Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 4

< November 3	November 5 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • use • log • watch
Semi-protecting policy pages Galleries Attribution Protecting children's privacy RfArb Removing warnings
Conclusions
State route naming conventions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gents

Gents (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Not notable - Plus the fact that I can't find much verifiable info on this fraternity. WhisperToMe 04:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, unverified and unsourced article on a fraternity that fails the criterias of WP:ORG. Couldn't find any relevant "non-trivial published works from independent sources" on Google.--TBCΦtalk? 05:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable even it was true. Moreschi 13:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to toilet per nomination, and this is a common name for the place we visit daily. Kavadi carrier 13:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom TheRanger 14:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, though I'd make replace it with a disambig between toilet and gentleman. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Booker T. Washington High School. It appears to be notable enough to be included on the school website, but not notable enough to merit it it's own page. --Ineffable3000 23:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Toilets My hunch is that a complete article could be produced on "gents" as in the cubicle where one goes to relieve oneself, but not about the club apparently sharing the name. I would imagine a whole article on "ladies" and even "Disabled" would be possible detailing the various signs and names used throughout the world. Afterall, when I went to spain, the only words I made sure I knew was "gents". --Mike 18:03, 7 November 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tabb Middle School

Tabb Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-noteworthy middle school. Article is a directory entry, containing nothing but basic location and attendance data, and is unsupported by reliable outside sources. Prod removed without comment. Shimeru 00:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep or merge per WP:SCHOOLS and/or WP:LOCAL. More than a directory entry. Doesn't actually have any indication of the school's size, unfortunately. Kappa 00:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- What criterion of the ludicrously-over-inclusive WP:SCHOOLS does this school meet? It's a middle school less than 50 years old with no implied notability, no listed notable alumni (which, in and of itself, does not confirm a school's notability, anyway)... how can you !vote to keep based on that criteria? And how does WP:LOCAL support the existence of this article? Wouldn't it first support a merge into a school district or town article? -- Kicking222 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Add parentheses to my vote as appropriate. Kappa 01:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
keep. I'm not going over the whole schools arguments again. Nominator, please read WP:POINT and consider the number of times a fight has been started by nominating a school, then connect the two. Unfocused 00:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- How in the hell can you claim this is a WP:POINT nomination without any rationale? -- Kicking222 01:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - How in the hell? I suggested nominator read WP:POINT to understand why nominating this might be a bad idea. Once aware of the fight that is likely to ensue, perhaps an attempt to either improve the article himself, or a try to bring it to the attention of the Wikiproject Schools is a better first course of action. This argument has been burning steadily for over two years that I've been here, and I see no reason to throw gasoline at the other side's campfire when you know for a fact that there are dozens of good faith contributors willing to address shortcomings in this particular class of articles. Nominating one article is not WP:POINT, but a streak of four, if continued much beyond that, certainly is, and looks like the start of a certain "war of attrition" tactic tried (unsuccessfully) about two years ago that many WP editors still have bitter memories of. I have no desire for anyone else to go through that type of experience here. Unfocused 03:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment It has been well established that high schools will never be deleted. In my experience, middle schools and lower have been deleted more often than kept. Resolute 04:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Do you remember when junior colleges were deleted far more often than kept, and high schools almost always deleted? I do. Do you remember when high schools were deleted far more often than kept, and primary schools always deleted? I do. It's been my observation that currently these are more often merged or kept, and I don't see good reason to think that's a bad thing. However, constantly arguing about it is definitely a bad thing. The simplest solution is laissez-faire wikipedia editing. Don't start wars and we won't be warring.Un focused 06:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        One could just as easily argue that constantly arguing about process is worse. An AFD can be perfunctory and non-combative whatever the result. --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Except for the fact that your solution destroys content and alienates good faith editors simply because they have different interests than you, you could be right. Un focused 01:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Oh please. We all have areas of interest that aren't notable. I happen to enjoy palindromes for example. That doesn't mean I make biographies on palindromists who aren't otherwise notable or anything similar. Similarly, there are number theory topics which I find interesting but would clearly not deserve articles. "I am interested in X" is not an inclusion criterion, and no one should be "alienated" from it. Saying that the removal of unencyclopedic not-notable material "destroys content" misses the point. JoshuaZ 01:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Oh, please, indeed. How about searching Amazon for encyclopedia. You'll find 121,736 books there, some serious, some scholarly, because it's more than just Britannica. Some of us want Wikipedia to be inclusive of "encyclopedia of educational institutions", a perfectly fine and legitimate topic for encyclopedic coverage. Quite frankly, if you can create neutral, verifiable biographies of palindromists, I'd be happy to read them here. They've made a unique contribution to the English language. Un focused 05:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No claim of notability. Schools do not all need Wikipedia articles. They may be mentioned in an article about the city.Edison 00:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Edison and per everything I said above. -- Kicking222 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Please take a look at the current version of the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I looked. Claims some extremely minor distinctions. Not notable. JChap2007 02:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep seems to assert notability now. Kavadi carrier 02:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per TruthbringerToronto, this is now a valid stub. I also have the impression that schools are generally granted a lower "threshhold of notability" --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Only in so far as schools have a lot of editors who insist they should. There is no lgoical basis for this. JoshuaZ 23:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Even with those minor assertions, its still not notable. TJ Spyke 02:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per TruthbringerToronto. The evidence of verifiability with sources in triplicate as well as minor assertions of notability make this a firm keep for me. Yamaguchi先生 04:19, 4 November 2006
Keep, after rewrite, most schools are notable. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 04:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Claims to notability are not that great, even after recent edits. Resolute 04:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Very little distinction between this and most other schools of a similar level. Not notable. Valrith 05:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I found this: http://yorkcountyschools.org/students/attendanceZones.html - More verifiable information! More stuff to add to this article! WhisperToMe 05:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, I'm not ready to give a pass to middle schools. The "honors" listings are not really unique to the school. --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep after the rewrite. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy close This has the S word in the title so will never get consensus delete. It can go one of two ways: merge, or expand. Neither requires admin powers. Guy 10:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn IronDuke 19:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

