. Subsequent Bill Maddens are a lawyer, a columnist, an actor, a lecturer - but no-one else talking about the musician. Delete and purge all references (extensive insertion into Wikipedia "List of" articles). Josh Parris#: 06:00, 9 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, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Lost Live Album[edit]

The Great Lost Live Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Bootleg record, fails WP:V (reliable sources about this record?) It probably exists, like most bootlegs, but beyond that? Bootlegs are like self-published or illegal books: anyone can make them, that doesn't make them encyclopedic or verifiable in the Wikipedia sense. No multiple verifiable sources are available for this subject (the one source given, while probably correct, is not reliable per WP:V). Fram 06:03, 9 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 due to sources added since beginning of AfD. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecclesall Road[edit]

Ecclesall Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. It's a long road, not a highway, nor a village. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents. No WP:V sources about the road (not just mentioning it in passing as the address of some shop or so) look to be available. Fram 06:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia itself can not be used to determine notability, and most of the links just say 'it intersects Ecclesall Road', 'It is bordered by Ecclesall road', 'this rural road is a continuation of Ecclesall road', ... Fram 21:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have to disagree with the start of your opinion: lack of verifiability is the main reason why articles should get deleted, and if nothing beyond it's existence and trivial mentions can be sourced, then we have to delete it. However, if the problem for the notable parts (whichever they may be, having shops is not really one of them) is not lack of verifiability but lack of verification, then the situation may change. User talk:Captain scarlet seems to think that sourcing should be easy, so I suppose that can be done before the end of this AfD. Otherwise, it are only claims that it can be done, and then the article can better be recreated once anyone actually has those sources... Fram 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Please re-read what I said above. I know that lack of verifiability is a reason for article deletion. My argument is that lack of verifiability is not a good reason for deleting this article as most, if not all, of the information contained within this article is clearly verifiable. —JeremyA 18:16, 10 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 12:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vial[edit]

The Vial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The only claim to notability this comic has is that it's a spin-off of a comic hosted on Keenspot. Fails WP:WEB. Brad Beattie (talk) 06:27, 9 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, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The black diamond effect[edit]

The black diamond effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Early digital comic which appeared in 1991-1992 and 1998. It certainly seems obscure and fails WP:WEB. The creator of the comic is also the author of the article, never a good sign. Google results are very sparse, no reviews or descriptions or similar references. The artist/author he claims that the techiques he used broke new ground. Whether this is true and whether other artists were influenced by this comic I cannot say, but this would be the only thread on which to hang the existance of this article, I think. But if it is true, it seems to have left no evidence whatsoever on the web. (The comic is on-line here but requires a plugin.) Herostratus 06:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]



This technique comparison is original research, if you want to include it, a reputable source must have published the information. Also why contact these reviewers before giving us their names and publishers, no reason to wait for them to respond. Finally please review wikipedia: conflict of interest as the creator of this work you are discouraged from editing the article concerning it or its deletion nomination pages, in my mind if a the creator is the only person arguing for notability it probably is not notable. Daniel J. Leivick 01:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I think there may be a misunderstanding, I have zero doubt that this comic is real no proof is required, I do doubt it is notable and a couple of 15 year old book reviews from Canadian computer newspapers will do little to change my feelings on this. A list of reviews might help users determine whether or not this article is notable, if it is not possible to link to them it is still worth giving out the information. Daniel J. Leivick 02:24, 10 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 12:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RX-78 Gundam[edit]

