< September 15 September 17 >
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 transwiki to Wiktionary. Requested here, although anyone with a Wiktionary account (ie. not me) is welcome to do so. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 12:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry (graphs)[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable neologism. It was supposedly "popularized" just today. GlassCobra 00:37, 17 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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 23:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Plantation[edit]

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

Article was PROD'ed for lack of notability, but contested since article asserted notability stating that it received various awards and recognitions, although only reference is the article's website. So discussion is brought here. Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 23:23, 16 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 Delete and replace with Help (disambiguation). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

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

This page is a rambling dictionary definition with an irrelevant list tacked on. I really doubt that people going to an article on "Help" are interested in random links to Begging and Soup kitchen. Moreover, I don't really see a way that any decent article could be written on help; it's an impossibly broad topic. About the only thing that could be done with it are endless examples of how everyone in every walk of life can sometimes ask for help, and that doesn't make for a good article (see: "Often in sports people may call out for "Help" signaling that they need assistance from one of their team mates").

If this page is deleted, Help (disambiguation) should be moved to Help instead, and possibly some of the links on this page moved to that page's See also section. SnowFire 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Due to Quiddity's evangelizing for wiki-neutrality, I simply agreed with him by dropping the drive. But Quiddity doesn't seem happy until you follow his prescriptions, even if you go out of your way to implement a different remedy. For example, when he believes that an issue should receive more discussion and comment, rather than requesting such comment personally he may instead impose this as a responsibility upon someone else, and then at any point from then on may openly complain about that person for not complying with his "suggestions". I can't speak for others, but I find that practice needlessly annoying (and possibly a minor form of harrassment). If Quiddity wants more comment, then Quiddity should request it himself, rather than pressure someone else into doing his bidding. In this case though, I believe an RfC will simply be beating a dead horse. The Transhumanist 18:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, admin Richardshusr was the one who suggested an RfC, I just seconded the recommendation. I also stated that I understood that the topic might merit special treatment, and that this article would be a useful example for said discussion. It's not my project, and not my fault you ignored it.
    If you feel that the page's current state is defensible, then defend it (or improve it); but please don't attack me. --Quiddity 19:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by seconding it, that made it your recommendation as well. But by complaining about my not doing your bidding, you have turned it into more of a command than a suggestion (the implication being "do what I want you to do or I will complain about it until you do"). But the rest of you should know that this is not the first time Quiddity has used pressure tactics on me. He has even resorted to threatening me to try to get me to do his bidding. He seems to forget that this is a volunteer organization, and that ordering people around is totally out of place. I don't take kindly to threats and other forms of coersion, and will speak out against them every time. Quiddity, please stop. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was writing a personal addendum for the last 30 mins, and just posted it at your talkpage and then noticed your reply here. It works as a reply to this thread too though, so I'll leave it at that. --Quiddity 04:19, 19 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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 23:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly American (magazine)[edit]

Ugly American (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Massive, MASSIVE COI taking place here. Also bordering on notability (probably not even there yet), and a very crappy article in general. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few facts for your consideration:

1) None of the zine's principals created the article; the article was created by a fan. I rewrote the article due to numerous factual inaccuracies, and I included in the initial draft an unusual postscript explicitly stating the possibility of a conflict of interest. I also stated that no one outside of the original participants could possibly have a sufficient grasp of the facts to present an accurate historical record of the zine. The postscript - but not the actual article - was felt by the administrators at the time to fall outside of the boundaries of Wiki's stylistic standards, and it was eliminated. Great care was taken to maintain a balanced perspective on the subject at hand, and none of the people involved with the zine or mentioned in the article have ever complained that its portrayal is innaccurate (which, admittedly, doesn't actually prove anything; a careful reading of the article, however, clearly demonstrates a rather straightforward presentation of both "positive" and "negative" facts).

2) The possibility that the zine is a promotional item is nil, considering the fact that it folded in 1999, and that most, if not all, of the bands mentioned (including those that included members of the zine) have also folded. Had you bothered to read the article, you'd note that it contains no promotional material whatsoever.

3) So the article is crappy? Really? Crappier than, say, the forlorn stub on Forced Exposure that's been sitting around since February 2005? Less notable than the ultra-obscure zine The Grimoire of Exalted Deeds, or the laughably obscure Riff Raff? Why don't you simply delete all of these articles while you're at it? As for the zine's importance, it should be noted that while Ugly American was indeed a highly marginal publication, it still managed to carve out its own distinctive (and yes, occasionally recognized) niche during the indie-rock explosion of the nineties. Whether or not marginal cultural artifacts are worthy of inclusion within Wikipedia is a separate matter for the administrators to decide.

4) I'd like to state for the record that the article Ugly American (magazine) had enjoyed a peaceful existence until the administrator known as Wizardman deleted a fair-use image without first posting a warning (despite his claims to the contrary). I openly challenged this deletion as being heavy-handed and thoughtless, and now, less than twenty-four hours after that confrontation, the entire article is being considered for deletion. If the other Wikipedia administrators have any integrity whatsoever, they should at least consider the possibility that these events are not coincidental.

5) If in fact the deletion of the article stems from challenging an administrator, please spare me the appearance of thoughtful consideration and grave earnestness, kick-start this kangaroo court, and delete the article immediately, along with my lengthy postings to Wizardman regarding his somewhat questionable practices. Personally, I feel that the article is unfailingly accurate, fairly well written and wholly comprehensive, but should the administrators still decide to delete the article, then so be it. Encyclopedias throughout history have been selective and exclusionary, and really, why should anyone expect Wikipedia to be different? Either way, Ugly American has left its own, small mark on indie-rock history, one which can't be deleted by Wikipedia. J. Marlowe 00:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

points made by J. Marlowe

1) I am not sure how J. Marlowe knows for a fact that a fan started the article and not someone from the magazine. In anycase, if no one outside of the original participants could possibly have a sufficient grasp of the facts to present an accurate historical record of the zine, then it could be possible that a wikipedia article is not needed for this magazine. First articles need to rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Second, all the information provided has be be easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge...something that you have claimed isn't possible.

2) I can't see how the article is promotional as the magazine in question is out of business.

3) You may be right about the other articles, however pointing at the dirt the other articles have on them does not mean that this article should have a pass. Those articles may deserve an AFD as well, however bringing up their shortcomings is not validate this article or help it in any way. If the magazine carved out a nitch, there should be newspaper articles, mentions on televisions shows or radio shows, or something to verify the claims made. Article fails WP:V


4) Please assume good faith. First you can verify by viewing the admin's contributions to wikipedia very easily to see if they did or did not create the warnings. Next, a user came accross the article and put it up for AFD. It's coincidence.

5)The article may be 'unfailingly accurate', but no adult can easily and reasonably verify the facts and claims made in the article. No matter how well written, and wholly comprehensive the article is...it still fails WP:V, WP:NN. Remember "Notability" is not a reflection of the mag's worth. The mag may have been brilliantly written, fascinating and topical, but it's not notable enough to ensure sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an article.

I have a few questions for Marlowe:

Has the book been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the mag itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience? This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books or magazines, television documentaries and reviews. I couldn't find any.

Has the magazine won a major literary award?