&Delete Per Dhartung and others. Nothing about this school is notable. JoshuaZ 23:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - middle schools are notable. --Ineffable3000 23:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Do you have some reasoning or basis behind that claim? JoshuaZ 23:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment One needn't go any further than User:Silensor/Schools or read the actual article to see that. Silensor 01:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nothing against school pages, but this one doesn't assert notability at all and it appears that's because it isn't notable. --SandyDancer 00:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Yamaguchi and others. Nothing about this school is non-notable. Silensor 01:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge - add some of this material into the Tabb, Virginia article and change this to a redirect. --JohnDBuell 18:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep article will benefit from improvement and makes explicit claims of notability. Alansohn 18:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep worthwhile article on notable subject. The precedent for keeping all verifiable K-12 schools was set some time ago, despite the odd exception (usually caused by clusters of non-editors). Removing this article, simply harms the project. If anybody has a policy based reason for deletion (e.g. verifiability), please say so, as that would actually be worth discussion. --Rob 19:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Worthwhile? Debatable. Notable? Only if you hold as an article of faith that "all schools are notable". I went to at least one school which is not only not notable, it is pretty much unverifiable. Removing it harms the project? Proof by assertion; there is no demonstrable harm from not having somehting which is trivially easy to obtain on the internet from the original source. Precedent? Yes, utter intransigence from the Church of the Inherently Notable School has made it impossible to remove any school article, but that is not a good thing, it's a triumph of sheer blood-mindedness over numerous offered compromises. Clusters of non-editors? Nice ad-hominem, but baseless. Given that the article is going to be kept anyway, Rob, I really can't imagine why you bothered writing the above since it appears calculated solely to add fuel to the flames. Guy 20:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm JzG you are aware that not every human being on the planet has internet access? Kappa 20:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to use the analogy of a body, those who insist on deleting items in face of known and certain opposition are the "blood-minded" cutters. You already have the ability and community support to merge ALL of these articles into their parent school districts and localities until they become large enough to warrant breaking out. Just copy the whole article as written, paste it into the district article, then delete the stuff you don't like. That way the detail remains in the edit history of the district. Finally, go back and change the source article to a redirect. It's really quite simple. Yet you insist that deletion is the only solution you're willing to live with. From my side, it appears you're the one unwilling to compromise. Un focused 20:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A request for calm please. That said, I take some issue with the claim that the deletions are caused by "clusters of non-editors" since some people (such as myself) who often argue for deletion of schools do so while helping to improve the school articles in question and have helped improve schools that we think should be kept. Furthermore, Rob's comment isn't very relevant in that this isn't a K-12 school but a middle school. As to Unfocused's comments, we don't have a strong consensus for that, and the merging of many school articles would create essentially directories in violation of WP:NOT and would simply duplicate information that can be generally found on the district website. JoshuaZ 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, "K-12 schools" is short for "elementary, middle, and/or high schools". It makes clear the reference to "school" doesn't include pre-school, after-school, home-school, grad school, night school or some other "school". It doesn't mean a school necessarily teaches every grade from K to 12, inclusive (it may just teach some). Some people use the term "grade school", but often that's used in a less inclusive manner. If there's a better/clearer term, you wish me to use, let me know. But AFAIK, middle schools are a subset of K-12 schools. And that was what that component of my comments, was referring to. There is the precedent I indicated. --Rob 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Inquiry, do you mean to say that you think that any kindergarten should be kept per current precedent? JoshuaZ 23:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no precedent for K-only inclusion, and I expect such an article to be deleted normally. I'm not aware of a single perfect commonly used term that precisely identify those schools, which we have precedent for keeping. "K-12 school" is close, but not perfect. I suppose "1-12" would be more accurate, but I've never seen anybody use the term "1-12". For any term, there's probably extra qualifications needed. For instance, when I say "school", I normally mean "real, full-time, accredited, and verifiable", even if I don't say so. --Rob 23:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Cribcage 05:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Is there some reason that you are saying that? Remember, AfD is not a vote. JoshuaZ 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Doesn't simply typing "Keep" sufficiently note disagreement with the nomination's claims? It seems self-evident to me. Un focused 19:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep due to the rewrite. --Myles Long 17:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment if this school wasn't in the USA, it would be deleted. --SandyDancer 19:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's accurate. At this point schools outside the US are kept about as often as schools within the US. JoshuaZ 20:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Who would trust an encylopedia that doesn't mention your own school - what else have they censored? --Mike 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 21:57, 7 November 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 00:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haverford Middle School