RX-78 Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

When I came across this article and saw the template at the bottom of the page, I thought "You've gotta be kidding!" This article forms part of a massive walled garden of more than 100 articles of pure, unadultered, unverifiable through reliable non-fan sources and non-notable fancruft. Only one article is nominated here to set a precedent. Contested prod. MER-C 06:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In addition to this AfD, there is also a similar AfD with regards to the Early Universal Century Mobile weapons template at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja- if a precedent is set by these, it would apply to all the template articles listed. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus... listen, I was giving what we call in the lingo, an example. I didn't say there had to be a book, I'm saying that it must meet multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources, if you look at the freakin' guidelines... providing links to vendors and stuff doesn't work, saying that since its been around for years makes it notable doesn't work either. I'm sorry, but you do not seem to understand what I was saying... Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't cited a specific notability guideline so I'll ask the question again. Under which applicable notability guideline says that a fiction element must have "multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources" before it is notable enough to have their own articles? WP:FICT clearly doesn't say that. In fact, WP:FICT states that such articles can be created if including them into the main article would cause the main article to become too large. Try again. And again, there are no links to venders on the article, but press accounts about the merchandizing of this Gundam model. --Farix (Talk) 01:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a tip - tone down the attitude and maybe people will take your points more seriously? Bwithh 16:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cool thing about this is, it really doesn't matter if the deletionist take my point or not, as long as there are enough people who understand it, the nom will became a stall of no consensus. There is no way I can convince deletionist to take my points seriously, I have learnt that in previous noms, keepers can show every other independent source that even only one is shown, the article deserves a keep. Deletionists will just ignore all of the sources either by saying none of those meet their requirements(even if those meet wiki's requirements) or simply disregard their exsistance and keep saying delete just because the article is poorly written until the very end of the nomination. MythSearchertalk 16:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a very jaded view of the afd process, and I also strongly urge you to read and consider WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF carefully. Bwithh 19:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my experience with afd, he's got a realistic view of afd. Deletionists vote for delete, inclusionists vote to keep the status quo, cases are made but ignored because despite policy/guideline to the contrary, afd tends to be treated as a vote. CIVIL and AGF don't say blind yourself from the truth.... Kyaa the Catlord 19:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys clearly have a lot to learn about AFD. Your stereotypical jaded view is very far from how AFDs generally operate in reality. I bring up WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, as Mythsearcher's attitude in this discussion has been unacceptably uncivil and provoking in my opinion. Bwithh 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything seriously uncivil nor anything that doesn't AGF about any of Myth's responses here. I do see a lot of deletionist voters who apparently missed large sections of the article, have posted things which at the time they posted were blatantly incorrect (due to earlier edits on the article), and have been sheepish "IDONTLIKEIT" votes. Seriously, it is hard not to be pessimistic when a large number of the delete votes come from people associated with a wikiproject founded to delete articles. Kyaa the Catlord 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newtype is a magazine with an anime focus, no? You'd expect this to be mentioned there. A non-trivial feature in a news magazine would show cultural importance, an anime one wouldn't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean an article on the Human Genome wouldn't be significant just because it was printed in a Genetics Journal? Shrumster 14:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be significant, but if nobody can read it would be hard to say if it is trivial or not. My read of the table of contents is that it got a mention somewhere. The non-trivial articles would probably be the ones with comments underneath them. This, however, is getting close to, if it isn't already, guesswork. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be unusual for a magazine to run an article on a non-notable mecha nearly 30 years after the show was aired, wouldn't it? Kyaa the Catlord 23:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be, but rather less so if the series were still being produced in one form or another, and doubtless repeated into the bargain. I suppose you'll disagree. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Newtype is a reliable source for anime; it's one of the most important magazines covering the topic. Being in Japanese does not make it unreliable. (There's an English edition, actually, though I haven't checked whether it has the same articles -- I doubt it, since the releases aren't the same.) A cover feature story in Newtype is to anime what a cover story in Entertainment Weekly is to Hollywood. As for not showing cultural influence, I can only presume you are unaware of the extent to which anime and manga permeate Japanese popular culture. Something on the lines of 80% of published material in Japan is manga, and they're not aimed solely at children. Personally, I despise most of Gundam and its knockoffs, but there's no question that it's been among the most influential anime series ever produced. The article the two of you are discussing makes that clear: It's a retrospective which includes a series of drawings by an apparently-famous artist (whose name, I'm afraid, I can't read; I'm rather weak on the name kanji). There's also a section dealing with Z Gundam, which presumably is (or was when this hit the stands) the current show in the series. And one dealing with the theme song of that show, which seems to have catapulted the group singing it to some degree of stardom. Definite impact -- but then, I'd think the fact that "the series [is] still being produced in one form or another" after 30 years would make that clear. And this particular mecha is more or less the symbol of the metaseries. It's as notable within its series as the Starship Enterprise or the Millennium Falcon are within theirs -- in fact, it's more so (the Enterprise and the Falcon didn't spawn huge arrays of spin-offs). The difference is that many editors are not familiar with Gundam as they are with Star Trek or Star Wars -- cultural bias, essentially. Not, mind you, a bad-faith bias against the article itself, but a lack of perception of just how important in Japanese popular culture this series and this specific mobile suit are. I don't even like most of Gundam, and I naturally lean deletionist, but there's not a question in my mind that the delete !voters in this case are mistaken. Shimeru 20:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The problem is, if a part of the article should be deleted, it does not belong to an AfD, instead, it should be brought upon in the article's talk page or the project talk page(since all of these mecha have these data). Also, I see no reason for not tagging in some of the information since those things never have the notablity to have their own articles, and they surely have some impact related to the series itself(For example, the output power is generally increasing throughout the whole Universal Century timeline). The specs are even written by a third party to begin with (Gundam Century itself was written by fans, published by Midori Kobou instead of Bandai or Sunrise) but just later adopted by official publisher. Meaning it is good encyclopedic sources of impact. Maybe more of these should be added in, but it will lengthen the spec part into what the original specs are and who they got changed thoughout the years, and I cannot add in any OR meaning not much could be written. The specs are there so that people have at least the slightest idea of how these fictional things perform. I personally don't care if these are kept or not because I know more places for these things, but obviously quite a large number of fans enjoyed it being here. These should be discussed in the project page instead. MythSearchertalk 16:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and deletionist ignoring the facts are NOT an excuse of the article does not contain any references- um... no idea what you were saying, grammar check? Deletionist ignoring references exsisted does not mean that the references does not exsist. Somebody in this nom said the whole ref section was just instruction manuals, which is totally false, linking to a page of Amazon is valid that The book in question could be bought in that link, the article sourced from a portion of those books. Deletionist not having read the book is not an excuse of the article is not referenced. The books listed is in fact not all published by official sources, the only dependent reference book is the Gundam Officials and Ms encyclopedia. The others are published by various magazine publishers and reviewers, which are all not paid by the Gundam copyright holder company Bandai, or paid for any information from the company. These are called independent sources. I know some deletionist do not hold credit for fan written articles as sources, but a well established publisher publishing books having editors edit the articles is a good secondary source we can use in wiki. It does not matter if the writer is a fan or not, or the editors are fans or not, the fact is that they are independent workers and some third party company paid the publishing fee wishing to earn some money. MythSearchertalk 09:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Take a look at the Simpsons example I pointed out to you earlier. I was attempting to show you the difference between trivial references and evidence of actual substantive cultural influence. Also take a look at WP:RS for a guide to reliable sources for Wikipedia. Bwithh 09:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And for that level of cultural influence, The Simpsons has over 300 articles focus on it's episodes, divide into 19 subcategories; and that's just about it's episodes, (yet nobody dare to touch). Are you truely believe it's better than have seperate articles for MS? We actually just ask for handful of notable mech here, not seperate article for each of them. L-Zwei 13:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • per Secondary source, Secondary sources are often peer reviewed, and produced by institutions where methodological accuracy is important to the author's and publishing house's, or research institute's, reputation. Historians subject both primary and secondary sources to a high level of scrutiny.. Gundam Sentinel Special Edition, Model Graphix, ISBN 4-499-20530-1 alone serves this purpose. It is by a magazine, originally cooperating with Bandai but was later ditched by them, in Frustration, they created the book themselves, also angered Newtype magazine editor to write an article saying model graphix did a good job in creating the real Gundam. The book's name having Gundam does not mean it is primary, and dependent. Also, wikipedia never have a par so high that only changing the language serve as a cultural influence, changing the whole modeling industry(and economy) itself is significant enough.(Where this is quoted from Sgt. Frog) MythSearchertalk 10:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S The Luke Skywalker page does not contain the Simpson's level of cultural influence, delete? The Featured Article Link (The Legend of Zelda) does not carry Simpson's level of cultural influence, delete? Some deletionist even claim that an anime magazine is not a good enough source to judge an anime's notability? Come on, you are saying a a scientific journal is not good enough as a source for science subjects, this is just showing how the deletionist keep raising the par to a point where it is totally unrealistic and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia policy asks for sources of that field of expert, not from any other field and what is listed here are that field of expert in anime. You can never find a geographic magazine with anime related articles, right? Stop being unreasonable, the sources are not only verifiable, they are also perfectly valid according to wikipedia. The name containing Gundam doesn't mean it is dependent, just like a physics book is going to use physics as its name. MythSearchertalk 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, trying to save an article from deletion by saying "what about this article? Delete this too then!" is not a useful or good plan of trying to keep an article; look through the old noms and you'll see what I mean (it's also called the theres a page for this pokemon, so why not...) Go an nominate the article if you want to delete it, but it has no relevance on this case. P.S. Why the obsession with Star Wars? Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Why the obsession with Star Wars?" Star Wars is possibly the most similar Western, everybody knows it, example to compare and it came out at about the same time that First Gundam did. Seriously, Gundam is the Japanese Star Wars. (Even if 75% of the spin-off series suck, oh, another thing in common!) Kyaa the Catlord 23:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time this has nothing to do with 'Western' bias! Jesus! I'm sorry, but you saying that this is all a conspiracy of us Americans to devalue anime is outrageous. Can we stick to the AfD? Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, please refrain from putting words into my mouth. I simply answered your question. I made no claim about western bias or anything else. I simply said "Gundam is very much similar to Star Wars in many ways." No allegations of bias or whatever. Sheesh, can I offer you some tea? Kyaa the Catlord 23:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake, I confused your comments with Myth... Eh well, maybe he'll read it an get the message that the western bogeyman isn't out to get Gundam. And thanks but no thanks, I'm not one for tea or coffee, I'll go with water. :) P.S. And I do give you credit for trying to perform triage in order to get the gundam articles in order- this article notwithstanding, all the other guys want to do is argue about 'influence.' There is life after AfD. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 00:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not argue saying those sould be deleted, I simply reply that Cultural Significant does not require the level of the Simpson's article to be notable. If there is influence, obviously the article should not be deleted, it is useful in an AfD nom discussion. Do not tell me that something having sourced cultural influence is not notable. BTW, sourced more info in Japanese stamps and Industry recruiting seminar. MythSearchertalk 06:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Drac, calm down a bit. The crisis is pretty much averted and there's no need to go off on everyone else. Let's stay calm. Kyaa the Catlord 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I'm not American, and I know a bit about the American Civil War. Not nearly as much as Americans do, though, but a bit nonetheless. As for the other things, your point is right. I have no idea who R.H.Anderson is, and of course I know football (soccer) (I'm a European, so it's given), and having seen all Babylon 5 episodes, I know what Spoo is. So it's a moot point for those two. JIP | Talk 18:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not American and the only thing I know about the American Civil War was that it happened. Not a Babylon 5 watcher either, and I have no idea what Spoo is. I'm willing to bet that a great percentage of the population where I live (South East Asia) know a lot less about those subject. Just because we don't know about them doesn't mean they aren't notable. His points are valid. Shrumster 23:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, i did it. Placed Enterprise in Afd. Ironically, i used this as precedent.
I wouldn't have. This is a classic example of a wp:point vio. Bad George. :P Kyaa the Catlord 07:43, 13 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, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Williamson Grey[edit]

Allen Williamson Grey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete The only information in the article is that the individual was the father-in-law of a baronet, himself of marginal notability. This individual certainly isn't notable; no non-Wikipedia g-hits, other than a genealogy of the baronet's family, and I'd prod it except that was tried a while ago and disputed. Choess 06:41, 9 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, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Constance Grey[edit]

Anne Constance Grey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete See above (Allen Williamson Grey). Individual is the wife of a marginally notable baronet; no other information. Choess 06:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Peers and holders of courtesy titles (i.e. heirs apparent), as well as those holding the Scottish substantive title of "Master" or "Mistress" given to heirs are automatically notable, as are their spouses."Jcuk 22:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A baronetisn't a peer, so no she doesn't.--Docg 23:12, 9 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 to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry the Lobster (SpongeBob SquarePants)[edit]

Larry the Lobster (SpongeBob SquarePants) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Minor fictional TV character, only appeared in a few epidsodes. Article has no references and offers only a plot summary of the character: WP:NOT says: Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. 650l2520 06:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters."
A major character could keep its own article, but based on this article's content, I don't see how this guy qualifies as a major character. Quack 688 06:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only SpongeBob SquarePants, Squidward Tentacles, and Patrick Star are main characters. There a few recurring characters but appearing in 15 episodes (with no references to establish real-world notibility) definately puts him as a minor character. The merge option is fine. 650l2520 01:33, 15 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 and move to Karl Rothammel. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rothammel[edit]

Rothammel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

the article is without purpose. Its hard to tell if it is about the author or a single book. "Karl Rothammel" pulls up 1,620 pages. Karl Rothammel shows 7 books, none of which come close to the ISBN listed on the article. John Vandenberg 07:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We can add to the article, but renaming it will break links, and is jumping the gun, as the Afd may decide that the topic isnt worth an article. A search on de.wikipedia.org lists this book as a reference 7 times, but it is not used as a reference on en.wikipedia.org. The book and the man both have decent google hits, so I think it could become a stub (here is a translated bio). I'm wondering if it is actually the book that is notable (in which case this article should be renamed to Antennenbuch), in which case the author bio can go on the book's article. John Vandenberg 00:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If an article about Karl Rothammel would be fine (and I agree) why can't that article be here, and hopefully renamed from Rothammel to Karl Rothammel pending a successful Keep? Keesiewonder 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is about the book, not the man. What I mean is that the article should be about the man, and the book should be mentioned in that article. --Ezeu 01:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I had most of those thoughts too - when I voted for Strong Keep, it was hoping that people/portals who care about the article would come forth and make it worth keeping since my findings were that in its field, it is worth keeping and is notable and verifiable (if the article is renamed to Karl Rothammel). The people who best know about this material don't seem to have appeared yet. So, I can also be a neutral on this one. AfD's are not the time for article improvement drives if proponents aren't even present (IMO)! Keesiewonder 11:17, 10 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 deleted by Manning Bartlett. MER-C 05:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Disco Wiz[edit]