We use those as notability guidelines for books and it works well for magazines too. Can Ugly American pass those notability questions?--Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 23:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4) - No, it's not a co-incidence. Wizardman didn't want to AfD it himself because you've flamed him in enough on his talk page. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than speculate on the possibility of behind-the-scenes machinations by the Wiki administrators, I'd like to address instead the two purportedly significant issues at stake: verifiability and notability. The issues are related to the degree that both rely upon the existence of a critical mass of what I'll refer to as "third-party" documentation. Within marginal subcultures like the pre-Internet indie-rock underground of the eighties and nineties, however, this documentation barely exists. While the era produced numerous zines that churned out reviews of contemporary bands, definitively comprehensive and "authoritative" features and interviews involving both bands and other zines (and their writers) are notably lacking. As a result, later literature dealing with the period is necessarily dependent upon interviews with surviving principals. These first-hand and often highly subjective narratives have frequently formed the very basis of various "official", "historical" narratives with regard to the bands of the period. The quintessential example of an authoritative usage of a first-person account is the "standard" media portrayal of Black Flag. Black Flag are arguably the most influential American postpunk band, and yet aside from the recordings, the only historical narratives that have offered substantial insights into the group have been first-hand accounts, the most overwhelmingly influential being Henry Rollins' Get in the Van. You'll note that the Wikipedia article on Black Flag is currently tagged with a note chiding it for its lack of sources. Much of the article's "factual" content appears to have been taken almost verbatim from Michael Azerrad's Our Band Could Be Your Life. Azerrad gleaned the contents of his writing on Black Flag almost entirely from interviews with band members and - predictably - Rollins' Get in the Van (and not, it should be noted, from the zines of the period, despite their somewhat misleading appearance in his bibliography). Since its publication in 1994 on Rollins' 2.13.61 imprint, Get in the Van, which is a personal diary of life on the road with Black Flag, has become the de facto historical narrative of the band in the absence of any other similarly comprehensive documents. Prior to the book's publication, Black Flag, lacking an overarching, "master" narrative or a compelling mythology, were regarded as just one among many marginal but influential bands of the postpunk era. Following the release of Rollins' self-published, self-mythologizing tome, however, Black Flag's perceived historical importance grew steadily as mainstream writers now enjoyed access to a persuasive, prepackaged tale that they could easily reference and build upon (in the manner of, say, Michael Azzerad). Rollin's subjective account, then, can be said to have been historicized, or transformed into an "official", "objective" narrative due to the dearth of other contemporary sources. A second, slightly different, example of this phenomenon involves the underground zine Forced Exposure. Currently, the Wiki entry on Forced Exposure is a mere "stub", and will likely remain so for the duration of its existence, if only because the two primary members of Forced Exposure - Byron Coley and Jimmy Johnson - have been generally rather tight-lipped regarding the zine and its cultural significance. As a result, anyone attempting to write about what is regarded as one of the most influential underground zines of the eighties has available only a superficial collection of facts discernable by any casual observer. Insights into the fundamental nature of the zine, however, must perforce come from either Coley or Johnson (which is likely the reason a comprehensive account of the zine has yet to appear in any source that I'm aware of). Ugly American, though obviously not in the same league as Forced Exposure, shares that zine's fate of being bound by its insularity to narratives that are inherently subjective (the consequence being a lack of "authoritative", third-party documentation). One of the general results of an overall lack of third-party documentation is that in the absence of first-person narratives, cohesive, historical narratives per se do not, for all practical purposes, exist. First-person narratives then, are absolutely, historically essential in situations where other, more substantial documentation is either limited or incomplete. But does the lack of "authoritative", third-party documentation of important - though marginal - art necessarily mean that such art should not be included in an encyclopedic forum? The answer depends on how highly "marginal" culture is valued within the forum itself. A culturally conservative view (such as the one taken by "Markdsgraham" who impugns the worth of Ugly American by calling attention to its "mere" thirteen-issue run, ignorant of the fact that even Forced Exposure ran for only eighteen issues over a similar period of time) will deem marginal art superfluous and irrelevant, as it measures artistic worth solely in terms of the extent of the art's dissemination and the corresponding size of its cultural impact. A more liberal view will deem both marginal and mainstream cultures as being complementary and inseparable aspects of a larger cultural dialectic, and will value marginal art on its own aesthetic terms, concentrating more on the nature rather than size of its cultural impact. Where Wikipedia as a whole resides on this ideological spectrum is debatable, but the encyclopedia appears to be drifting towards a slightly more conservative position as its stewards increasingly seek to elevate its status as a definitive reference source. The ideological positions of most of the administrators involved in this deletion case, however, remain conspicuously opaque, and consequently, I can only plausibly comment on the efforts expended in attempting to meet Wikipedia's criteria for "verifiability" and "notability" during the composition of the article, offering in the process a few generalized insights on Ugly American's cultural relevance.

With regard to the article's "verifiability", I and a few other contributors have labored to both exhaustively illustrate the scope of the zine's wider cultural associations, and locate and provide any and all third-party documentation available on the Internet (said online documentation by definition constituting an incomplete record, precisely because the zine folded just prior to the transition of the fanzine per se into an almost exclusively Internet-based medium). As for Ugly American's "notability", the zine had substantial connections to a number of influential and critically lauded - but likewise highly marginal - musicians, writers and zines, and these connections - whatever their "worth" - have also been documented to the extent possible. While I know that Ugly American's cultural impact was small, I also know that the zine is recognized within admittedly esoteric circles as having carved out a unique and somewhat cultish niche, in the process creating a disproportionately large impact upon the small number of readers who felt a kinship with the publication's acid-addled combination of aggression, surrealism and dark humor. Am I able to prove this point beyond what's already been documented within the article? No. Does anyone outside of a handful of fanatics and weirdos actually care about the zine? Probably not. Do the marginal artists who have been associated with the zine - no matter how fleetingly - themselves merit inclusion within Wikipedia? Well, I'm sure that they'll find out soon enough. And if Wikipedia's deletion of the Ugly American article isn't necessarily a damning indictment of the forum's cultural and historical ideologies, do probing questions regarding the philosophical basis of the notions of "verifiable content" and "notability" that are being used by the administrators in establishing cultural worth still need to be asked? Absolutely. Overall, this particular deletion case seems to raise more questions and present more dilemmas than it answers or resolves, and in the final analysis, the only irrefutable truth to emerge from this morass is that the tediously predictable parting of ways between Ugly American and Wikipedia will do little to diminish either the cultural influence - no matter how small - that the zine exerted, or the joyful madness that it wielded. J. Marlowe 02:51, 18 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 Keep--JForget 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bushism[edit]

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

This article seems to mostly list different "bushisms", and really doesn't seem to be anything more then a repository of quotes, and a lot of speculation. Not much fact to back it up, mostly references transcripts and other quotes. --HALtalk 22:09, 16 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 Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-zealotry[edit]

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

Completing incomplete AfD nomination. Page appears to be a WP:POINT masquerading as an article. Pure OR page about a neologism with no sources. Kesh 21:43, 16 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 Keep. -- Longhair\talk 02:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Greenwood[edit]

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

Prodded by Indrian on September 13, 2007. I've rewritten the biography to remove conflict of interest issues and assert notability. I am not, however, sure if this cyclist is notable or not. Under Wikipedia:Notability (people), an athlete is notable if they have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them). Greenwood rode in 2005 and 2006 for Recycling.co.uk, which is a UCI Continental team—the highest level of amateur team. SeveroTC 21:39, 16 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 Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Casper[edit]

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

Non-notable independent election candidate. Alksub 21:18, 16 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 Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Meggs[edit]

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

Prod removed. Non-notable artist and illustrator. Almost an A7 speedy candidate, but as there are references cited AfD seems more appropriate. The references seem to be primarily about her more notable father. David Eppstein 21:16, 16 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 Delete, without prejudice to a redirect as suggested by The Random Editor. Carlossuarez46 23:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pâte[edit]

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

Article is ambiguous Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 21:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 00:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad pun on Pele - Jerem43 16:52, 19 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 QuickTime. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuickTime Player[edit]

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

Content of page is duplicated by the QuickTime page, senseless, stub, etc. I see no reason for this stub to be kept, as it contains no unique information that it is not already in the QuickTime page. Should be redirected to QuickTime Josephberte-Talk 20:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I meant redirect, I forgot about that.. Josephberte-Talk 21:01, 16 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 delete. There's so little to merge that there's no real reason to. If someone wants to make a redirect or wants what's deleted then let me know. Wizardman 18:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Jolley[edit]

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

Same reasoning as Articles for deletion/Erich Jacoby-Hawkins. Non-notable one-time failed candidate, editor again rebuffed request to merge into party/election article. Even less notable than Jacoby-Hawkins. Realkyhick 20:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given that Jolley was indeed a candidate in the 2006 election, I merged him to the Ontario section of the Election article, per WP:BOLD. He should have a mention there, as he was in that election - whatever the fate of his article. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:31, 25 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 Delete. -- Longhair\talk 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godsword[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

Copy of article on a runescape wikia article link devoted to the subject which it pertains. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 20:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the following for the same reasons as nom:

God Wars Dungeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
God wars (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 redirected to Shared parenting, with some minor details from the original article added. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 12:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced parenting[edit]

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

With not a single reliable reference giving primary coverage to this topic, it looks (and reads) like original research. The topic only gets about 800 Google hits, so it would seem to be a rather fringe aspect of parenting. A reading list gives no books specifically about the topic, only generic sources, so it would seem there is also a lack of published material on the subject. VanTucky Talk 20:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're comparing apples and oranges. In the context of other Google searches, 800 hits is paltry. VanTucky Talk 20:46, 16 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 Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Smilkstein[edit]

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

Non-notable radio hobbyist, only an amateur, never on a notable show. Contested prod. Alksub 20:00, 16 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: Article was deleted. Non-admin closure. GlassCobra 01:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Roberts[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable filmmaker with no sources. IMDb's only hit for "the complex" produces a film directed by one Jennifer Lane. Nothing to here to satisfy WP:N. Tx17777 19:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G7 - the author has blanked it and I've tagged it as such. Blair - Speak to me 22:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even before the blankin, the individual didn't meet WP:BIO.--JForget 23:45, 16 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 Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Gregory Buttigieg[edit]