Haverford Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-noteworthy middle school stub with no sources. Directory entry. Shimeru 00:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep or merge per WP:SCHOOLS and/or WP:LOCAL. "It was built in the 1926s as Haverford Senior High School, until redistricting plans moved the high school into a new building." is encylopedic, not directory info. Describing it as a middle school is misleading. Kappa 00:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. Haverford Middle School is a middle school. Shimeru 00:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Misleading and irresponsible. Kappa 00:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    - I disagree. The middle school is a middle school regardless of the building it occupies, and the founding of the high school has to do with the high school, not the middle school. I will also thank you to refrain from personal attacks. Shimeru 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - OK, you are right and I apologize. Facing constant brutal confrontation makes me grouchy, LOL. Kappa 01:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    - And, in addition to that, the middle school shared a campus with the high school until the high school got its own campus. WhisperToMe 05:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
keep or merge. Please consider the number of times a fight has been started by nominating a school, then read WP:POINT. Wikipedia is better served if you submit the article to WP:SCH for improvement instead of nominating for deletion. Un focused 00:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No claim of notability. Schools do not all need Wikipedia articles. They may be mentioned in an article about the city.Edison 00:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- That would be a merge vote then? Kappa 01:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Some high schools are notable and should have articles. Middle schools rarely qualify and there is nothing about this one that suggests it's appropriate to have an article about it. JChap2007 02:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I tried to add a bit of content and a cite. I think I established some notability. Please review? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- The citation is a definite plus, so thank you for that. I still feel it's a directory entry and nothing more, though. Shimeru 04:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No assertion of notability. It's misleading too, the buliding may have been built in 1926 but the middle school wasn't. TJ Spyke 02:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, WP:SCHOOL. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 04:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge to School District of Haverford Township per WP:LOCAL and WP:SCHOOLS. Yamaguchi先生 04:50, 4 November 2006
Delete Utterly non nontable middle school. Resolute 04:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Throwing a monkey wrench; it was easy to cite the school's history and the student body statistics. I am fixing many of these problems anyway... WhisperToMe 04:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Valrith 05:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, lack of distinct notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Article makes a clear and distinct statement of notability, and recent changes and sourcing have obviated suggested reasons for deletion by the nominator. Silensor 06:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep better content than some of our city stubs... ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy close This has the S word in the title so will never get consensus delete. It can go one of two ways: merge, or expand. Neither requires admin powers. Guy 10:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn IronDuke 19:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. The strongest claim for notability is that it almost became a highschool? Please. JoshuaZ 23:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - middle schools are notable. --Ineffable3000 23:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Do you have some reasoning or basis behind that claim? JoshuaZ 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - As you know, public middle schools are regularly the subject of nontrivial coverage in local media. Kappa 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    - No, they are regularly the subject of puff-pieces in the local media. And even if they were non-trivial, we don't have any evidence that such pieces exist for this school. JoshuaZ 06:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      - We don't have any evidence that such coverage exists for a typical village in Africa, but we don't delete them if they are verifiable. Kappa 07:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - per WP:SCHOOLS of being older than 50 years. - JNighthawk 23:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- CommentJNighthawk, you are referring to a provision of a proposed (not accepted) guideline (not a policy) that is itself labeled as controversial (I would label it idiotic, but I'm feeling a little surly right now). Can you think of any other rationale for including this school? IronDuke 02:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Thorough article for a school that meets and exceeds the WP:SCHOOLS standard. Alansohn 18:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge information into school district article or Haverford Township, Pennsylvania. --JohnDBuell 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Cribcage 05:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Is there some reason that you are saying that? Remember, AfD is not a vote. JoshuaZ 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  - See also Wikipedia:Schools#Arguments/Keep. Kappa 07:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per many of the fine points above. --Myles Long 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Several different sources are presented, meeting our verifiability policies, and also meets the criteria set by the bastardised WP:SCHOOLS guideline. Silensor 23:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, meets all content policies -- there has been no assertion to the contrary -- so no basis for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Oh really? What about WP:NOT? JoshuaZ 04:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  - No sensible assessment of the article could conclude that it is excluded by WP:NOT. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Wikipedia is not a directory. Nor is Wikipedia a collection of random information. JoshuaZ 05:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      - You make reference to two sections of WP:NOT, that A) Wikipedia is not a directory, and B) Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. WP:NOT defines these terms as follows: A) Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). NOT APPLICABLE; 2. Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. NOT APPLICABLE, and 3. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business Now this what is raised as an issue, but WP:NOT defines this as For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. There is just nothing in this clause of WP:NOT that seems relevant to making this particular article improper. B) Next we have Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is defined as 1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. NOT APPLICABLE; 2. Travel guides. NOT APPLICABLE; 3. Memorials. NOT APPLICABLE; 4. Instruction manuals. NOT APPLICABLE; 5. Internet guides.NOT APPLICABLE; 6. Textbooks and annotated texts. NOT APPLICABLE; 7. Plot summaries. NOT APPLICABLE, Again, there is no aspect of this clause of WP:NOT that seems applicable in any way to this article. WP:NOT is often thrown out as a justification to delete articles, but I agree completely with Christopher Parham that it simply doesn't apply in this case. Alansohn 05:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        As to the first point, this entry is little more than an address easily in the "phonebook entries" category. As for the second setting, it should be apparent that the list there is not intended to be exhaustive. In fact, almost daily, articles are deleted per WP:NOT's "random collection" criterion even if they don't fall into exactly one of those categories. JoshuaZ 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        I don't know what's printed in your phone book, but in mine, phonebook entries look like Haverford Middle School 123 Main Street 123-456-7890. This article far exceeds what a phonebook entry is, by any reasonable definition of the term. The fact that WP:NOT's "indiscriminate collection" clause is used to mean "anything I think doesn't belong on Wikipedia", and the fact that there are many people who misuse it and get articles deleted, does not make it a valid argument. The examples provided are intended to serve as cardinal prototypes of "indiscriminate collections", and none of them are within miles of this article. How can we meaningfully apply Wikipedia criteria if their clearcut meaning can be changed to mean anything anyone wants it to mean. You yourself don't excuse bad arguments to keep (e.g. "Do you have some reasoning or basis behind that claim?"), why should a bad argument re WP:NOT (e.g., other people use it to mean something other than what it says and they delete articles anyway) be acceptable? Alansohn 06:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
keep There are some subjects in this WIkipedia that don't interest more than a handful of people, and this school is not one --Mike 18:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment So? JoshuaZ 18:17, 7 November 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 Article has been speedied by Naconkantari under G11 Dina 22:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gizmotron