Dj Disco Wiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Rescued from speedy. WP:COI claimed, though that is not a speedy candidate and the author disputes COI. Also claims G4, but references have been added, so not the same article anymore. You can see the main reference for yourself here, it's based on an interview. Neutral. ColourBurst 07:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is the sockpuppet case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DJDWIZ. Ronbo76 08:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Based on a line from the article, "He was also instrumental in the making of Jim Fricke and Charlie Ahearn’s rendition of the early years of hip-hop entitled Yes, Yes Y’all", I'm uncertain if this source is actually independant of the article's subject. Serpent's Choice 11:56, 9 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 12:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar Repulsion Force[edit]

Stellar Repulsion Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable as a theory against WP:N. It doesn't seem to have been accepted in mainstream international science. There is a mention in a Harvard abstract[19] but Google hits are very few. Probable conflict of interest by editor User:Dr.N.Chandra.Shah. See also proposed deletion of Dr.Navinchandra K.Shah dated 2007-01-08. Is the theory worth a debate in the context of Dark matter?? Mereda 08:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS NO REASON TO DELETE THIS ARTICLE. THE DISCOVERY OF STELLAR(S)THERMONUCLEAR(T)REPULSION IN SHORT STREPULSION FORCE IS LONG BACK ESTABLISHED FACT. THE BOOK TITLED "INTRODUCTION TO THE STREPULSION FORCE" WAS REVIEWED BY INDIAN UNIVERSITIES AND WAS RELEASED BY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA'S MINISTRY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY. THE THREE RESEARCH PAPERS WERE REVIEWED BY SMITHSONIAN-HARVARD UNIVERSITIES CFO AND THE ABSTRACTS ARE ENTERED IN THREE NASA-ADS.THERE IS THE LARGEST SCIENCE WEBSITE IN THE WORLD PREPARED BY WITH COLABORATION WITH INTERNATIONAL STREPULSION-PHYSICS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THIS IS " www.strepulsion.com" FOR REQUIRED INFORMATION AS YOU FEEL PUZZLE WITH "DARK-MATTER' OR ANY OTHER FACTORS, PLEASE READ ALL PAGES OF WEBSITE. THAN ONLY DECIDE. I FEEL DELETION IS GREATEST INJUSTICE IN PART OF SCIENCE WORLD. BY DELETION, AUTHORS WILL NOT BE THE LOOSERS BUT LOOSERS WILL BE THE WIKIPEDIA AND ITS READERS.DISCOVERY OF STELLAR REPULSION FORCE IS CONSIDERED BY MANY SPACE SCIENTISTS AS THE REVOLUTIONARY EVENT IN MODERN SCIENCE. DONT DELETE BUT INSIST AUTHORS TO PROVIDE MORE DETAIL FOR YOUR PROBLEMS. THANKING YOU, SINCERELY YOURS PROF.GEORGE ROBINSON, E-MAIL:science@strepulsion.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.155.202 (talk • contribs)

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). EMS | Talk 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the solar system, the sun exert SRF while planets exerts Gravitation. The sun repells planet-satellites while they attracts the sun. So planets-satellites neither fall upon the sun by gravitation nor flungaway by Repulsion. At orbital distances both reverse forces counterbalances each other. So planets and satellites remain at mean distance in their orbits.
Interaction of SRF with gravitation resulted into retraction force (RTF). RTF keep bodies at mean distance in orbits and keep them in spherical motion. RTF acts on planets at ratio -inversely proportional to square-root of distance from the sun. So planets revolve at this velocity around the sun. The mass of the sun is 99.85% of the solar system, If the sun also exerted gravitation, then, all planets-satellites should have collapsed into the sun and that would be the end of solar system. centrifugal is fiction. The sun repels planets - it does not attracts.
This is a shockingly high degree of nonsense. We're talking surreal numbers just to describe the magnitude of it — transfinite ones for the bollocks, and infinitesimal ones for the logical coherency quotient. I said delete before, and I'm saying it again. . . . Anville 22:03, 13 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. —Centrx→talk • 00:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Tower Hoyt[edit]

Radio Tower Hoyt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

also nominated are Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Devers and Eastern North Carolina Broadcasting Tower. These prods were contested without improvement by User:Unfocused with the comment "we already had this discussion years ago, and concluded that these were harmless, yet useful to those looking for 'em." However, bearing in mind the successful deletion of useless stubs in this category per overwhelming concensus, it is clear that consensus can change. For rationale, please refer to User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts. - Delete. Ohconfucius 08:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

concensus was to keep Wrong. Consensus was to merge these things into a list of masts. Stand-alone articles? Not even close. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And your reason for deletion is....?--Docg 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Those keep votes are relying on bogus arguments akin to "I like it". Please refer to the clearly listed pertinent links in the above nom showing the discussions which took place last year, as well as the very clear and unambiguous recent concensus on deletion of useless stubs. Nobody so far has clearly shown that these are any different to those which have gone before them: They clearly fail WP:N, and I contend they also fail WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. So far, for the US articles alone, in excess of 300 stubs have been deleted (and 8 redirected) through AfD, and another 37 eliminated through prods, but who's counting? ;-) Ohconfucius 01:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me what 'bogus' argument I've used. Actually, I don't like this article, it sucks. But the ownus isn't on the keep voters - keep is the default. So far I've seen no compelling argument for deletion. I've seen irrelevancies about the servers, and now an argument that says since you deleted the last lot (which I voted to keep), I'm not supposed to object to the deletion of this lot. You say lots of this has been deleted? Indeed, who is counting? --Docg 02:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "These are harmless" is exactly like "I like it". Anyhow, whilst you may be right about WP:NOT#PAPER, I contest your assertion that consensus in 16 separate AfD debates doesn't matter. In addition, I did not notice your participation in any recent debates, contrary to your assertion. I argue once again for your benefit that these fail WP:N, fail WP:NOT#IINFO, fail WP:NOT#DIR Ohconfucius 05:53, 10 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. MaxSem 13:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock climbing[edit]

Rock climbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Everything but "history" section violates WP:NOR. Cut out the original research and we're left with a stub. Chardish 08:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Section 1 of core negotiable-only-at-the-Foundation-level policy WP:V (and the nutshell summary at the top) Bwithh 09:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made my point badly. This article was tagged by Chardish with a request for refs and verifiability, and then four minutes later nominated for deletion! --Steve (Slf67) talk 09:16, 9 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 due to sourcing. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 2007 (UK)[edit]

Big Brother 2007 (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article has less information in it than Big Brother Australia 2007 had when I nominated it for deletion, nothing is referenced, and there's still a season of the show that is currently airing on television. It's pretty much "crystalballism" at this point. J Di 09:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This isn't a vote. --Majorly (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. I agree with Torontois. FireSpike 21:29, 12 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 and cleanup to remove original reasearch. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon types[edit]