George Gregory Buttigieg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. Person in question seems to be just an author of no particular importance. Article also lacks any kind of references, although that's not a surprise since a search on google only yields 15 results. I added a "Proposed for deletion" template but it was removed immediately by the author of the article (who seems to be the person in question), without giving any explanation. Marcus1234 19:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So any published author and/or "Knight of Malta" is notable enough to have an article on wikipedia? Do you realize there are over 12,000 "Knights" in the world? Should all these people have a wikipedia article? In that case I can add two family members of mine (or maybe not!). Marcus1234 20:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only award he (supposedly, since it's not even referenced) was the "Rediffusion Gold Star" award. How is this notable? Marcus1234 10:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regards to all Cyrus of Antioch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus of Antioch (talk • contribs) 15:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC) — Cyrus of Antioch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wow, are you serious? Could you be any more transparent? It's amazing the lengths people go through to get a page on wikipedia. Marcus1234 07:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TO ALL CONCERNED WITH THIS ARTICLE

I AM GEORGE G. BUTTIGIEG, THE UNKNOWING SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE. I HAVE JUST BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THIS ARTICLE AND THE ENSUING DEBATE AND I AM TRULY SHOCKED. LET ME POINT OUT THAT THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN WRITTEN BY A WELL MEANING MEMBER OF MY STAFF WITHOUT MY INVOLVEMENT OR PERMISSION,USING ONE OF THE COMMON E-MAIL ADDRESSES FOR MYSELF AND STAFF. I HAVE NO DESIRE TO HAVE MY CV BROADCASTED TO ALL AND SUNDRY ON INTERNET OR ELSEWHERE. ALBEIT THE MATERIAL IN IT IS NOT INACCURATE, I WOULD APPRECIATE ITS IMMEDIATE DELETION. IF DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH ME IS WANTED PLEASE USE georgeb@onvol.net. THANK YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus of Antioch (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly shocked how the notability of Dr Buttigieg is being questioned. If one looks up what wikipedia defines Notability, amongst others it clearly states and I quote “The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.” “The person has received significant recognized awards or honors”* “The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field”* and furthermore “The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors”* (Please find link below). Im sure that Markus1234 cannot deny that Dr Buttigieg does in fact classify in the above.

A Borg Swieqi Malta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.232.199.137 (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


TO ALL CONCERNED WITH THIS ARTICLE

I AM REPEATING WHAT I HAVE STATED YESTERDAY. I AM GEORGE G. BUTTIGIEG, THE UNKNOWING SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE. I HAVE RECENTLY BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THIS ARTICLE AND THE ENSUING DEBATE AND I AM TRULY SHOCKED. LET ME POINT OUT THAT THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN WRITTEN BY A WELL MEANING MEMBER OF MY STAFF WITHOUT MY INVOLVEMENT OR PERMISSION,USING ONE OF THE COMMON E-MAIL ADDRESSES FOR MYSELF AND STAFF. I HAVE NO DESIRE FOR MY NAME TO BE ENTERED INTO WIKPAEDIA OR ELSEWHERE. ALBEIT THE MATERIAL IN THE WRITE UP IS NOT INACCURATE (THOUGHG INCOMPLETE) I WOULD APPRECIATE ITS IMMEDIATE DELETION. IF DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH ME IS WANTED PLEASE USE georgeb@onvol.net. THIS E-MAIL ADDRESS HAS BEEN USED BY THE PERSON WHO REGISTERED AS CYRUS OF ANTIOCH, WHICH IS THE TITLE OF ONE OF MY SHORT STORIES IN MALTESE. I NEITHER NEED NOR DESIRE THIS PUBLICITY OR TO HAVE MY NAME ENSHRINED IN WIKIPEDIA. PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS WHETHER TO KEEP OR DELETE THE ARTICLE ANY FURTHER, BUT KINDLY DELETE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I CANNOT SIGN THIS ENTRY BY MY USERNAME AS I DO NOT HAVE ONE, BUT PLEASE DO NOT REFER TO ME AS CYRUS OF ANTIOCH. I HAVE MADE MY VIEWS CLEAR TO ONE AND ALL. I SHALL NOT COMMUNICATE FURTHER ON THE MATTER. THANK YOU

GEORGE GREGORY BUTTIGIEG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus_of_Antioch (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 speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Mr.Z-man 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AAAAA[edit]

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

no assertion of notability of any kind Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:51, 16 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 nomination withdrawn and accompanying speedy keep. —C.Fred (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Wider[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet notability guidelines as a physician and producer. No non-trivial sources to establish notabiity. Claims of notability as producer of an award-winning documentary. However, there is no substantial coverage to denote he himself won these awards. Notability is non-transferableSethacus 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole debate began when "droliver" edited "Janet Law" off of the breast reconstruction wikipedia site. The bigger question is why is oliver incentivized and seems so entitled to portray himself as the wikipedia authority on plastic surgery. Has he published any peer reviewed articles? Has he authored any chapters in textbooks? I do not run around wikipedia editing a myriad of references to plastic surgery. His user name links back to a blog with an advertisement for himself. Isn't that conflicted? Janet Franquet was a patient that I had the privilege of caring for who had breast cancer. When her insurance denied coverage of reconstructive surgery, I did the surgery anyway, and despite being ill on chemo, she was instrumental in lobbying with the NY senator for a change in the law. She later died. As a direct result of her efforts, the Womens Health and Cancer Act was passed. This was only the second time in US history that legislation was passed to cover a specific illness. As a result of her sacrifice, this legislation was named The Janet Law in her honor. This received widespread coverage at the time. For some reason, oliver wanted this information removed. I felt obligated to respond and feel her name should remain attached to the law that was named in her honor. A US law was named for her and she well deserved the honor for what she did. IS that not notable? If there is an issue with my name being on the breast reconstruction website, then take it off, but her's should remain. As for this site, I was encouraged by an administrator early on to continue with it

As for the films I was involved in, they qualify for notability on many accounts according to the WK guidelines for film notability noted in the prior debate and listed below:

"From General Priniciples of Notability in WK, under film section: "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[3] The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[4]"

Concerning the films mentioned on this site they are notable per above:

-To date the films have been screened at numerous film festivals including: Tribeca Film Festival, Silverdocs, Woodstock Film Festival, LA Film Festival, Leeds Film Festival, Vienna Film Festival, Slamdance Film Festival, Asian American Film Festival, IFP Independent Independents at Lincoln center, Arizona Film Festival, etc

-To date the films have won such awards as: Tribeca Film Festival, Woodstock Film Festival, Slamdance Film Festival, PASS Award from National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Asian American Film Festival, International Arizona Film Festival; including best documentary at several festivals:

http://www.tribecafilmfestival.org/tff-aj-2007-awards.html http://www.woodstockfilmfestival.com/press/releases/2006_awards-release.htm http://www.slamdance.com/press/press_release.asp?article_id=556 http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/pdf/pass_winners_2007 http://www.asianamericanfilmfestival.org/public_documents/2007_wrap_release.pdf

-The films have been reviewed in multiple, national publications including, Washington Post, Variety, NY Times, Emanuel Levy, etc.:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117933528.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042601569.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6623791.stm http://www.emanuellevy.com/article.php?articleID=2741 http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/357760/Beyond-Conviction/overview http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117931082.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&p=0

Tmwmd 21:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)tmwmd[reply]

Withdrawing nomination Not because of the films, but this which asserts that Dr. Wider worked with Sen. Alphonse D'Amato in the passing of the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998, as suggested in the article. I suggest this link be added to the article and the article be proofread by an experienced editor for COI and other concerns.--Sethacus 22:09, 16 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 Keep (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine of San Marino[edit]

Cuisine of San Marino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is not about the cuisine, but about a cake that is in the cuisine Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, so I don't look like I was being absurd, the article has been expanded now from what was just a description of one dish to what it is now which to me is a good thing and hopefully it will be expanded further.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 15:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry: comments are always assumed to be pertinent to the article as it was at the time they were made. There's a bit of a dessert overload currently (a bias inherited from the Italian Wikipedia) but that can be remedied. Gordonofcartoon 16:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's an English listing with some more at everyculture.com scroll down to the Food and Economy section) - not sure if it's sufficiently reliable a source in itself (there are some misspellings), but it gives plenty of leads. Gordonofcartoon 11:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I'll have a look-see and might be able to pitch in. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:55, 17 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 Delete. -- Longhair\talk 10:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Public House[edit]