Gizmotron (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This article is not notable, with only 45 google hits, and no official website I can see. h2g2bob 00:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

DeleteNo claim of notability. No presentation of multiple press mentions, hit recordings or famous artists. Nice name, though. Edison
Delete per nom's ghits. Based on the creator's user name (Mikebritt) this seems to a case of WP:AUTO/WP:COI. -- IslaySolomon | talk 01:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 01:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I've actually tagged this as a Speedy A7: non-notable vanity piece that appears to be entirely self-promotion. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:44, 4 November 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 00:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thornton Friends School

Thornton Friends School (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

NN school, no outside sources, directory entry. Article has existed in the same stub condition for nearly a year with no expansion -- lack of media sources indicates to me that none is possible. Shimeru 00:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

keep or merge to local. Please consider the number of times a fight has been started by nominating a school, then read WP:POINT. Wikipedia is better served if you submit the article to WP:SCH for improvement instead of nominating for deletion. Duration as a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Un focused 00:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents:

"Schools are frequently nominated for deletion, but consensus is frequently not reached. Most of the approximately 270 school articles nominated for deletion in the eight months January to August, 2005, resulted in no consensus, with fewer than 15% actually deleted."'

--A. B. 01:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete No claim of notability. Schools do not all need Wikipedia articles. They may be mentioned in an article about the city.Edison 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is not the Friends school that Chelsea Clinton attended. I expanded the article a bit, and clarified its location. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Correct... that would be Sidwell Friends (a school within the district). ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - most U.S. secondary schools get articles from what I've seen. --A. B. 01:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This is not a super-strong "keep" -- I'm just going by what I've seen before, not some deeper belief or ideology re: inclusion/deletion, etc.

Delete There are only 55 students in the Upper (read "secondary") school and no evidence of notability. JChap2007 02:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable school. I also don't think that having a notable person attends make a school notable (and pointed that out on the talk page of WP:SCHOOLS). TJ Spyke 02:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge to Silver Spring, Maryland per WP:LOCAL and WP:SCHOOLS. Yamaguchi先生 04:49, 4 November 2006
Keep per Unfocused. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep there arent too many quaker schools in Maryland. This makes it a relatively unique school. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy close This has the S word in the title so will never get consensus delete. It can go one of two ways: merge, or expand. Neither requires admin powers. Guy 10:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment We actually have had a few consensus deletions before. They are rare but do occur. JoshuaZ 23:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete IronDuke 19:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Tiny non-notable school with no notable alumni or succesful athletic teams or anything similar. JoshuaZ 23:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - middle schools are notable. --Ineffable3000 23:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Do you have some reasoning or basis behind that claim? JoshuaZ 23:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Next stop, notable kindergartens. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge - give it a mention in Silver Spring, Maryland then change this to a redirect. --JohnDBuell 18:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: If merged, the place to put the school would be in Silver Spring, Maryland#Education where the current sentence on private schools reads: "Notable private schools in the region include Yeshiva of Greater Washington, Torah School of Greater Washington, Our Lady of Good Counsel High School, and The Barrie School." I noticed two things about the sentence: red links and the word "notable". Will we have a similar conversation about those red-linked schools? And how do we merge in this school if that word "notable" is in there? If you delete the "notable" word and merge this school in, will someone later revert, re-inserting "notable" and dropping out this school? My suggestion is that if the decision is "merge", then put a note on the Silver Spring talk page. --A. B. 19:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put a note on the Silver Spring talk page making local folks aware of this AfD; they may have some perspectives pro or con. --A. B. 19:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep article is for a quaker school in MD, a relatively unusual characteristic. We have near 100% precedent for retention of high school articles. Alansohn 19:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete per nom Subwayguy 22:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Cribcage 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Is there some reason that you are saying that? Remember, AfD is not a vote. JoshuaZ 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Alkivar and TruthBringerToronto's additions to the article. --Myles Long 17:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is just a guess, but I believe I've read several thousand articles about schools and this is the first time I've run across one about a Quaker school. Silensor 23:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I can't see the point of these School AfDs. You put schools in Wikipedia for exactly the same reason shops sell milk at below cost price - it brings the punters in! Moreover a well written school article gives invaluable covereage of the local area - something to be encouraged and a good way to find related articles --Mike 18:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 21:59, 7 November 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 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signal Hill Elementary School