Pokémon types (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article was nominated for deletion in October 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types). It was closed as "no consensus whether to delete or merge", but very much not a 'keep'. Not a single jot of this has been merged. Three months is enough time, and so I am re-nominating it for deletion. As the prior nomination stated, this article/game guide is entirely original research and violates Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:NOT, which explicitly states that Wikipedia is not a venue for game guide information. No real-world perspective, at all, way too detailed for 'aiding understanding', utter fancruft. Please don't recommend merging with Pokemon game mechanics - that article is already oversized and has sufficient information of this type already; plus, merging in unreferenced original research is a Very Bad Idea. Strong delete this. Proto::► 10:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read WP:NOT carefully and realize that wikipedia is not a place for instruction. Where in the article is anyone being told "how to-do" anything? This article exists seperately because the information is too exetensive to appropritely contain within another article (i.e. too big and therefore distracting). IMO, there seems to exist a double-standard, have you ever looked at Monopoly? Or how about the vast variety of Category:Chess openings? And I'm sure you're aware of the example at wikimedia that talks about rules and strategies of poker. The point is that it's fine to discuss the details of a game as long as someone has done it before. Editors are just not allowed to give advice, instruction, or thier own opinions (OR).
Now on to sources (sorry this is so long, but it appears you need a thorough response or i don't have a WP:SNOW). Both Edison and Proto have now probably realized that this article is sourcable. But there undoubtedly remains some reservations about my sources and whether they follow WP:RS. Firstly, to Edison, primary sources are perfectly suitable for describing, which is almost all this article does, so complaining of a lack of them is irrelevant, especially when it's about a game. Secondly, one may notice my use of serebii as a RS. While fansites are generally discouraged I have yet to find a policy that forbids them. And this particular site meets the requirements laid out at WP:RS#Non-scholarly sources. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added references, but I'm not sure how you'd like me to do the references it makes to the anime. Would it be better to add refs for each episode it's refering to? or is a wikilink to the list of episodes with an episode number going to be sufficient? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following -
It introduces a theory or method of solution;
It introduces original ideas;
It defines new terms;
It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source
From WP:RS:
Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic.
As you can hopefully see, my arguments are based on the policies, not on these strawmen that you've propped up, like ILIKEIT and the WP:Pokémon test. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the physical/special attacks of Pokemon (probably in the individual articles too), list of types in relation to Phys/Special, the types and damage multiplier is solely of use to those who are playing the game (and it's in their manuals anyway) is very much game guide information. The imbalance in early gameplay? That sounds like original research based on assumptions from playing the game (please correct me if I am wrong). And the differences between the anime and the game is information already covered in sufficient depth at the parent article, Pokemon. Proto::► 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok, so what use are things like Chess openings, and the cost of the Pennsylvania Railroad to people who will never play the game? What use is knowing exactly how many floors the Empire State Building has if I'm never going to go there? Isn't it enough to say it's really tall? Or what use is reading about Poker strategy if i'm never going to play? Jimmy said we can have that... but not a simple breakdown of Pokemon types? It's been written about, so it can be included. And FYI, phys/special breakdown and damage multipliers are not included in the game manuals. That's why they needed to be referenced. Again, WP:NOT isn't about who the article will ultimately appeal to (many of the advanced mathematics categories are much to technical for the "general audience"), game-guide is about instruction and advice. If i was to write that players should use Donphan against a Raichu because it's immune to electrical attacks, that would be game guide. You say that the differences between the anime and games is covered in the main article. Where? There is nothing that deals with the specific point that the anime treats types much more loosely, often even ignoring some of the basic principles. Nor is there the discussion of physical.special breakdown, and how it has changed since Diamond/Pearl. This small bit of info is discussed at Game mechanics, but as argued before, to include the amount of info deserving of the topic would grossly imbalance the article and distract, like Kyaa has humurously pointed out. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:40, 9 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 - no claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft 12:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Densha-de-go.com[edit]

Densha-de-go.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article serves no purpose other than to promote the author's website. DAJF 10:49, 9 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 12:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furniture movers[edit]

Furniture movers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-wikified list of U.S.-only moving companies, truck rental companies, etc. with no supporting text. May have been cut and pasted from somewhere else. David 11:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mhking (talk · contribs) perhaps inadvertently deleted my vote[22], so replacing. --Dhartung | Talk 03:11, 10 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 by User:Jimfbleak — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aphrodesian Warslow[edit]

Aphrodesian Warslow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Hoax. Single google hit[23] to an Ask Yahoo forum[24] where this WP article is linked to by someone named "Icecreamb", presumably the same person as User:Icecreamboy121. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:36, 9 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 12:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Onion Cellar[edit]

The Onion Cellar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested PROD. This play only opened last month. There hasn't been enough time for it to gain any sort of notability. Joyous! | Talk 11:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All who express an opinion in this AfD are invited back on the fifth/last day, to see if any arguments presented have changed their mind, or raise new points for them to express. Lentower 02:06, 12 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. John254 20:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades)[edit]

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable enough to have a page. There are thousands of thousands books. A book must be very very notable to have a page(e.g. Bible, Quran, Dante's divine comedy etc etc). I don't expect to find this book while searching in Encyclopedia Britannica for example. Aside from this, the scholarship of the author is also believed to be fundamentally flawed by university professors like Carl Ernst, please see [26].Furthermore, if there is any controversy, it should be addressed in "Criticism of X" articles.--Aminz 12:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan, my argument is that there are thousands of thousands books. A book must be very very notable to have a page(e.g. Bible, Quran, Dante's divine comedy etc etc). I don't expect to find this book while searching in Encyclopedia Britannica.--Aminz 14:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an idea worth considering as most Encyclopedias would limit articles on books to the classics and a few additional works of historical significance. Few books written after 2000 would fit that. However traditionally that's not been how Wikipedia does things. For example Category:2005 books, the year this book came out, includes things like The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch or Dead Men Don't Leave Tips: Adventures X Africa. Related to this book we have an article on the, 2004, book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.--T. Anthony 21:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite agree with this (Aminz's) view. Wikipedia has articles on thousands of books, including a lot of fairly obscure ones that may be less well-known than this one in the general population. See Settling Accounts: The Grapple (I'm reading this at the moment), Flying Colours (which I co-wrote), 1633 (novel) (which is fairly obscure), The Crusades Through Arab Eyes (which is more germane to this discussion - a much better book, but not, I fear, more notable), and so on. That's fine with me - WP:NOT paper.
Flying Colours (which I co-wrote). You're C. S. Forester? Cool! But I thought you were dead? --Calton | Talk 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as everybody can easily see, my comment refers to the link (that I wrote all on my own ;-) and, by implication, to the Wikipedia article (which I co-wrote). I may have written the book in an earlier incarnation.... --Stephan Schulz 08:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the information about the books can be covered under the author's page. --Aminz 14:46, 9 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. John254 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Onward Muslim Soldiers[edit]

Onward Muslim Soldiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable enough to have a page. There are thousands of thousands books. A book must be very very notable to have a page(e.g. Bible, Quran, Dante's divine comedy etc etc). I don't expect to find this book while searching in Encyclopedia Britannica for example. Aside from this, the scholarship of the author is also believed to be fundamentally flawed by university professors like Carl Ernst, please see [28].Furthermore, if there is any controversy, it should be addressed in "Criticism of X" articles.--Aminz 12:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This book certainly passes the college professor test. The motivations we need to questions are those of the nominator. Arrow740 06:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we were to merge the details of the books into the article on the author, surely we would merge and redirect this article, both for navigation purposes and to preserve the edit history in terms of the GFDL. I'm sorry, but delete and merge is not a very logical option. No change of vote. Andrewa 05:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should do some research before actually giving a definite opinion on whether this should be kept or not but I'm not convinced by the above. All three reviews come from blogs or websites of advocacy groups. I think they should be disregarded as non reliable per WP:RS#Non-scholarly sources. Pascal.Tesson 15:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lou Dobbs mentions it on CNN, but I don't know enough to vote.--T. Anthony 19:36, 10 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. John254 20:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Unveiled[edit]

Islam Unveiled (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable enough to have a page. There are thousands of thousands books. A book must be very very notable to have a page(e.g. Bible, Quran, Dante's divine comedy etc etc). I don't expect to find this book while searching in Encyclopedia Britannica for example. Aside from this, the scholarship of the author is also believed to be fundamentally flawed by university professors like Carl Ernst, please see [32].Furthermore, if there is any controversy, it should be addressed in "Criticism of X" articles.--Aminz 12:55, 9 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. Any merge discussions can take place on the article's talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics[edit]

Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable enough to have a page. There are thousands of thousands books. A book must be very very notable to have a page(e.g. Bible, Quran, Dante's divine comedy etc etc). I don't expect to find this book while searching in Encyclopedia Britannica for example. Aside from this, the scholarship of the author is also believed to be fundamentally flawed by university professors like Carl Ernst, please see [34]. Furthermore, if there is any controversy, it should be addressed in "Criticism of X" articles. --Aminz 12:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment you know, the views of holocaust "revisionists" are controversial and not taken seriously by anyone... controversy only helps the article be worthy. Cannibalicious! 14:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The controversial topics could be always addressed in articles like "Criticism of X". --Aminz 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not particular to this book. There are thousands of thousands books which are reviewed. --Aminz 13:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are thousands and thousands of books that has received enough (media) attention to be notable. And the problem with that is? -- Karl Meier 14:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can wikipedia, being a scientific Encyclopedia, have a page on each of them? It is like having a page for each university professor around the world. --Aminz 14:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can. having more information can only benefit teh wikky.
No it isn't. Every university professor around the world is not a notability. -- Karl Meier 14:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If I may interject: including every university professor or every book in the world most certainly violates WP:NOT, as Aminz has noted. However, there is nothing wrong with having 1000s of notable books on WP, given that tens of millions of books have been written throughout human history. Just because there are 1000s of something is no reason to exclude them from WP: for example, heads of state, battles, chemical compounds, etc. Oh, and keep. Black Falcon 02:06, 15 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. John254 20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion[edit]

The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable enough to have a page. There are thousands of thousands books. A book must be very very notable to have a page(e.g. Bible, Quran, Dante's divine comedy etc etc). I don't expect to find this book while searching in Encyclopedia Britannica for example. Aside from this, the scholarship of the author is also believed to be fundamentally flawed by university professors like Carl Ernst, please see [38]. Furthermore, if there is any controversy, it should be addressed in "Criticism of X" articles.--Aminz 12:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please assume good faith. It makes sense to nominate a group of similar pages if you feel that they are all similarly deletable. Pascal.Tesson 15:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AGF doesn't mean to put on blinders. This user is obviously trying to make a WP:POINT. Kyaa the Catlord 15:56, 9 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 to Virginia United States Senate election, 2006#Allen's macaca controversy. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macaca moment[edit]

