Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 13

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunshine Way

A street somewhere, or maybe not -- a house? Doesn't seem notable (no relevant Google hits for "sunshine way"), and unmaintained. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-28 21:51Z

• Weak keep. It seems like a historical housing development. However, it needs some citations and some explanation as to why it's particularly important. The mention about the sunshine rooms is helpful, but that alone isn't necessarily an assertion of notability. --FreelanceWizard 23:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if importance cannot be established, e.g. listed properties, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 01:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable and unverifable in almost any claim Konman72 11:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the street isn't notable, it's not even mentioned on the Mitcham article --RMHED 15:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I added Category:Tuberculosis, which puts the TB reference into context. Before antibiotics, fresh air was one of the few treatments for TB. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn street Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 00:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TruthbringerToronto. The TB ref/cat does indeed put the article into historical and notable context. Agne 18:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per TruthbringerToronto. Viridae^Talk 00:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established. Seems unverifiable. — NMChico24 03:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn per above. Maybe worth a passing mention in the article on Mitcham. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think we were going a bit far in haveing an article for every tiny village, every street is going way to far unless there is a very strong reason to say otherwise. Jon513 11:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Mitcham, Surrey, England. Kappa 11:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep We shouldn't be noting every street in the world in Wiki, as they're simply not notable, unless, for some particularly reason, such as Rodeo Drive or Hollywood Blvd, they are notable. Given Sunshine Way's particular involvement with TB patients and it's unique architecture to accomodate them, it crosses the line from deletion to being kept. Mugaliens 11:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The TB reference is a canard wrt to notability; this is inherently non-notable. Eusebeus 12:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per Mugaliens -- Martinp23 14:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Seems historical, but low google hits, and one paltry reference to a "local paper" digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 14:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mugaliens. Historically interesting. Drett 17:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per TruthbringerToronto and others, hoping it may one day be part of a broader article on 'sunshine houses' (e.g. in Leeds) - and other anti-TB housing measures in the UK. [1]--HJMG 17:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mugaliens. NCurse _work 21:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per above. Daniel's page ☎ 23:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per HJMG. the wub "?!" 17:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• KeepThere is an historic significance here that the article creator failed to convey. If only we can haul it to the surface. :) Dlohcierekim 06:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Digital Cable

Non-notable company; 115 Google hits. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. --Haakon 21:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

• Delete. It reads like an advertisement, some of the claims are most likely unverifiable ("VDC Corporation, based in Northbrook, Illinois, is the first company to deliver Television On the Desktop" -- I rather doubt that), and it seems otherwise non-notable. --FreelanceWizard 23:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. - I use VDC to watch NASA TV, and I got to watch the entire Space Shuttle Mission twoo weeks ago in high quality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SyncMaster213t (talk • contribs) .— Possible single purpose account: SyncMaster213t (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Note - user's first non-vandalism edit. Haakon 17:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. My opinion is that if you simply don't like the description and it reads like an advertisement, just change it. I have no problem with this article and quite frankly I find it useful as this company provides a service that should be mentioned in Wikipedia. The point of Wikipedia is to spur innovation, knowledge, ideas, creative thinking and education. Why do you people always feel the need to censor and shut down the creative process simply because you disagree with the words or phrasing of the article? I see no difference between this article and Comcast or Time Warner or ANY other legitimate business that has a listing on Wikipedia. I say keep it and stop your ongoing suppression of ideas, free enterprise, and discovery. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.10.168.12 (talk • contribs) .— Possible single purpose account: 204.10.168.12 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Note - user's first edit. Haakon 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. - As a journalist for multiple trade-presses in the telecommunications industry I can attest that VDC is in an interesting position currently. Broadcasting on the internet, the company is trying to obtain mainstream television programming that is seen on current cable systems but is apparently being held back because of certain copyright, FCC, and internet broadcast restrictions imposed upon them by the larger broadcasters and cable operators (which some see as an illegal act). As many in the cable broadcast industry are currently doing, I'd keep a close eye on this company because many of the actions carried out by this company can impose how the government and the FCC regulates cable television on the internet in the future, since IPTV is now basically unregulated. Just as the last commenter stated, change the article to read more neutral but I believe that this company is true to what they claim and aren't going to disappear anytime soon. --68.23.37.235 18:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: 68.23.37.235 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Note - user's first edit. --Haakon 18:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not sure that being first meets WP:CORP here. Vegaswikian 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Additional comments I again think that what this company is doing in the cable industry does meet Wikipedia's Criteria for companies and corporations as outlined by WP:CORP. For your reference please see the below news stories which DO comply with Wikipedia's first criteria where; "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." 68.23.37.235 00:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: 68.23.37.235 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • • Internet Streamer VDC Targets C-SPAN
    • IPTV Provider Threatens Access Complaint
    • Bringing Pay TV to the PC

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I got 164 GHits, and a good proportion were WP or mirrors. Mentioned as "new" as of 2006-05-23 here. Not a fantastically authoratative source I know, and I'm aware that newness doesn't constitute a failure of WP:CORP, but it really doesn't seem notable. technologyguide.com did have a review of their service, but I'm not sure that makes it notable. I also might add that there have been a lot of new and anon users commenting on this AfD in the past, and (probable) sockpuppeting just screams "spam" to me. Ruaraidh-dobson 00:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CORP. Socks need to be dealt with. — NMChico24 03:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as a non-notable company; NMChico24 says it fails Wikipedia's corporation standards. --Bigtop 04:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Resolute 04:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. If the company becomes notable, a worthwhile article can be created at the time. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the news article starts "A new Internet-TV company plans to launch...". That is not notable news coverage. The news coverage needed for inclusion is about a company doing something notable and then being the in newspaper. Not planning on doing something interesting and being writen about on a slow news day. Jon513 11:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Google hits are an incredibly poor metric as to an article's worth to society. Some of the best and most relevant Wiki entries have very few Google hits while some of the least worthwhile entries enjoy millions of Google hits. This company's efforts and technologies have eliminated half the bills paid by my cousin and his family, and it's lead the way towards encapsulating everything over IP, including TV, phone, and browsing the Internet. That's very noteworthy! Mugaliens 11:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The Google test may not always be as appropriate a measurement for notability, but neither is your cousin ;-) The criteria for corporate notability is listed in WP:CORP. Haakon 11:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Just an example, Haakon. The real test is the fact that their technology is likely to have a tremendous impact on AT&T, Comcast, Roadrunner, and a lot of other ISPs and telcos. It remains very noteworthy. Mugaliens 17:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That is not a fact, but speculation. If this company becomes notable in the future for that reason, then an article can be recreated in the future. Resolute 17:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP. Eusebeus 12:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Martinp23 14:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above inrelated stories and artiles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.208.216.57 (talk • contribs) .— Possible single purpose account: 70.208.216.57 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Note - user's first edit. Haakon 19:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - I'm not sure that the usual criteria can easily be applied from WP:CORP in that the claim to notability is that they are the first to do this. On the other hand, the article itself reads like a press release (it must be rewritten if kept), and the claim for notability has not been sourced. The only article provided actually shows the opposite, as the company is still planning to do it(crystal ball). If the company's claim can be properly sourced and some additional notable media articles about the company are sourced, I'd change to a keep. -- Whpq 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to meet criteria and intention of WP:CORP to me. SorryGuy 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - doesn't seem to meet the criteria at WP:CORP but appears that notability is forth-coming. More verifiable resources needed. Mirror Whpq's comments, but voting on the other side. --CPAScott 15:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is my first time posting, but I wanted to add my support to keeping this page. I'm also a trade journalist following VDC. They are a small company raising some very interesting regulatory issues about how video can be delivered via the Internet. I don't see how this violate violates WP:Corp, just because the mainstream press hasn't picked up on them yet. Wikipedia is about spreading information, not stifling it. The more said about VDC, the better. Jw3000 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - user's first edit. (Yes, I know, you said so, but I'd still like to mark all first-timers) --Haakon 21:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Forthcoming importance and a testimonial from someone's cousin? Please!. Neither satisfies WP:CORP. :) Dlohcierekim 06:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete of everything but Sierra Atlantic per copyright concerns and notability. Yanksox 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reachwell Software Services Private

Non Notable company. Google hits only give the said company's links. No mention of the company in the Indian media. I am also nominating these other companies for the same reason.

• QualEx Systems
• Persistent Systems
• Sierra Atlantic Ageo020 19:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)a

• Keep Sierra Atlantic - decent press coverage and major expansion plans here and recent business win here. BlueValour 20:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Persistent Systems - USA, India and Japan offices with significant outside investment here. BlueValour 20:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete QualEx Systems - small company (70 employees). NN. BlueValour 20:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Reachwell Software Services Private - limited press coverage. NN. BlueValour 20:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Persistent Systems - There are about 25 entries from July 06 where Persistent is cited in the media. The Company has 2600 employees. here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.175.207 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Keep Persistent and Sierra per BlueValour --Ageo020 03:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete QualEx Systems - POV / advertising, no content, not notable. Mrvolvo 19:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Reachwell Software Services Private. No independent sources, no evidence of serious press coverage, indistinguishable from 1,000 other nn small software outfits. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete QualEx Systems. Written in first person: need I say more? OK, same comments as Reachwell. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Persistent Systems. Publicity agent who wrote the article was at least clueful enough to rephrase to third person. Forbes' account of this company looks impressive until you think about it -- 700 release cycles and wrote some code for 200 "industry-leading" products. My last dinner party could claim more nearly as much. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Sierra Atlantic. Reasonable publicity, some marginally-noteworthy industry impact. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps it would be advisable to relist each one separately. Eusebeus 12:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - no, please no, I really don't want to go through such a boring bunch of companies again :-) Let's try and make some clear decisions and then forget them! BlueValour 15:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — QualEx Systems has just been tagged copyvio - Glen 06:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — Reachwell is also a copyvio guys. I have left the AfD tags on incase they are not deleted due to copyvio, in which case the outcome here is relevant. Thanks - Glen 06:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) - Glen 06:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was lack of consensus to delete, ergo Keep. Ifnord 01:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinbi Taewoong

Incredibly non-notable. Google and Yahoo comes up with ZERO (!) results for his name, he has his own website as reference, verifiably (?) fought once in K-1, which was a loss Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 14:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per said. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 14:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Would you mind to check the gallery on his homepage, he is well known in Thailand under the fighter name of Thopadak. You can see his photo on 16 covers of Thailands Muay Thai magazine alone (see gallery). You can find nearly 100 articles in newspapers that are scanned and in the gallery showing his photo, interviews, etc unfortunately if you can not read Thai you can not understand the articles, but you can see the photos in the newspapers.

He did fight K-1 only once so far (the loss against Kalakoda in K-1 was controversial, check the video and you see why), but he is a KOMA champion of 2005, photo on his homepage proving this (champion belt worn on photo) but in Japan for example someone who fought K-1 is a celebrity as it is, since there are not that many people who have fought K-1 events overall.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by G00dgirl (talk • contribs) .

Searching Google with the keyword "Thopadak" it lists 7 (!!) hits, from which 3 are fansites. If he's so popular why there aren't several Thai pages (.th) that says his name? Not even Thai Wiki mentions him. Maybe you can provide us his Thai name with Thai characters? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 12:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Thai pages would not contain his name in transliteration but most likely in Thai language. You can find his name written in most of the newspaper articles that were scanned if you know what to look for, the name in Thai letters is spelled as follows: ต.ปฏัก. He has not been fighting under that fighters name since he fought in Bangkok. In Thailand fighters adopt the name of the gym they train at. He has been fighting as Sinbi Taewoong for Taewoong gym in Korea in the past few years, for example when he won the KOMA championship in 2005 and several other fights in Korea, but I have no idea about Korean language to know the name in Korean letters. He is going to fight K-1 again this year after going to hold seminars in South Africa.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by G00dgirl (talk • contribs) .

Fine for me. But still cite that he's a champion in References section. I saw his video on k-1fans that was so low quality handycam-made one (thus unofficial) that you can't even recognize which one is him. But as it stands right now the page will survive the nomination. Don't forget to vote here also, because as a creator of the page you aren't restricted to do so (I don't knwo if you aware of this. And sign your posts with ~~~~ four tildes, instead of the unsigned formula. But keep expanding the article towards notablity in place of the over-detailed biography. Are you a childhood friend of Sinbi? You know how much he weighted at the age of 9 and claim that you made the photo of him...But still remain objective. Best wishes and good luck for editing. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 13:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --G00dgirl 09:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - The better quality videos of the Busan K-1 event can be downloaded here: http://www.k-1khan.com/kahn-web (not only Sinbis fight, but all of the event.) Sinbis fight is here: http://www.k-1khan.com/kahn-web/sinby-calacoda.wmv

Someone in the k1-fans forum has also posted a link to that address before. I am a fan and friend of Sinbi and met him personally, yes. I did not believe that pleas without being objective would aid the discussion. Thanks for the tip about the voting, I never did it but I think I read you are supposed to just put "Keep" on the page? --G00dgirl 09:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Still I must say that notability and creditability of the artcile is questionable as "ต.ปฏัก" drop 5 hits on Google from which one is an XLS Excel document and the pages would need proper translation. The article doesn't have (and as I see can't have) references stated there. For example how can you justify the statement that he was 25 kg at the age of 9? Is it possible in any way to cite this? I don't think so... Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Other comments - I also like to note that the infobox has a totally blank fighting record table, and the claim that he is a KOMA champion is only referenced by the KOMA link itself that is an extremely stubby article written by the same author (G00dgirl). Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 22:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sinbi is shown on a photograph with the KOMA champions belt on his website (http://sinbi-taewoong.com/images/stories/sing_koma_champion.jpg). Someone who did not win the event does not get to pose with the champions belt on. The fighting record is so extensive, that even Sinbi himself did not keep accurate count of all the fights in his life, I did not want to put inaccurate figures into the box. The official K-1 page lists his K-1 fight on the following page, they spelled his name Shin Bi, see

http://www.so-net.ne.jp/feg/k-1gp/b05_1105max.htm, fight number 5 Superfight. --G00dgirl 05:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per comments above and newscoverage on the subject's website.--Kchase T 05:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Martinp23 14:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comments regarding media coverage and Thai spelling of name. This article does need a clean-up, though. Drett 17:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that if championship is non-notable and media coverage is non-notable than the person still remains non-notable. Searching "KOMA champion" (KOMA is ambigous) it will come up with 9 results, one is a wikipage, three are erotic pages, and one DVD shop. And yes of course he has Thai name if born there, but can you say it is spelled correctly or even true? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 17:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Lajbi, I think you're relying too heavily on google results, here. Thailand is not as wealthy or internet-savvy as many countries in the Western world. Any phenomenon there will get fewer google hits than a comparable phenomenon in the United States or Germany, for example.--Kchase T 19:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then books maybe? ISBN whatever. We need other sources than his own home page. Until then it has to be removed...And K-1 is heavily backed up with whatever info you want. It is highly popular in Germany and also has media coverage in the US. If he's a notable fighter (apart from that one loss) there must be some reference. If not nobody cares about him, that's because he is so non-notable. There are a bunch of people in boxing for example that can be hired to be beaten up. Do they deserve all their own pages?Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 19:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see he meets WP:BIO. :) Dlohcierekim 07:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral for the information, his Thai name ต.ปฏัก ส.จุลเสน. His first name, ต.ปฏัก, is the homophone of the 15th Thai alphabet, (ฏ.ปฏัก). Since I don't know him and I'm not into the boxing. I might go for neutral then. --Manop - TH 18:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep It's a close call, but I'm going for keep. Here's his homepage: http://sinbi-taewoong.com/. Apparently he has been in a couple of thai articles and on some frontpages. He's also a thaiboxer, does anyone know if he has done any fighting at the Rajadamnern stadium or the Lumphini stadium? He's noted on the K-1 site so I guess he qualifes the policy "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles.". I give it a weak keep as long there's some clean-up. Btw, Lajbi, he said on his web-page that he took his first fight at the age of nine. It's quite common in thailand to fight at an early age. I'm not logged in, but I'm the user NoNo. --84.217.155.207 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Associated Blue Star

Local company. Fails WP:CORP. Delete. TerriersFan 22:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as being too localized. fuzzy510 07:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 00:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Mildly notable by Worcestershire standards. I added links and categories. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - if there was anything notable about this firm, I would have expected a minimal press mention. However, apart from Wikipedia mirrors, the only Google hit here is their own website (the other hits are to some store; a different company) and even that doesn't work! If you go to here and put Associated Blue Star in the search box you will find whar's bouncing in Worcester. TerriersFan 14:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - even by local standards a 30 year old taxi company does not merit an encyclopedia article. - fails WP:CORP per nominator - Peripitus (Talk) 07:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 14:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Martinp23 14:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; far too local. I can't imagine anyone would ever read this article. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 19:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CORP --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NCurse _work 21:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CORP :) Dlohcierekim 07:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SizzleLayouts.net

Really new site with no Alexa rank. Obviously fails WP:WEB. Currently, at http://sizzlelayouts.net we can see only code. Jacek Kendysz 22:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP Hello. The site's "code" problem is fixed and will be consistantly updated weekly. Yes, it did just recently open and this is why it is not super popular yet. Word has just begun to spread and more and more people periodicly have been visiting the site. Please leave this page open for at least 1 more month before deletion. I beleive the site will be much more popular by then. Best Regards To all -Site Owner Jordan Irwin 07:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Very obvious delete With no disrespect to the site's owner, please consult WP:WEB and WP:N. The site opened yesterday, and, unsurprisingly, is non-notable. A Google search of "SizzleLayouts" brings up 4 pages on Yahoo! Answers and nothing else. -- Kicking222 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ... discospinster _talk 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Pinkstarmaci 05:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Definite Keep This site seems as if it will become more popular, give it time. Me 11:57 August 6, 2006 (UTC)

• Note:Forged signature. Vote actually entered by User:Aries green monkey, who identifies himself above as Jordan Irwin, the site owner. Vote stricken. -- Fan-1967 01:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP consensus is very clear, the website is to become notable before it can be included in WP. Websites, like any person, are born non-notable. hateless 00:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Hateless. Wikipedia is not for promoting new sites, but for documenting sites which have already become notable. Fan-1967 00:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Don't see why this is being relisted - looks like an obvious delete close. Dlyons493 Talk 02:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I suppose it is better to be sure, but this was an obvious delete from the get go. Wikipedia is not free advertising. Resolute 04:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pretty obvious, not much else left to say digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 14:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Martinp23 14:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons above--Peephole 14:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per above. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 17:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete way too non-notable -- Whpq 20:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, fails WP:WEB, no WP:V indicating any sort of notability, looks like WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NCurse _work 21:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam for a non-notable website. Shouldn't have been relisted, there was consensus. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam promotion Macktheknifeau 06:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not support notability. It reads like an ad. Still no Alexa. Sorry, Wikipedia is not a collection of information about sites whose owner hopes for much more popularity. 15 google hits including Wikipedia and Myspace. Fails WP:WEB. And vote forgery strains my WP:AGF to the point of saying, "I don't like Spam. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 13:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responding Heads

Nonnotable/advertising/vanity article for software. Prodded but prod deleted by original author. Acyso 22:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Relisted Acyso 21:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn software.--Kchase T 21:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Article does not conform to WP:V. -AED 06:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete — If someone can show some kind of press or notability I'd change my vote, but for now it's a delete mboverload@ 09:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Please continue merge-related discussions on the appropriate talk page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bolmen Water Tunnel

Is this tunnel significant enough to warrant an entry? CPAScott 21:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• No. -- Kicking222 21:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, it is 82 km long, and I have only found one longer such tunnel in the world. Correct me if I'm wrong. BIL 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  If you say you've found only one longer water tunnel, we believe you. --Lambiam^Talk 22:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  But this page claims that the 5,35 m diameter Orange-Fish tunnel in South Africa, with a length of 82,8 km, is the longest continuous enclosed aqueduct in the Southern hemisphere and the second-longest water supply tunnel in the world (presumably after the Päijänne Water Tunnel). That would make the Bolmen tunnel presently the third. An 85.3 km tunnel is said here to be under construction in Liaoning Province. --Lambiam^Talk 22:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Bolmen and redirect (two little stubs together...aahhh). Yomangani 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. If more is added to the article. Surely the third longest water tunnel is notable and something more can be said about it. If not, then maybe it is not all that notable. I marked it as a stub, maybe someone will be able to add a few more facts that address the article's current weaknesses. Vegaswikian 18:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I had a fairly good look around before suggesting the merge and I couldn't find anything to add. Yomangani 19:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. There are loads of stubs on Wikipedia that are as short or refer to a more minor piece of infrastrucure than this one. This one just needs more on it. Trnj2000 17:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This is a piece of major public infrastructure, and hence far more important than 99.99% of the sci-fi/fantasy/gamer content that passes for articles on Wikipedia. --Centauri 05:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep or merge to Bolmen. No strong preference. -AED 06:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - major piece of engineering. New York City is building a longer one, but it won't be done until 2020 or so. --Brianyoumans 06:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Bolmen. Doesn't need its own entry. Eusebeus 12:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Bolmen digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 14:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Bolmen Martinp23 14:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge tp Bolmen -- Whpq 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Bolmen NCurse _work 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Boldly merge to Bolmen. If either article grows to overcrowdedness, we can split them again. :) Dlohcierekim 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OOPS forgot to say a redirect would be in order. :) Dlohcierekim 07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it is interesting enough, having in mind that more than 180 A-roads and 19 road junctions in the UK have articles. Libb2 19:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eliza Orlins

Delete vanity page, WP:BIO. Being a contestant on Survivor does not impart Notability. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Also, copyvio from [2]. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • One could argue that facts about a person such as where they lived, went to school, etc. are not protected by copyright law including facts presented on the CBS website bio page for the subject. FeelsLikeHome 19:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete obviously real and the attempt at "fame" does exist. However, I'm not certain of meeting WP:BIO[3]. Also, if she met said guideline, I don't think she would merit an article since her importance is just in the show and there is nothing to show that she is noted or important outside of the scope. There appears to be no heavy coverage or real interest by the media. Yanksox 03:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:BIO. Involvement in hit national TV show, and substantial media attention, easily qualify this person as she was a major player on her season. There is a regular precedent to keep comparable contestants on national hit reality TV shows -- The majority of the other seasons of this show have all members of the "Final 4" with a wiki entry and having an entry for this person eliminates redlinks in other articles. Also "Eliza Orlins" in a google search turns up over 11,000 hits. FeelsLikeHome 17:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - In summary her only notability is winning a car on a multipart game show in which she came 4th - Not at all notable - Peripitus (Talk) 07:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - thousands of people have won prizes on game shows, but they don't have articles on WP, so whats different here? Martinp23 14:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NCurse _work 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomMusaabdulrashid 07:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The entry itself shows how un-noteworthy it is. It reads like a MySpace page more than a noteable person. Eliza's achieved some cool stuff, but just because she was on a reality show (and not even the runner-up) doesn't make her study abroad and sorority activities, nor her father's achievements, meritorious of inclusion into an encylopedia. It definitely doesn't meet the criteria in the Bio for entertainment or television personalities:
  • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
  • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
  • An independent biography
  • Name recognition
  • Commercial endorsements —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidShankBone (talk • contribs) .
• Delete per NN. Tony the Marine 02:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started a discussion section on the Deletion Policy page regarding reality television contestants. My main point is this: the ABC.com homepage does a perfectly fine job of sorting out who is a contestant, and their background. Jimmy Wales stated we should focus on quality, not quantity. What is it that these entries give to the internet that is not already covered by their homepages for the game shows?