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

Non-notable restaurant, article written by an employee with no sources. CitiCat ♫ 18:34, 16 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 Delete. -- Longhair\talk 02:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie Sutton[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. Has never played in a professional league. Mattythewhite 18:09, 16 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 speedy delete

Aiko Solutions[edit]

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

Non-notable software company. Infobox states they only have two employees. Notability not asserted or proven. No reliable sources OfficeGirl 18:07, 16 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 Keep (Nomination withdrawn without delete opinion) (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Community School at Beirut (ACS Beirut)[edit]

American Community School at Beirut (ACS Beirut) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources, notability not asserted, I found nothing to show that this is a notable school. Brought here for discussion. OfficeGirl 17:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is that well known, and it is known to you, perhaps you would do us the favor of finding us some Reliable Sources providing substantial coverage of this school? It is not enough that notable people graduated there. Notability is Not Inherited. Thanks.OfficeGirl 19:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't even registered a !vote. If you will place at least one reliable source showing significant coverage to this school on the article I will be more than happy to withdraw this nomination. I'm easy to please, really. OfficeGirl 21:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn. Thank you kindly to the users who have added reliable sources. OfficeGirl 11:18, 17 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 no consensus/weak keep as a teaching method - Still needs revamping though. Non admin. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 12:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pluvialas[edit]

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

hoax, no references on google found;prod deleted NeilN 17:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because hoax, no references on google found;prod deleted:

Mountain Pollenpeeper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow Pollenpeeper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Foliumaves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eoireitum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NeilN 17:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I was able to find refs to the pollenpeeper fairly easily [6]. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This [7] says the pollenpeeper is fictitious, created to help teachers show how evolution works. NeilN 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there you have it; that's why I made a comment rather than a vote, figuring I wasn't qualified nor knew enough about the topic in question. But at least wanted to point out Just In Case, but your rebuttal seems clear enough to me. I'm going to keep my comment a comment, tho... Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pollenpeepers are fictitious birds used to teach the evolutionary theory of speciation by adaptive radiation. They are given the equally fictitious genus Eoireireitum and family Foliumaves. A Web site containing their invented evolutionary history is available.<reference to PBS site>
One review says the Web site is effective for clearing up common student misconceptions.<reference to review above>

I'm not sure what the categories would be—educational software or something. Do we have a cat for fictitious organisms?

Maybe on the borderline of notability, but useful.

Thanks, NeilN, for mentioning this at WP:BIRD. —JerryFriedman 00:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, maybe the article should be called Evolution: Darwin: An Origin of Species. All the fictitious taxa (which I believe I got slightly wrong above) would be named in bold in the lead. Certainly there should be a link to Evolution (TV series), which the site is associated with. —JerryFriedman 02:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Eoireitum does seem to be a complete hoax (no relevant Google hits, though it may be the parts of a Latin verb). —JerryFriedman 03:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or Hawaiian honeycreepers, which is what the pollenpeepers are based on. That's a question for the people who created the Web site, not for anyone here, and I'm sure they have a pedagogical answer. —JerryFriedman 02:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this is a good way to teach evolution is not up to us to decide. Your criticisms on that point should be addressed to the people who created and maintain the Web site. In my opinion, criticism of this method of teaching evolution has nothing to do with whether these fictitious birds should have articles at Wikipedia or be mentioned in some other way. The possibility that people, especially children, might think the Pollenpeepers are real is, in my opinion, a reason to keep the articles here at least as redirects, so someone looking for further information will find out that these birds are fictitious. I agree, however, with your point that Wikipedia looks bad because of that possibility and the articles' being probably created in bad faith. So I'm going to do what I (and everyone) should have done and edit the articles to say they're fictitious. That way no one will be misled while this debate is going on. —JerryFriedman 15:52, 22 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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 23:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harjinder Singh Khurana[edit]

Harjinder Singh Khurana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about a man in jail in India. I found it last week, full of original resaerch by synthesis about Indian anti-dowry law. The subject of the biography is himself not notable enough for a wikipedia article as per WP:N. There are two brief articles about this case in Indian newspapers, no books, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.

In wikipedia's terms there is no assertion of importance/significance and no significant coverage of the subject (WP:N). And as far as I can see this article fails WP:BIO's guide for notability.

As a declaration I must note that I have made significant changes to the page - removing a link farm to sites campaigning against Indian ant-dowry law (that have nothing to do with the article and therefore violate WP:EL). I also reorganized and referenced the page. Two sections about Indian dowry law which had nothing to do with this man or his case were removed - most of that info already is in place at Dowry law in India. This diff shows the page before my alterations [8] and this after them [9].

Unless or until there are secondary sources covering Harjinder Singh Khurana's life or case this article is just not notable enough for wikipedia.--Cailil talk 16:58, 16 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 Delete, whether debate is sport is (ugh) debatable, but given that no other individual winner (term loosely used because according to the article the school is the winner and this guy was a member of the debating team that did win for that school, but I digress) of these championships has an article indicates that the current viewpoint is these winners aren't notable per se and that's this guy's claim to fame. Carlossuarez46 23:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Eastaugh[edit]

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

delete- I move we delete Erik Eastaughs page, we can't have pages for the hundreds of winners of worldwide contended debating comps. Jembot99 15:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of substantial independent sources. -- Sethacus 18:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I do not see how a university hobby club counts as "major national". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but in stuff like the IMO, International Physics Olympiad, International Chemistry Olympiad, etc, all the communist countries + Iran, S Korea, Taiwan etc have already identified their training pool by age 12 and will segregate them into academy style education where they board and study only science and maths until they are 18 under the 24/7 supervision of professors. Even the Australian selection and training programs for Maths Science etc get $200k budget per year, are sponsored by major corporate bodies and airlines and whatnot, and Australia isn't even one of the cold-war type countries. This is what a person guunning for the real sport olympics would do, training for 4-6 hours a day, regimented sleep/diet regime for many years. This is not what happens at a university debate club, not even close.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Account created 10 minutes before this AfD, has only two article edits and two userpage edits other than Afd. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Strike- voting has gone on long enough, clear consensus to scrub it.JJJ999 04:25, 21 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 Keep per WP:SNOW (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series[edit]

2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future NFL seasons as a precedent. WP:CRYSTAL should apply here. The entire page lacks sources, and many of the additions are pure speculation and difficult to verify. Pats1 15:41, 16 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 Delete. -- Longhair\talk 10:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky's Daily Planner[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pinky's Daily Planner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - spammy article for a local business. The sources linked are blurb/directory listing sorts of things. There don't appear to be substantive reliable sources. Otto4711 15:39, 16 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 Keep. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan MacDonald[edit]

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

delete-Probably made up. Would need references to verify the two people are the same. Also, not very noteworthy I am suspicious of any page that seems to be a debater glory bio. Jembot99 11:21, 16 September, 2007


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. Delete and redirect. - Jeeny Talk 07:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Donato[edit]

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

This entire article has been copied and pasted from Big Brother 8 (US)#Daniele. Definitely does not need its own page. Before this page was changed, "Daniele Donato" was a redirect to her bio on the Main BB8 page, which I will say again, is the same thing as this page. No reason for duplicate information, and she doesn't have enough notability for her own page. People will say "She will have enough notability IF...", and that argument is not acceptable, as per WP:Crystal. If this page gets deleted, the redirect will be reapplied. Rjd0060 15:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I redirected it. Yanno, being bold. Hope it stays that way. - Jeeny Talk 20:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 23:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charge (television)[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable sources. Does not appear to meet notability guideline for films. See this Google search. JamesTeterenko 20:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be non-notable, there is some evidence for its existance on the community channel (distributor) website. see [10]

--PyromaniacTom 21:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that it does not exist. See the IMDB listing here. The producer has not worked on any other film or tv show. I included that Google search as evidence for the lack of notability. -- JamesTeterenko 02:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 15:02, 16 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 No consensus. Carlossuarez46 00:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superengine[edit]

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

Non-notable band per WP:BAND. No tours, no apparent charting singles. Discography of 1 Ep, 1 Single, 1 x Album. Author contested prod. WebHamster 17:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 15:00, 16 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 No consensus on deletion, okay to redirect to Gary Lenaire. CitiCat ♫ 03:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cripple Need Cane[edit]

Cripple Need Cane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable band in general. The only criteria of WP:MUSIC that Cripple Need Cane meets is #6 (one member was part of Tourniquet). Delete or merge to Tourniquet (band). CloudNine 12:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:59, 16 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 No consensus to delete. Carlossuarez46 00:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC Notability and offers no more information than the main article, essentially making it a content fork. Seraphim Whipp 10:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It may have charted and therefore it passes on one criteria of notability but that piece of one line information (that it charted) can easily be added to the album article. It's basically an empty article and it really doesn't have much of a chance of being much more. Album articles are used to write about this stuff. Seraphim Whipp 10:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:58, 16 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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veemon Natural Line[edit]