Macaca moment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This appears to be an attempt at neologism as there is little evidence to suggest that 'a macaca moment' is a term in general use, as opposed to 'the macaca moment' that was specific to the 2006 Virginia senatorial election and is already covered at Virginia United States Senate election, 2006#Allen's macaca controversy Cripipper 13:58, 9 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 12:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent dance music[edit]

Intelligent dance music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a genre of music that in the words of one of its "references" is ' music that defies categorization'. The term is a complete neologism, and also inherently point of view. Why is this kind of dance music intelligent? The references are completely unreliable, being a few forums, blogs and a web ring. the entire article seems to have been built off the fact that an album was released in the mid 1990s called Artificial Intelligence. Aphex Twin, which this original research describes as the founder of 'intelligent dance music' is a drill and bass / ambient techno artist, not 'intelligent dance', and said himself that he considers he has nothing to do with the newly-invented and made up arbitrary name, himself suggesting it was not a fair name to use ([42]). Wikipedia should strive to avoid neologisms, avoid original research, and not be the place for things made up in school one day. Delete. Proto::► 14:48, 9 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 merge and redirect to No. 52 Squadron RAF because I have big WP:COJONES. Little duplication in the two articles, very easy. Tubezone 01:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number 52 Squadron Royal Air Force[edit]

Number 52 Squadron Royal Air Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete? This article seems like, either a hoax, or a unnotable topic; I haven't seen anything about this anywhere, so I don't know who teh No. 52 Squadron is. BishopTutu 05:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Just realised that it's a duplicate of No. 52 Squadron RAF, so although it's genuine, the article is not needed. Readro 17:13, 9 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 due to rewrite. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qur'an and miracles[edit]

Qur'an and miracles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete There are no miracles in the quran. This is not a factual article. It is not varified. See WP:V. It is bias per the title (See WP:NPOV), unencyclopediac (also per title), horribly written, unreferenced with Reliable sources. This article is aslo a vehicle for propaganda and inventions. Sefringle 02:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See talk:Qur'an and miracles#Un-sourced statements. It can be seen that the creator of this article made it to see if it would be nominated for deletion.--Sefringle 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you see here, it seems to have been a bad faith creation.--Sefringle 03:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if there are no scholarly sources attributing miracles to the quran, it doesn't make sense to have an article about them. And if the article exists for propaganda purposes, it is unencyclopeidac to have such an article. I think what you are talking about is already stated in Islamic view of miracles. I did not nominate that article for deletion, because although it is poorly written, it has a much greater potential to become scholarly and encyclopediac.--Sefringle 02:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your premise "there are no scholarly sources attributing miracles to the quran" is wrong: The Quran itself stresses the miraculous revelation given by Allah (God) to Muhammad (e.g. Sura 41:6), and this important claim is then analyzed in the scholarly literature - for example I have at hand a copy of Spurensuche - Die Weltreligionen auf dem Weg by Hans Küng in Czech translation, where this is described on page 269. Therefore the aricle can and should be rewritten in encyclopedic manner, in my opinion.--Ioannes Pragensis 07:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Title does not imply that there are any miracles in the Qur'an, only that the article is about those two subjects, thus is the title perfectly NPOV. Miracles in the Qur'an would be Muslim POV. Whose point of view does "Qur'an and miracles" propagate? Even an atheist could write an article with that name, only to proceed with denying every single claimed miracle.
  2. I reverted to an older version were everything is formulated as claim and nothing is takes as factual, thus, there is no NPOV problems
  3. There is no Verifiability problems, anyone can check even the internet to see a plethora of Muslim websites claim miracles in the Qur'an, in fact, those claims are to be found in all major websites and you can even find some websites dedicated to explore claims of miracles.
  4. You don't need a scholarly source for a topic like this, i can't find any scholarly source for Pokemon, just a lot of people that enjoy them, if you get my point. Just how many scholarly sources to you find regarding List of Star Trek planets, Candy bar or The Headington Shark ? And even if it were necessary, which it is not, there are lots of Muslim scholars that have written about this topic, for example Zakir Nike, just from the tip of my head.
  5. Needs better sources? Sure. So fix it. But don't claim that there IS no prominent and notable Muslim sources that claim so, for the Qur'an itself makes such a claim.

--Striver - talk 10:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article presents a very one-sided Islamic view now, but I do not see a reason why we should support it. The Islamic view should be a part of the article, but not the only part, otherwise we'll lose NPOV. There is a lot of sources from Christian and secular POV about it, too; why not mention them?--Ioannes Pragensis 17:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you. That was just a suggestion considering the current state of the article that would have been the title. Anyway, it needs lot of improvements and other point of views should be included to make it more presentable. --Falcon007 17:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you are arguing for is a editorial issue and not an argument for deleting an article. You don't need an afd to stubify an article. --Striver - talk 14:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: OK guys, the article was really horrible. Therefore I have rewritten it from scratch and I believe that by now it is an above-average stub - could you please look at it once again?--Ioannes Pragensis 09:20, 14 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. —Centrx→talk • 00:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Rockman[edit]

Maxwell Rockman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Asserts notability as photographer, but zero Google hits, unlikely premise (renowned photographer at age 17?) Anyway, not verifiable as is. NawlinWiki 15:05, 9 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 12:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soil (Pre-System of a Down)[edit]

Soil (Pre-System of a Down) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Little information or notability, this does not need more than refence in the System of a Down article. Joltman 15:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were members of the above band and are similarly not of very much notability:

Domingo Laranio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dave Hagopyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joltman 15:27, 9 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 12:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Parker[edit]

Alex Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, largely unverifiable, possible hoax. Search for Alex Parker and "The Tempest" returns 30 Ghits and no reliable sources [43], search for Alex Parker and "The Forest of the Night" returns zero Ghits [44] One Night In Hackney 15:07, 9 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 12:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Le Fleur[edit]

Autumn Le Fleur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable businesswoman and bondage model. I'm not sure how important the SIGNY awards are, but if she'd won that might have been a different story. Fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney 15:15, 9 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 12:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yin Yang Yo! (video game)[edit]

Yin Yang Yo! (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Either the info on this game is really late updating, or it's all crystal-ball stuff. Nekohakase 15:33, 9 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 closed. Content has been merged with Aramaeans in the Netherlands, so this article has been redirected to that article. Aecis No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end 00:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arameans in enschede[edit]

Arameans in enschede (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page already has been merged with Arameans in the Netherlands by the author. This latter page contains more and wider information on Arameans in the Netherlands including information on the situation in Enschede JohannesI 16:04, 9 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. But, anyone is free to hold a requested merge on the talk to decide where to (because there was also no consensus on where to merge to, with three articles given). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cerkiew[edit]

Cerkiew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

del . 100% foreign dicdef (the 100% adequate tranlsation is "Orthodox church") with some incoherent rambling that churches can be big and small and in some languages orhtodox and catholic churches may be called by diffrent words. `'mikka 17:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC) NOTE This deletion nomination was changed (around 06:03, 11 January 2007 ) after it was started and after quite a bit of debate. KP Botany 14:39, 11 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 to Roman infantry tactics. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tactics of the Roman century in combat[edit]

Tactics of the Roman century in combat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Already covered by articles Roman infantry tactics and Roman military personal equipment PocklingtonDan 17:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't feel that a redirect would be appropriate here, since:
  • the article name is so long-winded no-one is likely ever to type it in in the hope of finding an article, and
  • There's nothing that links to the article either.
  • Despite its title, it actually contains weapons info too as per Roman military personal equipment. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 17:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - redirects are cheap, and since at least one person thought use this article title, then I would submit it is at least a plausible search term. As for the actual content, I did not suggest a merge so the fact that it contains information about wepaons is irrelevant. I did not suggest a merge because all of the information is unsourced, and the other target articels are in good shape. -- Whpq 17:28, 10 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. After considering the nomination and the amount of !votes that have no bearing on consensus (such as attacking the nominator), the consensus is for a delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMS-10 Zudah[edit]

EMS-10 Zudah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS as it is completely unreferenced and has no reliable sources either to support notability or to confirm the article's content. Reads like complete cruft as it fails WP:FICT as it is written from a completely non-real-world perspective. Does not assert notability in the slightest, so it could technically be speedied. No reason to let this turn into yet more listcruft, either. Moreschi Deletion! 17:47, 9 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Everlong[edit]

Return to Everlong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn screenplay, no reliable sources. 17 Google hits. User:Zoe

Note that, after removing Wikipedia and the screeplay's two websites from the Google hits, it's down to four hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:20, 10 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 12:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy & logic[edit]

Philosophy & logic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod tag removed. Personal essay - fails WP:OR. We already have articles on both philosophy and logic. Folantin 18:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article with this title should be written, but not at all like this. This is just origional research and is a complete embarassment to wikipedia.--Sefringle 03:44, 10 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 12:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive comments by famous people[edit]