Here's a link to the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Reality_Telvision_Contestants

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rifleman Isiah Tongue

Google comes up with one exact match in a character listing. The notability of this character is limited, failing WP:NN. The article also does not follow accepted structure. Michael 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. Michael 20:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Sharpe's Rifles (novel). A need for clean-up is not grounds alone to delete an article, only to improve it. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 20:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable minor character. Also I'll probably fix the redirect of Sharpe's rifles that's wrongly directed to the rifle making search impossible MLA 06:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 12:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into Sharpe's Rifles (novel), either way it doesn't need it's own article digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 14:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Martinp23 14:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NCurse _work 21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge. Petros471 21:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surfwear

Advertising, WP:NOT Ne1ls 19:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable type of clothing. "Surfwear" get 515,000 google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Surf culture. The current article consists mostly of a list of manufacturers/brands of surf fashions which echoes the content of the individual articles on each of those companies which is not necessary. -- Whpq 19:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is a subcategory of Category: Clothing_brands, not an article 66.98.131.107 19:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Whpq. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 20:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Surf culture. I don't see the need to merge since most brands have their own articles anyway. ~ trialsanderrors 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Whpq digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 14:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Whpq Martinp23 14:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think this is a good article to keep, only it should be cleaned up --Jort227 10:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eduardo Reck Miranda

Self-aggrandizing vanity page for the academic. Fails WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO. Possible fail on WP:PROF (Is the subject more widely published than the average academic? Contrary to claims in previous discussion, MIT search yielded zero results) Subject directly links to self-composed autobiographical page from his official website, exploiting wikipedia for advertising/self-promotion [4] (i.e. the page violates WP:NOT) Notice that page reads like a CV, cataloguing a list of the subject's jobs. Article has already been proposed for deletion. However, all things considered, the article seems to me such a blatant misuse of wikipedia that it warrants, I feel, further consideration. Pathlessdesert 17:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Bigtop 17:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite It was a unanimous Keep on last AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eduardo_Reck_Miranda. The MIT search is behaving oddly - see Google [5] Also Google Scholar shows 60 publications including 4 books [6] Dlyons493 Talk 00:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, pending reliable citations. This started out as an autobiography, but has subsequently been edited by several other people. DVAIN notwithstanding, I would like to see reliable sources that establish (a) that he has over 100 research publications, (b) that his books are standard references of the field (eg., textbooks), and (c) verifiably, that the concerts where his music has been performed are major or notable venues. Delete if these citations are not provided in the course of the AfD. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Selection and performance at events such as ICMC [7] are typical for the average academic/ composer working in this field and do not signify notability. I see no evidence either that publications meet above criteria. To all appearances an average non-notable academic. --Pathlessdesert 13:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ugh - vanity page of a minor, nn academic. Eusebeus 16:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Despite the strong whiff of self-promotion, books exist and one is in its second edition. The "100 articles" claim is a bit of an exaggeration though, since most of them are in proceedings. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just got a copy of "Sound Synthesis for the Electronic Musician...one of the shabbiest knock-offs I've ever seen; (Libellous comments here removed by Crockspot, per WP:BLP), and the original parts are a chaotic read. Even the English usage is poor. The review in the Computer Music Journal was similarly bad (go check it out). Please delete this vanity page; the guy's already got his professorship (somehow), he doesn't need to sell himself anymore, does he? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.188.241.129 (talk • contribs) .

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Currently fails WP:WWIN, WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO, WP:CR. Let me know if rewritten with credible references. -AED 06:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He is notable despite being a bit annoying. He has been the subject of significant press coverage, as listed at http://neuromusic.soc.plymouth.ac.uk/ As well, that page lists lots of scholarly publications and a bunch of recordings, which taken together add up to notability to me. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as he is obviosly notable. Carioca 06:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, pending reliable citations as per Kaustuv Chaudhuri. I've marked the page with a few {{fact}} in the hope that someone will provide citations. Jayvdb 06:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete self-promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep needs clean up, but the publications make him noteworthy. Nickieee 22:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Please just delete it - it is not important. It was not intended as self-promo, vanity, publicity, etc. but to provide information for interested parties. But I agree that an autobio such as this might not be appropriate for wikipedia. Eduardo.miranda 15:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please publications make this person notable this is fine Yuckfoo 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove from Articles for deletion as the article has been cleaned up somewhat. Obviously, there's more work to do. For example, the information at EETimes needs to be placed in the article. This guy is really accomplished (had some of the above posters actually took the time to look into his background rather than remain ignorant) and well deserves to be in Wikipedia. He was motivated to develop the article but was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's requirements, which was no reason to insult him from ignorance. This article should be removed from Articles for deletion and someone should contact Dr. Miranda and inform him of the same. -- Jreferee 02:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hogwarts Live

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

No indicated notability aside from some obscure web awards, seems to fail WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 29,607 and a google search delivers about 22,400 hits. Peephole 17:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I could swear I've voted in a previous AfD for something like this. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:V. Michael 07:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Although I am not logged in at the moment, I also nominate this article for deltetion on the grounds that the sites google search numbers are not very accurate. The search engine will bring up all releveant searches for "Hogwarts Live," but in te book series, the students studying to become wizards live at the hogwarts castle. So "Hogwarts Live" doesnt necceraly bring up a huge amount of site rankings because its a popular site, but a popular collection of words. If my not logging in hurts credibillty, I can always do just that, but I have already typed my response :p —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.161.30.232 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 4 August 2006 .
  • Actually, this doesn't seem to happen as much as you might expect - it looks like most of the Google results are actually about the game in question. - makomk 16:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm reposting what was said on the talk page here in defense of keeping the article, so we can get both sides of the issue. --71.202.96.225 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I just happened to notice that this article was put up for deletion. I’m a former member of Hogwarts Live and first recall reading about it in a Denver Post article concerning the Harry Potter phenomenon and the rise of online roleplaying games dedicated to the subject. The article was not very well researched, but I do believe if one could find it that it would prove this site’s notability, correct? This article was published about a week or two previous to the release of the last book in the series.
    • Does anyone know where that article is? I just took a look at the sites Alexa rating and compared it to other notable sites, and it seems to be way up there in terms of traffic and number of reviews (29,607 - this beats out HPANA in terms of reach). I've seen it mentioned on another Wikis as well as Harry Potter sites, I'd definitely say it's notable considering it's probably one of the top 5 most frequented non-official Harry Potter-related sites on the net. According to one of their MoTDs they received 22,558,769 pageviews for the month of June, and 1,332,402 pageviews for the day of July 11, 2006, which is far more the reported traffic for many other sites that have Wikipedia articles. As far as text-based RPGs go it is also the most visited/popular RPG according to the "Top > Kids and Teens > Games > Online > Roleplaying > Harry Potter" category on Alexa/Amazon [8]. --Theluse 15:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I dont understand why you plan to delete it. I know for a fact as a member of the site that It is very Active. Looking at the online members alone shows how many members there are 317 members online, And that is not even loaded. I think the article tells the truth. -Michael [RikuSaotome] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.175.142.68 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 August 2006.
• Comment Hogwartslive has about 200 to 300 members on all the time. Its always being updated and getting bigger. It has alot more members and activity than some Harry Potter sites. Its also one of the best Harry Potter Rpg's on the net...and trust me i have looked at a lot. -Coby —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.19.241.206 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 August 2006.
  • Comment The 6K+ members are active, they delete users who haven't logged in in over a month. --71.202.96.225 03:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As a staff member of Hogwarts Live, I can verify that the site is incredibly active, it is my responsibility to run maintenance on the site, including removing users who haven't signed in in a long time, and I run my deletion script hourly with over 6000 active users remaining (6336 at the posting of this comment) which you'll note is a larger number then either of the usercounts listed on the Legend of the Green Dragon listing on Wikipedia. One look at our stats page shows that we are consistantly receiving over 1 million pageviews each and every day. We were indeed featured in a Denver Post article in the summer of 2005 about the rise in popularity of Harry Potter RPGs, and among sites running the LoGD code, we have one of the highest online counts at any given point in time. I urge you not to delete this page, while it really should be updated (I'd be glad to help), it does not deserve to be removed. The site deserves the notability that it has received and will continue to receive. --Portalcap 04:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (known on HogwartsLive as Edmund)
  • Keep I agree, I think sources need to be cited, more text should be added regarding it's notability, and the template tag Template:Cleanup-afd should be applied so that it can be cleaned up to better conform with policy. --71.202.96.225 06:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I know for a fact that Hogwarts Live was featured as Site of the Day on an IPTV program in England a few months back, someone was talking about it in the Great Hall. Anybody? I don't want this to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.32.3 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 6 August 2006.

Keep Seems to be notable, especially if it's been mentioned in a newspaper and a television program. All it really needs is sources. The Denver Post and the IPTV program could be referenced, even if they're inaccurate (if this is the case, something like "The Denver Post[9] says that..." would work). The Alexa links could be used as references too, when citing claims about the game's popularity. Definately salvageable with some referencing. -kotra 09:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn website, fancruft. Eusebeus 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete I believe this article should be deleted for several reasons. First, the wikipedia article for "Hogwarts Live" fails to mention its prior violation of the creative commons license(the license for the source code it uses). This article seems to have several other biases which conflicts with wikipedia's philosophy on neutrality. It is little more than an advertisement for the site, rather than an accurate wikipedia entry on the subject. A properly formatted article would include information regaurding licencing issues and problems with source code redistribution within the open source community. The article is mearly a "we like this website" entry. I also agree with the above posters comments on the number of pages referencing "Hogwarts Live" on a search engine would be highly inaccurate due to the fact that in the book series students LIVE at the HOGWARTS castle. Lastly, have to disagree with one of the above posters: The sites online count can not be entirely accurate either because the auto-logout time is 10,000 seconds, which is a very long time. A user can appear on the online list for almost 3 hours after they stop playing. The "online count" that the software uses makes the assumption that a user "logs off" when they have finished a session. Unless a user is accessing the site though a school, library, or some other public computer system, there is no need for a user to "log off" officially. This means that if a player is "playing" for five minutes, he/she will still appear to be playing to the rest of the world via the online count for an addtional two hours and forty-five minutes. Should the Hogwartslive people wish to use active players as a justificaton for inclusion on wikipedia, they should be willing to use a counting system that reports such player activity accurately. --Andrew 9:22am August 9th, 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.121.176.182 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 August 2006.

• Sounds like an entirely reasonable way of counting users to me; being a browser-based game, there's no real way of telling if someone is still online. Oh, and the Google search was for the word "Hogwarts" immediately followed by the word "Live", which doesn't come up in contexts not related to this game as much as you might expect. - makomk 16:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom as non-notable stuff. --Bigtop 04:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. Nickieee 22:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN pottercruft. Macktheknifeau 06:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN Musaabdulrashid 07:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment In response to Andrew's message above, I would like to point out that HogwartsLive never violated the Creative Common's License, our modified version of the source code has been available throughout our development of the project, we also actively submit new modules to the LoGD community, a couple of my own becoming popular (if you want proof of that, do a Google Search for my name, Nicholas Moline, you will find hundreds of listings that correspond with the module list on hundreds of LoGD installations). As for the online player count, I very commonly purge the entire online list, knocking every user out of the game, and within 10 minutes the online list is back to between 100 and 400 online users. I do not wish this comment to be the insight of a flame war in this thread, however your previous statement was defamatory, which I assume you knew, because you did not actually sign your post, you just put a name and a date there. Portalcap 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There is going to be an obvious bias in this response and this should not be counted as a vote to keep the article. I will state for the record that the site in question is my own. I am familiar with the community's opinions on Wikipedia:Fancruft as well as Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I have been asking other Wikipedians on their opinions concerning whether this article should be deleted and have received mix responses. I know personally that I have found articles that in many respects are less notable than this one, such as ISFDB, Archspace, or HPANA, useful, educational, and even interesting. Notability seems to be based on one’s own subjective interpretation of whether or not a source is reliable. I would like to examine this page [10], which shows not only that the Hogwarts Live article is read by a great deal of people, but that many websites directly related to the topics of Harry Potter or Roleplaying are referring users to Hogwarts Live. As you can see for the month of July, 1369 users were referred to HL via its Wikipedia entry. The term "sciencecruft" has sometimes been used as a sarcastic opposition to deleting obsolete topics due to certain biases concerning their pertinence. There is no official policy on fancruft, and I would not consider it a legitimate reason to delete an article. Wikipedia aims to incorporate elements of "specialized encyclopedias" among other things. I do believe this article could be rewritten to be more succinct, clearer, and verifiable. To quote policy: "some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page." Also, I feel that the fact that this site receives a considerably large number of pageviews (over 1 million a day) in comparison to many other websites that have Wikipedia articles, is testament to its notability. Alexa lists HL in a similar traffic range[11] as sites such as Pepsi.com, FreeAdvice.com, and MPOGD, all of which are popular in their respective industries. Just to get this out of the way I would like to state that I disagree with the recent proposed deletions of Space - Glory Through Conquest, Pirates of the Caribbean Online, List of Final Fantasy characters (including many others), and will proceed to further voice my opinions on this matter on their appropriate deletion discussion pages. However, if I am indeed mistaken and none of these articles are worthy of Wikipedia entries, I’ll be more than happy to copy the contents of these articles over to a Wiki I started as a sort of supplement to Wikipedia, which does not allow as much freedom for fans to create detailed articles on the minutiae of certain fandom due to the fact that the average reader will not find them pertinent or in many cases "notable". This is just my perspective on this matter, not a vote to keep or delete this article, as I said my opinion is obviously biased, and is more of a assertion of what I believe are the merits of these articles that are often described as fancruft. Thanks for hearing me out. :) --Ariadoss 18:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was transwiki to Meta. ~ c. tales \\tk// 04:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constructionism and reductionism (wiki)

This is very self-referential to Wikipedia and is not suitable for the main article space. Most information from here cites either meta or other Wikis, neither of which is generally an appropriate source of information. I would suggest moving it to the WP namespace, but this content is already there. And yes, I can see this AFD is vaguely ironic and self-referential itself (cheers strange loops!). Wickethewok 17:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; wikis (including Wikipedia) are a noteworthy topic, as are the social artifacts and customs found therein. When Wikipedia itself is the topic of an article, citing meta or the Wikipedia namespace is entirely appropriate (for documentation of policies and such). Perhaps more reliable sources can be found, but the topic itself is noteworthy. --EngineerScotty 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • When Wikipedia itself is the topic of an article, that article must be based solely upon reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. (Notice how many sources Wikipedia and Reliability of Wikipedia both have.) Wikipedia is not a source. Uncle G 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• This article not only cites wikis, which are not reliable sources, as its sole sources, it presents a novel, never-before-published, synthesis and analysis of various philosophies espoused by some editors, a synthesis an analysis that doesn't even appear on Meta, where these various philosophies are discussed. This article is clearly original research, and does not belong in the main namespace. Uncle G 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article does seem to lack reliable sources and thus fall under the WP:V bus. WilyD 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an essay. -- Koffieyahoo 01:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Is there any reasons we shouldn't move this to Meta rather than outright deletion? Shimgray | talk | 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would support a move to Meta if this information isn't already there. Wickethewok 14:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Move to meta or to "wikipedia space" (as against "encyclopedia space"), possibly by merging into any similar piece that exists. Slightly rewritten, with less of an effort to be strictly encyclopedic, this could be a very useful explanation of part of wiki culture. Oh, and wikis are perfectly good primary sources when that is what you are writing about. - Jmabel | Talk 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, they are not. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet. Uncle G 19:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to meta per Jmabel (apart from the perfectly good primary sources bit - I'm with Uncle G on that one). Yomangani^talk 02:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to meta with same rationale as Yomangani. I reads as if it is a social sciences theory, and as such I dont see how it is notable without academic sources. Jayvdb 06:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above. Eusebeus 12:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above. digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 14:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty Kuffar

Outdated minor "in-the-news" style article. If need be, merge with Mohammad al-Massari. -- Linesman 17:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Unlike almost all of the other internet non-events that get kept, this is one that is notable to me. MLA 06:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn per nom. Eusebeus 16:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article is a good article, we must keep it. --PacoCrunz 14:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I saw this video in a class about Radical Islam. The lecturer mentioned how popular it was. 84.202.61.139 18:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The rappers/producers are not notable and the video/song doesn't appear to have had a verifiable important or significant impact. -AED 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per AED. I can't see any reason to have this article digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 15:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The song and rapper are very notable - this song featured in Australian newspapers and television reports and google results for things like "jihad rap" bring up quite a few references to it. Drett 17:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Per AED. I got a question for the nominator. Does the "lecturer" do "his" job? -- Szvest 23:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, who is not the anon who posted the comment at the top of the debate. I've moved it. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-Notable Macktheknifeau 06:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable contribution to music and socioty --Musaabdulrashid 07:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and neutral RaveenS
• Keep Significant to history of Islamism in Western countries, especially the mututal influence of poltical Islam and Western black culture. DanB DanD 01:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

However, a Merge + Redirect to Mohammad al-Massari would also be fine. DanB DanD 01:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This article contains important information about video, and video is very popular in Internet.--PacoCrunz 18:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob TV Shows

Article is about a non-notable public access cable show. Prod removed by author Wildthing61476 14:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask how I can change the article so that it will be notable. The shows themselves are certainly "notable" in Rhode Island. Can you discuss this with me? corey111689@aol.com

• Certainly, there's always room for discussion, that's what this is all about. The most important thing the article needs is Reliable Sources: if the show has been covered in the press, say so, and be specific. The bigger and more well-known the source is, the better (generally speaking). Trivial mentions (TV listings, appearing in lists of shows, etc.) don't count. I'm going to hold off on voting until I see what sort of sources can be added. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note Author is creating more articles on the same subject: Bob Venturini, Bob venturini. -- Fan-1967 15:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, with sources and a bit of a rewrite. He's obviously one of the most notable cable access talk show hosts overall, if he's travelled to 45 states and 5 continents. I'll work on this one. -- Zanimum 15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I've cleaned the article up. It's now three articles (sorry), but three good small articles. Bob Venturini, Bob's Big Adventures, and An Hour with Bob. Now, if I can find sources for these articles, I can't see them harming anyone, sitting off to the side. It's perfectly clear in the articles that he is of relatively low notability, so no one will get confused, but everything that is covered is now fairly objective. -- Zanimum 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thank You..... this was my first article so I wasnt exactly clear on how to do it. Looks good, Thanks.
• Delete. Nice job on the re-writes, Zanimum. Those articles should be fine. This one should now be deleted. There's no need for a redirect or disambiguation, at least not at this location, and all of the information is covered at the appropriate places. Kafziel 16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, thanks to Zanimum's work splitting into appropriate articles. Andrew Levine 01:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD G7: seems the author doesn't want it any more either. Yomangani^talk 02:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 15:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, good work by Zanimum, this article is no longer necessary. Possibly speedy for housekeeping purposes. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, which defaults to keep. Neither arguments for or against notability stand out. Shell ^babelfish 07:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space - Glory Through Conquest