Signal Hill Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

NN elementary school, no outside sources, directory entry. Shimeru 00:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, magnet school. Failing that merge per WP:SCHOOLS, WP:LOCAL, WP:Not a battlefield etc. Kappa 00:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Magnet school is not a reason to keep by itself. WP:SCHOOLS does not have a consensus behind it. I fail to see how WP:NOT is relevant. JoshuaZ 21:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
keep or merge to local. Please consider the number of times a fight has been started by nominating a school, then read WP:POINT. Wikipedia is better served if you submit the article to WP:SCH for improvement instead of nominating for deletion. Un focused 00:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No claim of notability. Schools do not all need Wikipedia articles. They may be mentioned in an article about the city.Edison 00:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Good school and has been recognized (with a lot of other schools) as such, but not particularly notable. JChap2007 02:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No assertion of notability, and many schools are magnet schools. TJ Spyke 02:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I may have jumped the gun on this one. Striking out my comment pending further research. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom is not notable TheRanger 04:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as a California Distinguished School and magnet school, this is notable enough for me. Yamaguchi先生 04:49, 4 November 2006
Keep, WP:SCH, magnet school, notable school. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 04:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment WP:SCH is a project it is not a reason to keep. Furthermore, there is no reason why magnet schools should be inherently notable. JoshuaZ 21:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Elementary schools are not inherently notable, and there is no evidence this school has any claim to fame. Resolute 04:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per reasons discussed in several AfD's above. Also, my good faith is flagging; the sheer number of these school AfD's begins to seem like someone is making a Point. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete not notable by any recognizable measure. Valrith 05:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per DocTropics... I agree with the WP:POINT statement entirely. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy close This has the S word in the title so will never get consensus delete. It can go one of two ways: merge, or expand. Neither requires admin powers. And no, I do not think we should have articles on elementary schools, but there will always be holdouts who assert that "all schools are notable" and frankly we have better things to do with our time than continually documenting the existence of a group of users who will never allow any article with "school" in the title to be deleted. Merge and move on. Guy 11:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Dito Well said - you can tell an adult why their club or company isn't listed, but to any schoolkid, their school is notable. What's more, it is the schools which are most likely to put in the other details of the locale - so why on earth is this up for AfD? --Mike 18:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Disagree here. We have had some schools deleted in the last few months. It does occasionally happen. JoshuaZ 21:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete If we give up on middle schools, where do we draw the line? Let's have a clear policy that school-crufters can be directed to. One with the S word in the title, perhaps. IronDuke 19:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - elementary schools are notable. --Ineffable3000 23:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Excuse me? Do you have a justification for this? Also, note that the claim a year ago was that colleges were inherently notable, then it became highschools and now its elementary schools. Is this going to move onto daycares and kindergartens next? JoshuaZ 21:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom; WP:HOLE. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge information into Signal Hill, California and/or Long Beach Unified School District. --JohnDBuell 18:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Above and beyond meeting the WP:SCHOOLS guidelines, the school has received several awards that constitute explicit claims of notability. Alansohn 19:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete (would not object to merging in principal). The awards the school has are by and large minor. The "National Achieving Schools Award" and the "California Achieving Schools Award" don't return any google hits aside from schools that say they have them and Wikipedia mirrors. I can't even find a single newspaper article mentioning that a school was given one. The only award which therefore is arguably at all noteworthy is the California Distinguished School award. However, as far as I can tell the number of schools which get this award is immense. There are so many schools award that the award's webpage breaks them out by county [1]. Picking a county at random, Los Angeles county has over two pages worth of schools with the award [2]. This is a good elementary school where someone should be happy sending their kids, but it isn't notable. JoshuaZ 21:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Minor clarification Looking in more detail, Los Angeles county may not have been a representative sample. Some counties such as this one have very few schools with the award. Still every county has more than 1 school with the award and most counties have over a page so the basic point stands. JoshuaZ 21:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Cribcage 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Is there some reason that you are saying that? Remember, AfD is not a vote. JoshuaZ 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Alkivar, etc. --Myles Long 17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Yamaguchi and Alansohn, obvious claims to notability are made within the article. Silensor 23:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Deletenn school. Carlossuarez46 21:59, 7 November 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 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hossam Shaltout

Hossam Shaltout (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Gnews results limited a PR release and a very few reports regurgitating it, which doesn't rise above trivial reporting. If WP:BIO is the appropriate notability guideline, the subject doesn't meet it. I assume that this is the same Hossam Shaltout who previously sued the US govt, which was marginally better reported, but appears to sunk without leaving much trace. A redirect would have been the obvious solution, but the only thing linking to it - Human rights in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq - didn't seem like a good candidate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete non notable, fails WP:BIO. Cbrown1023 01:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I was going to put a Speedy tag on it, but that's already been tried. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - to use McLellan's argument, this is not Wikinews, I would say that, if the press coverage is somewhat lacking, his claims is still disturbing. As the conspiracy-loving guy I am, I think that there is substance to his claims, and that the media coverage signals that his story is hush-hush for someone. I understand the guidelines very well, and if you are to use them literally it would be a vote for delete for me too. Eventheless I believe that this article about Shaltout may show if his claims are real. --abach 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable conspiracy theorist. Junk. Moreschi 14:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:BIO. --Ineffable3000 23:56, 4 November 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 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CrossRoads Middle School