Offensive comments by famous people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE This seems like a fairly arbitrary collection of indiscriminate, even if offensive, trivia. The comments may be noteworthy enough for the individual bio entries, but not for a separate entry Cripipper 18:40, 9 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Schack[edit]

Travis Schack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Weak Keep - I am creator of this article. However I couldn't gather enough reliable facts about this security researcher. Hence this article may be deleted. However if this article is kept, I might be able to do some improvements. -- Root exploit 14:49, 2 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, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:57, 9 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 close. This is not the proper forum for discussion of redirect deletions, see redirects for deletion instead. Metros232 20:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Host[edit]

Ghost Host (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page serves no purpose on Wikipedia. It is just a shortcut that NO-ONE would ever think of using. Bowsy 18:59, 9 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. BJAODN avaliable on request if not done so already... ;) - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies with female bathtub scenes[edit]

List of movies with female bathtub scenes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The only purpose of this list is prurient curiosity; it's sexist and not encyclopedic. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • BJAODN this brilliance. (Oh, btw, the way I see it, a female bathtub is a high-class porcelain job that lets people slide into it with the appropriate, um, sensuality. A male bathtub is a metal one you can flip over and use to take cover from grenades.) Quack 688 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:11, 12 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 to delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somaliland national football team[edit]

Somaliland national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

An unverifiable article that is also almost a ((db-empty)) candidate. If this football team exists at all - there are no immediately googleable sources, and none are provided - they are quite certainly non-notable for lack of third-party coverage. Sandstein 20:06, 9 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 12:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rijeka national football team[edit]

Rijeka national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Yes, you read correctly, this article has nothing at all to say about this nonnotable and unverifiable football team. The colourful boxes alone save it from a ((db-empty)). I'm at a loss why the city of Rijeka is supposed to have a national team, incidentally. Sandstein 20:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it constituted a separate entity before. Punkmorten 08:19, 10 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 as original research ~ trialsanderrors 09:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human territory[edit]

Human territory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

del, a good chunk of original reasearch. please suggest in which articles some interesting statistical data may be moved. the text is naive and in many places wrong. For example, humans are not territorial animals. And personal house is not "territory" in this sense, it is "dwelling" or "shelter", which may be part of territory and may be not. I can continue this list, but it is waste of time. `'mikka 20:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly:

"Human beings are territorial animals." is a direct quote from the Oxford encyclopedia”

A quote taken out of context and written by a sociologist who sees only a piece of an elephant (who does't know this palabre about five blinds who tried to describe an animal?) and too smart for his own good. Just as well other sociologists like to ponder that "humans are nomadic animals" `'mikka 17:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly: "Territory is the name given to an area that an animal defends as a living space" is another quote from the Oxford encyclopedia. The living space for a person is there dwelling.

Badenoch 10:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, what problem do you have with the page?Badenoch 09:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikka, Please go to the wikipage called "territory" and under the heading "In psychology" you will find that someone has provided a deffinition from the field of psychology. Please read it. Badenoch 11:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I wil not argue. I may well be wrong as anyone else. Therefore we have voting for deletion here, not just a set of "chief editors" who can just delete pages. Still, the article has no authority with the exception of the part about statistich of housing. "Human territory" here is an unreferenced speculation and overgeneralization. "Dwelling" is a term in its own, treated separately from "territory." `'mikka 17:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 19:11, 15 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 ~ trialsanderrors 09:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squared Circle Wrestling[edit]

Squared Circle Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Small promotion, that got very little notable google hits. Wikipedia isn't a guide to every promotion ever. Just because a promotion has featured known stars, doesn't make it known enough for Wikipedia. Many indy promotions get popular stars to wrestle, all of those promotions certainly aren't notable enough for articles here. RobJ1981 20:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this is someone from the Rochester area. Jealous ?

mrpality 15:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC) The biggest weekend in 2CW's albeit short history is mere days away and only now does someone decide that the 2CW entry is a candidate for deletion. It is clear that this involves someone who considers themselves competition and is trying to discredit us in any way possible.[reply]

Comment. This wasn't proposed because of "wars between feds". This was proposed because it's a small indy fed that didn't turn up much on Google. Wikipedia isn't the guide to every indy fed in the world. RobJ1981 23:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mrpality I would invite you to do a search for '2CW' on either Google, MySpace, or YouTube and you will see that we are a fed that is on the rise and not what you would call non-notable. We're only a year old, perhaps that is the hangup here?

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

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roma people national football team[edit]

Roma people national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Here's another one of my recent nominations of articles about non-notable and barely verifiable "national" football teams. It has the usual issues, such as no sources for its content (and none that can be immediately found through Google), as well as no apparent sportive accomplishments (even assuming they have played any matches at all). Sandstein 20:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per VIVA World Cup. м info 22:24, 13 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 to delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cameroon national football team[edit]

Southern Cameroon national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I'm just about to create a template for the AfDs of these "national" team articles, so here goes the short version: fails WP:V and WP:N, no reliable sources except a listing from their league indicating that they exist, no apparent sportive accomplishments, no media coverage to be found. Sandstein 20:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep if they had actually played in the VIVA World Cup. However, they never fielded a team, so delete. When they play a game that the world can here about, we could keep them. --Madnessinshorts 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was wrong about the language. They are talking about the southern part of the old British mandate, the rest of which was in the North. It remains that this is not a national team, so even if it is notable, the name should be changed. --Bduke 08:29, 12 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bo and Nora Buchanan[edit]

Bo and Nora Buchanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This stub has no articles linking to it, and both characters have their own articles (Bo Buchanan/Nora Hanen). Additionally, they are no longer a couple on the program and they are not listed in the supercouple article, so I see no point for this article at this time. TAnthony 20:29, 9 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 to close, as it is a redirect, and should go to WP:RFD. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bo and Nora[edit]

Bo and Nora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page has no articles linking to it, and is a redirect to a page I have just submitted for deletion TAnthony 20:35, 9 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pay per chat[edit]

Pay per chat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Already speedied once, as it was tied to advertising for AskPoodle.com, which seems to be the primary user of the term. Looks like Neologism with no Reliable Sources to indicate that it has become a notable term. Fan-1967 20:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Google searches for the terms it is compared with:

Pay-per click: Over 3 million hits
Pay-per call: Almost 900,000 hits
Pay-per chat: About 1,700 hits
Although unique results are not totally reliable once the total is over 1,000, the unique hits come to 64, many of which come back to AskPoodle.com. Fan-1967 20:32, 9 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. —Centrx→talk • 00:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fishguhlish[edit]

Fishguhlish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

fails WP:BIO, WP:V, and appears to have been created by its subject (created by MikeTheWebGuy and cites MikeTheMusicGuy as a pseudonym of the subject. Jefferson Anderson 20:38, 9 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 12:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waddlemeyer Ramrod[edit]

Waddlemeyer Ramrod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete - non-notable piece of fictional technology that figures in a single episode of the Darkwing Duck series before being destroyed. Insufficient to sustain an article on its own. Otto4711 20:38, 9 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 12:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Who[edit]

Where's Who (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable school play, no references to suggest this could be made into a verifiable article. Tim! 20:50, 9 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. - Bobet 00:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeland Community[edit]

Bridgeland Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

this appears to be a development company spamming WP with their development plans Jefferson Anderson 21:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article SHOULD be at Bridgeland, Texas - Let me redirect NOW. WhisperToMe 21:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HELP! There were more revisions, but I don't know what the fuck happened to them! Help me find them! By the way, this is a real planned community in Harris County, Texas. We need to slap Tanjal's wrist (or face) for losing the revisions, if he is guilty. WhisperToMe 21:54, 9 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 (nc). -Docg 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Crew[edit]

Soul Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A seemigly non-notable bunch of hooliganisms from Cardif. I've lived in Cardiff and have heard of them myself, but that's not relevant. I've also heard of a few chip shops and exciting lampposts in Cardiff...if they can claim notability, then I'll give up the fight to delete this. Madnessinshorts 21:25, 9 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 12:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chagos Islands national football team[edit]

Chagos Islands national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Someone else was just about to create a template for the AfDs of these "national" team articles, so here goes the short version: fails WP:V and WP:N, no reliable sources except a listing from their league indicating that they exist, no apparent sportive accomplishments, no media coverage to be found. When they have played a match the world knows about, we can restore. Madnessinshorts 21:38, 9 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 12:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Papua national football team[edit]

West Papua national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Someone else was just about to create a template for the AfDs of these "national" team articles, so here goes the short version: fails WP:V and WP:N, no reliable sources except a listing from their league indicating that they exist, no apparent sportive accomplishments, no media coverage to be found. When they have played a match the world knows about, we can restore. Madnessinshorts 21:48, 9 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 12:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjutsu (Naruto)[edit]