No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 303,019 and google search delivers about 197 hits. Peephole 12:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Peephole 13:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - we're not a game directory. Akradecki 14:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- That search is not entirely valid, because it doesn't count hits that spell the title differently, like "Space: Glory Through Conquest." A more flexible search turns up over 9,000 hits. That may still be an undercount, because the article says the game is "commonly referred to simply as Space." Another search (which probably is an overcount) which tries to capture references to the company and the game without the "Conquest Through Glory" phrase, gets 55,000 hits. --Groggy Dice 22:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - OK, that search with 55,000 hits was apparently mostly coming from Coldfire's own site; taking them out leaves less than 1,400 hits. On the other hand, taking the site out of the search that got 9,000 hits actually increases the count to 12,000! Obviously, Google's way of counting has some quirks. Nevertheless, I'm going to oppose. The article has been around over two years before someone questioned its notability. "Major" events or fads that were "all the rage" can suddently become obscure, so I'm reluctant to take current judgment over that of editors at the time. (Just recently, I had to de-PROD Fucked Company, which then got put up for AfD!) Alexa rankings are a moving target, sites that once had a day of "glory" can fall, making it appear as if they were never notable. This makes me hesitate before throwing out all the work that has been done on the article. At the very least, I'd like to see some of the content merged with the Coldfire Studios article if it's deleted. --Groggy Dice 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Worthwhile article- This is my first comment, dunno if I'm supposed to do it this way, but whatever. Space was at one time a very popular online game with thousands of unique players. While it has since lost some players, it still has a dedicated core of 2 or 3 hundred players, along with a steady flow of new players. I don't see how this article is hurting anyone by remaining on here. The article was only meant as a way for people unfamiliar with the game be able to find some quick knowledge about the game before they dive in--User:Splat! - dedicated Space player for 5+ years 02:33, 11 August 2006 (Entered by User:72.230.7.122)
• STRONG OPPOSE: If Wikipedia is not a game directory, then I guess the multiple categories of games should be marked for deletion, as well. There are 50+ games listed in the category "Massively Multi-Player Online Games," and that is only one category. Additionally, this COMMUNITY of people is close. The Space: Glory Through Conquest folks have surpassed the national, ethnic, and religious boundaries to form a wonderful subculture. The "Game" is a living socio-cultural artifact, and has brought people from all over the world closer in bonds of friendship (and sometimes enmity, but it is a parody of war, afterall), and thus remains an important facet of hundreds of people's daily lives. Those who are members of this special Community find it disheartening at times to be separated from it. The players are passionate about the game, each other, and their community. Newcomers are welcomed heartily, and friendly people are willing to help them transition easily into the Space culture. -User:Mistress of Mayhem, Game Admninistrator and Community member/player for almost 4 years. 06:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (entered by 71.193.227.97 (talk • contribs))
• Keep Article claims it to have won two awards, which is one of the conditions for passing WP:SOFTWARE. I would advise players, however, to review the notability guidelines, as simply being a great game, while great, doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. In this case, I think it does pass the line though, if the article is cleaned to conform to article guidelines (namely being an article rather than a guide)-Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Why delete a valid article?- Especially when so many other games are listed here as well. Space is a great social experiment as well as an online game and deserves credit for that as much as anything else. We are not a gun catalogue and yet I see countless articles detailing the finer points of many weapons. We are not an aviation handbook and yet I see many articles on aviation. We are not a tv guide and yet I see many articles on tv shows some even with future air dates. What we are is an online encyclopedia listing many, many interesting articles and to a gamer an article about a game can be very interesting. Or does Akradecki have an issue with gamers reading articles about things they are interested in? I bet he has no problem with articles that he is interested in being posted on here. The simple fact is, if you have no interest in the article you do not have to read it. Leave that to those of us who are interested, and leave the article here for those of us who are interested in it. Why alienate the gaming community by removing our articles? Is what we have to say not as valid as what you have to say? --User:Gypsy2976 Space player for 5 years and gamer for many more. 06:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, article does not indicate that it subject meets any one of the criteria of WP:SOFTWARE. Receiving awards is not on the list of WP:SOFTWARE, and at any rate it is supposed to have won the same award by the same website twice. Sandstein 08:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Sandstein 08:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It was when I said that, but looks like it was removed on the 11th, without noticable opposition, so I guess it isn't now. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 08:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Awards are mentioned on WP:WEB though, wich seem more relevant (it is played entierly over the web after all, not distributed as a software package). Though I guess that depends on on wether or not you consider a "game of the month" award from Multiplayer Online Games Directory to be a "well known independent award" or not. Note that while the game is currently "past it's prime" it was fairly big 3-4 years ago (as far as browser based games go), here is a snapshot of the forums back in 2001[12] snowing a great deal of activity even then, note that the forums have been wiped clean 4-5 times so you need to use the web archive to find most of it now. Just saying that with huge commercial graphical MMPOG's taking over these days, current trafic rating should be taken with a grain of salt when judging the notability of a browser based game that's been around for a good 5 years. IMHO anyway, though my bias should be obvious from a look at the article's history (in hindsight I do agree that is is probably wirtten a bit too much like a game guide though), my recomendation would be to keep it. --Sherool (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Internet explorer only game (j/k, of course) But seriously, it does not meet any of the notabililty requirements. digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 15:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Nickieee 23:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I play browser games too, does not mean I'm gonna start articles about all of them. NN gamecruft. Macktheknifeau 06:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Musaabdulrashid 07:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I consider MPOGD's "game of the month" a notable award considering it's targeted genre of MMOs. --Ariadoss 18:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as failing to meet WP:V and WP:WEB. Shell ^babelfish 08:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TDZK

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 112,717 and google search delivers about 34,800 hits. Peephole 12:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Can anyone please explain why articles concerning on-line games are considered unsuitable for Wikipedia? If we can understand that, then the case for deletion would make more sense. Is it a case of "using Wikipedia for commercial purposes"? If so, would that same principle not be applicable to a number of other articles related to commmercially available products (e.g. comic books)?

  Just curious.

  [Edit] Ah. I didn't see the links about "notability" prior to this. May I ask what constitues a "non-trival" publication, aside from the listed mention of newspapers/ads/etc.? Would an in-print novel constitute a "non-trivial source"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.32.231.224 (talk • contribs) . who meant "notability", rather than "suitability", I think Tonywalton  | Talk {Stan Johnson--original comment corrected to say "notability")

  • A non-trivial published work is a work that is more than a simple directory listing ("Game name: X Description: Y Author: Z"). A printed game guide written by a third party would be non-trivial, for example, as would a magazine feature article that discussed the development and marketing of the game. Please cite reviews, histories, and analyses of this game that come from sources other than the game and its authors. Uncle G 13:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Noted. Thank you. May I verify that a third-party novel (non-reviewed, but in print, and selling) constitutes a "non-trivial source," or is it required that the publication be about the game as a whole, as opposed to simply characters within the game? Tales from Taenaria novel

  That said, the notability criteria mentioned the winning of a third party award, which is mentioned in the "Acheivements" section of the article in question. This strikes me as sufficiently valid, but that's merely a personal opinion. {Stan Johnson)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.32.231.224 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment:A listing in a web directory is far from notable.--Peephole 19:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • • Comment: That being said, would winning a monthly award because of said listing in web directory count as notable? Malykyn 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: With respect, that comment seems a mere matter of semantics. Who is it, in Wikipedia, that determines what constitutes "notable"? The listed criteria states "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6] " Where is the line of "well-known," and who determines that? Until such guidelines can be satisfactorily established, it appears to me that the article in question meets Wikipedia's requirements for basic "notability." That said, the game did win an award through MMOPGD; it's no, mere directory listing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.32.231.224 (talk • contribs) .
          • Comment: Being game of the month at a weblisting is far from a notable award. --Peephole 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• And I'm still waiting for an answer about novels by independent authors. Per the following comment, "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]" I can see it going either way, based on interpretation. Still, the distributor (CafePress) is most decidedly independent of TDZK, and seems fairly "well-known."(Stan Johnson)
  • Comment: A fanfic book doesn't make a game notable imo. What would make it notable is a mention in a newspaper, reviews in gaming magazine or well known online gaming sites. --Peephole 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Again, what is the accepted definition of "well-known"? Many would argue that MPOGD is a very well known online gaming site. Without a more definitive answer, it's just a personal opinion, and that doesn't seem like a very fair appraisal. I think it should also be mentioned that MPOGD awards are given based on user votes, not the personal opinion of an editor.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.164.211 (talk • contribs) .
      • Comment: Fair enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.32.231.224 (talk • contribs) .
      • Please point to where MPOGD provides a detailed analysis of the game. Please cite sources. Uncle G 08:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• (Weak) Keep, pending further revisions and improvements. As an active player and contributor in the TDZK community, I feel that the article could be updated to indicate notability and meet the requirements in the aforementioned policies (and soon-to-be-policies, in the case of WP:SOFTWARE). Malykyn 19:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Changed to a Weak Keep. Yes, there is much that could be said that makes this game notable, but, honestly, the game has not reached a level of notability where it warrants an encyclopedia entry. I do feel that this will change with the release of Nomad, however, and encourage that the article be left intact pending the addition of citations and more information. Malykyn 23:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I view http://unseen-u.org/~denubis/tdzk/TagonsToughsCaseStudy.pdf, as a non-trivial source. This is a case study of rapid group formation within TDZK, and explores how game enviornment and mechanics influence the formation of social groups. TDZK has also been studied by the Virtual Society project, and the into to that project can be found at http://mt.sh.se/~hernwall/text/Hernwall_cyborg.pdf --Jerle0 02:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Note: No edits outside this AfD and article
  • The first is a study of a group of game players within (and outside of) the game, and only tangentially mentions the game itself. It might be a useful source for an article on symbolic cconvergence, but it isn't a useful source for an article on TDZK, since it tells us nothing about the history, development, or structure of TDZK. The second isn't actually the study of the game by Virtual Society itself, but a document saying no more than that TDZK is something that "will be studied". Until it has been studied, the WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE criteria are not satisfied by this. But I applaud the effort to cite some non-trivial published works about the game. That's exactly the sort of research that we need editors to do more of at AFD, and you are citing non-trivial works. Please find some more. Uncle G 09:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; Peephole, you clam that winning a "game of the month award" is not notable? I would be interested to see yourself having the ability to create a game that can win such a competition. Staff and developers work hard for this game, and consequently the realise of TDZK Nomad is upcoming. This promises to bring with it a lot of unique developments, opportunities, and press. Novels such as “Tales from Taenaeria“ would not exist if the lore and physics had not been set down in the game. Such sites that list such games should also not be considered “trivial”, such sites are essential to the distribution of information about games that are not developed by large software companies, without such sites it would be near impossible for single, or small groups of developers to distribute software, and advertise their product. For such games to even get even a mention in such articles as http://mt.sh.se/~hernwall/text/Hernwall_cyborg.pdf and http://unseen-u.org/~denubis/tdzk/TagonsToughsCaseStudy.pdf is a hard feat to achieve, there are many thousands of games out there which will never be included in this kind of study, this must consequently mean this game has some fetchers which make it unique. --Maya tekla 11:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Note: No edits outside this AfD
  • Please actually read the documents that you've referred to. The second isn't a study. It is merely a document saying that there "will be" a study. Uncle G 11:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • When scientists announced that the Human Genome Project "will be" studying the human genetic code, that didn't make it any less notable or important as when they announced that it was complete. I think that for any scholarly group to even announce specific interest in studying it is notable enough.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.164.211 (talk • contribs) .
      • Wrong. An encyclopaedia article on the human genetic code cannot be written until after studies of it have been performed and published, just as an encyclopaedia article on a game cannot be written until after the study on that game (which no-one has so far offered a citation for, and which thus possibly was never actually done at all) has been performed and published. Uncle G 19:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
        • See below.
  • I'm sorry if I translated "will be" from the first article literally, meaning there will be a study, which will therefore lead to some official documentation and reports. The point still stands. --Maya tekla 13:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Note: No edits outside this AfD
    • We don't write encyclopaedia articles about things that "will be" studied. We write encyclopaedia articles about things that have been studied. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Uncle G 19:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I believe we are not referring to the actual data of the research, rather than the fact that the research is taking place and is using TDZK as a source of data. Information about the genome may not be valid until the study is done, but what we're saying is that you can't deny that the study exists even if it's not complete. That said, the ViS:Virtual Society project was completed and their findings were published November 2005. Their final summary is in Swedish only, but it can be found here: http://www.mmedu.net/isite-cache/filer/270/Slutrapport_ViS.pdf. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.164.211 (talk • contribs) .
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Peephole 12:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm still uncertain about just who it is that has the actual authority to delete articles. While I understand that anyone (?) can suggest a deletion, whose opinion/interpretation of the rules is it that truly matters, and has this party been/will this party be notified concerning this issue? I'll stand by a final, authorised decision, but it's clear from the discussion that conflicting opinions and interpretations exist, and I question whether any of us discussing this are authorised to make a final pronouncement.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.32.231.224 (talk • contribs) .
• Comment- I'll answer your question. The only people who can actually physically delete something are administrators. No one else has a delete button to click. That said, this page is here so that non-admins can debate the merits of the page, rather than have some guy just up and delete it (unless it meets the criteria for speey deletion, like spam or a vanity article). The admin reads the debate, and decides whether it is deleted, kept, or kept due to no consensus, which means that it can be re-proposed for deletion sooner. I'm not an admin, but look up- there's not a single "delete" written here. A lot of talking without votes, which is unusual, but I'm not exactly seing a consensus to delete. It will most likely be kept. In the meantime, go read up on the rules for AfD, it'l esplain things more thoroughly. --PresN 19:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; Given that the first 100 or so Google results for "TDZK" are more or less all releant to TDZK, and that TDZK has a userbase of over 1800 (it has been at over 4000 in the past, and a new round has just started as far as I know). There is nothing factually incorrect about this article, nor is there any sign of bias.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GotenXiao (talk • contribs) . Note: Only edit from this user
• Keep; Apparently it's noteworthy enough to start a debate over. ;)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.32.231.224 (talk • contribs) .

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Seems not to meet WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. As is, does not conform to WP:V. (Closing admin: please watch socks.) -AED 05:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Nearly 50,000 hits and its been running since 2001.--Kross^Talk 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non Notable. Macktheknifeau 06:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 21:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete browser games are NN. --Musaabdulrashid 07:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting how the Keep items have been considered sock puppetry while the 'veteran Wikipedia users' are allowed to put forward non-discussion votes. I suggest you put forward some reasons for why you think this particular article should be removed, seeing as there are some very notable browser games with tens if not hundreds of thousands of users. Adhere to your own rules, please, or be accused of hypocrisy. Aelanna Cessara 15:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Malykyn, Maya tekla, and GotenXiao. --Ariadoss 18:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• "AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached"? Yes, I know Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and this isn't a vote. But it's either notable or it's not, and I don't suspect much in the way of consensus will be reached any time soon; we seem to have a pretty polarised crowd, here. In the end, I would think that the Wiki Admins are the ones who will decide which opinions of notability count, and whether the article is appropriate for deletion.

• 'I don't think that the fact that the article discusses a browser-based game is sufficient to make it non-notable. But again, that's merely an opinion. I still maintain, per "keep" comments above, that the article has met the listed "notability" criteria, even if only just.

• 'So can we get an Admin to make a final decision? 71.32.231.224Stan Johnson.
  • You realize that the person who relisted the article is an admin, right? --Jerle0 16:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. There is A TON of entries about web based games as you can see on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiplayer_browser_games None of them meet WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE, yet several titles already passed AfD voting. I don't think any of those policies should apply here, if we were to strictly follow them, then every single entry about web based games would have to be deleted. Since that isn't going to happen (most of the pages contain valuable information, especially for people resarching the subject), let TDZK entry be. It's one of biggest games on the list after all. Pelias 23:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I totally agree, there have been many gaming entries I've found useful that have been deleted in recent weeks, it seems to me for instance that not a single browser-based roleplaying or CRPG game will be left in Wikipedia. --Ariadoss 14:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. - Mailer Diablo 13:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poppin'

Neato song, but does it rate it's own article? This article has been speedied once already. Rklawton 18:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as deleted and reposted content (G4). --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Commment repost doesn't work for previously speeded articles. They need to go to AfD since reposting is basically a challenge to the speedy. Once an article is AfD'd then it's a whole different ballgame. Rklawton 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think thats correct. That only applies if the article isn't still speedyable under other speedy criteria. This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions, although in this case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply; when no criterion applies, the recreated page may not be speedied, but may be submitted to Articles for deletion or the appropriate XfD process. So if it was A7'ed before and nothing has been done to correct that A7 it can still be A7'ed, I believe. Syrthiss 19:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, if it's still A7 (etc), but the speedy nomination was for repost. But your clarification is well taken. You are quite right. Rklawton 20:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• how about a Speedy Redirect to Chris Whatshisname, since otherwise I'm going to delete it as recreated content (with even less info than the deleted content)? Syrthiss 19:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  Seconded per Syrthiss Rklawton 22:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• As is, delete per WP:V/WP:CR. If verifiable, then merge/redirect as above. -AED 06:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fails WP:V with reliable sources. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin breeg

This appears to be a page about a fictonal character from a song by Iron Maiden that has developed into what appears to be a recent web hoax. BrianFG 13:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Trim and merge into The Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to The Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg. Recury 17:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless some reliable sources can be found for this information. (benjaminbreeg.co.uk is a single page written and registered by an otherwise unidentified "A. Breeg", with an Alexa rating of nearly 2 million. http://www.benjaminbreeg.com is nothing more than an Iron Maiden fan's discussion board.) If enough sourced material allows for a substantial article on this supposed legend, then I'd change my vote. I'd recommend against merging any info to TRoBB unless without those same reliable sources for any material to be merged. Treat the whole thing as unencyclopedic gossip otherwise. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since the article lacks any sort of reliable sources for its information; the linked websites certainly don't qualify. It seems like the whole thing is to get the name of the new Iron Maiden song out there by creating a backstory to get people talking. —LrdChaos 15:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I agree with Recury, it should be merged with The Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg, cos this is a perfectly good article on the matter, it just needs a new home, so to speak.--4.154.244.244 04:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article 'as is' until more light is shed on Benjamin Breeg. It maybe a hoax, but it maybe something real as well. Also, there's a Publius Enigma Wikipedia entry for the afforementioned Pink Floyds enigma, so there must a Wikipedia entry for Benjamin Breeg's enigma as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.155.201.170 (talk • contribs) .
  • One bad article does not justify another one. If Publius Enigma is properly sourced, those sources justify its existence, and this article is therefore nothing like it (as it has no reliable sources). If instead that article is not properly sourced, it should go, too. Whether this article is a hoax or not is not for Wikipedians to decide. If we can't find reliable sources either for its accuracy or its hoax nature, we are not supposed to be writing about it in the first place. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with List of hoaxes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.155.202.159 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Trim and Merge I agree that the article should be merged with The Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg. If I remember correctly, a previous version of the article had been written in a more speculative tone, referring to the source websites and stating clearly that the information from www.benjaminbreeg.co.uk is suspect, and possibly a deliberate enigma. This would appear to me as a much better way to present the article; the present one relays the information as fact.--Ian404 09:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge' Definatly merge with the Reincarnation Of Benjamin Breeg page. --[[User:UltimateDingbat|UltimateDingbat] 14:18, 13th August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep at least until the Iron Maiden single and album are released, and then once the story is complete then Merge with The Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg page as a record of what was done to promote the single (If it was all fiction as seems to be belived).