Veemon Natural Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Wormmon Natural Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both of these pages are basically copies of the Wormmon and Veemon page. The changed evolutions are those of the authors original research who has been asked repeatedly to provide a source for these evolutions. Sorry if I have done this wrong but it is the first time I've nominated something. Trainra 03:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:53, 16 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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chatsum[edit]

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

It's a an extension for Firefox which hasn't been developed in 18 months, nor has the website been altered in that time. The software didn't leave beta stage and wasn't notable. The article while developed looks to have been written by the software authors before they dropped the project. Operating 00:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:39, 16 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 KEEP, national TV newscasters are noteable. Rlevse 15:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosil Al Azawi[edit]

Rosil Al Azawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable fashion model. Third party sources all but do not exist: [12], and the only claim to notability in the article is from the subject's own website. Thus fails WP:V and probably WP:BIO. The Evil Spartan 18:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not saying "other stuff exists"; I'm saying the subject is already notable based on what we already know. I should have said the article would benefit from expansion, as I did not mean to imply that it will not be good enough to keep until it is expanded. I have amended my previous comment. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide any of those sources? I would think that if there were such a plethora of sources, they would exist at least a little in Latin script (which French uses as well). Saying "other sources probably exist" is great, but we need some proof. The Evil Spartan 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gnangarra 14:40, 16 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 Delete. -- Longhair\talk 10:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Legend II[edit]

Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Legend II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deletion material. WP:V cannot be met, the article has - so far - no notability, is a shining example of a crystal ball, no reliable resources, and - if no verifications are available - it might be original research. I don't think there's any reasons beyond that, but give me a hit if you have any more. WaltCip 14:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this article should not be deleted since TR8 will be released (http://www.tombraiderchronicles.com/tr8/index.html) and this page will probably get updated soon with newly announced material. --sturm 15:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not contain that reference. Even with it, I still highly doubt it would be encyclopedic material. Please read WP:CRYSTAL - Wikipedia is not designed to see the future. That's what gaming magazines are for.--WaltCip 15:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no immediate proof that the article is notable, and just because other games that came before it are notable, and that this will probably become a notable game, the article does not inherit notability.--WaltCip 16:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then what is the point of of the "Future" templates if precedent cases have already shown that an article subject will be notable? I mean it's not like any of the other Lara Croft games were deemed too nonnotable to not have an article (I think; I've never played this game and don't care to look them up). The current article also doesn't involve masses of OR so I honestly don't see the problem here with leaving it like is it until it either gets more info or is announced to be a cancelled project (in the latter case yes, delete it, but that seems currently unlikely). – sgeureka t•c 17:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus usually is quite the opposite to what you're suggesting. We do have articles on future product / event. But in this case, there is no verifiable information and it is not certain to take place (read will definitely come out) as specified in WP:CRYSTAL. The article currently states (without reference) that a magazine claim to have exclusive scoop on the upcoming title. That's not even a preview of the product, but rather an announcement of a upcoming preview. It doesn't get more crystal ball than that. KTC 17:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it seems I misinterpretated the source as an official website, but it seems it is just a fansite (can't tell for sure). I therefore withdraw my keep !vote. – sgeureka t•c 00:37, 17 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 Keep per Snow/invalid nomination - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez 09:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Bible views on women[edit]

Hebrew Bible views on women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  1. There are too many views on the subject.
  2. It has not been successfully cleaned up in over 3 years.

It's time to put it to rest. Thank you, Shir-El too 14:11, 16 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 Delete. -- Longhair\talk 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eteach.com[edit]

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

Originally a vanity/advertising article, despite having notab tags applied since April 2007, its notablity still has not been proven. Nominated for deletion as originally inserted by company, and notablity guidelines Trident13 13:41, 16 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 Delete.--JForget 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mubariz Nagiyev[edit]

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

Contested prod. The article is an autobiography, unless I'm making a serious mistake, and the author is the editor who removed the prod tag. There are no sources provided, so I've looked and looked for his films and for any information about him as a person. I can't find anything. Maybe he's a famous Azerbajani director and I'm simply ignorant. KrakatoaKatie 12:29, 16 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 Delete. Maxim(talk) 22:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of St. Joseph (West St. Paul)[edit]

Church of St. Joseph (West St. Paul) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable church. Fee Fi Foe Fum 10:28, 16 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 Delete. Maxim(talk) 01:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gedwey Ignasia[edit]

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

This entry is from the heyday of the Eragon book and movie. I feel that the topic of this article is not notable. Outsources are fan sites. Thank you for your consideration. Fee Fi Foe Fum 10:09, 16 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 Delete per the Snowball clause. This is a hoax and nobody wants hoaxes on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaydon O'Connor[edit]

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

This is bogus info. Google search brings back 0 results. Google search

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim(talk) 22:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To explain a bit more, I feel that Bfigura's comment really establishes consensus. There has been sock/meatpuppeting in this AfD, so I have basically discounted SPA's here.

Hold Off Red[edit]

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

Non notable, and if this article still existed quote per here - "If you're going to make articles on every freeware game that's ever come out, we'd have Wikipedia full of those stupid flash games that you see on websites all the time." Likely to fail WP:SOFTWARE as it is quite close to Jumper in terms of notability, etc and comes from the same author. anger2headshot 09:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The quote was from the AfD for the Jumper_(video_game) article which has been deleted already. This game is also freeware and made by the same author of Jumper who is very popular mainly in the GMC. Another popular game within the GMC is Sapphire Tears which also has been since deleted. --anger2headshot 11:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not a big lover of the "If someone jumps off a cliff, I'll jump as well" mentality. Because similar articles have been deleted before, does that suddenly make it the right thing to delete this too?
If this was a game made by a 'proper' company, rather than a single indy developer, I'm pretty sure this article would be kept. 89.241.70.107 21:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What does "readme" or "Help Contents" or "Instructions" mean to you? Wikipedia article? --anger2headshot 22:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commeny Hahaha. Help files and readmes won't give a synopsis of the game, won't give seperate opinions on different aspects of the games. And, sometimes, just sometimes, the game doesn't come with instructions. I don't see the reason of deleting an article that some people find useless, because someone else thinks no one will use it. That's like a grocery store taking down a type of fruit because the manager thinks that no one will buy it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.188.21 (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--24.225.171.245 21:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Say someone hasn't played Jumper for some time (like me), and forget some game information. What are they going to do? Wonder why the heck this happened. --anger2headshot 22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents. This page's a keeper. --Dreamcat 19:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC) — Catkilller7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

--Cookinater 19:06, 16 September 2007 (PST) — Cookinater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Why are there lots of people wanting this article kept? Because, PEOPLE ARE BEING TOLD ABOUT THIS PAGE RIGHT HERE. If fans of this game were not referred from that website, it would be much less likely for people to be voting like this. And I'm going to ensure this comment stays for an administrator to see. I have absolutely NOTHING against YMM, Helix Games, etc etc etc HOWEVER Wikipedia really does need content rules otherwise this place will be flooded with crap.
(Discussion'd because people who don't use View New Posts'd never see it otherwise.)

SAVE HOLD OFF RED

Anger2Headshot has turned traitor and put Hold Off Red up for deletion. The debate is leaning towards "Delete" so far, if you include A2H's inital call for deletion.
If we can get enough people here to vote Keep and give a good reason to do so, we can save the article.
If possible, try and improve the article as well to help the cause.

Also, people throwing about the fishing "WP:WEB" crap and A2H's "Oh well such a such a game was deleted, so it's only right we delete this too" is driving me nuts.


EDIT: I don't know if Wikipedia tracks where visitors are coming from, so try and copy+paste the link rather than clicking it, just in case they trace it back here and discredit what we've all said because of it =/.

--anger2headshot 03:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now you're just getting angry. Besides- people aren't told what to to. We see that a page of ours is being deleted. Had I not cared, I wouldn't of clicked on that link. The original poster was bringing up a cause. Just because nobody was looking at this age when it first went up for deletion, doesn't mean nobody cares. This is exactly like saying a library in town should be destroyed because nobody was reading anything for a day.