CrossRoads Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

NN middle school. No outside sources. No sources whatsoever, in fact. Directory entry. Shimeru 00:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete No claim of notability. Schools do not all need Wikipedia articles. They may be mentioned in an article about the city.Edison 00:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No notability asserted. Directory listing. Middle school. -- Kicking222 01:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I expanded the article and added references. Please take another look at the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete What am I supposed to be seeing? Zero notability asserted. JChap2007 02:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No assertion of notability, and adding in ways to find where the school is doesn't help the article be any more notable. TJ Spyke 02:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as being expanded by TruthbringerToronto it now meets proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline. Yamaguchi先生 04:51, 4 November 2006
- Comment WP:SCHOOLS does not have consensus and is unlikely to ever achieve consensus. Meanwhile, we have a new proposal WP:SCHOOLS3 which it doesn't meet. Imagine that! JoshuaZ 08:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, article can be expanded even further, with references after TruthbringerToronto's cleanup, WP:LOCAL, WP:SCH. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 04:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non notable middle school. Resolute 04:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per reasons discussed here and all of the above AfD's. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Still a directory entry. Kavadi carrier 05:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Easy, easy additions to this article; I found the school zones! WhisperToMe 06:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep expanded and referenced... ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy close This has the S word in the title so will never get consensus delete. It can go one of two ways: merge, or expand. Neither requires admin powers. Guy 11:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable school. Though I'm sure the usual crowd of pro-school editors/puppets will make sure this gets kept. --- RockMFR 17:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Hmmm.. wait a sec... "CrossRoads Middle School students tackle air pollution!" Wow! Rethinking... rethinking... strong delete. IronDuke 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Per Kicking, TH, Kavadi and IronDuke. JoshuaZ 23:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - middle schools are notable. --Ineffable3000 23:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
keep. Obviously more important than the average Pokemon character. Unfocused 01:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Actually in terms of the number of people whose lives are affected the pokemon easily wins. Furthermore, just because we have bad standards about Pokemon doesn't justify them for other things. JoshuaZ 01:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Lives affected? By 'individual' Pokemon characters? O RLY? How many people do you think are significantly affected by the Shuckle Pokemon character, individually? Pokemon characters are included because they're harmless to those who don't care, and useful to those who do. See the logic? Find any parallels to our current argument? Unfocused 05:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Oh don't get me wrong. I'm not asserting that the pokemon have in any meaningful way affected the people that would be at all distinct from almost any other cartoon characters or what not. I was simply making an assertion about the number of people. And again, note that the main point still holds, even if we have bad standards for Pokemon doesn't mean we should have bad standards for other things. And if we followed the "harmless" standard with your defintion of harmless why do we have any notability criteria at all? JoshuaZ 06:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Well, to briefly answer, verifiability itself implies a certain degree of notability, as independent sources must find something notable enough to report about it. In some cases, that's more than enough, for example, in my opinion, schools. In others we can discuss as required. Un focused 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        And why would that be enough for schools but not for people or countries even? JoshuaZ 08:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Please show me a single country that isn't in "notable" enough to be in Wikipedia simply by being verifiable. Un focused 13:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        With pleasure -[3]. JoshuaZ 17:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        I'm not going to bother any further here because I think you're just arguing for arguments' sake. Congratulations on successfully setting, trolling, and springing your trap. It doesn't make a difference because, unlike schools, I'm pretty sure your favorite little troll-berg was the creation of an individual, for himself, and unsanctioned by any government but the one in his mind. Un focused 19:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Actually, I didn't have a "trap" set. In fact, when you asked me for it I had to go look for an example. See [4]. Are you now asserting that schools must be sanctioned by a government in order to be notable? I (and I suspect most editors) would see accredition/recognition as not the be-all and end-all factor to whether a school should be kept. Obvious unaccredited but notable schools would be for example Bob Jones University. And now, I'm not just "arguing for argument's sake" - I do that quite often in real life but generally don't do it on Wiki since the point of Wikipedia is not have fun debating but to write an encyclopedia. I am arguing because I don't think schools have inherent notability and given that neither people nor countries have inherent notability per long-standing precedent I have a lot of trouble with the idea that schools somehow have some form of inherent notability that countries lack. If micronations with a handful of people aren't necessarily notable then it isn't clear why schools with a handful of people should be notable. Given that, all schools are not notable. So the basic argument fails. JoshuaZ 20:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, Kicking222. Another WP:HOLE waste of electrons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Thanks again to TruthbringerToronto for the improvements to the article. The school includes references to community activities and will benefit from additional expansion. Alansohn 19:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Cribcage 05:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Is there some reason that you are saying that? Remember, AfD is not a vote. JoshuaZ 05:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, enclopedic coverage of an encyclopedic topic. Kappa 07:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Alkivar, etc. --Myles Long 17:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I'm not sure what article the nominator was looking at, but this is well sourced and far from a directory entry, and provides enclopedic coverage of an encyclopedic topic. Silensor 23:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep It's a school, it is a reasonable size, it is notable and the only reason schools aren't in a normal encyclopedia is size restriction which doesn't affect Wikipedia - why is it up for AfD? --Mike 18:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What makes you think it is notable? JoshuaZ 19:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 22:00, 7 November 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. —Cryptic 11:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil as a possible emerging great power

Brazil as a possible emerging great power (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Where to start? Crystal-balling (especially with a title like that!), WP:OR, WP:V, duplicate material article - appears to be a re-creation of Brazil as an emerging superpower and Brazil as an emerging great power, both of which were deleted on 21 Oct. This article is a random collection of 'Brazil facts' all of which belong in the various Brazil articles. Xdamr^talk 01:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom Xdamr^talk 01:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The creator of this article put it best in the last AfD: "Ok… I give up. You seems here to be very ignorant to understand… We will see in 2050… João Felipe C.S 23:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)" When this actually happens let's write an article about it, but not before. JChap2007 01:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above and appears to be in essay form. Cbrown1023 02:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete if it is substantially identical to previous deleted articles, otherwise plain delete as unverifiable. Kavadi carrier 02:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, but the title should be copied to MOS as an example of what not to do. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean WP:FREAKY? Or WP:BAI maybe. :-) Kavadi carrier 04:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as repost. No, no, no. Gazpacho
Delete as crystalballism. It has been tagged as a speedy by someone else.-- danntm ^T _C 04:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This should be deleted asap. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 04:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as a repost of previously deleted content. Resolute 04:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. 69.177.186.233 06:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice. Wareq 07:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Stammer 10:12, 4 November 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. A merge could be discussed on the talk page, no need for afd. W.marsh 13:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of references to Lost in popular culture

List of references to Lost in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