Ninjutsu (Naruto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I am nominating this list as I believe it's "indiscriminate information". It's just once long list of every single ninjutsu move that’s appeared in Naruto, which makes no sense in a wider context, and even within Naruto many of the moves aren't really notable, having only appeared once or twice in the source with little impact or no impact on the plot. There are other similar pages like List of taijutsu in Naruto, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate to nominate them all, so I'm just going for this one list now.FredOrAlive 21:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The separate subpages that make up the list:

List of ninjutsu in Naruto (A-G) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of ninjutsu in Naruto (H-R) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of ninjutsu in Naruto (S-Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of ninjutsu in Naruto (other media) (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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewbuntu[edit]

Jewbuntu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

An unreleased fork of Ubuntu. No reliable sources describing it appear to exist; as far as I can tell, this is more or less a joke. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:04, 9 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 Cool Hand Luke 17:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EXpressDSP[edit]

EXpressDSP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Previous AfD was in May 2006. The decision was no concensus, and the article has not been updated since. This article is orphaned and its notability is, in my opinion, very low. Therefore I propose its deletion. -- lucasbfr talk 22:06, 9 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 12:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PES Championship[edit]

PES Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is pure spam and totally useless for WP. It must be deleted--KaragouniS 11:32, 10 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 ~ trialsanderrors 09:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee D'Ass[edit]

Cherokee D'Ass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Does not even seem to try to meet WP:PORNBIO. ~ BigrTex 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. I ((prod))ded the article a month ago. It hasn't improved since then. She isn't even notable enough to be included at imdb. ~ BigrTex 22:46, 9 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 per non-notable and indiscriminant nature . HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains, inventions and pets in Codename: Kids Next Door[edit]

List of villains, inventions and pets in Codename: Kids Next Door (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete - nominated once before, results no consensus. An indiscriminate list of non-notable, apparently mostly single appearance items. Three months since the last AfD and the list has only gotten cruftier. Otto4711 22:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't find "cruft" offensive in the slightest. If you object to "cruft," then go with "indisciminate list of non-notable, apparently mostly single appearance items." Not everything that appears on a television screen is notable, even if it appears on-screen during a notable program. Otto4711 02:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you don't find use of the term cruft offensive, you used it. However, I find it offensive, and I ask you to respect that feeling. It's derogatory and should be avoided. Is there some reason you couldn't have used some more neutral language instead? FrozenPurpleCube 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to the subject at hand, since these things are hallmarks of the series, I can't understand deleting them. These things are often intrinsic to the plot of the episode they are in, not just minor things like gas stations. It's clear to me that if you're writing an article about the episode these things are in, you'd include them, so I have no problem with it being presented in this other format. So, I have to ask, are you familiar with this show? Because it seems to me that deleting this would be akin to deleting an article listing aliens in Star Trek, or places Sam Beckett jumped to in Quantum Leap. FrozenPurpleCube 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I very well might vote to delete such articles depending on how I felt after reviewing them. I would definitely vote to delete an indiscriminate list of one-off ST aliens and pets and I'd vote to delete a list of, say, one-off outfits, cars and siblings-of-leaped-into people from QL. Otto4711 14:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC
I wouldn't, because AFD is not a vote. I also wouldn't argue such, as that kind of list would be highly informative about the show. Personally, I wish List of Quantum Leap characters had a description of the leapees instead of just names. I'm glad List of Star Trek races does. And perhaps you should review them, and consider this list in that context. Now I don't think every car in QL should get an article. I can't think of any car that would even warrant a description. In KND the vehicles do matter though, a lot. Again, are you familiar with this show? FrozenPurpleCube 16:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear god, are you really going to get all Peter Pedantic because I said "vote"? I know AfD isn't a vote and you know as well as I do that any number of people refer to the process casually as voting. And as I've been trying to explain, my objection to this list is that it is indiscriminate. It lists villains AND inventions AND pets indiscriminately, and it lists items which appear in a single episode and are otherwise completely lacking in notability either within or outside the series. I would not object to a list of Star Trek aliens. I would object to an indisctiminate list of ST aliens AND pets AND whatever, and I would object to an indiscriminate list of QT outfits AND cars AND siblings. If the individual villains are notable, make a list of villains. If the individual pets are notable, make a list of pets. If the individual members of this list aren't notable then slapping them all together on a list doesn't make them notable. Note them in articles for the episodes if they exist or get rid of them. Otto4711 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but did I offend you by noting that an AFD is not a vote? I didn't mean to do so. I've had people chide me for the same mistake. I realize that it is one, but I try to resist being irritated by having my mistakes pointed out. It is hard though, so I understand if you were offended. My bad. FrozenPurpleCube 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the article, this isn't an indiscriminate list, not in general, as the episodes of Codename: Kids Next Door are about these very things. I think the problem is, you're confused by the list title, which I can see is misleading. That may be part of the problem. I should have realized this sooner, my bad. What this is, is a list of the things used by the bad guys in the show. I'm not sure of a better title, but I do agree it needs one. However, given the nature of the show, I can understand why a list might be important. But it is not as much like the example you gave of ST lists and QL lists. There's actually a pretty solid connection there, but if you aren't familiar with the show, you might not recognize it.
Which leads to me repating my question though, are you familiar with this show? I've asked several times, but I can't find a response by you on it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about every aspect of the show, but a particular aspect of it that is as definitive as Star Trek's Aliens or Quantum Leap's leapees. I have to ask, are you familiar with this show at all? FrozenPurpleCube 01:17, 11 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 to Film budgeting. Eluchil404 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie budget[edit]

Movie budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not sure this contributes in any way since we already have a Budget page and the lists could probably be found in other ways. TonyTheTiger 22:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dont think this article should be deleted, the budget page is not discussing any specific budget regarding movie budgets.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FoundArcadia (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 keep per WP:SNOWBALL. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone (Linksys)[edit]

IPhone (Linksys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A non-notable line of phones that only got an article because it shared the name of the (then-rumored) Apple iPhone. Now that we know the Apple iPhone exists, this Linksys product line is not of importance anymore. Cisco, the maker of the Linksys iPhone, is in the final stages of negotiations to sell the iPhone trademark to Apple Inc. [51] Scepia 22:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dude, your CNN article says they are making negotiations. Negotiations can go either way, and Cisco could possibly end up licensing the iPhone name to Apple for all we know. EricJosepi 00:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: negotiations fell through and Cisco filed suit against Apple for trademark infringement. [52] 171.71.37.171 00:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. no assertion of why the vote is being made (e.g. just "keep" without any other comment) or
  2. provide non-encyclopedic (in a Wikipedia sense) reasoning for the vote (e.g. "is a real product") or
  3. provide encyclopedic reasoning (e.g. "notable") but show no evidence to back up these claims
Note to Zunaid: I think the closing admin knows how to close without you condescendingly dictating his or her job to him or her. cacophony ◄► 16:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability criteria for products is discussed in the guideline WP:CORP, which says that a product is notable if it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". Here are such sources:
While WP:CORP also recommends that information on a company's products should be incorporated in the article on the company itself - in this case, Linksys, as Zunaid suggested. However, WP:CORP also says that "major" products should have their own articles. "The distinction between a 'minor' and a 'major' product is somewhat arbitrary. The main point is that if a lot of information is available on a product, it should be split out, and if little is available, it should be merged into a list." While the Linksys iPhone is undoubtedly not "major" in the overall consumer electronics industry, there is certainly a lot of information available on the product and thus meets the criteria for a separate article. schi talk 19:44, 10 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 wasspeedy deleted per G11 by Bobo192 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) 06:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DailyStrength.org[edit]

DailyStrength.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Possible advertising. Not sure about webpage notability criteria. TonyTheTiger 22:56, 9 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 speedied A7. Opabinia regalis 05:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pivothost[edit]

Pivothost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Notability/Advertising TonyTheTiger 23:00, 9 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. -Docg 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Head of Household (Big Brother)[edit]

Head of Household (Big Brother) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable. Come on, people... this isn't even a TV show, but rather a subcategorization of a particular aspect of that game show. Does anyone really think this article has any educational merit and is of interest to ANYONE as a standlaone topic? Strong Delete Elambeth 22:41, 9 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 Already deleted by Deskana per WP:CSD#G4. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMAR BARNETT[edit]

OMAR BARNETT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete as non-notable actor per WP:BIO. Unable to find sources indicating parts. Little to no Google presence; no IMDb profile. Kinu t/c 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As mentioned, no sources about the person. MySpace page doesn't count. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 01:44, 10 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 per consensus. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bose headphones[edit]

Bose headphones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

It has been over five months since the original AFD. Despite the promises by a number of editors to clean up the advertising language in the article and provide sources, the article today still reads like an advertisement. With the exception of a single product review in a newspaper, all of the sources cited by the article are either published by Bose or by business partners of Bose.

The encyclopedic information here boils down to two sentences: "The Bose corporation produces a line of audio headphones. They are known for their use of active noise cancellation." These statements are already included in the article Bose Corporation.

Please be sure to expand the "show/hide" boxes in the article, which reveal long lists of consumercruft and links to product pages at the Best Buy web site.