Besides. Badwolf had obviously looked at this page in order to find it was up for deletion. 142.59.188.21 05:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If they didn't care, people would ignore the topic. By the way, you're infringing on copyright by pasting that post. I doubt you asked Badwolf for permission? In fact, I KNOW you didn't.
As for the "Not a majority vote" template, isn't the point of this VFD that there're suppoedly not enough people who care? A majority keep vote would suggest otherwise. 78.144.105.89 23:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, but I didn't add the template. And you can't copyright a stupid forum post. Oh OK, POKEMON. OMG ITS A COPYRIGHTED NAME OMG NINTENDO'S LAWYERS ARE ON ME OMG ARGH --anger2headshot 00:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Be mature about this here at least, even if you're going to carry on acting the way you are on the HC. And Badwolf typed up that post, Badwolf added the copyright notice at the end, and Badwolf did not give you permission to replicate the post here on Wikipedia. It's copyrighted, and you're breaking Wikipedia's stance on Copyright. I know you don't know enough about the law to actually believe it's copyrighted, so carry on infringing on the copyright if you want. You're the one who has to face up to the consequences in the end, rather than playing it safe. 78.144.105.89 20:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi everyone. Just a reminder: the last time I checked, there weren't any angry mastadons. Civility is good. --Bfigura (talk) 20:28, 18 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 Delete. David Ruben Talk 00:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports car knee syndrome[edit]

Sports car knee syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as unverifiable. Zero mentions of this syndrome can be found on Google, nor any for the words "fuisz", "car", and "syndrome" together. ... discospinster talk 01:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the reference and support for this is in a non-google searchable medical reputable medical journal, using the criteria that it must be on google would limit the usefulness of the whole encyclopedia. Seems like many of the comments come from people that say they don't have it so it can't exist. Glad to see the much more valid list of large chested performers discussion below is going better for the contributor.Fuiszt 16:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick glance at the creator's other contibutions leads me to think this is more likely WP:OR Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now, and I also see it has been deletion sorted to the medical list. --Bduke 00:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should not delete stuff unless there is good reason. It is reasonable to get an article in a reputable medical journal evaluated properly. I am not fighting to keep it as the guy in your example is. I was looking to close it and did not think that reference had been evaluated properly, so I relisted. Some other admin can close it in due course. --Bduke 00:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No hits on PubMed for any Fuisz RC, Time magazine article indicates just a letter to a journal which does not therefore establish that condition/name been generally accepted (i.e. fails WP:Notable). Likewise no relevant hits for "small car"/"small-car" to do with the knee. Close as per above consensus David Ruben Talk 00:33, 17 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 Delete--JForget 00:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of secondary characters from Futurama[edit]

List of secondary characters from Futurama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

By the article's definition, everything in the list has "little importance to the series as a whole." If they don't have notability in the fictional universe, there's no way they have real world importance. 17Drew 08:24, 16 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 No concensus for deletion--JForget 02:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory R. Smith[edit]

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

I originally prodded this article but a user objected so here it is at AfD. As I implied in the prod reason, if the subject doesn't want a personal website and has indicated a need for privacy, and is not especially notable, we shouldn't have an article about him on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Indeed I found this article because an anonymous user removed some negative unsourced information - I'm referring to the second paragraph, not the first. As I also mentioned in my prod reason, I found this article about him from a reliable source, the Washington Post - however, it's terribly out-of-date. The article is also effectively orphaned - by that I mean that it is not linked anywhere in Wikipedia besides in a list. I was going to clean up this article but I thought deletion would be a better option per WP:BLP concerns. Graham87 07:42, 16 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 delete Mr.Z-man 14:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Jacoby-Hawkins[edit]

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

Non-notable Canadian politician, running twice for the House of Commons as a secondary-party candidate. Article has distinct non-neutral point of view. Author has rebuffed requests to merge into larger article about candidates from this party. Only sources are self-published or published for him by his party. Simply doesn't meet notability for stand-alone article. Realkyhick 07:33, 16 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 Speedy deleted under A1 and WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 02:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Ruse School Song[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. GlassCobra 06:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have the strength to proceed to meet our destiny. Mandsford 17:36, 16 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 delete all (non admin)(((db-afd))) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 11:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schafer House[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Frances Gardner House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Francis Gardner Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All are contested prod articles on accomodation at University College London. None offers any claim to notability beyond being something along the lines of 'largest catered hall at UCL'. Delete unless anyone can provide references showing their notability outside of the ivory towers of UCL. Nuttah68 06:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compress and Merge to the UCL article. This information is interesting to prospective students, which in my opinion is a good measure of why we need the information in Wikipedia. But it does not justify a separate article. -Arch dude 16:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I challenged the prods as they seemed to be based on the assertation that halls of residence aren't inherently notable. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason but there are several existing categories such as Category:University_and_college_residential_buildings. I've made a note on WikiProject Universities. Paulbrock 17:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that your reason is not valid does not in some way make it more valid or worthy of consideration. And I'm pretty sure that nothing exists that is 'inherently notable'. Things are notable if they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Dlabtot 21:15, 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 No consensus. Maxim(talk) 13:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Moustafa Haddara[edit]

Mohammad Moustafa Haddara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This proseline is begging to be converted into an article, but I can't do it because I can't find an English source – not one. Google returned less than 10 hits, including AlexNewArtBot's COI lists. If there's no way to verify his notability, the article should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 06:23, 16 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 Speedy deleted by User:Tone as a copyright violation. Non-admin closure Hut 8.5 10:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshuah michael[edit]

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

Notability cannot be verified. Most references given either don't work or link to someone else's information. Only remaining links are Myspace (remember, WP:YMINAR) and his own web site. Google hits are few and far between. I smell a hoax here, though I could be wrong. Realkyhick 05:57, 16 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 Keep. Maxim(talk) 13:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JkDefrag[edit]

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

Speedy deletion was overturned at DRV. However, it should still probably be deleted for lack of notability, unless reliable sources showing that it meets WP:WEB can be produced. Eluchil404 05:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a Web site- WP:WEB shouldn't apply here. It's a computer program, and it makes a claim to notability- that it is the first freeware disk defragmentation program for Windows. It also appears well-sourced. Keep. -Toptomcat 06:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as a "no" RitaSkeeter 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only administrators can close AfD debates. -- intgr [talk] 09:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is going to take a LOOOOOONG time given the size of the egos involved?? Donn Edwards 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD debates are normally closed in 5 days (see WP:AFD). This AfD page is huge already, so please keep irrelevant comments under control. -- intgr [talk] 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the number of references to the official website is because statements need citations, and the web site provides an authoritative source to verify the facts being stated. RitaSkeeter 20:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far I have added several references, but the biggest problem with the lack of noteworthy sources is that it takes the Computer Industry magazines about 2 years to do another defrag roundup, and no noteworthy defrag reviews have been done this year, unless you count the "Great Defrag Shootout" review, which is more comprehensive than anything PC Magazine has ever done, and their last review in PC Magazine was in 2005.
No books have been published on Defragmentation in 2007, according to Amazon
None of the books published about Windows Vista have mentioned anything other than Vista's own defrag program.
Since JkDefrag has only become well known this year, it's a bit soon to bemoan the lack of published sources, given the delay time in book publishing in general.RitaSkeeter 20:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why the fact that it is the first GPL-freeware defrag program that is good enough to be compared with the commercial defrag program DOESN'T make it noteworthy? From the software industry point of view this is highly noteworthy, IMHO. RitaSkeeter 20:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The proper response to a sourcing problem is to tag the article as unsourced, not to just nuke it. Just because a casual inspection doesn't find anything that looks suitable doesn't mean that someone dedicated to the article- or just someone who's dedicated to sourcing articles- can't dig something up with some more effort. If the article had been tagged as improperly sourced for a while without anyone doing anything about it, I'd endorse deletion wholeheartedly, but deleting now is premature whichever way you slice it. -Toptomcat 20:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. I have asked for more time in order to find the relevant sources. I see that a request has been made on the JkDefrag support forum for further information. Nuking the article (which has already been done once) was greeted with outrage by some users. RitaSkeeter 20:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please- let's not get vitriolic. You have valid points that I agree with, so please don't sabotage them with your tone. -Toptomcat 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I guess my frustration is showing because I happen to know something about the topic but the people who want to delete the article for the wrong reasons don't seem to want to listen to reason. I have put in a lot of work on the defragmentation and related articles in the past, only for the work to be deleted. The JkDefrag page looks like another example of heavy-handed deletion by non-experts. Who is the windows software/programming expert on WikiPedia, and why hasn't s/he been asked to mediate? I appeal to Ceasar! Donn Edwards 21:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's the thing. The whole Wikipedia process is designed specifically to eliminate the neccesity for Ceasars/experts to appeal to. If you can find a source that meets their criteria, whoever you are, the article gets left alone. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what kind of authority you are; you'll be ignored, and rightly so. This just isn't that kind of project.
So get to it! Double-check various sections of our rules with the review, newsletter, and podcast, and trawl like mad for other sources that may better fit our guidelines. It's this article's best chance. -Toptomcat 02:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that anyone who knows absolutely nothing about the topic can mark any article for deletion because they are picky about references, and they can waste other people's time by forcing them to find references even though the article is a stub. Rather than "contributing" by marking the article for deletion, why not contribute by doing a bit of research??? Now the JkDefrag article looks like superscript soup because of all the references. I hope everyone is feeling sufficiently SMUG. Donn Edwards 07:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a "superscript soup" because that is not how you're supposed to write a referenced article. Most of the references on it are simply useless. -- intgr [talk] 08:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the constructive criticism. We all feel much better now 41.243.174.82 12:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would clean them up if there was a chance for the article to survive this AFD. -- intgr [talk] 15:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
....What? *weeps for Wikipedia* -Toptomcat 16:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nothing, and I'm glad everyone is being so grown up and gracious. FYA Donn Edwards 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated for AfD because its subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline — the criterion being "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The purpose of the AfD is not to criticize anyone's work, nor to tell anyone to work more on the article. And the solution to the AfD is to demonstrate that the nomination does not hold. That is, demonstrate its conformance with the notability criterion.
The notability criterion is based on the existence of such sources. All that's necessary to resolve this AfD to indicate the presence of reliable sources, on this AfD discussion page, or in an "external links" section, or anywhere really. No, we did not ask you to turn the article into a "superscript soup." In fact, the addition of insignificant references (which only mention the program in one paragraph) only convinces people further that no significant sources can be found.
I would like to point out that you didn't even attempt to argue the subject's notability in terms of the notability criterion before resorting to irrelevant arguments about how lazy and smug Wikipedia editors are deleting your work because they don't like it. Is this the kind of constructive tone that we're supposed to learn from? -- intgr [talk] 09:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant coverage in "Defragmentation freeware outpaces native tools in Windows" in WinComputing April 2007