WP:OR Eryyut 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)— Eryyut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep, please state a proper reason for deletion and use your main Wikipedia account to make the nomination. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep or Merge into Lost (TV series); it has good info that doesn't seem to be WP:OR. Cbrown1023 02:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge insto Lost (TV series) per Cbrown. TJ Spyke 02:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Referenced, and a bit large to merge into the main article, which is already fairly long. Shimeru 04:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. Article is fine as a separate entity. Resolute 04:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Shimeru. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Shimeru. --Opark 77 11:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete yet more Lostcruft. Completely arbitrary. Take it to Lostpedia. Guy 11:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete not just listcruft, it's Lostcruft. Listlostcruft. Bleh. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete "Listlostcruft" may well be the pithiest WP neologism I have ever seen. IronDuke 19:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, or Merge into Lost (TV series) where it had been previously until it was decided that there was enough information for it to merit its own article. --theDemonHog 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Is "References to Lost in popular culture" an acceptable topic? I think it isn't, and by extension, a list of individual references isn't, either. The Literate Engineer 20:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Merge to Lost (TV series). That is how it has always been done. --Ineffable3000 23:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ineffable. --SandyDancer 00:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or merge to Lost (TV series). Edison 03:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This article brings whole new nuances to the word "trivia". This kind of near-parody of an article lowers the collective quality of Wikipedia. PKtm 04:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Shimeru. Battle Ape 12:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this is Wikipedia, not Lostopedia. Irremediably crufty, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep but clean-up. (ObNote: I spun-off this List from the main article due to length.) This is neither Original Research, nor an "indescriminate collection of information" (a commonly cited, but poorly understood section of WP:NOT). It is an attempt to organise the major references to the series Lost as they appear in popular culture. The precedents for this are clear: there are thousands of "in popular culture" articles on Wikipedia, e.g.:

And this one imposes greater requirements for citation: nearly every item included is referenced, or has the particular source within the entry. This is rightly called a "list of references" until some diligent editor takes the initiative and starts the conversion process into prose. Many similar articles have started their life in this fashion; being a long list is no reason for deletion-- it is nowhere near the length of List_of_cultural_references_to_Star_Wars-- but for editing and pruning. This should not be re-merged, as it was moved precisely because it had grown to such content; removing it entirely would make the section Lost_(TV_series)#Fandom_and_popular_culture balloon. For further info on Lists, See WP:LIST and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists).--Leflyman^Talk 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I should also note that there's a whole Category:In_popular_culture.--Leflyman^Talk 20:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep but Merge: I think that this article should be cleaned up (as per other comments) and merged with Lost main page - another show article that incorporates references in pop culture is the Buffy the Vampire Slayer main site, if anyone wants to check it out (just got featured article status recently!). Riverbend 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep It's a long list, and it is not unusual to spin off a long list from the main article. Plenty of other lists just like this one too, and frankly, while I might not find it useful, someone else might. We don't have to emulate Britannica here. Robovski 00:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or merge. Wikipedia doesn't need original research list pages of pop culture references. It's bad enough that many episode articles of shows have insanely huge lists of pop culture references. Yes, shows and films have pop culture references: but it's not completely necessary to have a huge list of them. Keep the important ones only. RobJ1981 19:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep Per Leflyman Mahahahaneapneap 20:48, 9 November 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 Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voice cast in the Kingdom Hearts series

Voice cast in the Kingdom Hearts series (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Delete or Merge WP:LC. Eryyut 01:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)— Eryyut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

~~Strong keep~~ (see change in vote below), WP:LC is not a policy or guideline, nor is it grounds for deletion. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- "LC is not a policy" is not an argument for inclusion, and AfD is not a vote. Why do you think this article belongs in Wikipedia? Please discuss the article instead of criticizing the nominator. — Haeleth Talk 12:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - In order to delete an article, an appropriate argument must be presented. Unless such a reason is given, it is by default kept. The person who wishes that an article be deleted must explain why he wants it to be deleted. Those who want it to stay do not need to explain why it should be kept until a valid argument for deletion is set out. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep per Dark Shikari. Also, per Eryyut's obvious ignorance with deletion policies. Cbrown1023 02:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Nominator is not an expert on Wikipedia policies" is not an argument for inclusion, and AfD is not a vote. Why do you think this article belongs in Wikipedia? Please discuss the article instead of attacking the nominator. — Haeleth Talk 12:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Quoting someone implies that they said something. Cbrown1023 did not say "Nominator is not an expert on Wikipedia policies." In addition, the nominator is a clear SPA. If you are the one who created the SPA to nominate this article, please say so. We won't hold anything against you--just please, as a general statement, nominate AFD articles with your main account, not a sock. It makes things so much easier. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Kingdom Hearts series], I see no reason for it to have its own article. TJ Spyke 02:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This info is already present in another article, making this redundant. TJ Spyke 21:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge to List of characters in the Kingdom Hearts series. --TBCΦtalk? 03:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge per TBC. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 04:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Zoautew 05:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Delete or Merge The information is already available at List of characters in the Kingdom Hearts series. It is a little easier to scan here. I'm not entirely sure that warrants a separate article. A merge might make the list article unwieldy though. But either way, the information is relevant and easily verifiable. Shimeru 11:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As Shimeru points out, the information is already present in List of characters in the Kingdom Hearts series, which gives far more context and information and is thus a more useful article. This is redundant. — Haeleth Talk 12:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, I change my vote to delete. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment, this page was a result of discussion here and here. I don't really like the page, I only made it to appease the editors there so it could be removed from the main page where it was being really ugly. Axem Titanium 15:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete In answer to Shimeru, I agree with Haeleth and Dark Shikari that it justifies deleting this entry and making Characters in the Kingdom Hearts series more readable. The Literate Engineer 20:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Agree that it doesn't belong on the main KH page, but am now convinced that it can be added to List of characters... if necessary, or that article edited to make that information more accessible. Therefore, changed my vote above. Shimeru 00:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Kingdom Hearts. --Ineffable3000 00:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Information is already present in List of characters in the Kingdom Hearts series. --Kunzite 03:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete because it's simply an awful and redundant list. Interrobamf 09:49, 7 November 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. W.marsh 13:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Patient