• Merge with The Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg article, and change this article to a redirect. Andrew (My talk) 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Trim and merge - remove all the stuff that was copy-pasted (that leaves us with just the lead section). — Prodigenous Zee - 16:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this article since there is no evidence besides a doubtful website. Furthermore, the website displays a picture from the single by the band of Iron Maiden. The coincidence of this A. Breeg fellow finding a certain painting at the same time that the single is released is evidence of a hoax. A. Breeg's picture is nothing but a nicely done version of "Eddie," which is Iron Maiden's perrenial death faced character. Delete this article entirely, and fix the Reincarnation Article to include mention of this hoax. —oemb1905 18:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Krovatin

Not particularly notable student author. It looks like vanity as his picture was uploaded as "Me in Bathtub" by the creator of the work. He has written a single book and directed some school plays. Doesn't look like he meets WP:BIO. Wickethewok 14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, his book was published by a division of Scholastic Press, and got a starred review from Booklist and a favorable review from School Library Journal.[13] Seems like a serious (if new) young adult author. NawlinWiki 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep He's at least as notable as quite a few authors who have articles here. Dlyons493 Talk 16:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. That a lot of nonnotables have managed to stay on is no proper motive to keep all the cruft. --Svartalf 16:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Promising young writer, but not notable yet. His day will surely come. Ohconfucius 17:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable yet. Recury 17:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete strong possibility it breaches WP:AUTO. Even if not, nn writer. --Guinnog 18:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not yet notable. -AED 05:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He's notable already. See the reviews. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 15:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Guinnog, et al. Eusebeus 22:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep and Merge to Ted Kennedy. Shell ^babelfish 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria Reggie Kennedy

Originally, User:Litclass tried to list this article for deletion with the explanation "noteworthy?". I repaired the AfD listing. The article is extremely short, and I'm not sure whether the wife of Edward Moore Kennedy is independently notable. For now, no vote from me. --Huon 08:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - her husband's more than notable, but I see no assertion thereof for her. BigHaz 09:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has been expanded, and now describes the advocacy group of which she is president as well as her academic background. I think that she is independently notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Her only real claim to notability is as president/founder of Common Sense about Kids and Guns. That gets 262 Ghits which seems fairly marginal to me. Dlyons493 Talk 12:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wife of someone well known who has done little or nothing of note. nn. Marcus22 13:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into her husband's article. --Svartalf 17:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep she has founded and managed a well notable advodacy group which deserves our respect. Article should definitely be expanded, telling the story of how she came to start the group (its good) 152.163.100.73 15:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as per Svartalf Dlyons493 Talk 02:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect with Edward Moore Kennedy. -AED 05:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. She is a prominent contemporary Tulane Law School alum, and while some may consider being a prominent advocate for children unimportant, I consider her work notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.50.30.116 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aziz Kristof

WP:BIO Subject not notable Ohconfucius 07:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. He has a certain following, and authors of books on enlightenment don't get the same sales figures as cookbook authors. I think that he's notable in Buddhist circles. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Comment Has three books with an established publisher, gets about 400 distinct Ghits. Seems to have a niche. Dlyons493 Talk 11:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, unless article can be expande to conform to WP:BIO standards.--Svartalf 17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO for lacking multiple non-trivial articles by third-parties. The fact he has published books does not make him notable, the books fail WP:BK guidelines for lacking reviews or awards. The fact he may be notable in Buddhist circles only begs the questions of verification and documentation, both of which are entirely lacking. I verify 357 Ghits for "aziz kristof" (400, whatever), but at the point where people are quibbling notability for 1 million-plus Ghits websites, I scarcely am impressed by three-digits worth. Lastly, having a "niche" is not part of meeting WP:BIO. Tychocat 11:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep

Wikipedia:Notability (books)

1. Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (That has been given)
2. Sales numbers - You have to consider this with the usual number of Buddhist books and not compare this with Harold Robbins or Dan Brown. Any how, we can always contact the publishers. Unless we hear from the publishers that the book does not sell, WP:V of non-notability does not ariseDoctor Bruno 20:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Tychocat. -AED 20:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot find where this meets WP:BK. :) Dlohcierekim 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OOPs or WP:BIO :) Dlohcierekim

• Delete per Tychocat, couldn't have said it better myself. --Wine Guy Talk 01:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. One of my high school teachers wrote a couple of books, too, but that doesn't make him notable enough for Wikipedia either. Mabybe Aziz Kristof will become notable some day, but that time hasn't come. -/- Warren 23:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Nandesuka 16:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aajonus Vonderplanitz

Previously kept by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aajonus Vonderplanitz on the gournds of his being a published author. Publication details list all his books as published by Carnelian Bay Castle Press. A Google search for the publisher returns 39 hits, all of which are for Vonderplanitz' books. The company appears to have no website and operates out of a PO box in Santa Monica. Which leaves us with what looks very much liek a self-published author who once appeared as a featured nutter on Ripley's Believe It Or Not, which single appearance does not, in my book, amount to notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 20:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: Same person who requested first deletion. --DJCupples 13:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Powers 21:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Authoring a book is no guarantee of encyclopedic notability. And this is an obscure self-published author Bwithh 00:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Aajonus is not self-published and self-published is the main arguement made for asking to be deleted. And there is 324 hits on google, not 39. Go to this link http://www.buildfreedom.com/dietanc.htm a reprint of an article from "Whole Life Times" stating that a friend of his published book. --DJCupples 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: user's two previous edits were to the article under discussion and to the first deletion discussion. Powers 13:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's now up to 41 [14] but definitely not 324; Carnelian Press gets two, only one in English. I can't find any evidence of anyone else published by the same press, and one of the books is listed on Amazon as plastic comb binding. This does not look like a real publisher; the distinction between self-publsihed and published by a friend is probably not a significant one as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Just zis Guy you know? 13:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Does the WP:BIO require that a publisher have published more than one author in order to be a legitimate independent publisher of author with bio on Wiki? Is a book less significant because it is spiral bound (plastic comb)? Amazon list 5537 books with plastic comb [15] of which 2690 are new [16].Amazon list 75685 spiral-bound books [17]. The argument that one of the books has different binding is weak. So friends completing a business transaction means it not a legitimate business deal? The test for self publishing is whether the author paid for publishing or not. Here is the name of the person claiming to be the publisher [18] and here is a current link where you can contact him (also author's publicity contact)[19] and find out if he was the one who took the financial risk of the publishing the book or the author.DJCupples 09:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Essentially there is no difference between a book published by a friend who has published nothing else of any significance, and a self-published book. Very few self-published books are notable, if you look at Robert Gunther you will see that we note his books are self-published but his notability does not rest on his books; if it did we would probably not have an article on him either. Just zis Guy you know? 11:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is a topic of significant general interest relating to raw paleolithic diets (raw vegetable and animal foods diets). The information is important to those researching these types of diets. --Martha at Earthaven 11:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: user's first edit. Powers 13:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sandstein 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• keep please the article is about the person not the publisher and this one gets 23500 hits [20] that looks notable to me Yuckfoo 20:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• ~250 unique, usual disclaimers apply [21] Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete fails WP:BIO ... sorry he should go.  ALKIVAR™ 02:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This article is about a person who has c.25,000 hits on Google, and there appear to be several Internet groups on Yahoo and elsewhere following his "Primal Diet". If Wikipedia can have wiki articles on vegan diet gurus and the like, then I see no reason why this guy shouldn't have one too. Everyone should be covered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) .

• Loki0115 (talk • contribs) has no contributions outside of this AfD

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Apparently self-published (or by a publisher with no other authors, anyway), which makes his author credentials doubtful. However, he seems to get a lot of attention around the web from a lot of different people. Seems to meet the notability guidelines based on that. Fan-1967 01:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry highly suggest vanity. --Nlu (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — mboverload@ 08:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 12:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep He certainly has made a widely recognized contribution to his particular field: he founded what might be the most radical diet in the western world. His books (whoever publishes them) are clearly being reviewed by independent groups and people. Even [[22]], a permaculture resort in hawaii, lives entirely on his Primal Diet. I know that's not listed as a criterion for notability but it should count for something. The number of pages returned in a simple google search of him, as well as the nature of those hits (many being interviews and book reviews) suggests that he is not too "obscure" for wikipedia. Whether he is a "nutter" or not really doesn't affect notability. [Applewhite] has a page. He's a "nutter". Aajonus Vonderplanitz, or his supporters, are not invading wikipedia to try to gain exposure. His article should remain because it's easy to imagine a scenario in which someone would hear of him and then look him up on wikipedia to learn more about him. Robert O'Brien 23:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• robertobrien (talk • contribs) has no contributions outside of this AfD
• In fact I have edited wikipedia several times without registering for a username and have been using wikipedia regularly for awhile. Furthermore, it should be about the strength of my argument, not the extent of my contributions Robert O'Brien

• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO - I can't find the multiple independent reviews of or awards of his work Peripitus (Talk) 11:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't see where he meets WP:BIO. Can't see where books meet WP:BK. Don't see where webpage meets WP:WEB. Amazon.com Sales Rank: #32,522 The Recipe for Living Without Disease. Amazon.com Sales Rank: #352,556 We Want to Live. Alexa ranking for his website 1,132,919. Google hits misleading as some are just ads. :) Dlohcierekim 07:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Of significant interest to the public. I am a student of naturopathic nutrition and people talk to me about this man, wiki is always my first reference tool. Itsjustasensation 13:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable. Additionally, he appears to be pretty notable within dietist circles. --Thunderhead 10:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RockWay Press

DeleteAttacK page that may well be true but is all supposition. What WP is not is a consumer protection site. Spartaz 19:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi My name is Persi and I would just like to ask if you have been following the discussion regarding the deletion of the article on RockWay Press. I have provided several very valid sources and it would mean a lot to potential authors who surf for information on this publisher to be able to read this article. If you have visited the sites that link from the article, you would see a lot of discussion from people like me who have been burned by this publisher and by scam publishers in general. I realize Wikipedia isnt a consumer protection site -per se - but it does have the visibility needed to help people learn more about this company in particular and about scam publishers in general. Preditors and Editors is the most reputable site in the publishing world regarding rating publishers. This weekend, they gave Rockway their red "Not Recommended" rating. However if you surf the name Rockway on Google, you will find that there is no connection from P and E to Rockway listed -- even if you surf hundreds and hundreds of listings. However, Wikipedia is the first listing on page two. There are thousands of people out there writing every day -- thinking they have what it takes to be the next Dan Brown. The publishing world is tough to break into - and when a company like Rockway offers what seems to be an easy entry, many people go for it - only to be burned big time. When a person writes, that work is their intellectual property. It is akin to giving birth to actually write a book. And it is unfortunate that people like Rockway can so easily take away not only your dreams but your intellectual property as well. Google Rockway, please. Note how high up on the listing the Wikipedia page is. Think about innocent victims all over the world who just might see that listing and read it before they send any money or sign anything. Realize that the article here also offers these people the ability to link to sites like Preditors and Editors where more information to help them is available. Not too long ago, I was a neophyte like that -- I had NO idea what Preditors and Editors even was. I came within a breath of signing away a very good book I put my life into to Rockway. Since then, I have joined with others who work within the industry to bring these scams to light. Please let us have the chance to reach more people through Wikipedia. Your positive comments would be much appreciated. This is not a personal matter -- if you read the Absolute Write site, you will see that only today a new victim posted. There are more and more every day. Thanks for listening. Persi --Persiphone hellecat1 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as attack page on RockWay Press. Written from the POV of someone who dislikes the organization. Kalani ^[talk] 20:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT true == written by someone who defends authors and helps to keep them from fallig into scams. People deserve to be notified when some scam exits. Not a single word is supposition. You can go to the sites mentioned in the article and read for yourself that this publisher is mentioned in reputable Writers Beware Sites. You can also go to their very own site and see that the 2004 winners of their contest are still awaiting thier prizes. There is not one single word of supposition in here. I am a reputable free lance author myself and I do not write supposition. Persi

• Comment:In which case properly source your article rather than leaving people to go and look for it themselves. There are no proper sources shown on the article. See WP:RS--Spartaz 20:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment In which case the question becomes, "Is this a notable enough scam to be included for that reason?" --Brianyoumans 20:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless independent confirmation is cited. I looked for something that confirms the editor's opinion of this company, but couldn't find anything to cite. However, having looked at the Co's website I would think their opinion is correct. I don't see any reason why "notable" scams shouldn't be listed - providing the information is correctly cited. --Richhoncho 21:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Although I know nothing about book publishing, I do know a little about music publishing. "Artistic" contests any description send a shiver through me, but then again, there are bona fide song contests, so I assume the same in book publishing. The owner of this business has had books published by reputable publishers. The citations in the article are from forums, so I would discount them for Wikipedia purposes, as the likelihood is that they are disgruntled authors (and like the music biz, I bet there's millions of them!). The claimed fact that the owner is a coffee bar waitress doesn't hold water - using that as a criteria would make people in the film industry redundant! Missed deadlines are not enough to prove a scam, otherwise I shall be listing my rail company. As for the quotes from the Rockway site, they could be changed tomorrow. Having said all that, I have every sympathy with the creator of this page - I have my own website to expose the more dubious practices at the shallow end of the music business, so I know how difficult it is the pin facts on the matter. For this article to hold water I'd like to see a legal judgment cited. --Richhoncho 02:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely will source it now. If you did look at the company's site, you would notice that there are NO books published among the winners of the 2004 and 2005 contests. There are literally thousands of would-be authors world-wide trying anything just to get published and they turn towards these contests and small publishers as a way to get into the book business. I will cite now.

I believe the article is properly sourced now and represents an invaluable tool to potential authors as an example of the type of publishers to avoid.

• Comment Perhaps the right thing to do would be to turn this article into a more general article entitled something like "Writing Contests", which would point out that many publishers run such things and that while they can encourage starting writers, they are frequently scams and rarely lead to real publication. And then RockWay Press and such could be redirected there. --Brianyoumans 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, Richhoncho - she has had books published - by someone else - doesnt it seem odd that a publisher uses someone else to publish her own books while she is unable to publish anyone else's?? When you win a contest in 2004, one would think that by the eighth month of 2006 you would have recieved your prize. This is a serious problem for authors who no longer own the rights to their own works and cannot even try and get them published elsewhere - just because they sent 25 dollars to Rockway and entered a contest. The forums I linked show comments from authors. Preditors and Editors is not a forum. It is a well known site where authors go to verify agents, publishers and contests. They have spoken out against Rockway and advised authors not to use them. In the publishing business, that holds a lot of weight. True, lateness for deadlines isnt necessarily a sign of a scam, however late by over two years certainly isnt a good sign is it?

—comment added by Example^(t/c) 02:52, 6 August 2006 Persiphone hellecat1 (Talk | contribs)}}

• Further comment. As I say, I have every sympathy, if I was an author I wouldn't touch this company with a ten-foot. It's not I don't appreciate your concern for authors, It's just that I am convinced that WP is not the place to do it in this instance. Preditors and Editors only say "might" which leaves us with the possibility of slander libel, <of course>. Are you saying that Rockway retains copyright on all submissions? BTW A positive article on Predators & Editors might have a better effect for your purposes.--Richhoncho 03:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• The above post was amended by the author. My silly mistake! --Richhoncho 11:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, If you read their rules for contest submissions, ALL entries must be accompanied by a signed contract, making ALL entries - whether they win or not ... technically their property Oddly enough, this article has been on WP for quite a while. It was taken down when one of my kids decided to use my account to get into that thing that happened on TV the other day. Before that, there was never so much as a word of comment on the page.

• Comment. I didn't see where they claimed copyright, what I did read was "The copyright will be registered in the author's name, and all subsidiary rights (i.e., book club, foreign rights, film, stage, etc.) remain with the author." Totally bizarre, in my opinion, but not the same as you say.

• By the way can you sign your posts on this page, just click the signature button just above the editing page. Thanks. --Richhoncho 11:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ... If you go to the "submissions package requirements section of the contest guidelines at http://rockwaypress.com/annual_writing_contests.htm#contents, you will see that ALL entries must be submitted with a signed and notarized contract - making even losing entries their property. Extremely bizarre -- totally unprofessional. That means that they can simply declare no entry "worthy" of first place and yet retain legal custody of all entries. This is one of the issues currently being discussed widely among the publishing industry and one of the reasons people are being warned about this company and this contest in particular. There are way too many innocent victims of these contests. Sure, 25 to 35 dollars isnt a lot when its one entry,but consider hundreds of entries - from as far away as Au., and it adds up. Also consider that people outside of America have very little chance of fighting this legally. It's hard enough for legal action from one state to another and nearly impossible for a would - be author in Au. to fight this. This is why I am publishing in as many locations as I possibly can so that it gets seen and read. Wikipedia is a logical choice. It has high visibility. Incidently no where did Preditors and Editors use the word "night" . Their entry for Rockway under publishers reads "Not recommended. A publisher. Site features good information about publishing business that writers should know. Despite their good information, P&E is hearing of complaints regarding this publisher in its dealings with authors." That is pretty clear. And their entry under Contests reads "RockWay Press 2005 International Writing Competitions: Charges fee. See the web site for full details. While this publisher has earned a Truly Useful Site Award from P&E, P&E does not endorse their competition." I think that pretty well indicates that Preditors and Editors, a well known and reputable site has done their homework and made a responsible decision to post the negative listing. They, too have to consider liability and they have heard from RockWay authors and decided to go all the way to list RockWay as "Not Recommended." The owner of that site is well known in the Publishing Industry. His name and phone number are listed. Certainly if he was unsure about this decision, he would have said something less specific. I think that certainly explains why a Wikipedia listing is justified. Thanks for your interest and your dialogue ... it is certainly helping me in my fight against this company. Only two months ago, RockWay was still recommended by P and E -- I have fought hard to get very frightened RockWay authors who have been threatened if they spoke out to to step forward and write to P and E with their experiences, earning Rockway first the "Despite their good information, P&E is hearing of complaints regarding this publisher in its dealings with authors" part of the listing and finally this week the "Not recommended was added." I am proud of my efforts. Incidently, my knowledge of this scam first came about when I very nearly signed a RockWay contract myself. A book written by me was accepted by them and I was thrilled until I read their contract and retracted my book before she got her claws into it. I thank my Creator for that every single day. Others are not as fortunate as me. But I hope some will learn about the publishing business from this and about RockWay specifically. Thank you. Persi--Persiphone hellecat1 19:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI - New information has been added to the page at Absolute Write == another author who is being harassed by Rockway has surfaced and has posted her story there. I think it should be very clear what kind of company this is and how important it is to protect would-be authors from them. Please help spare others from this kind of abuse. I refer you to page two of this thread and the posts of a Susan Dhttp://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=708. Thanks again. Persi--Persiphone 00:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Richhoncho -- Could you please point out the libleous remarks to me in the article? Quite honestly I see none.

li·bel audio (lbl) KEY NOUN:

 1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
 2. The act of presenting such material to the public.

Since I have documented everything said to be true according to other sources, how can anything here be lible? Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia -- a source of information for others. What information could be more pertinent to people than assisting them in making decisions? The number of elephants in the world or that the publisher they are considering sending their life's work to isn't what they claim to be? Serious question --Persiphone 19:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I can't help thinking that you are being alittle obsessive about this. At the end of the day we keep or delete this article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and not by the amount of energy that the discusion generates. How about you read WP:WEB to see the standards that are expected for a notable internet site. Since its a company you could also see WP:CORP. WP:NOTABILITY is an excellent read. The article is unencyclopedic and as I said earlier WP:NOT a consumer protection site. Please try to calm down a frame your arguments in the context of the policies I have listed for you. Thanks. --Spartaz 19:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read the policies and I know that after five days, there is a decision based on a consensus of opinion. And I cant help but wondering about your interest either. Your profile states you are new and yet you've been lurking here 6 months and yet you feel you have the right to determine what is unencyclopedic. Are the listings for Random House, Harper Collins, Doubleday and Little Brown also unencyclopedic? They're publishers too. You use the term "We" -- is that a royal "We" or are you Wikipedia? Do you have any knowledge of the publishing industry to make a decision about this article? Authors are funny people. We do the research, put our heart and soul into what we write and along comes someone who offers no credentials for his opinion but has the right to get an article deleted just because he says so. I find that a little bizarre and I would say that I am not the obsessive one here. I have simply done as the rules for deletion say and done my best to justify this article in an effort to make you understand and form a more educated opinion. It seems you are the only one who seems to have a problem with this article and I just want to know why it offends you. I have offered more than enough evidence and clearly justified everything the article says. I have also asked is not Wikipedia not a place for people to come for information, and is this information not as important as the number of elephants in the world. I have also said this article existed before for a very long time with absolutely no issues until it had to be re-instated. That's apparently when you discovered it and decided to tag it for deletion based on absolutely nothing. I deal with authors every day who are harmed by Rockway and others like them. You dont. Yet you seem to believe that somehow it is only your opinion that matters. Why is that? I am not trying to get into an arguement here, I simply want to know why the deletion of this article is such an important issue to you and on what grounds you have the right to say so. So far you have said nothing except that you viewed it as an "attack". I have justified the facts with sources proving it isnt an attack but merely information published to assist authors in making responsible decisions regarding publishers- one in particular. This was an experiiment. I have many other publishers I had intended to write articles about and link - each with a similar story. Wikipedia is high notice -- it gets attention. When you google a topic, the Wikipedia listing is right there at the top. Wouldnt it seem to you that would be a good thing for authors to be able to see? After all, words are our bread and butter. I simply want this listing to stay. I worked hard on it and did my homework, as I always do when I write, and someone simply comes along and for no reason at all says, I think it shouldnt be there, and I want to know why such an opinion as yours matters and holds more weight than the work of an author publishing a well researched article. If that is obsession in your eyes, so be it. In my eyes, someone who randomly selects an article and decides it should be deleted with no information to back up their opinion is the obsessive one. This page is here for the purpose of explanation and discussion and that is just what I am doing. Unfortunately, I know no other authors who are registered Wikipedia people to come here and express their opinions. They read Wikipedia only and the information regarding deletion clearly states if they register now, "new" people's opionions don't count. Where do you stand on that? Your profile states you are new. --Persiphone hellecat1 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)--Persiphone hellecat1 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (too complex to be called a vote). If "Preditors and Editors" deserves an article (which it may very well), and "RockWay Press" deserves mention there, then redirect. If "Preditors and Editors" qualifies as a reliable source, then keep only those paragraphs sourced there. Otherwise, delete under WP:LIVING as it relates to Alexandria/Sherri Szeman. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Reiterating, delete under WP:LIVING unless the allegations and the analysis are sourced. I think you've done a reasonably good job of sourcing the allegations, but not the analysis. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2006 (U