This article has had long enough to demonstrate encyclopedic potential. Time's up, and as the cybermen say, delete. —ptk✰fgs 23:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes WP:CORP so the deletion nomination is to be removed. Proof of this is listed below. here are the requirements as of WP:CORP

A product or service is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:
1) The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.

2) The product or service is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization.

-- UKPhoenix79 03:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not paste huge chunks of text verbatim from the previous AFD into this discussion. I have already linked it above. Let's try to have an orderly discussion this time.
The problems with the article are clear and fundamental. It reads like a shopping catalog, with lists of specifications and subjective claims supported only by Bose's own marketing material. Reposting a five-month old dump of external links into this AFD is not an appropriate solution to the lack of non-trivial, independent reference sources in the article.
This community has assumed good faith for five months. It's time to take out the trash. —ptk✰fgs 04:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove content that is intended to PROVE this pages worth. Do we really want to make another 100kb page just to say exactly what I have stated above. As I'm sure you know I completely disagree with you but I want you to help!! You say things are inatiquent then please assist us in improving this. There is no reason in doing this over and over again. If you think this pages needs improving let us know exactly what the problems are so they can be resolved and make this article better for it! -- UKPhoenix79 06:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reposting text that is easily accessed in the previous discussion. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. It is important that you resist the urge to flood this page with comments. Ensure that you are adding something substantial to the discussion before saving your changes. (Hint: if you feel that you are repeating yourself, it is probably not something substantial.)
As I noted before, a stale dump of external links in an AFD does not fix the problems in the article. I enumerated clearly the fundamental deficiencies in the article. It lacks independent non-trivial sources. It reads like a shopping catalog, eschewing discussion of the history and impact of the product in favor of an unencyclopedic litany of product features and specifications. It brazenly includes external links to product pages at the Best Buy web site.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The lists of unremarkable information (for example, "magnetically shielded ear cup", "3.5mm stereo plug", MSRP's in three different currencies, minute variations in the rotational angles of product parts) are exactly what is meant by "indiscriminate collection of information" and should be removed. The unfalsifiable and subjective assertions (for example, "better treble performance", "much more effective at attenuating noise") scattered throughout the article serve no purpose except to promote the products of a company. Wikipedia is not a platform for free marketing.
I've already indicated that, as far as I can tell, there are two kernels of encyclopedic information in this page. Bose sells a range of headphones. They are noted for their use of active noise cancellation. The rest is cruft that could not possibly interest anyone unless he's shopping for electronics.
Lastly, there was no consensus to keep the article. The previous AFD, as you'll note, was closed with a decision of no consensus, with a recommendation that the page needed substantial cleanup. The only viable cleanup strategy I can conceive of for this page is #REDIRECT [[Bose Corporation]], so please excuse my reluctance to be instantly reverted rather than bring it here for discussion first. —ptk✰fgs 06:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason the price was mentioned is in an effort to be thorough. It was not plastered all over the place it doesn't seem to be that unusual inside of wikipedia. Here is an example, I'm going to quickly list Apple Computer articles that have prices included (and some even have Multiple different prices listed) IPod IPod mini IPod photo IPod shuffle IPod nano IPod Hi-Fi Apple Mighty Mouse Xserve RAID ISight Power Mac G5 Xserve MacBook Pro IMac Mac mini IBook MacBook. Hell if you go to Xbox_360#Retail_configurations & PlayStation 3#Release data and pricing they have an entire table dedicated to listing the prices by individual country. And you will notice that the specs of these products are clearly listed also. These are standards for an encyclopedia to list facts and these are facts. Now saying "better treble performance" is listed as items that Bose claims to have improved from the previous version and should be cited as such. But such things as "magnetically shielded" is something that is listed as one of its features... Just check out other product pages that I have listed Each one has technical specifications heck just check out Wii an article that I have not even mentioned yet and you will see that this is exactly the same. -- UKPhoenix79 07:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am sure there is other junk in the encyclopedia, and it does not surprise me that it has appeared in Apple and Nintendo articles. That is not relevant here, because it is not those articles under discussion.
My point with "magnetically shielded", "3.5mm stereo plug" and so forth is that those bits of information don't even add anything to shopping research on the product. We've already said they're consumer headphones; it follows quite obviously that they will be magnetically shielded and have the standard plug. As Zunald notes below, if we remove the advert material we're left with little more than the first few sentences. Those bits are easily merged into Bose Corporation. —ptk✰fgs 14:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point with showing you all of these Apple pages with prices was the fact that I showed you only one company and they all had the cost listed. If you were to search through wikipedia you will find that almost every single one out there lists the MSRP. Like it or not it is the standard. Heck I showed you this last time and you had the same answer that its their problem. Well as you see 5 months later it was conclusive that the price should stay and not only that we should list the prices for the entire wold for some systems.... I don't see any nominations that the iPod page is an Ad I don't see the XBox 360 listed similarly...
Also if you are talking about headphones it is important to list how it connects since there are two main types out there 1/8th inch (aka 3.5mm) and 1/4 inch stereo connections. It is like saying how the Wii connects to the TV using composite, s-video or component. When one talks about technology you need specifics when connecting to another technology. The magnetically shielded is specifically listed because it is a difference between a previous model and a reason why some accessories (for the cell phone) will not work with the previous model. Actually if you remove the "adverts" as you claim you are left with simple facts including citations, R&D (cited thanks to Dpbsmith), the timeline, A long list of facts for the quiet comforts that will take up a page, Simple facts about the non noise canceling headphones (i.e. triports) that will take up another page, The Aviation headphones that fact wise is very complete and again takes up a lot of space, Blurbs about the Combat Vehicle Crewman Headset, the entire American Airlines section, and the Criticisms section that I personally think needs some expansion. This would still be a separate article since there is so much plain and simple facts about the products out there. -- UKPhoenix79 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that no one has yet been able to produce an article on Bose headphones that is capable of standing on its own. A section in the article Bose Corporation is surely warranted. As I've said before, there's so little in the article that is of value that it can be edited down to nothing, as the Bose Corporation article already contains the encyclopedic information. —ptk✰fgs 23:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now thats just silly especially since dpbsmith said that (s)he added verifiable information to this article. Lets do what the annon user said and work from known facts and expand the article from there. There are plenty of facts in the article and they should be worked with to make it better.
Ok... Lets try this Please go to other Product Articles and give examples how they are better and lets try to use them as templates to make this article better! The only way to move forward is to use what we have and make it into something better :-) -- UKPhoenix79 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Some of the marketing language and the upgrade pricing information can be foregone to make it a bit more encyclopedic. When I mean lose the marketing language, I mean trying to find awkward phrases that contribute to being as marketing language and forego it to make it a bit more encyclopedic. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so the fact that there are edittors that are strongly making a case to keep an article is grounds to delete it? AFD is a discussion ,and a case for keeping or deleting should be made based on merit guided by policy and guidelines. -- Whpq 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agents of Bose?? What on earth does that mean? That only people that are being paid by Bose want to keep this page? Damn I think I have missed out... How do I contact them to get paid??--64.240.163.221 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
commentI have now made a first pass at copyediting , mainly at the first portions. I have, undoubtedly more controversially, boldly removed the hidden product specifications. This is much better done with external links & I assume the existing external links lead to them.
It rather startles me that outside sources could not be found for documenting the various features, considering the very large number of product reviews that have appeared. DGG 01:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you agree on the articles worth and ecstatic that you decided to help improve the page. Though I do think the specifications are a necessity and if you check any well documented article dedicated to a product you will see that they list them also, with notable examples including iPod, Xbox_360 & PlayStation 3. So I do think that we should list specifications. The reason that they were using hidden text was to save space and to focus on the article itself allowing the reader the choice of reading the info or not. As one user said, these are just facts and a any good article should use the facts as the basis of everything else that appears. Do you know of any solution to including this? I wont revert back for a while to see if a solution presents itself :-) -- UKPhoenix79 02:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is much better without the specifications. The Bose Corporation has a perfectly good website where anyone interested can find this sort of details. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes the article look like advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It actually does not list all the specifications... Go to the Bose website and try to find the decibel rating, driver size, operating temperature, impedance or the Magnet type. Bose does not list such information and it was through a lot of digging that such information was found. But like stated before is it not a common practice on wikipedia to list such tings? What I think we need is a good example to work off to make this article better! -- UKPhoenix79 03:33, 13 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 WP:CSD A7 and G11 Guy (Help!) 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gish[edit]

The Gish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A "cult film" which hasn't even been made yet. Produced by "Short And Sweet Films", article created by -- wait for it -- User:Short And Sweet Films. PROD tag added but removed without comment by anon IP. Calton | Talk 00:01, 10 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. However, any recreation WITH sources should not be deleted without another debate.-Docg 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chreamo[edit]

Chreamo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unreferenced article, possibly a neolgism. Many statements in the article are not WP:NPOV or WP:WEASEL. Fruthermore, I can personally attest that some of the bands mentioned there are not at all emo. It would be nice to avoid the trash-talking of the concept of such groups in this discussion. --YbborT 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Moniska89 19:43, 13 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.
More