JkDefrag 3.7 (named for its creator, J.C. Kessels of Holland) uses Windows' own native MoveFile APIs (the same subroutines used by DEFRAG itself) to do its work, so using the program entails little risk of data corruption.

The application is standalone; it can be run in any directory and requires no installation, so it can even be run from a removable drive as part of a portable software toolkit. Any mountable read-write file system in Windows can be defragmented with it.

Some of the program's more sophisticated features are the sorts of things you usually only see in defragmentation software you pay for. It allows you to move seldom-used files to the end of the disk, or force all files to move to the front of the disk (i.e., as a prelude to resizing a partition). The utility also moves all directory structures to the front of the disk, creates a free-space buffer at the front 1% of the disk, and frees up space in the MFT reserved zone whenever possible.

However, it does not perform any more advanced file placement than that, possibly because Windows itself (XP and Vista) has internal management for those functions. (It's been suggested to the freeware's author that JkDefrag be instructed to not move files that have been tagged by the prefetch optimizer, and he plans to eventually include this feature whenever possible.)

The program is both free and open-source; it's been made available under the GNU General Public License in both 32- and 64-bit implementations. Along with the Visual C++ source code, the author has also provided a DLL library that allows the program to be implemented from other applications. Note: To make the program's options a little easier to deal with, cohort Emiel Wieldraaijer has written a GUI command interface for JkDefrag called JkDefragGUI.

  • and in "Must-have Windows utilities for 20 essential tasks" in ComputerWorld and Network World Asia July 2007:

Disk defragmentation

Windows' native Defrag application, based on the long-running Diskeeper defragmentation program, has never been very good, although it's been incrementally improved over time. After Microsoft started including a native file-defragmentation API in Windows (starting with Windows 2000), many individual programmers stepped up to create defrag tools of their own.

A number of freeware defrag programs offer similar functionality. Of those, the best I've found so far is the open-source JkDefrag from Jeroen Kessels. It can be run in a graphical mode, from the command line or even as a screen saver. While I'm not a fan of file-placement options -- it's not always clear what kind of performance benefit they provide -- JkDefrag has a slew of them, including the ability to move the least used and least accessed files to the end of the disk. One flaw: JkDefrag doesn't preserve any files specified in the Windows prefetch layout folder, so prefetching will break if you use JkDefrag consistently. (This isn't fatal; it just might have an unanticipated performance impact.)

  • Mentioned in "Boxed Utility Blowout" in Computer Power User magazine September 2007 pg 66-68
  • Mentioned in Freeware/Open Source for Windows Weekly Summary by Todd Ogasawara on O'Reilly Windows Devcentre July 2007
  • Nominated "Repair Tool of the Week" in TechNibble August 2007 Donn Edwards 16:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free stand-alone disk defragmentation tool

Defragmenting your hard drives is important, because doing so increases system speed and reduces drive wear by eliminating unnecessary disk read operations.

File are stored on your disk in sectors. The more compact your files are, the faster your disk subsystem can find the information and read it. So, naturally, the optimal storage pattern for any file is to have all of its sectors right next to each other.

That's where disk defragmentation tools come into play. Defrag tools rearrange your files so that they're stored contiguously. Windows comes with a built-in disk deframentation tool, but it's not the fastest one available, nor is it very flexible. In fact, you must run the tool as Administrator, which presents a problem for many users.

John Mason wrote to us about this problem and asked if we know of any disk defragmentation tools that are self-contained, can run from a flash drive, and don't require Administrator-level access in order to run.

John, I do know of such a tool. JkDefrag is a free, lightweight tool that that comes in three varieties. The first variety runs as a typical Windows desktop application, the second is a command-line version, and the third is a screensaver that defrags the drive when your screensaver kicks in.

Another cool feature of JkDefrag is that it defrags floppies and USB-based media, such as flash drives. If you're interested, you can also download the complete source code for use in Microsoft Visual C++.

RitaSkeeter 20:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


How long does this take? A few hours? days? months? Please advise. Thank you. RitaSkeeter 20:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The typical timeframe is days. -Toptomcat 00:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the Vopt AfD page: Another fundamental issue is that Wikipedia:Deletion Policy -- Wikipedia official policy that requires "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion" -- seems not to have been followed here. The policy, which seems to have been completely ignored here, requires nominators to consider alternatives to deletion -- such as editing, tagging or merging the article -- before considering deletion as a last resort. Given that the article as it existed when nominated for deletion made explicit claims of notability and provided ample sources, there seems to be little justification for this clear policy violation. At a minimum, an explanation of the nominator's actions would be in order --RitaSkeeter 16:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original nomination message was pushed downwards by some user's vote which is probably why you missed it; I have cleaned it up now (see the top of the page). -- intgr [talk] 21:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, that's not really how things work around here. We assume good faith. I'm not sure why you are complaining anyway; the process is working in your favor. Just relax and let things play out. -- Satori Son 15:14, 21 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 Delete. Maxim(talk) 02:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan J. Downey[edit]

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

Truthfully, my main problem with this article is that it's written by the subject and reads like it. In terms of Wikipedia policy, it's basically unsourced and probably unsourceable. P4k 05:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't about what someone's done, it's about what reliable sources have reported they've done. In my experience it's pretty much impossible to find real sources about 90s hardcore bands (eg Catharsis) and I doubt Downey's band will be any different. If you can find sources for this article then more power to you.P4k 22:23, 21 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 Delete. -- Longhair\talk 02:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not meet WP:MOVIE NeilN 04:23, 16 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 delete. DS 12:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carrownaclougha United[edit]

Article appears to be a hoax. Information cannot be verified. Google and Wikipedia searches using "Carrownaclougha" link only to this article (which is orphaned). Previous CSD A1/A3 nomination was removed by article author after only five minutes. Article author's sole contribution to Wikipedia has been to this article. – Liveste 04:19, 16 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 Keep all. Maxim(talk) 01:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Blessing Way (The X-Files)[edit]

The Blessing Way (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article about individual episode of a television series that does not establish the notability/significance of the episode, and in addition, does not even contain much information. Reads more like an entry on one of those sites that documents episodes of television shows. Calgary 03:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles (most of season 3) for deletion for the same reason:

Paper Clip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
D.P.O. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The List (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2Shy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Walk (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oubliette (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
731 (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Revelations (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
War of the Coprophages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Syzygy (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Piper Maru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Apocrypha (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pusher (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Teso Dos Bichos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hell Money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jose Chung's "From Outer Space" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Avatar (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quagmire (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wetwired (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Talitha Cumi (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Calgary 03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment To those who advocate a merge, there is already a List of The X-Files episodes article which lists all of the seasons, and if you look at the section for Season 3 (not season 4 as I had previously written, I apologize for the error), you'll find that not only is most of the information in these articles included in this list, but in most cases the text is identical. As it stands, the mass of encyclopedic information is already listed here, adding even more uselessness to the individual articles, which on their own are not notable. Calgary 02:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't they notable? Significant secondary coverage exists for at least some of them.P4k 04:39, 17 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 of the debate was speedily kept as rewritten bio substub. FCYTravis 06:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Van[edit]