I am trying very hard to understand your comments. I have added an article for Preditors and Editors, and I have cross referenced them. However I do not understand the part about WP:LIVING. I read the information and I'm not sure at all I understand it. I am not aware of doing anything that put it in that section. If you would kindly advise me how to proceed it would be most helpful. I would be interested in adding other articles regarding the publishing industry and just want to make sure I'm doing it right. I appreciate your reading my comments and taking them into consideration, but I require additional assistance. I am also not sure I understand the difference between sourcing the allegations and not the analysis. Please explain and I wil do what I can to correct it. Persi--Persiphone hellecat1 05:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING applies because you've (quite properly, IMHO), identified RockWay Press with its founders. Hence, any derogatory comments must be carefully sourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the founder's name from the article. Further information can easily be obtained by going to the link to her site, correct? So perhaps her name isnt needed here. Might that not simplify the issue a bit? Thank you for your advice, I am finding this very interesting and a very challenging write. --Persiphone 07:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten. In accordance with WP:BOLD I have nearly completely re-written the article. I have only kept or added items which are verifiable. However it is still a disparagement article and Rockway Press would be fully entitled to have the article removed without any reference to this AfD discussion. I'll let other editors decide this one. --Richhoncho 10:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Excellent re-write, but I still don't see RockWay Press as notable. Article still seems as if the only reason it was written was to disparage the subject. Delete on grounds of non-notability and attack. SWAdair 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per SWAdair. The company appears completely non notable. Resolute 04:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed w/ SWAdair. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, A6 as attack page. Regardless of the rambling defenses of the article that verge frequently into ad hominem attacks on the commentators, it was plainly intended to be an attack page ... and this article and the AfD discussion constitute the creator's sole contributions to Wikipedia. However cleaned up, it still is one. RGTraynor 07:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraynor's well-made case. Eusebeus 12:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but not speedy. Even once cleaned up and made NPOV, it will still be non-notable. eaolson 15:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, despite author's noble intentions to warn others about what may appears to be a scam. Bur WP is not a consumer warning service. There are websites, such as Preditors & Editors that do this job nicely.
• Delete' - regardless of whether Rockway press is scam or not, it doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP anyways. -- Whpq 20:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above... regardless of whether this is an attack page, there is still no evidence that this press meets WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Nickieee 23:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete makes no claim of notability, as well as devoting half its content to attacks. Musaabdulrashid 07:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. As the substantial editor of the last edit I have read the comments above and will add my delete in for good measure. However, it does strike me that those that merely considering it an attack page have slightly missed the point - an attack page should be deleted if not verified, in this case I have verified from primary and secondary sources. If disparagement is a reason for deletion here then every listing at WP that is here merely because the subject is a murderer, accused terrorist. pedophile etc should go too, for the exactly the same reasons. RockWay, in itself is certainly not notable, but there is a large industry selling "talent contests" who are no more than scams, and because those that pay their money haven't lost the house, it doesn't ever become "public news." - which was the reason for my getting involved here. however, there are valued, legitimate talent contests too, so an article Writing Contests are bad just wouldn't work. Thanks for your time everybody. --Richhoncho 11:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• See above. Redirect to Preditors and Editors, as it's mentioned there. No vote as to whether it should be deleted, first. "Devoting half its content to attacks." is not a reason to delete if those attacks are properly sourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

comment - where did I say it was created as an attack page? I said it was created as a warning for potential submissions --Persiphone hellecat1 01:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Not on the face of it, but however much it's been toned down from the shrill original, the creator of the article admits it was intended as an attack page. Regardless of the sourcing or any proofs proffered, that's a prima facie, black-letter ground for deletion. [comm[User:RGTraynor|RGTraynor]] 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The truer it is the less notable is the subject. WP:NOT. What's left seems to still be an attack page. Too bad it was not speedied. :) Dlohcierekim 08:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, merge possible. W.marsh 14:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basilisks in fantasy fiction and games

Unencyclopedic laundry list of appearances, better summarised in main Basilisk article. Percy Snoodle 16:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, I have no idea what the editor who deprodded this was thinking. --ForbiddenWord 15:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and cleanup. A full list like this doesn't really belong Basilisk. Get rid of "it should be noted" and combine some paragraphs, and you have a perfectly decent article. Stilgar135 07:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by "better summarised in main article" I didn't mean that it would be better to merge it there; rather that the summary there is sufficient. There's no need for this list in any article. Percy Snoodle 08:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Petition rejected Copious material should be segregated from the main article, lest it become swamped. - FrancisTyers · 09:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Reading again, are we saying that the article should be deleted without being merged? If so, Accepted. - FrancisTyers · 09:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Basilisk. --Gray Porpoise 02:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Basilisk per Gray Porpoise. However, the amount of merged material should be severely limited. --Nlu (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Basilisk says merge. This stuff wouldn't seem too crufty there since it's a fictional concept anyway, and can illustrate how it the creature is of continued notability. In addition, the main article can establish context for this material. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see that there's anything to merge into the main article as there is already an adequate section there covering this. -- Whpq 20:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Gray Porpoise. This is much more detailed than the existing section, and contains verifiable information that should not be discarded. Basilisks are fantasy critters that have been used for a long time in many notable works. Neither article as it stands now is excessively long. Smerdis of Tlön 04:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The Woman Who Sold The World 17:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep This kind of thing almost makes me wish we still had subpages. On the one hand it's a bit on the crufty side to stand on it's own, then again the alternative is to have the main article on a mythological creature overrun with game or movie references (see for examle Chakram two paragraphs of the history of the real weaon, then a 30+ point "movie and game apperance" list (everyting from Xena to Warcraft 3 heroes though Wonder Woman's tiara and Oddjob's hat...)). Merging with the main Basilisk article would be doing it a disservice IMHO, as this kind of things have a way of growing our of controll and take over the article. Better overall to keep in in a seperate list-ish article where people can put all theyr helpfull references to various versions of the Basilisk from various games, books and movies without "diluting" the main article and getting into revert wars and whatever over there, simmilar to the Dragon/List of dragons or Zombie/Zombies in computer and video games solutions. --Sherool (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illusions of immortality

possible vanity, I did get two google hits in the first few pages that were relevant...but they were on the 2nd page or lower. The link to the award doesn't show any award that I can see, and I'm not sure that an award from that site is sufficient criteria for notability. I figured I'd try to get more eyes on this, I could be wrong.-- Syrthiss 11:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I poked around a bit looking for the award and was rewarded with a massive number of popups, so if it's there it's hiding. Without the award, there's no notability, and I'm not sure there would be even with it. BigHaz 11:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: nn per nom and WP:WEB. I think that the "award" is something like the fourth best-reviewed video on that day. --David Mestel^(Talk) 11:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all flash cartoons. Just zis Guy you know? 21:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep There is more valid info in the article now.

Comment there's a little more information, yes, but none of it really asserts notability per WP:WEB. BigHaz 22:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Explain how this isnt a valid article

There's nothing "invalid" about it. It's just that articles on online things need to be on subjects which live up to WP:WEB. In the case of this article, has the animation been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself? Not that anyone can see. Has it won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation? Again, not that anyone can see (one comment above deals with the nature of the award the animation is credited with, and it's neither well-known nor independent). Is it distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators? Well, the site seems to be independent of the creators, but it's not well-known. Therefore, it isn't sufficiently notable to qualify for inclusion. BigHaz 06:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• No, newgrounds features this work, including, but not limited to, Newgrounds [23], Addicting Clips[24], Flash Ring[25], Disaster Labs Studios (An Independent website featuring many popular webcartoons) [26] and even the original series was jokingly lampooned on something awful [27]. As evidenced by many of these sites, they aren't sponsered in any way by Paul Femiak. Saying that this cartoon is invalid is like saying Salad Fingers or Numa Numa are "worthless" because they are featured on the extremely popular and selective flash uploading site Newgrounds. Deleting this article would both be an insult to all flash cartoons as well as a loss to the entire wikipedia community. All the hard work in making this wiki would have to be redone without any help at all. Consider this before you delete it. In all senses, it works with the WP:WEB

Awards Won

[28] Awful Link Of The Day [29] Fourth Place Award

The awards side of things doesn't impress me in the slightest, as neither of them are "well known and independent". They're probably independent, but they're far from well-known. Fourth place by some standards applied to animations uploaded or reviewed (hard to tell from the link) that day isn't a well-known or independent award. Neither is being the "link of the day" at another site. As regards the well-known and indepedent site, I'll leave that to someone more versed in internet lore. The comparison to Numa Numa is not as impressive as you may think, either, as it would easily qualify via other sections of WP:WEB - the fact that it exists at Newgrounds isn't going to count against it. It also doesn't work in "all senses" with the standards we're citing, as it hasn't been the subject of publications independent of the site itself. BigHaz 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Explain?
    • Explain what, exactly? The remarks about the awards? Firstly, I'd contend that an animation which wins "Fourth Place for today" has hardly won a significant award. The same goes for something which wins "Link of the Day". Think about it - is a local "Battle of the Bands" trophy the same value as a Grammy? I should hope not. The remarks about the publications? One of the standards of WP:WEB is that the animation would need to be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. I see no proof that it has been that, so it fails that part of the test and therefore your claim that "in all senses, it works with the standard" is false. The comments about Numa Numa? Without getting into too much detail right now since we're talking about this animation rather than anything else, Numa Numa is substantially more well known than this animation is. At no point is this AfD saying that "all internet phenomena must be deleted from Wikipedia" or anything like that. What it's saying is that there are standards, "Illusions of Immortality" doesn't live up to those standards, so it should be deleted. It's nothing personal. BigHaz 23:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• It is a sad day indeed for wikipedia. This cartoon is a sensation and will only keep growing. Even if you delete it now, for ucalled for reasons, you will find yourself in pain as you do not have this article anymore.

If it'll keep growing in popularity, then you'll be more than welcome to recreate the page later on when it has. Just copy the text into a file on your computer and as soon as it meets those standards we've been talking about, bring it back online. BigHaz 00:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• A private company is making a toyline right now. Pictures are on the main page. Is the phenominon big enough?

Pictures are nowhere to be seen, and neither is any information about the toyline or the company making it. BigHaz 07:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

They are there, look deeper friend, look deeper

They're not on the article itself (which is where they should be if you want this to be incontrovertibly notable). Neither are they at any of the external links when clicked. If they exist - and they may well - the links should be clearly marked. The fact that they aren't and don't lead to what you're claiming is further proof of a lack of notability. BigHaz 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. The only claim to notablility is the fact that it won an award. The award won was for 4th place for an award given every day. eaolson 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above and per crystal balling. Also, being a member of Something Awful, I can tell you that being the "Awful Link of the Day" is not an award in any way. It's basically a daily link submitted by a forum member or site visitor mocking shoddy work. --Wafulz 17:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wafulz. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 18:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the awards refrenced fall far short of what is needed. Something Awful ink of the day doesn't cut it -- Whpq 20:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BigHaz and all others above. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neely Fuller Jr.

Non-notable person, non-verifiable. Delete.See WP:NN, WP:V Cognos 18:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 18:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable theorist for Afro-American studies/politics. True, his 500-odd google hit result is mainly from independent media/amateur afro-american radical websites and so on[30]. Only 7 hits on a Google Books[31]. Only 3 hits on Google Scholar[32]. He also only gets 8 hits from a Factiva news & magazine database run. But this shows that the issue here is not verifiability. That leaves the issue of encyclopedic notability. One of the Factiva hits is a 1990 article[33] from that well-known hiphop fanzine, The Washington Post which describes controversial psychiatrist Francis Cress Welsing (and her 1970 anti-white paper "Cress Theory of Color-Confrontation and Racism (White Supremacy)") as well as Neely Fuller and his "Textbook for Victims of White Supermacy" as being officially cited (in the advance press relations and the album credits) as "influential inspirations" for Public Enemy's controversial album Fear of a Black Planet. Public Enemy's "director of enemy relations" (i.e. director of press/public relations) is quoted as describing Welsing and Fuller as the two most controversial race theorists in America today, responsible for "some of the strongest and most relevant writing done on racism, raciality, oppression and other race issues." (If you have access to a news database you can pull up the whole article. Otherwise you'll have to pay a few bucks to the WaPo to see it online) This connection, plus the limited but verifiable level of attention given to Fuller by Afro-American radicals is sufficient enough for encyclopedic notability, in my deletionist opinion. Both the Fuller and Welsing articles need updating to note this link to Public Enemy, and also a general cleanup. The Fear of a Black Planet album article should also note the links. Bwithh
  • Is having had an influence on Frances Cress Welsing and Professor Griff really enough for notability? I would say no... Cognos 20:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the influence on Public Enemy, but as I said, it's the indications that he is a significant figure in radical African-American discourse Bwithh 21:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

But there is no evidence that he is a significant figure in radical African-American discourse - compare e.g. Ron Karenga. All we have evidence of is the fact that someone in Public Enemy thought he was.Cognos 13:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - notability hasn't been established for the guy but this is a case where an article on the book mught be justified. BlueValour 03:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Not convinced that he or his book are sufficiently notable or influential. -AED 21:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The man's work is extremely influential, as mentioned below. He is still a highly active and influentual figure in African American intellectual circles. If you ask me, deleting the one entry on Fuller only validates the arguments he has made about racism/white supremacy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.39.4 (talk • contribs) .

The preceding comment was incorrectly placed. As such, I have moved it here. Srose (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... accusations like that are not constructive. If you could help come with proof of the man's influence, that would be useful Bwithh 23:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete simply non-notable. Eusebeus 12:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Eusebeus. 1ne 06:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Shell ^babelfish 08:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mac Media Center

Delete Neologism. AlistairMcMillan 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Front Row. hateless 18:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Change that to Keep/Merge. Mac Media Center seems to have been established as the name for software for the Mac that emulates Windows Media Center. The fact that iTheater and CenterStage both call themselves "mac media center" suggest it is a new generic term for that class of software. I would suggest the page can be merged into Media center, but that's a merge discussion outside of AFD. hateless 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes CenterStage and iTheater use the term, does that change the fact that it is a neologism? Don't we have a policy against creating pages about neologisms? AlistairMcMillan 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The policy is Avoid Neologisms. How else are you going to explain a new class of software without using a neologism? hateless 18:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
        • By using something that isn't a neologism, like media center. Note that Windows Media Center is just a redirect. AlistairMcMillan 18:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Then you have something that can be moved or merged, not AFD'd. Besides, the neologism rule is usually used against articles that are about neologisms themselves, see WP:NEO. hateless 18:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
            • You do realise the article is just composed of four sentences and two of them are not even really about "Mac Media Centers". And "Mac Media Center" is a neologism, if you can find a secondary source (while WP:NEO says we need) I'd be very surprised. AlistairMcMillan 18:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete topic is covered adaquately by media center and Front Row article. Cedars 06:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with media center. The more general article is surprisingly brief; it could contain separate lists of media centers for each platform, including Xbox and PlayStation.Jayvdb 06:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nominator. -/- Warren 23:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as author requests deletion (G7) and insufficiently notable (A7). --Nlu (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European election law association

Delete. Hoax. Vanity. The European election law association doesn't consist of "over 200 academics and election law experts from over 80 leading universities and research institutions". It consists only of one person (Jurij Toplak). Yellowbeard 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Hoax. Kill it. --PresN 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep - You claim it is a hoax. I don't know on what is your decision based. Please join the Eurela listserv at eurela@lists.ucla.edu and you will be able to meet all the people involved and read the network's news. Contact the association's details if you wish. See the list of universities at the http://www.eurela.org/index.php?/pages/about.html . For the list of names contact eurela@eurela.org J.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Took out the work 'leading' from the first sentence as it might be a vanity. everything else seems ok.153.5.19.111 21:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC) J.

Keep - Nobody has disputed the article since July 28. Nobody emailed eurela in order to check the proofs of its existence and membership. As said, it would be a pleasure to show them to anyone. Since nobody contacted me or the network and nobody continued to argue for the deletion of this page I suggest the case to be closed and the article to be kept. 153.5.19.111 21:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC) J.

Delete. I doubt that eurela is more than a website by Jurij Toplak. If J really has "proofs of its existence and membership" then he should show them. Yellowbeard 11:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep

Yellowbeard: I scanned eight of the 200 membership applications (although they were not supposed to be public) and publishd them online in order to show you they do exist: www.volitve.si/s103.jpg www.volitve.si/s104.jpg www.volitve.si/s105.jpg www.volitve.si/s106.jpg www.volitve.si/s107.jpg www.volitve.si/s108.jpg www.volitve.si/s109.jpg www.volitve.si/s110.jpg

If you still doubt I can send you all 200 applications via email. I can also invite you to the mailinglist or to one of the events. If you will still doubt after that, I give up :( Topjur01 13:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep - It seems there is no more discussion needed. Someone close this and remove the AFD text. 164.8.4.123 10:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure where this hoax accusation is coming from, as my cursory perusal of google results turned up this CV from an emminent political scientist that mentions his membership in the organization. I think the real discussion that should happen here is about notability. I request relisting so that it can happen.--Kchase T 04:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Further comment In response to 164.8.4.123's question on my talk page, one of the admins monitor AfD will take care of closing and relist as necessary. We can start talking about notability now. The applicable guideline, WP:ORG, hasn't been approved by the community yet, but it would require some third-party coverage of the organization, which is pretty similar to our existing verifiability policy. That being said, we have a leader from the organization participating in this AfD. If there is any third-party or press coverage, I'm sure they are aware of it and can point it out to us. But until that happens, I'd have to still say delete. I wouldn't be surprised to see this relisted to give you some more time.--Kchase T 17:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless something changes.--Kchase T 17:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I checked the notability on Google. The association publishes European Election Law News and this publication gives over 15.000 hits on Google. Moreover, it is cited by emminent political scientists on their webpages - Arend Lijphart (an undisputed authority on elections and former president of APSA) and Matthew Søberg Shugart of University of California are just two of them.The Association has been recognized in official documents by the governments of Azerbaijan (http://www.cec.gov.az/en/5millimajlisre2006/international%20observers.doc ) and Slovenia (http://www.arrs.gov.si/sl/rezultati/06/inc/rezult-vabljena-1-rok-06.pdf ). It has been mentioned in several media where the name has been translated into German, Croatian, Azeri, or Slovenian language - see for instance http://www.mladina.si/dnevnik/53379/ ). 194.165.113.151 19:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's true, but the first publication just lists the organization. Though I couldn't find it in the second document, I expect it just lists it like the others. Of the 15,000 google results, there are six unique ones, none of which look particularly helpful. I'm still not seeing it. Perhaps newspaper coverage? By the way, if this is the same person behind the dynamic IP, you should just vote once, as multiple votes aren't counted.--Kchase T 19:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

hehe... no it's not the same person. but it was someone I told about the discussion and he checked the google and post a comment. i just read the deletion guidelines and it says that "the second deletion discussion is not necessary". i guess that means that once the article is deleted it cannot be relisted again? if that's so, then i suggest i delete it myself before it gets deleted by someone else; i will relist it in october when the association is about to publish a book with one of the major publishing houses. i'm sure there will be a lot of media coverages then. would that work for you? however, i still dont understand why an organization that is recognized by such people like Arend Lijphart and Michael Pinto Duschinsky should not be in Wikipedia. Suggest me to delete it and I will. Topjur01 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just let it sit. An admin will get to it and delete it. Feel free to leave me a message at my talk page when that book gets published. If I'm not too busy with class, I'd be happy to help you write an article that complies with all of wikipedia's many policies. Cheers!--Kchase T 20:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like vanity. --Nlu (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG Eusebeus 12:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete While the webpage claims to be part of University of Maribor School of Law it is registered to a home in Maribor, according to whois. "European election law association " has 131 yahoo.com hits. Nickieee 22:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. Macktheknifeau 06:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am the starting author of this page. I have checked the guidelines and especially the WP:ORG and I agree that the EURELA does not yet meet the criteria for the Wikipedia. Therefore: Delete. The consensus has been reached. Topjur01 11:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furanolactone

What does the article mean when it states "Furanolactone is a lactone that uses the furan ring structure." Since once the two-position has the double bond to the carbon atom and the single bond to oxygen atom, you can only make a single bond, and not a double bond, as the statement implies (a lactone would need the C=O double bond, whcich would be impossible as specified before). Other arangements may be possible (with only one double bond, etc.), but this article gives a misleading discription (I originally wanted to add a chem structure, but then ran into this problem). Very little context, room for expansion. Only google hits I found where mirrors and refrences to a "diterpenoid furanolactone columbin" which appears to be unrelated. Due to this, delete or rewrite. Polonium 22:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To prevent confusion, this is not Gamma-butyrolactone. It has the structure . It is a different compound, because furanolactone is not listed as an other name of the compound. Polonium 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Furanolactone is a real chemical compound, similar to GBL as you note, but with a double bond in the ring. I don't know of any notable uses of furanolactone, either in industry or in research; so unless someone can note some usefullness, there is currently no reason for this article. --Ed (Edgar181) 23:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • • Keep per the excellent job rewriting and de-conflating into 2-furanone, furanolactone, and butenolide by Opabinia regalis and Dirk Beetstra. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is a real compound, then this article should exist, after a rewrite. After all, Wikipedia is not paper. I can rewrite it, I only need to know the chem structure (where the carbon-carbon double bond is). Polonium 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I do find some uses of it in google - in apparent immune boosting (quack?) medicine, as a hullicinigen, what have you. WilyD 13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Furan-2-one

• Comment. OK, this has gotten me curious, so I've done a bit of research. The article says that furanolactone is the same as furan-2-one. Furan-2-one is a real compound with the structure at the right. However, Chemical Abstracts (the authorative chemical database) does not include furanolactone as a synonym for furan-2-one. The term "furanolactone" does turn up in the chemical literature, but only to describe a broad class of natural chemical compounds that contain both a furan ring and a separate lactone ring, which are completely distinct from furan-2-one. This is probably what User:WilyD's Google hits are turning up too. An example is the hallucinogen salvinorin A. So there are two separate things here which the furanolactone article seems to conflate. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is another possible isomer. (UTC)

Furan-2-one will probably exist as an interconverting mixture of those two isomers (tautomers, to be specific) and a third, 2-hydroxyfuran. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless expanded, without prejudice to recreation: valid topic. Current sub-stub is unintelligible to the non-specialist and says nothing that a specialist wouldn't already know. Smerdis of Tlön 22:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Smerdis. Recognized as a valid topic but I think there isn't a single verifiable sentence in that article. hateless 00:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with Opabinia's rewrite. hateless 01:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, rewrite seems valid (Though I am struggling with the chemistry). Viridae^Talk 00:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've rewritten it to refer to the class of compounds with both furan and lactone rings. The original claim was structurally impossible and it's too bad that Wikipedia and its mirrors are top Google hits for the term, given the flawed previous definition. We could probably use an article on 2-furanone as well. Opabinia regalis 00:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Indeed needs (well, needed) a rewrite, but a delete is not warrented. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Found the chemical, added data and text. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

But your data refers to 2-furanone and should go on that page, correct? Unless you've found evidence that the name "furanolactone" really is used as a synonym for 2-furanone. Opabinia regalis 15:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got me there .. hmm .. is this really the same compound .. I'll have a look around and come back to the subject! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't find any proof. Found a link to a file with a picture of ascorbic acid, and indeed, there is the 2-furanone-ring again. It may be that these two compounds are the same, though I do not see them anywhere as being synonymous. I reverted my edits on furanolactone, moved the chemical data to 2-furanone, and begin to support a delete (I am generally against deletion, except if the compound really does not exist .. and then wikipedia should maybe inform why the compound is e.g. an urban legend) ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Printcasting

Yet another protologism from the podosphere. --Haakon 20:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself uses the term. [[34]]. --Nashville

Sorry, that's Wikinews. --Nashville

Keep this. Page, I love it!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.10.169.10 (talk • contribs) .

Note The only non-vandalism post from this IP. Fan-1967 18:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. If our sister project Wikinews uses it, we should have it as an article. Wikipedia is a puzzle piece. Plain and simple. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 05:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Kchase T 21:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete seems to me delete per WP:NEO or WP:OR. As much as I find the word cute, I think the reference article in german is not relevant in this context. The german language is full of words which are composed of smaller words all banged together. The use of "printcasting" in English does not seem that popluarised yet, unlike podcasting. Ohconfucius 05:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. About 12 Google hits, but none are valid secondary sources. eaolson 16:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism -- Whpq 20:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GoKrida

No indicated notability, no reliable sources, no indication of a large number of players. Seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Conclusion of the previous afd was keep because of the game 's unique gameplay, yet I didn't find any reliable source confirming this. Peephole 19:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The way the game is set up, you kind of have to create an account to find out yourself what it is about. It is frustrating that there is a lack of independent sources with information on the game; this is one reason I've been working on this article. Some of the information in the article is the kind of thing I would have liked to have known before signing up, to help me decide whether it was worth my while. Maybe you should try playing the game, and see for yourself if it is notable. Meanwhile, here's some food for thought. Maybe you could even discuss the game with Mr. Berg; perhaps he knows of some independent sources. B7T 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the notability issue, I would think that the fact that the National Heritage Foundation is backing GoKrida would make it notable. B7T 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to point out that the National Heritage Foundation has about 9,000 foundations under its umbrella and blogs aren't generally accepted as sources (WP:RS). It's something but not nearly enough to include it in wikipedia in my opinion. --Peephole 16:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I wasn't suggesting you consider the blog a source. Just that you rather thoroughly read the GNHF site and the links in the blog for some insight, as it's probably the most useful information you're likely to get outside of participating in GoKrida. And I think it's intriguing that what is essentially a browser-based fantasy sim was considered worthy of funding by the NHF; that must have been some interesting sales pitch. B7T 19:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There is a link there now to the National Heritage Foundation's donation page for GoKrida. I'm not sure if that counts as a reliable outside source as to notability, however I do question the basic idea of Wikipedia being only for things that are notable enough to have garnered mainstream attention. What differentiates Wikipedia from Brittanica is precisely that it is an encyclopedia of many things that are not "notable" to the mainstream press, but nonetheless may hold some interest for a niche audience. As an early example of a web browser game being recognized as an official educational or national heritage resource, that may confer upon it some degree of notability. 68.146.221.26 21:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I'll admit I'm not as familiar with the various policies regarding Wikipedia-worthy articles as I probably should be; but I'm more a spirit of the law person, and I think this article is worth developing further. B7T 01:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's good information. --The jazz musician 21:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Peephole 15:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Needs better sourcing, but from what I can tell, it has a significant number of players. Ace of Sevens 17:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: How many? --Peephole 18:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • How should I know? That's why it needs sources. If it has developed a player culture, that suggests some significant number, though. Ace of Sevens 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment:So you're just guessing it has a significant number of players?
        • Not exactly. I'm relying on indirect evidnece. If I said cars were commonplace in Elbonian society, that would be a strong indication that they are an industrialized society. It's quite impossible to tell how industrialized based on that. Basically, the information in the article couldn't be true without a few thousand players. I can't be more specific. Ace of Sevens 16:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

From the stats pagethis, it look like Gokrida roughly gets anywhere from 10,000-40,000 hits per 2-week period. --HResearcher 09:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete: Its relationship with the NHF gives it a shade of notability. However, searching google results 232 unique hits half of those seem to be blogs and the other half seems to be ads related to GoKrida. --Mitaphane _talk 07:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe I should had done a little more research before relying on NHF for a notable source. In the previous AfD discuss user Jonel brought a good point about GoKrida's ties to the NHF. I looked it up on their website and this is all you can find. I decided to see what the NHF was about. I found this:

One of our main objectives is to popularize the use of Foundations. We want to make foundations accessible to everyone, regardless of income level. A Foundation at NHF is inexpensive to start (only $385 application fee) and inexpensive to operate. NHF does all the “administrivia” for you, including receiving all donations, writing checks and making disbursements from your foundation, sending charitable receipts for donations to your foundation, all accounting, state and federal compliance and reporting.

So in other words these people sell non-profit tax-exempt foundations for $385. These sources from The Joplin Globe & LA Times seem to agree. Based on this informaion, I'm saying delete based on wikipedia notability criteria. --Mitaphane _talk 07:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep It seems this site is somewhat notable, but how notable? I don't know. --HResearcher 09:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There has been some debate about notability, verifiability, etc. as they apply to browser-based games; they may be a unique case where the criteria should be different. (See here and here for a couple of discussions where this is brought up.) Also, notability is not formal policy. B7T 13:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: (Sorry, a bit of a rant follows.) This AfD has been relisted twice now, and it seems very few people are willing to discuss it. The previous AfD concluded the article was a keeper, and those who have participated in this one generally seem to think this article might be worth including; can't we leave it alone for now? Is it necessary to actually have a consensus? Nexus War was recently retained with no consensus, although granted that was a more spirited discussion. I would like to see some actual discussion here, but it seems that isn't going to happen. B7T 01:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Because of the uniqueness of the game, I think it may be worth keeping, it's very different from other games in its particular category (if there is actually one). --Ariadoss 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Uniqueness is POV, not an argument for inclusion. --Peephole 21:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: Arguably there is a uniqueness to this game that can be seen objectively. Unfortunately, it's hard to demonstrate this without becoming a participant in GoKrida. And yes, one could also argue that participants have a vested interest in the game and would necessarily think of its uniqueness as a positive thing; but there are many who try it out and give up because it is so unique, and they can't quite "get" it; this could explain a regular player base that still seems small, even though GoKrida has actually been around for several years. And one would think that several years' worth of existence should have given GoKrida some sort of notability by now, yet I still can't find anything to cite from noteworthy independent sources, although I am continuing a search for such things to improve the article. B7T 22:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sliquid

Prod removed by creator. He claims that the page contains valuable information and that this is not spam. I have a hard time assuming good faith since the same editor claims that he is the creator of this image. Pascal.Tesson 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I disagree with the creator. At best it's a spam advert, although bottle is shaped more like water for cyclists than for a feminine personal sexual lubricant "with the desired flavor or warming effect". Mattisse 21:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — Well, the thing exists... according to the search engines. I am not going to make any comments on the shape of the article. 197,000 hits for google, 83,400 for yahoo 6,245 for MSN, and 6,810 for ask.com. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Eagle 101's comment, but is it a notable? --HResearcher 11:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• 2 cents I think to have this information is valuable but it could be explained more extensively so it is not an advertisement. When I did a google search for this and found it on wikipedia I went right to it. With the extensive lubrication problems with post menopausal women and the high level of premature ejaculation in men it is good to find these products. Granted you could find them without this listing but if they could expand on the science of their product and why it is safer to use their product it would make it more helpful for people who are concerned. ie. why latex safe, glycerine and yeast infection, lidocaine and potential problems, etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.144.35.172 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-05 12:50:08 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not the place to "expand on the science of the product". Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and a product only satisfies the WP:CORP criteria if someone else has already written and published detailed works on it, including the science of it, outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a venue for conducting primary research. It is an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 13:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, promotional, no evidence that the product is of any importance. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Promotional, does not appear to be notable product. Fan-1967 01:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ad for non-notable product - 227 distinct Ghits. Dlyons493 Talk 02:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect for now; turn it into a disambig if needed (Liberatore, 2006). 10:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First day worship

Duplication of another article here Sabbath#Basis_of_First_Day_Observance. (Not worth marking to be merged, because they are pretty much identical). -Ladybirdintheuk 15:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect it - CheNuevara 15:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect Instead of merging, editors can contribute what is notable to Sabbath#Basis_of_First_Day_Observance. --HResearcher 10:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - might need to be turned into a disambig, as it's quite similar to Quaker terms such as First day school, Meeting for worship, etc. (I'm curious whether these will be red links...) SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Another good point, Johnny. --HResearcher 15:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect. If someone sees a need for a dab, the redirect can be changed in the future. Vegaswikian 21:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect -- Whpq 01:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, merge possible I guess. I'm removing the lyrics... but they'll still be in the article history. W.marsh 14:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland Unfree

Three specimen articles nominally describing Irish republican songs. There are a number of articles of the same pattern, ie a one sentence introduction followed by fifty lines of lyrics (see Irish rebel music for a shedload), but none seem to have been through AfD. WP:NOT a collection of lyrics or a thinly disguised soapbox. Mr Stephen 15:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Also for consideration:

• • The Streets of New York
  • Little Armalite

• Delete per nom. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT. --HResearcher 10:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - These are apparently marching songs, and so would seem to have historical signifigance. The articles certainly need improvement otherwise; see The Battle Hymn of the Republic for a good article of this genre. SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Hmm, that is an interesting point. --HResearcher 15:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Yeah, right. For example, "Ireland Unfree" appears to be written by Brian Warfield (of the Wolfe Tones), see [35] & [36]. The Wolfe Tones only formed in 1963 [37], but maybe historical signifigance starts earlier these days. Mr Stephen 20:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per User:SB_Johnny's comment. --HResearcher 15:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Individual songs without context are not articles. Dlyons493 Talk 02:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly merge per above. Remove any copyvio lyrics (at least I assume that 60's songs are still copyrighted). Sandstein 08:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No references. Almost seems like some average Joe made it up. Green caterpillar 22:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of song lyrics, and these song articles do not assert notability (were they hits? have they achieved lasting popularity or cultural significance like the Battle Hymn? were any of them controversial?) Demiurge 00:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Provisional keep, after checking the copyright status of any lyrics quoted in full. "Similar" songs such as Croppies Lie Down have articles of their own, and songs of similar note from the other sides of the conflict also deserve articles. Any claim of non-notability should be made on an individual rather than a class basis at minimum. Smerdis of Tlön 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if not copyvio and these can be sourced, transwiki to wikisource. Pure lyrics do not an article make. Carlossuarez46 01:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Learninghour

This article is a disguised link spam. The article Tutor gets linked spam on a regular basis, but this time it was done in a smarter way [38]. This mention has already been deleted, but the article needs also to be cleaned up. Delete - wikipedia is not for advertisement. Tony Bruguier 14:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, spamvertising. NawlinWiki 18:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to E-learning maybe? Or would that be linkspamming? --HResearcher 10:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not convinced that this company is verifiably notable. -AED 00:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fucking delete. Erwin 21:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to wild type. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wild-type virus

Wild-type simply refers to the most common strain of an organism in existence, free from artificially induced mutations. It is nonsense to say that wild-type is the antithesis of antiviral resistance, since the latter is a phenomenon and the former a classification. While the article does contain some correct information, I feel that this request would better be served by redirecting to either antiviral drug or antiretroviral drug. Nominated for deletion. Angio 07:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know much about the topic, but believe that the suggested redirects are not a good idea. In general, X should only redirect to Y if X is covered by the topics dealt with in article Y. That is not the case here. It may be better to remove the incorrect information and leave a stub to be expanded by knowledgeable editors. There are plenty of Google hits on this as a search term. --Lambiam^Talk 10:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• If the article is currently incorrect but a notable topic then it should just be rewritten. A redirect would be fine too (with the correct content covered in the redirect targets, as Lambiam says). Since there is no reason to hide the current content of the page, neither of these require an AFD :). If you wish to rewrite or redirect, just reply on this page that you wish to withdraw the AFD, and an admin will close it. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-26 11:26Z

• The reason that "wild-type virus" will pull up hits on Google is that wild-type is an adjectival phrase used to describe any organism that has not been tinkered with by scientists or is not otherwise mutated. Having an article for "wild-type virus" is analogous to having an article for "red car" or "fast airplane." If you don't approve of my redirect suggestion, I will expand the wild-type stub and redirect to that. Angio 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  Almost a half of the hits also reference HIV or AIDS therapy, so something is going on there. You also get more hits for "Little Red Corvette" than you would expect from the juxtaposition of "little red" and "Corvette". --Lambiam^Talk 07:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  That's because "Little Red Corvette" happened to be used by Prince for an album title. I think the analogy is somewhat ill-considered, because the phrase "wild-type virus" carries no denotative or connotative meaning beyond the sum of the meanings of its two parts. In my own opinion, which I believe to be substantially qualified by experience beyond the layman's, this is a useless and misleading article. Those who want to know what "wild-type virus" means should, upon finding there to be no article by that name, break the phrase into its two logical components. They will be much better served by doing so. Please redirect wild-type virus to wild-type. Angio 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article should be edited per some of the comments. --HResearcher 10:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Wild-type. The term "wild-type" is used to describe any non-engineered species, and does not generally have a specific meaning with respect to antibiotic resistance as far as I am aware. The page as written puts an antibiotic-resistance spin on the definiton which is somewhat interesting, but I don't think it is a good general description of a wild-type virus. bikeable (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Redirect to Wild type. As pointed out above, wild type viruses do not have any paticular significance or association with drug therapy. Viridae^Talk 00:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Wild-type per the above. -AED 00:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wild type per Angio's arguments. Redirecting to antiviral drug or the like would be awkward because the term has use outside of drug development and is not specifically related to antivirals. The article as it stands has a ton of misleading "information". Opabinia regalis 03:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. SorryGuy 01:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article itself isn't particularly useful, but there is abundant published information about wild-type viruses with some distinctions from the wild type in other organisms, and the topic is highly important in the context of antiviral drugs, especially HIV therapy. The current wild type article is a very brief definition and doesn't seem suitable as a hook for hanging technical information regarding a single group. Espresso Addict 01:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  Can you explain how (or give a reference to something explaining how) the topic is highly important in the context of antiviral drugs? That appears to be the very issue that is contested in this AfD discussion. --Lambiam^Talk 09:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  There's an accessible discussion relating to HIV in a review by Buss & Cammack for Antiviral Therapy (2000) 6(1): 1-7 available in pdf here: [39] -- see particularly the subheading 'Complexities in extrapolating from in vitro to in vivo' Espresso Addict 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't want to labour the point here, but the mere fact that there are two distinct definitions of 'wild-type virus' being used in this discussion (ie, 'non-engineered' & 'pre-therapy') suggests that there's scope for an article. Espresso Addict 21:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Sweeney

Run of the mill pervert. There are many, unfortunately. This one was newsworthy in the UK at the time of his most recent crime, and during his trial and conviction. But his subsequent notability is not proved: the rare appearance of a common-or-garden perv seldom leads to lasting notability or future fame. If it does, Wikipedia can always come back to the subject when some sort of notability beyond his crime is assertable. ➨ ЯEDVERS 23:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not a news report database. Case of WP:Recentism here. Bwithh 23:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I guess if you're not Jeffery Dahmer or Jack the Ripper, you don't have the kind of lasting fame to be a criminal deserving a Wikipedia article. It is well cited and a not an entirely unknown case, however. - Thorne N. Melcher 00:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article contains information that the public would need to know. Remember, he may be out again within five years. --Generalstaben 10:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep His conviction was national news and shocked millions of people, I don't see why it should be deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cola4 (talk • contribs) .

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Very weak keep. Article suggests regional notability. -AED 00:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Likely to remain notable, not so much because of his own crimes as because of the controversy surrounding his sentencing. Vashti 06:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Briefly making headlines does not confer notability and conflates an encyclopedic project with simply a compendium of new items. Are we going to chronicle every case where the prison sentence attracts attention? Eusebeus 12:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless... The case may be used as an illustration of child sexual abuse in British media and law (the child sexual abuse article is presently America-centric and sitting under a "globalize" tag). If that's done, the case may have wider relevance. As it is, it's just another news story. DanB DanD 19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Someone really needs to explain to me why being a convicted rapist is more notable than being an unsigned indie band or a church pastor or a blogger. Just because the news media loves to sensationalise these kinds of stories, doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. -/- Warren 23:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this article is notable and well structured, fair enough he hasnt earned recognition but what he did means he should have it. Ian Huntley has a page and Myra Hindley why should this person be any differant? (Neostinker 13:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, but a merge/redirect to the company article is possible without afd, if anyone ever writes an article on the company. W.marsh 14:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Hashemi

Non-notable per WP:BIO -Bogsat 17:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, co-founder of Coffee Republic which is a notable coffee house franchise in the UK (competitors are Starbucks, Cafe Nero and Costa), so some notability Catchpole 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Poorly written, but a quick Google search turns up results that indicate to me he is notable. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article does not provide citations that satisfy WP:V and WP:BIO. If someone can provide, please do, else article should be deleted. --Satori Son 13:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• As is, delete per WP:V. Verifiability is not optional. -AED 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Reference added to meet WP:V. Catchpole 08:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep based on Catchpole's reference and assumption that Coffee Republic is notable in the UK. -AED 21:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Catchpole and Cholmes75. 1ne 05:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Although I certainly may look foolish as a minority of one, I must respectfully disagree with my fellow editors above and retain my "Delete" opinion. First of all, I do not believe that the single reference to Franchise Magazine, a non-notable publication itself, satisfies the WP:V requirement that "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Second, since the subject's only claim to notability is the founding of Coffee Republic, itself a non-notable company, I still do not believe the article passes the requirements of WP:BIO. I realize that this is all probably moot at this point, but I just wanted to clarify my position. Thanks. --Satori Son 17:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ravager Affinity

See precedents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U/G Madness and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sligh. Andrew Levine 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Andrew Levine 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• As the main contributor to this article, I must say that deleting this article is a decree that no Magic deck is significant enough to receive it's own page. From a scholarly point of view, there is IMO no deck that is more influential than Ravager Affinity in the game's history. The deck dominated tournaments in multiple formats, was at the forefront of the community for years, and caused unprecendented actions by the game's creators. I have tried my best to make this article encyclopedic. It has wiki code, the text I wrote is as clear as I can make it, and it cites references. It has no decklist, mulligan rules, game scenarios, play tips, sideboarding strategy, or metagame concerns. For contrast, here is an evolvutionary history of Ravager Affinity which is encyclopedic in nature and here is an example of a "strategy guide", what we in the community normally call primers, deck clinics, or in this case a tournament report, which are not encyclopedic. As a compromise, specific decks could be defined on their own list page or on their specific their archetype page. I have developed a decklist template but I have refrained from using it since it appears that Magic decklists are not encyclopedic but rigorous strategy detailing Two Knights Defense is. I could nominate Latvian Gambit for AFD for the same reasons here but it would probably be shot down, that and my stance on AFD is extremely lax for an Internet-based encyclopedia. NorrYtt 17:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "I must say that deleting this article is a decree that no Magic deck is significant enough to receive it's own page." Yes, this sounds about right. Please don't try to make comparisons between MTG and chess in terms of notability and significance. Magic has been around for 13 years and chess for more than a thousand (in its current form, about 500). Chess is played and/or recognized by many more people (by orders of magnitude) in many more countries than Magic. I won't even get into tournament attendance and prize payout figures. You bring up the example of the Two Knights Defense, which has existed for more than four hundred years and studied by every chess player above the beginner level for centuries; do you honestly think it's worth comparing its importance and notability to a Magic deck that did not exist three years ago? And please know that I say this as someone who has enjoyed Magic immensely for more than a decade, and who hasn't touched a chess piece in almost as long. Andrew Levine 17:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I will simply leave it that I am willing to keep most any article as long as its in the right place and could benefit someone. I feel more content is better than less (i.e. more professional). I feel if someone wants to know how to get all the Warp Whistles in Super Mario 3, they could find it tucked away somewhere. In the future, I will try not to waste so much of my time contributing to the AFD category. NorrYtt 17:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • For the record, it took me all of six and a half seconds to find that Super Mario 3 information with a Google search. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Andrew Levine 19:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per precedents. -AED 00:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. As it happens, I'm a Magic player myself, and I can't imagine any one deck ever invented being noteworthy -- the more so in that by Magic's own tournament rules, almost any such deck will become obsolete within a year anyway. By contrast, there isn't a chess paradigm yet that needs to be banned from tournament play because people win too much with it. RGTraynor 07:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 12:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete"I must say that deleting this article is a decree that no Magic deck is significant enough to receive its own page." (You know we're just being mean because we used to play ourselves!) DanB DanD 19:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. Shell ^babelfish 08:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rory Atwell