Vanity nonsense FCYTravis 04:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tammo Tachtig[edit]

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

Article cites Uncyclopedia and is a non-notable internet meme. Spryde 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 03:34, 16 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 Delete. -- Longhair\talk 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LakeStar Apparel[edit]

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

I am concerned that this corporation fails to satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion guideline for corporations. I don't often use the "Google test", but nearly all of the Google Results come from Wikipedia or mirror sites. JavaTenor 03:31, 16 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 redirected per merge to List of professional wrestling slang. I've made a request at RPP, but it's unlikely. Non admin. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 11:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parts Unknown[edit]

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

Very, very small subset of professional wrestling information that isn't notable enough to warrant an individual article. I propose that Parts Unknown be added to the List of professional wrestling slang without all the crufty lists. Then a redirect should be placed on this page for the entry in the list. Nikki311 03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Megred articles actually can't be deleted due to it being a GFDL violation. A better choice would be requesting full protection of the redirect after the merger is done. That way the redirect can't be an article again and we do not need to delete the history. 69.156.205.163 03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, we aren't so much merging all the content, rather than just using a one sentence definition on the list. It really isn't a merge at all. Nikki311 16:00, 17 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 Delete Acalamari 23:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vinko Mandl[edit]

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

This appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable politician. As I am not a speaker of the native language, I cannot do any further research on Google, so I am putting it here for community discussion. Seems to be a somewhat minor bureaucrat. Into The Fray T/C 03:22, 16 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 purge. DS 13:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Canadians[edit]

Hoax. Was listed for speedy deletion, but, sadly, this is not a valid reason for speedy. David Eppstein 03:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bielle, I'm adding Canadian Oil Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to this AfD. —David Eppstein 04:33, 16 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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Sante[edit]

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

The first version of this article was created as an autobiography in July 2006. It stayed uncategorized, orphaned and unreferenced for a year until it was speedy-deleted under CSD#A7 in July 2007.

The creator/subject of the article apparently discovered his bio had been deleted and recreated the article with only a few changes – and still didn't provide references or a single source other than his own site. Pure vanity. KrakatoaKatie 02:55, 16 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 Merge with main article. Maxim(talk) 01:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cure for diabetes mellitus type 1[edit]

Cure for diabetes mellitus type 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I came across this article while working through AlexNewArtBot's output of possible conflicts of interest in new articles.

I can understand a desire to centrally locate research into a disease or condition, but I have concerns. First, it's an invitation for spamlinks, and has the potential to become a serious COI battleground. More importantly, I think it's dangerous for Wikipedia to have an article titled "cure for disease X", despite the medical disclaimer. Our intentions may be good, but those intentions can turn around and bite us in the ass. I'm also wondering why this couldn't be covered in the Diabetes mellitus type 1 article in a "research into remedies" or some other benign title.

At the very least, it should be renamed – I've struggled to come up with a better name, but can't think of one – and claims of comprehensiveness should be removed. I'm uneasy about it, so I bring it here for discussion. KrakatoaKatie 02:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second, once the medical disclaimer is there, this article has exactly the same chance of "turning around and biting us in the ass" as any other Wikipedia article on a medical issue. No one would seriously expect Wikipedia to render a cure to diabetes, so no legal or medical issue here.

Third, I really think the current name is good. There are at least two treatments listed in the article (the Edmonton Protocol and the stem cell treatment in Brazil), which already have reversed diabetes T1 in real patients, in the real world; So the wording "Cure for diabetes type 1" is not at all inaccurate.

Fourth, about the "spamlinks" and COI issues, that certainly is not what the article is meant for, and I, as all other serious Wikipedia editors (not to mention those particular users who actually have the condition), would remove any such unwelcome edits, just as they would be removed from any other article in WP. The possibility of stupid users doing stupid things should not, in any way, be a condition on the existence of a smart article edited by smart users. A.R. 15:17, 16 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 Delete Acalamari 23:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Fools Theater[edit]

Sacred Fools Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Despite the article’s hyperbole (“Sacred Fools is one of the most prolific theater companies in the nation, if not the world”) it lacks national or international notability. And with Sacred Fools’ local scope it probably has little prospect of becoming notable in the future. --teb728 02:26, 16 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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Sass[edit]

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

Hi, it's Alex Sass here. Delete away if you like but yes the stated bio is true. If you wish to contact me im on globalsass@yahoo.com. I find my inclusion in WikiPedia a little unusual to say the least! JakeTM is probably notable and perhaps the STM theories but probably not my own life. I believe the entry came from a journo I know after an article given when quizzed about the launch of GayCheltenham. The novel is still for sale so you could check that I guess on Lulu or Amazon. Im never sure if entry in this sort of thing is positive, negative or neither! AS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.63.51 (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched and cannot find any Reliable Sources giving any coverage at all to this subject, much less significant coverage. No sources are given in the article, but it says that he was mentioned in a gay publication. I have no idea whether that publication is a significant, reliable source, but we don't have the citation, either. There is a link to the gay community social networking site he founded. The article says he sold that, moved to Thailand and started writing a novel. Again, no reliable sources. And I see no notability. I think we need to DELETE. OfficeGirl 02:17, 16 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 Delete Acalamari 23:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Episcopal Day School Baton Rouge[edit]

Trinity Episcopal Day School Baton Rouge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school, and nothing in the article is about the article topic. CitiCat ♫ 02:16, 16 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 Keep. Carlossuarez46 00:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Kreckler[edit]

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

This article was created by Kreckler. It was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7 a few days ago, but Kreckler recreated it and asserts some notability in the text. I don't see any actual notability, nor do I see any actual verifiable, sources. It's likely a prod tag will be removed, so I'm formally nominating it for deletion. KrakatoaKatie 02:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Confirmed that he has a work in the collection of the National Gallery of Australia. Link added to article.--Ethicoaestheticist 18:14, 16 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 Keep. -- Longhair\talk 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus and comparative mythology[edit]

Jesus and comparative mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An obvious POV fork and little more than a jumble of unsourced & unrelated statements. Anything on this article which is well sourced and relevant can be easily merged into the main Jesus article. RucasHost 01:49, 16 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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ParetoLogic Privacy Controls[edit]

ParetoLogic Privacy Controls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software by a company of questionable business practices. See RegCure and its AFD. Bahustard 20:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 01:43, 16 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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyBlackBook[edit]

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

An editor added ((db-web)) (It is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.), and another editor removed it. I've been a bit suspicious of this article for a while, not sure whether it's notable or advertising, so I'm putting it up to the wider Wikipedian community to decide here. --Icarus (Hi!) 01:43, 16 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 Delete. -- Longhair\talk 10:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mocnyish[edit]

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

Dictionary definition; propose trasnwiki to Wikitionary. Blair - Speak to me 01:32, 16 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 speedy deleted by me. J Milburn 11:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Playground[edit]

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

Completed AFD nom started by User:24.17.110.223. Possible nominated due to non-notabliity? -- Alan Liefting talk 01:30, 16 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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Graham Bell Public School[edit]

Alexander Graham Bell Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ok it may be named for the inventor of the telephone, but the building (a local public school) is not notable at all and there are no sources provided to assert it. Delete JForget 01:28, 16 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 delete. DS 13:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snoogee[edit]

GlassCobra 01:06, 16 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 Delete Acalamari 23:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mentis Foundation[edit]

The Mentis Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article should be deleted per WP:N. The subject of the article may be unique and well meaning, per the comment of the author on the talk page, but that does not necessarily make it notable. WP is not designed for advertisement, even of worthy causes. Avruch 19:29, 14 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 Close - A misplaced redirect has now been converted into a stub. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 11:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pale-legged Warbler[edit]

Pale-legged Warbler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page Pale-legged Warbler, Basileuterus signatus, redirects to Pale-legged Leaf-warbler, Phylloscopus tenellipes, but a quick Google of the latin names shows that they are two different species. The page should be deleted until the species page is written

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Acalamari 23:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SyntheticPages[edit]

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

Only 723 google hits. Doesn't appear to establish notability of the website. M1ss1ontomars2k4 19:27, 16 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 Delete. -- Longhair\talk 02:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 (season 8)[edit]

24 (season 8) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More