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. -Nv8200p talk 14:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. WP:VAIN Not notable in his own right. Looks autobiographical. His old band's, Test Icicles, listing looks just about OK per WP:MUSIC - one minor hit and quite a few gigs around the UK, but Atwell seems to be using Wiki to publice his new activities.Ohconfucius 15:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:MUSIC. Test Icicles was much more notable than the entry tends to lead on currently, and this is perfectly fine as a result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Common Sense. i am not going to look but i bet that chantelle person from big brother has a wiki entry that isn't up for deletion. txqt. log me in wiki tx. --Marge4 03:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

maintain delete or urgent rewrite The article is unsourced and its style contravenes WP:NPOV Ohconfucius 03:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Ohconfucius. This article is a disgrace. BlueValour 00:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As is, violates WP:V. Would reconsider if rewritten. -AED 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • i've stubbed it, it looked worse than when I first saw it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page. Eusebeus 12:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Test Icicles until he does something notable outside that band. the wub "?!" 17:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• redirect to Test Icicles until he does something notable outside that band --Angelbo 04:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland Park Citizens Association

This is a non-notable organizatio (fails the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations)) with no verifiable sources cited other than its own website. Erechtheus 14:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete seems to meet CSD requirements --RMHED 17:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a local group, but within that context, it is notable. It forced Giant Food Stores to make major changes to its proposed expansion of a supermarket in Cleveland Park.[40] TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 00:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite the news blurb, I'm not convinced this organization is notable. -AED 00:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A blurb about it is already in Cleveland Park. SliceNYC 20:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn enough for its own page; mention at Cleveland Park is surely sufficient. Perhaps put a redirect to Cleveland Park? Eusebeus 16:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vegaswikian 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 14:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DeadSpawn

Not significant enough for an entry. While this band spawned (no pun intended) several others, it doesn't really comply with inclusion guidelines. BrianFG 10:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: point six of WP:BAND notwithstanding, I think that Daysend are only barely notable, this doesn't merit their inclusion. --David Mestel^(Talk) 11:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect — per that point 6. Redirects are cheap. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Daysend. Seems like an exact match to the point cited from WP:BAND. It would be trickier if there were multiple band members who are now in different notable bands, but as it is the redirect looks like it would cover everything notable. Mike Christie (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Vulcan (Star Trek). Shell ^babelfish 08:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shi'Kahr

This page is for a fictional city which was never seen, only talked about twice. It is not even remotely notable enough to have a page of its own. Philip Stevens 09:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete All this information could easily be on Mr. Spock's or the Vulcan article. Fails WP:NN. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Vulcan. (No reason for it not to be a redirect, unless there's another Shi'Kahr which is at least as notable.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge & Delete Certainly not notable enough, if the nom's statement is true. Memory Alpha has the page, so they don't need it. Just merge anything notable enough to Vulcan. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect with Vulcan. -AED 00:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above. 23skidoo 06:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, no claim to significance whatsoever.--SB | T 08:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The TY Revolution

This is a non-notable fansite for Ty the Tasmanian Tiger. Was prodded by me, but deprodded, so I'm bringing it here. The argument for inclusion on the talk page is that BZPower, a Bionicle fansite with over 30,000 users, is included, so this site, with 135 users, should also be included. The site itself is hosted by freewebs, a sure sign of non-notability. Incidently, the main Ty article isn't very good - the effort put into this article should be directed there. Nydas 09:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, plus the fact that Google has only 800-odd results for "ty revolution", and no pages linking to it. I'd probably even consider voting delete on that Bionicle site, should it come to it, and it at least has some significant Google results (but a really poor Alexa result). Confusing Manifestation 12:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried re-directing it to Ty the Tasmanian Tiger but nothing happens, could someone fix that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pokemega32 (talk • contribs) .

• Delete First of all, I reverted the redirect back to the article, including the AfD tag. Not just should the article be deleted, but it should not be a redirect. The site is not nearly popular enough for it to have any presence on WP. It completely fails WP:WEB. In addition, it should not be a redirect, as that 1) implies that the site is somehow significant, and 2) implies that anyone would search that term (which is highly doubtful). -- Kicking222 00:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Against Deletion True, TYR may be small in its present state, however it is growing at an incredible pace and we are also the only TY site to have recent information on the upcoming TY games (plus information on the recently cancelled TY: Gunyip! ), plus some very detailed articles for the two recent TY games (TY1's page is being revamped). Krome Studios, the developers of TY, also visit the site regularly and post exclusive information about the games in development. TYR is also the biggest active TY The Tasmanian Tiger fansite/community on the web right now, and getting bigger every day. By this time next year we fully expect to have over 1,000 members. TYR is becoming extremely popular in small corners of the net, and it can only spread from there. TYR's still on FreeWebs, yes, you have us there. However, we intend to buy a server within a year and move the contents of the site there, thus taking the site off of FreeWebs and making TYR a "true" independent site.ToyoWolf 06:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please see WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You (and I mean the general "you", not "you", ToyoWolf, in particular) cannot attempt to assert notability by saying "This could be popular one day," or "She could get famous if...," or, in your case, "We fully expect to have over 1,000 members" and "We intend to buy a server within a year." Also, please look at WP:WEB for criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia concerning web sites. -- Kicking222 21:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Against Deletion It just needs time to grow. Just read what Toyo said. But what I'd like to ask is why you even care? It's a small article, I don't think it should take up very much disk space. Does every byte count or is rule enforcement at top priority here? Oh, and Kotzu, one of the mods there, has something to say about this.

"Oh my God that is one arrogant and stupid person. The only reason he wants to delete it is because he thinks his Halo and holy Grand Theft Autos are so much better and that you're a n00b for liking Ty(He blatantly leads me to believe that).

Here's a thought, Kicking222. Maybe some people aren't old enough to enjoy your blood and gore splattered games that you also lead me to believe you play. Ty is the perfect game for kids 6-11. Or maybe some people actually appreciate the effort, innovation, and fun in a Ty the Tasmanian Tiger title(me). Maybe if you stopped listening to your dieties such as IGN and actually approached games with an open mind, we wouldn't have this problem.

The only reason he's against it is because he doesn't like Ty. Plain, and simple. Because I'm pretty sure that if it was the biggest Halo forum on the net, or the biggest Half-Life forum on the net we were talking about, he wouldn't have a problem with it. He said this site was insignificant, and that no one would search for Ty the Tasmanian Tiger. Bullshit. The members of the freaking DEVELOPMENT team go here. Do you hear me, kicking222? THE MEMBERS OF KROME STUDIOS POST HERE, GIVING THE SITE A HIGHER SIGNIFICANCE THAN MOST FAN FORUMS. Jeez." A direct quote of his post. - Superkid11, mod of TYR.

• Comment I'm simply going to respond in order of what you stated. 1) I couldn't care less about the "disk space"- I doubt Wikipedia could hold an infinite number of articles, but it could certainly hold a lot. The concern is notability; in building an encyclopedia, we (meaning you, me, and everyone on WP) must have some standards. If every web site had its own Wikipedia article, then, obviously, WP would be larger than the entirety of the rest of the Web. 2) I'm not sure how WP's rules on not making personal attacks applies to quoting other people, but I still don't appreciate it. I'm not attacking you for your views, and I should not be attacked for mine; our views are equally valid. For the record, I do adore Halo and GTA; I also love the Ratchet & Clank games, the Tony Hawk games, the NBA Street games, the Dance Dance Revolution games, and games in pretty much every genre (besides RPGs and strategy games). I have absolutely nothing against the Ty series's games; as I have never played them, I cannot judge their quality. However, you can be sure that if a GTA fansite's article was up for deletion, I would argue for its deletion unless it could be proven that the site was particularly significant. 3) In addition, size of a web forum matters, and I'm sure the largest Halo or Half-Life forum is many dozens (if not hundreds) times larger than this Ty forum. I understand that staff members on the Ty team posts on your forums, but I know of (for example) more than a few GTA fansites that have direct correspondence with Rockstar (in fact, the pamphlet/booklet/whatever you want to call it for all of the PS2 GTA games have "Thank yous" for half a dozen or so sites), and none of them have articles. -- Kicking222 21:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm a mod on the site and I seriously think the site doesn't need a page. If it becomes big enough, we might get one. But for now, there's realy no point.... Kotzu really shouldn't have said all that stuff, and SK shouldn't have posted it here. -- Pokemega32 02:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect with Ty the Tasmanian Tiger. -AED 00:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, quite aside from that "you're only nominating this because you hate us" malarkey sets my teeth on edge. RGTraynor 07:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete textbook fancruft. Eusebeus 12:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, fails WP:WEB, WP:NOT a crystal ball, and not worth a merge/redirect. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What does "Not a Crystal Ball" have anything to do with it? Pokemega32 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" is one of the official policy tenets of Wikipedia. I strongly urge you to familiarize yourself with WP:NOT before weighing in on AfD discussions. RGTraynor 04:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what "Wikipedia Is not a Crystal Ball" means, but it has nothing to do with this topic!!! This isn't about future events! Pokemega32 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• A recommendation to keep states above: YR may be small in its present state, however it is growing at an incredible pace... and getting bigger every day... this time next year we fully expect to have over 1,000 members... and it can only spread from there... we intend to buy a server within a year and move the contents of the site there'. I was citing these claims to notability when noting that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sorry for the confusion. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Clausen

Incorectly listed. No reason and no vote. Viridae^Talk 00:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Quarterback of a 5-6 college team, who did not go into the NFL, doesn't do it for me. Fan-1967 01:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As noted above - not a notable sports figure. Sorry, it's my first attempt at listing an article for deletion. I apologize for any and all mistakes. PeteJayhawk 03:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Tennessee is a high-profile team. SliceNYC 20:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, but that doesn't confer notability on all their quarterbacks. Heath and Tee got into the NFL, albeit for a short time; Rick unfortunately didn't make it. Gazpacho 02:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inside The Ropes

Non notable website. Spam. Google hit liking to the said website. Ageo020 00:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete discussion boards are rarely notable. -- Gogo Dodo 06:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Come on, there's absolutely no reason to keep this page in wikipedia. Nebuchanezzar 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:WEB as non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Peephole 14:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TheWarpath.net, Thewarpath.net

Non-notable web forum, Alexa rank of 755,314. Only claim to notability is being mentioned on some obscure football TV show. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, one heck of a heavily mythologised website there. BigHaz 00:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hundreds of teams have fan forums. This is one of them. Fan-1967 00:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Similar entry at Thewarpath.net Clappingsimon talk 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think we have to worry about that one right now; once the main article gets deleted, we can speedy the redirect under CSD R1. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The redirect had been reverted last time I looked Clappingsimon talk 02:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I've added it to this AfD to be on the safe side. Either way, as duplicate content or redirect, it goes with the other. Keep an eye out for others. Fan-1967 03:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 06:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both no assertion of notability as required by WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 15:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Cup Teams Ranked by Most Medals

Copy of content in existing FIFA World Cup article, except sorted differently (to make Germany look better, and with a statement at the top that "By looking upon these rankings, we can infer that Germany is the most successful soccer nation in the world.") Chuq 00:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Chuq 00:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• KeepDelete but rename to "List of world cup teams that have won medals" or similar and remove that POV piece about germany.I just found thatit was exactly the same information as in the results section of FIFA World Cup just presented in a different way. Viridae^Talk 00:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • • Dont Delete - For those of you who believe this article is in good use thank you and for those who think it should be changed and deleted please wait. I made this article and no I am not trying to make Germany look good or I am not saying the Ranking based on teams winning the most is wrong, all I am saying is to just take note of these rankings and compare and contrast them with the others. I am an American and I have been on the US side. Even my cousins are Italian. Besides that, I will still be editing this for the next couple of days so give me some time and I hope to keep everybody satisfied to the best of my ability. Though I will not change this ranking system. Maybe I could bring out the great records of other teams into the article to create more of an equality. I believe there is no need to delete this and if you want it merged then I will accept your suggestion. Thank You for your opinions. Kr2kewl No Time, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment that would be a POV use of the name "world cup". 132.205.93.83 02:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge into FIFA World Cup#Successful national teams or possibly National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup. Definitely not worth its own page - all it would need is the addition of one thin column to the table on the main FIFA World Cup page. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The opening paragraph of the article is WP:OR combined with WP:POV. It's claim is not verfiable. The table itself adds nothing that is not already deducible from FIFA World Cup. -- Alias Flood 01:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary duplication of material already available elsewhere. Also 'medals' is a strange term. Medals? It's not the Olympics, there's no podium, gold, silver and bronze. There's a trophy, which one team wins, and then there are second place, third place and fourth places determined. Sure, individuals are given medals (including individuals in the 4th place team), but its not common to speak of teams winning medals at the world cup. The most successful team is the one that's won the most trophies. So there! ;) Robotforaday 01:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV recreation of existing topic. Resolute 05:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - POV and original 'research' (massaging of data). I originally raised this at the World Cup talk page - note similar discussion there. I've added a note there to comment here, not there. -- Wantok 05:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Duplication of material in FIFA World Cup, and top three is quite arbitrary for World Cup purposes. As someone said, this is not the Olympics. Chanheigeorge 06:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 06:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — see great reasons above mboverload@ 08:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Moderate Change NO NEED FOR DELETION - True, but i believe this author has a point. Maybe the page should be merged. Medals are given out for first, second, and third. I mean Brazil has won the most and yet their success was not too great this world cup. I suggest changing the ranking to most successfully consistent teams. And yes with this title, the Germans definitely appear to be very stable and consistent with their results apart from all nations to compete in the world cup. Gunit555 20:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • — Possible single purpose account: Gunit555 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. User's second edit - first was to the article nominated. Grutness...wha?
• Makes a point No Deletion - This person makes us understand the great teams and if anyone has any objections, there is no need for a deletion especially when you could go to the other fifa page and see the rankings based on titles. So everybody relax there is no need of great criticism. These rankings do make sense and believe it or not the top three teams happen to still be Brazil, Germany, and Italy, except with standings of consistency like the critic above me said. Keep article or if not, merge it with another ranking to fit in. SoccerKing 21:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • — Possible single purpose account: SoccerKing (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. User's only edit. Grutness...wha?
• Delete as original research and POV. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. This is the first time I have encountered the idea of a World Cup medals table, so I don't think it has much currency. Piccadilly 10:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Original research, POV, nonsense. - Pal 18:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. If anything this trivia point could be mentioned in the main article. The current extra page, POV content and OR should go though. aLii 09:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ricardo Sanchez III

Delete - whopping 2 google hits [41] (I know it says 7, but 5 of those are Ricardo Sanchez #3 on IMDB. "Extreme Wrestling Alliance" as well is non-notable - 294 hits [42], so I doubt any of their wrestlers are terribly notable. "Ricardo Sanchez" without the III and adding the word "wrestling" generates 575, but looking through them, I don't see this dude. If you subtract the word "Iraq" from the previous search, it generates 67, and even then I don't see this guy--Nobunaga24 00:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. — NMChico24 02:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 06:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO as non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Jpeob 12:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO. Dinosaur puppy 19:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, possible WP:VANITY. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above Macktheknifeau 06:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Life Of Land Of Bungholers

Homemade homage to to South Park (and possibly Frank Zappa or Beavis and Butthead given Bunghole in the name?), new webcomic "first thought up on July 25, 2006", with no assertion of notability, that returns 0 Google hits [43], from a free tripod page, and about which it is stated that it "is only known by very few people". Fails every basis for inclusion we appeal to: WP:WEB, WP:NN, WP:NFT, WP:VSCA, etc., and probably WP:VAIN--Fuhghettaboutit 01:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Gray Porpoise 02:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 06:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Gazpacho 09:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:VAIN, and failing WP:WEB as non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Tuluvas2 15:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Delete per nom. A waste of text.
• Strong Delete — per nom. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... "thought up" three weeks ago and hosted on Tripod? No thanks. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, woefully non-notable webcomic. Vanispamcruftisement. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable through reliable sources, WP:NOT an internet directory. -- Dragonfiend 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandria riot

Trivial disturbance. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. BigHaz 01:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 100 injured and 3 dead is not a trivial disturbance, also reported by BBC and Christian Science Monitor. Dinosaur puppy 03:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. One reason I removed the PROD is that I know that many Coptic immigrants are upset that there is generally little attention paid in this country to the plight of Egypt's Copts. Since PROD is for "uncontroversial" deletions, and I could picture a Coptic axe-grinder objecting, that solidified my sense that I should de-PROD. However, I'm finding that actually Wikipedia appears to say very little about persecution of Egyptian Copts. For instance, the Religion in Egypt entry has a section on the persecution of Baha'is about as large as the "main" content, but not of Copts, despite the many times greater size of the latter community. We have an article on gay rights in Egypt, but as far as I can tell, none on discrimination against Coptic Christians. I'm sure a Copt advocate will find his way to Wikipedia eventually, but right now there's a systemic bias issue. Perhaps, if you consider this incident (which I'm sure wasn't the largest riot even in Alexandria's history) too "trivial" to sustain its own entry, a merge or rescope would be more in order. Anyway, I'll listen for the time being and hold off on casting a vote. --Groggy Dice 05:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • An article about the copts' situation is fine. This is not it. This belongs on wikinews. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'm afraid that Wikipedia isn't the proper venue for raising consciousness on Coptic issues. RGTraynor 07:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 12:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Szvest 23:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A 5000 person riot doesn't seem trivial. Perhaps move to 2005 Alexandria riots. Drett 01:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a riot that has attracted international attention. It has sources, doesn't make any untrue claims, and at this point doesn't have any viable merge targets. It doesn't appear that this is any less significant than the Seattle Mardi Gras Riots, for example. Ziggurat 03:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep noteworthy article--Tess Tickle 02:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment if kept, must be renamed to distinguish it from many more notable ones. Carlossuarez46 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy with a rename to 2005 Alexandria riot. Ziggurat 03:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This would have been kept if the riot had taken place in some major American city. A later merge into some suitable article would be fine. Tupsharru 05:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been moved. Drett 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 07:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flagami, Florida

This is not even a genuine Miami neighborhood. Just ask anyone that knows the city. Non notable neologism and only two edits. We must have missed this one Courtney Akins 01:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is that this could be a redirect to Miami. What a redirect does is if someone clicks the link to Flagami, Florida, they will be "redirected" to the page about Miami at Miami, Florida. While I never lived in Florida, I will try and talk to some Miami-area folks I know and see if this is a true "nickname" or not. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The City of Miami web site says it exists.[44] It also appears on the USGS national map. Gazpacho 18:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with the new evidence by Gazpacho. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. Thunderhead 18:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Hilliard

NN bio. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Maybe if he won, but he didn't. -- Gogo Dodo 06:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks pretty forgetable. --Brianyoumans 06:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO as non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a high profile finalist on an MTV television show. How are people on MTV non-notable? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hall pass

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Voortle 01:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Cleanup I doubt this classifies as "made up in school one day" as it's a fairly common concept in most schools, although it does seem more like a dictionary entry then encyclopedic. Needs cleanup. Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 01:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not "made up in school one day". --Gray Porpoise 02:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary - a real thing, but I doubt you can make much of a real article on the subject. --Brianyoumans 04:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary per above. Oh, I remember the days having one of these. -- Gogo Dodo 06:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a legitimate component of how schools run. Can the authors find any articles on how hall passes are used to ensure safety/order in schools? That might be interesting and increase encyclopedic merit. SliceNYC 20:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. This will never be much more than a dictionary definition. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a valid addition to Category:Ephemera. --Elonka 08:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Hall passes are not something "made up" in school. Yamaguchi先生 09:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amplitude dj

non-notable, vanity Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 01:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. -- Gogo Dodo 05:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep If radio personalities are non-notable then there is a lot of clean up to do with Category:American radio personalities. I wouldn't mind deleting the whole lot of them, but that is beyond the scope of this AFD (would require a centralized discussion and radio notabity guidelines). Jon513 11:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment The station doesn't even have it's own article, the DJ himself fails WP:WEB which I think is the best criteria in this situation. Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 16:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, he's just a DJ on a SHOUTcast station, not a radio personality. the wub "?!" 14:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the Radio KoL article itself has been merged into the KoL article. Several pages for the radio's DJs have been created and subsequently deleted for their lack of notability, etc. Crazysunshine 00:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per information noted later in the discussion. Shell ^babelfish 08:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Throat Gaggers

Delete (see below) Non-notable movie series, with no sources. Prod was removed without comment. Also note the author of this article has proposed it as a featured article candidate Gwernol 02:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Yes it is my article and this movie series is a very important and notable series in the annals of contemporary pornography. Plus, others have worked on the article. Just check the history.Courtney Akins 02:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The number of editors is irrelevant. The issue is this movie series is non-notable. If you disagree, please provide independent sources for the notability of the movies. Thanks, Gwernol 02:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it non notable. I am sure the number of overwhelming keep votes that will be cast will prove your position untenable.Courtney Akins 02:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Plus, the "prod" was removed by my friend after he improved the article, thanks.Courtney Akins 02:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

And asking for "independent sources" for notability is a bit much and sets a dangerous precedent. I am certain you will be proven wrong by the many voters.Courtney Akins 02:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not a dangerous precedent. Its how Wikipedia works. Please read the central notability guideline that helps us decide which articles should be included in the encyclopedia. You should also read our core policy on verifiability that requires all information added to articles be verifiable. Finally, you should know that this is a discussion, not a vote. Even if you get a lot of your friends to "vote" keep here it doesn't matter unless you can back up the opinions from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please read WP:AFD for more details. Gwernol 02:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as per Gwernol. If you're going to spend your time and energy debating the community instead of editing the article to meet the verifiability and notability guidelines, then the article justly deserves deletion. Girolamo Savonarola 02:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I was just "debating" one person, not the "community."Courtney Akins 02:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' Article appears to have be started by head of company, fails Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) which I believe is the best criteria in this situation. Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 02:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I AM NOT the head of the pornographic company that makes these films. In addition, the "Notability" guidlines WP:N alluded to above is just an essay not a policy, and furthermore these films are notable anyway, you will see when its kept.Courtney Akins 02:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment And did you read WP:V, which is not an essay, but policy? Girolamo Savonarola 02:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Are you saying this line of films does not even exist?Courtney Akins 03:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Courtney, your crystal ball is broken; this will in all likelihood get deleted. It's non-notable, unsourced, and unverified. Opabinia regalis 03:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Suppose this was real, what makes it notable or above the bar from any and all other pornographic films? If we had an article on every pornography the site would crash. This is a reason for the guidelines so that we can have something managable to work with. This is an unsourced article that really doesn't tell us why this it is exceptional. Sorry, try again after you familarize yourself with how to write an article. Yanksox 03:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Addendum to keep. Google shows over 480,000 hits for the "Throat Gaggers" series of movies. They have been reviewed extensively on various Adult DVD movie sites as well. This is all verifiable. :) xoxo.Courtney Akins 03:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Cool, but is it important? Yanksox 03:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because no evidence of notability is given, and the article appears to fail WP:OR, WP:V and WP:CITE - the trifecta of Wikipedia policies. Please note that improving the article is the only way to remedy this problem, however, I highly doubt that it is possible to improve it sufficiently. Tuf-Kat 04:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as TUF-KAT et al. *gags* - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TUF-KAT — NMChico24 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Burn with fire of course... "Courtney" spammed my talk page with an innocent hello message. Gee wiz. "Xoxo, baby" somewhere else and take your advertising elsewhere. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable Brian 04:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)btball
• I was hoping there was an article about the company that produced the series, since if there was, we could have merged all of this stuff together. But since there isn't, delete with no hard feelings for User:Courtney Akins. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable and lacking sources. - Duane 05:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tuf-Kat. Sandstein 08:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Courtney Akins (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is a troll. — Dunc|☺ 10:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Week keep I am not sure about notablity but as far as verifialbe, the movie itself a source. When there is an article about a telvision episode we don't require the article to cite a newspaper or magizine that talks about the show - the actual show is the source. Jon513 10:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Because many TV shows have articles for their episodes, the current WP:V policy sets itself up for a serious violation of WP:POINT because of the precedent that would be established here if this content is deleted (some of which has been recognized as top-500 by a retail website). Just something to think about; some here seem to be applying policy more forcefully to this article than they would elsewhere; Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. BigNate37_(T) 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Jon513 is wrong. Please point to the anything in WP:V, WP:CITE, or WP:RS that says "the actual show" can be the source. It cannot. We do require articles about television shows to cite sources. It's true that many of them don't, but Wikipedia is a work in progress and compliance with the verifiability policy is uneven. This is to be expected. Wikipedia is inconsistent. If you want consistency, work on a command-and-control encyclopedia. Meanwhile, if it is true that there are articles on television shows that cite no sources other than the shows themselves, then someone needs to get to work on those articles and cite sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Doesn't seem notable enough. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 13:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Fieari 17:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, though it's popular within the genre. I agree with Jon513's comment, however, that an article about a primary source does not necessarily need a secondary source, unless for some reason someone might doubt it exists. 23skidoo 18:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless improved massivly: non-notable, unsourced, and unverified as it stands. WegianWarrior 19:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep _{Changing vote as of 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC); see below.} These movies are verifiable at cduniverse.com, which is the link I added when cleaning up this article. Follow the link, enter the site, sort by title and browse to page 7 to find about a dozen of these movies, two of which rank on the site's top 500 (denoted by icons). Gwernol (talk • contribs) failed to assume good faith when removing my link, stating "Remove commercial link", and then went on to assert that the article is unsourced. Check my contributions; I'm not here to make money from an article—I'm choosing to spend energy improving content rather than deleting where if possible. The two movies in the top 500 are criteria enough to have the Red Light District label article per WP:CORP which ought to be the relevant notability essay here, and let me remind you that notability is not policy or guideline; it is an essay and should not be sufficient evidence for deletion in and of itself. Previous keep votes have established verifiablity, and hopefully the verifying links will not also be removed. External links point to information not included in the article; over time these will migrate to references. Bear in mind that this is a new article and as a stub cannot be expected to qualify for WP:GA status. Verifiability is not being spoon fed here but the article is still clearly discussing a subject that exists and is more or less accurately doing so. BigNate37_(T) 20:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• That was not a failure to assume good faith. Please see WP:EL especially the section "Links normally to be avoided" which includes "Links that ... primarily exist to sell products or services... colloquially known as external link spamming." Since CDUniverse is a shopping site it is a commercial link that should generally be removed. The issue of verifiability is not around whether this movie series exists, but whether it can be verified that it has some independent merit (aka notability). Some reviews or awards to show that it meets notability criteria similar to WP:PORN BIO would be very helpful if you want this kept. I don't see how having two movies in CDUniverse's top 500 meets the WP:CORP criteria; perhaps you could expand on that. Gwernol 21:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'd be keenly interested to see what part of WP:V talks about merit and notability. As far as the top 500, this makes the entry at cduniverse.com more than a simple price listing (it is also denoting popularity) which means that it is a non-trivial published work. It's not concrete proof of notability, but it can't be ignored without thought. Keep in mind you're nitpicking the letter of what isn't even a guideline, rather than the spirit of it (i.e. notability is not policy). Please stick to policy and guidelines as your primary reason for deletion. I reassert that verifiability goes only as far as finding sources which verify the information in the article. The sources need not say anything that the article doesn't. BigNate37_(T) 21:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• The relevant policy here isn't WP:V. There are good verifiable sources for the existence of the films. The relevant policy is WIkipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless good verifiable sources are cited to show, not that the films exist—that's not at issue—but that it is indeed, as Courtney Akins asserts, "a very important and notable series in the annals of contemporary pornography." As noted above, WP:NOT says, "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." For Deep Throat, one can cite Blumenthal, Ralph (1973), "Pornochic," The New York Times, Jan 21, 1973, pg. 272, "It has drawn an average of 5,000 people weekly to the New Mature World Theatre on West 59th Street here, including celebrities, diplomats, critics, businessmen, women alone, and dating couples, few of whom, it might be presumed, would have previously gone to see a film of sexual intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus. It has become a premiere topic of cocktail-party and dinner-table conversation in Manhattan drawing rooms, Long Island beach cottages, and ski country A-frames. It has, in short, engendered a new kind of porno chic." There are about thirty relevant articles in the New York Times that mention "Deep Throat" and "Lovelace," including the April 22, 2002 obituary for Linda Boreman. Where are any comparable references for Throat Gaggers? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) P. S. A search of an online database containing the full text of The New York Times returns these results: ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) No documents found for: ("throat gaggers") Dpbsmith (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bet that was a search you never thought you would be making. Eusebeus 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the exact policy reads as follows:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

If there are no editors who are going to actually edit the article to fulfull requirement 3, then there is no point in continuing the discussion. Girolamo Savonarola 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been cited and written about in the sites mentioned above.Courtney Akins 01:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Which of those sites is the one that that says that, as you put it, "this movie series is a very important and notable series in the annals of contemporary pornography?" A quick check of several of the imdb references, such as this one, shows no information about the movie other than the cast listings. Not even any user ratings. You ask us to believe these movies are important, yet apparently no imdb user has bothered to rate it. There is only a single external review, in DVD Talk, and the review says nothing about its being of any importance in the annals of contemporary pornography. It says basically that it is an "oral only film" and that people who enjoy such films will likely enjoy this one. It notes that the film isn't very grainy, and that the lighting could have used a little work but "it's not really bad." How does this add up to an important porn film? It hasn't even been reviewed seriously. For some of the films in this series, imdb lists no reviews at all.

By comparison, imdb's article on The Devil in Miss Jones leads to five external reviews, including this one by Roger Ebert, in which he calls it "The best hard-core porno film I've seen" and says of Georgina Spelvin "there burns in her soul the spark of an artist, and she is not only the best, but possibly the only, actress in the hard-core field."

What sources say the "Throat Gaggers" series is of any importance at all? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability has been produced. BlueValour 04:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Changing my vote to delete per comments and responses from Dpbsmith. With the reasons you've provided, the policy you've referred to, and thought I've given the issue, I now believe deletion of this material is justified by policy. BigNate37_(T) 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:PORN BIO and WP:NN for no awards/reviews by reputable sources. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Everyking 07:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In what way? Dpbsmith (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, they are commercially released films, they are mentioned at places like IMDb, and according to someone above they get a whole ton of Google hits. Seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me. Everyking 10:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Such is the problem with notability criteria on Wikipedia; there is no real consensus on what they are. WP:NOT an indiscriminant collection of information #7 (plot summaries) seems to qualify this article for deletion though, and unlike WP:NOTE, WP:NOT is policy. BigNate37_(T) 10:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        • That makes no sense. If it is only a "plot summary" (where is the plot summary here, by the way? Does describing the focal sexual act of the films qualify as a plot summary?), then the solution is not to delete it but to add other things besides a plot summary. In fact this article already includes other things. Everyking 10:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, for pornography, describing the focal sexual act often (and in this case) is a plot summary. If there are parts missing, then it is even less than a plot summary. There is no sourced analysis; the only line that qualifies as achievements is lacking citation. So as I see it, without a source verifying something to the effect of the work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article, it fails WP:NOT. As mentioned above, the onus of providing sources lies on the editor who adds content; not on the editor who questions the content added. It is easy to say that the solution is to add other things; saying it won't change the article. I've tried to come up with sources for others' work and fix the article rather than delete it, I can't. Oh, and I changed the indentation to list format, hope you don't mind—it's shallower. BigNate37_(T) 11:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam JBKramer 11:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dpbsmith. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - No solid reason to delete thus far given. On what grounds is this an indiscriminant collection of data? If this was an article about the length of toes, that would be indiscriminent. This however is about a major movie series. 05:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J.smith (talk • contribs) .

Oh, woops. I put to many "~"s. ---J.S (t|c) 18:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason is that the article presents no evidence to support the claim that it is, in fact, a major movie series. Or, in wikispeak, that it's notable. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 20:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Please bear in mind that Courtney Akins is a newcomer of less than a week; please don't bite the newcomers. I've added wikilinks to other relevant articles here and additional external links to sites containing more information about the series. As one of my additions states, the first film in the series received an AVN Award, and all the films are highly rated by AVN. (Receiving an award is one of the "notability" criterion at Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)#Criteria; however, that is a proposed guideline, not policy.) The article is still a stub and needs additional work, but I think these edits deserve a second look, at least. —Chidom ^talk  07:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Now with this new information the notability is verfiable and obvious, so this discussion should be closed with a Keep.Courtney Akins 00:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Per Chidom. --Dweller 12:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, won an AVN award and passes any reasonable requirement for notability. Kappa 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per AVN award, and strongly recommend closing admin keep in mind how late this evidence came to light. I also concur with Everyking and am not convinced a description of sexual activity amounts to a plot summary. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering the AVN award, this article should probably be kept (I promise I'll stop switching sides on this one), but I'm still not convinced that describing the act can be anything but a plot summary, and is much less than a full plot summary, thus making the description of the act on its own even less worthy of existence as an article as a plot summary would be. BigNate37_(T) 03:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment From what I could find in trying to clean up the article, the emphasis of this series is definitely the act itself, and may qualify as a sub-sub-genre of the "oral" sub-genre (assuming such exists, I'm a bit out of my element, here). That being the case, what else (generally) should be in an article along those lines? (By the way, if you're going to stop switching sides, I'll stop cleaning up articles that I don't particularly care about. ;-P So there.)—Chidom ^talk  00:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep won an AVN award... that makes it notable.  ALKIVAR™ 17:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Whole different comment I'm not seeing evidence that many of the editors have revisited the article and reviewed their recommendation since the article was cleaned up. Is this something that should be given some attention? Or do we generally just let the process well enough alone and hope that people who made a recommendation put this AfD article on their watchlist and are aware of the changes? In any case, it might be nice to have them add "reaffirm recommendation after changes" to their original comments. Just a thought.—Chidom ^talk  00:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And another Unless I can't count, this is eligible to be closed; it has been more than 5 days since its nomination.—Chidom ^talk  00:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yep, it can be closed. However, admins aren't paid, so you can't yell at them for being late on this one; it's all voluntary. I'd close it, but as I've participated in the debate, I won't. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since notability has been provided through the AVN award, I agree this should be kept. Gwernol 17:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Since this is a discussion and not a vote, the closing administrator should pay close attention to the comments made by those who have not visisted this article since it has been revised. AVN award winning titles are obviously notable. RFerreira 21:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - Discounting the socks, etc, we have Doctorbruno arguing for retention and another on the basis "it exists" which was refuted by Kinu. Furthermore, our Kerala Wikipedians, in particular the investigation of Tintin leave me to delete, without any doubt.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chiricheppu

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

This appears to be unverifiable. Verify tag was removed by anon. Created by User:Cartoonist jithesh who appears to be the eminent cartoonist-cum-writer referred to in the article.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment AfD tag removed by a new editor - thanks for restoring it. Dlyons493 Talk 08:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Pure vanity. The magazine and its author S. Jithesh are non notable. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}09:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of reliable sources indicating any sort of notability; doesn't seem to meet WP:BK. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Dont Delete - what is the ground for your suggestion for deletion of an article about the cartoon magazine. chiricheppu is the one and only Political Cartoon Magazine in malayalam.why you are fighting against cartoons and cartoon magazines.we wikipedians are consider that you and your friends are acting as the tools of some nasty politicians who are totally against Chiricheppu .I think this magazine is working as a terminator which destroying anti-social elements in the society.Afer Asadhu and Sarasan magazines Chiricheppu is blooming laughter in the minds of malayalam readers. malicious intention to defame a magazine surely comes under the provisions of cyber crime.search for the details of judgement of keralas firstly filed cyber crime in pathanamthita district court. --Adv. sreekumar, High Court, kochi

— Possible single purpose account: Adv sreekumar (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.. Luna Santin 05:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Instead of resorting to thinly-veiled policy-violating legal threats and assuming that there's an agenda here, consider improving the article to include verifiability from reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Dont Delete -I love walking in the rain Because nobody can see me crying....Chaplin .Did this word touched any heart?Every smile has a story of tears behind... .We the loving readers of chiricheppu tries to realise this truth. go ahead ......No one can delete you from the minds of readers.why people are becoming so much monster-eyed sadistic . why we have to put off the streamig lights of virtue.remember friends....it is very easy to desroy.but creaion is devine and difficult

Nileena joseph,a great fan of poetry and cartoons

• Delete. non-notable, unverifiable vanity. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 13:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm still not seeing any demonstrated notability; there are some claims, but I'm not sure if it's backed up. A scant 65 ghits [45], the top result of which is en.wikipedia, and several of the upper results appear irrelevant to this context; zero hits at gnews [46]. This just doesn't seem to have a very big footprint, to me; sorry folks. This isn't a commentary on the comic, I'm sure it's great and I hope you enjoy it, it's just that we don't really have room to write out an article on every comic ever written -- there has to be a line, somewhere, and I'm not yet convinced that Chiricheppu has passed that line. If you'd like to try and change my mind, it would be wise to link to various websites which will support your points. Thanks for your time, everybody, and have a good one. Luna Santin 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Please note that Google do not have reports about Non-English entities. Also most of the Indian media and personalities are not covered by English Media and not covered by GoogleDoctor Bruno 03:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's not mentioned on any English pages, it'll be pretty difficult to find reliable sourcing. Luna Santin 05:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Luna Santin. There are no sources where this could be verified.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 20:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in this form and if verifiability is not fully achieved after this discussion ends totally non-notable and non verifiable. The so called advocate from high court who has supported this seems to have no knowledge on wiki norms and seems to be a sock puppet. Also the remark on political interference is a general sickness of all malayalees. Whenever something happens which we do not like in kerala, we blame it on politics and the "hidden political hand". So these arguments are very stupid. Wiki cannot be controlled by such sick thoughts. Also the argument on "malicious intentions to defame" is silly as the magazine as such has no repute in the first place! Here all wikians have a right to defend what we feel and this does not paramount to any malicious intentions to defame and is outside the purview of any court.Since the editor of this magazine himself put this article here there is no case of "malicious intention to defame" as nothing objectionable has been published against him or the magazine here on wiki. I doubt this Sreekumar is an advocate. If he was he would not have made such foolish threats. Let him make such observations in the court. This is cyber space not a court! If he is so passionate on what he reads let him provide verifiable proof on the claims that it has 50000 circulation and such. This magazine does not have any state or national repute. It is just one of those yellow journalism magazines. Wiki is no place for such magazines. There are thousands of such magazines in Kerala. If all the editors of such magazines start to adverise their own names and their magazines on wiki we all would have to hang our faces in shame. Request to the advocate to come up with more solid material on web for supporting his claims. I will surely rethink my opinion if this article is well supported by the end of this discussion, instead of silly hollow claims. If you are an advocate prove it by doing some research and work on collecting evidence. See how the artcle on Pradip Somasundaran was retained after the discussion gave way to the much needed evidence.Take this for encouragement. GlueWhale 02:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non notable Doctor Bruno 03:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Changing to Keep - I spoke to few guys in AIMS and they know the magazine and the cartoonist very well.Doctor Bruno 10:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC) See below for the changed vote

'Don't delete'.....because the cartoon lovers accepted the magazine as their pulse to gag the society. Chiricheppu stands as a good social worker to keep every malayalam readers in smile. We are using it as a panacea for every tensions. We don't forget their endievour and contributions in the field malayalam publications. So my suggession is that do not cancel the grate canvas of our cartoonist and the laughing canvas of over mind. Rajkumar Kuruppu59.93.8.209 10:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: From the above comment, one would think that those recommending deletion are trying to get rid of the cartoon itself instead of the article. At any rate, unfortunately, without any sort of verifiability as to the claims in the article, it cannot stand. I suggest spending more trying looking for sources indicating any sort of notability, rather than trying to sway us with anecdotal generalizations as to how great the cartoon itself is. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- if it was notable, it would appear in at least one newspaper report which should be googleable. Id it is in Malayalam, I'm sure our editors conversant in Malayalam can track it down online. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - According to the Official Government of India website [47] this is a magazine published from Adoor. Hence that settles the verifiability part. The only question that remains is Notability.Doctor Bruno 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that - the magazine does exist, which is a big step forward. That site also has a section for publishers claimed circulation but Chiricheppu doesn't seem to make any claims for itself. All the above established Indian editors seem agreed that it is non-notable so, unless some reliable sources can demonstrate notability, I'll leave the AfD nomination stand. I'll be happy to withdraw it if even a relatively weak demonstration of notability can be made. Dlyons493 Talk 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment- Dlyons, that it has been listed as a magazine is not the issue. Any indian magazine has to be registered with "Registrar of Newspapers" for official recognition and legality for publication in India. There are thousands of such magazines. So this finding is not big game. Even I have seen and read the magazine and have liked it! "Crime magazine" a yellow magazine is more notable than "Chiricheppu". So will we all support an article by its Propreitor tomorrow on Wiki? Wiki is not a place for self publicity and praise. It's also not a place for free publicity. There are norms here. We all should entertian articles only on wiki norms. There is no place for sympathy or it being good for health or society. Wiki works only on facts not on personal emotions. This is an Online Encyclopedia. Not a Malayalam Daily for putting ads! Do not forget this. GlueWhale 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Kinu: lack of reliable sources indicating notability. -AED 20:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone search for Audit Bureau of Circulation India's figures for this magazine. There is no stats on the web. Someone may have to physically search it . i.e. that is if someone has the report, please publish the figures for it over here. If it is selling more than 50,000 copies, then keep it, otherwise nuke it. I must add, when I was in Kerala, most children bought Balarama magazine, which must be the largest selling cartoon weekly in Kerala. --Ageo020 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)