The Patient (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non notable fictional character, text in the article is copied and pasted from the articles for the songs on the album on which the character appears, in addition, the article suffers of original research and is largely unsourced -Nightmare X 01:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom It'sAwwwright 01:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Cut it ... er ... Redirect back to article about album. JChap2007 02:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete An articel dedicate to a fictional character on a CD? TJ Spyke 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unverified emocruft. Original research is not okaaaaay. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per IslaySolomon who made me LOL with emocruft. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge with My Chemical Romance --Ineffable3000 00:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete All of the information has already been stated in each of the song pages, I don't think that there is a need for a new page. If anything needs to be merged then it should be compiled into The Black Parade as that is the album the character is in. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 03:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above no need for this page SOADLuver 22:15, 5 November 2006
Comment: Someone removed the AfD notice from the article, I have added it back.

(UTC)

Keep, but revise to actually be worth something. have an article on the character isn't in and of itself a bad idea TastemyHouse Breathe, Breathe in the air 05:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, non notable, copypasta from other articles, unsourced, largely original research and we can do without it SuperInternetdudeomg 23:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Im in agreement with the cruft statment, plus it is all from other existing articles—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.214.229.81 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 9 November 2006.

Redirect back to the album page. I don't think it needs its own article. The patient's story can be elaborated on in The Black Parade. A category could be added to show the album's synopsis.--Jude 15:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Changing my vote to delete, but place this information, once it's been condensed into the main 'The Black Parade' article.58.108.43.51 12:05, 10 November 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 a series of attacks arranged under a neologism. Fails pretty much every policy we have. Guy 11:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Crossdressing

Political Crossdressing (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable neologism, with a whole 47 google hits. Contested prod. Amarkov ^babble 01:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Unsourced, POV, Original research. OfficeGirl 01:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete neologism. Couldn't find any source that was actually about the term (as opposed to merely using it). JChap2007 02:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Original research neologism TheRanger 04:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Death by abbreviations: WP:V WP:DICDEF for a WP:NOTE WP:NEO that was probably WP:NFT per GHITS. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:44, 4 November 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 00:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anzor Kikalishvili

Anzor Kikalishvili (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

"The supposed head of the supposed russian mafia..." does not cite sources, I tried to find them but failed. -Lapinmies 01:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Probably nonsense, but if it isn't, it is unsourceable (come on, do you think a mob boss would have a blog?). Cbrown1023 02:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The article admits it is based largely on rumors and "not much is known". Original research. Kavadi carrier 05:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - what a weird article. It breaks about a million different rules. Moreschi 13:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like unverified original research to me. AgentPeppermint 15:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Original research. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Consider - At least some of it could be compared to the following article: http://www.playthegame.org/Knowledge%20Bank/Articles/The%20Russian%20Mafia%20and%20hockey.aspx

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Daniel Olsen 03:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mercedes Montgomery

del nn vanity radio singer `'mikkanarxi 07:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted. I made it, not Mercedes Montgomery. She's well known in her realm of work. countryfan

Delete - article cites no sources, and googling turns up very little -- Whpq 14:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 01:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete unverifiable, and fails WP:MUSIC in current form. Kavadi carrier 02:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. SupaStarGirl 14:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete only 943 ghits, all seemed to be either blogs or car dealerships. Both are notoriously unreliable sources... --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:18, 5 November 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. -- Steel 16:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Celebrity Laser Eye Surgery Patients

List of Celebrity Laser Eye Surgery Patients (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Not encyclopedic or maintainable. -AED 01:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete nom and unencyclopedic list-cruft. Cbrown1023 02:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete yet another list of people with hands pages. JChap2007 02:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - WP:NOT a home for indiscriminate lists. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCΦtalk? 03:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT TheRanger 04:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I gotta admit the listcrufters are getting more creative, though. 23skidoo 04:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, listcruft. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 04:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. EyeMD ^T|C 05:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unmaintainable and unverified list. Could be replaced with a category, though I can't think why we'd want to. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete arbitrary and unverifiable. Guy 11:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Clackmannanshireman 17:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Yep. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:27, 4 November 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 Minor characters in Seinfeld. - Yomangani ^talk 17:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babs Kramer

Fancruft, minor character on Seinfeld, only appears in 1 episode - Coasttocoast 02:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep per the rest of the minor seinfeld characters, some of whom aren't EVER seen (see Lomez, Bob Sacamano). Sienfeld is sufficiently notable that a character oft-mentioned and appearing should be notable enough. --Daniel Olsen 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge with other minor characters in the show. Most of those character do not need their own articles. TJ Spyke 03:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
keep. Nothing in Wikipedia "needs" an article, but since some things are more useful when presented as a separate article, Wikipedia is not one giant article. Un focused 03:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Minor characters in Seinfeld. Babs has only been in one or two episodes and is not a significant character in the series.--TBCΦtalk? 03:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. A bit part in a notable show does not establish independent notability. Resolute 04:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. I've seen every episode 2-3 times and this has no significance to me. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per above DesertSky85451 01:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge Same Reasons As above. kingpomba|Cants bother to sign in 14:01, 6 November 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 - Yomangani ^talk 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thermophobic

Seems like a hoax; a Google of "thermophobic" and "orgasm" reveals a whopping 2 results. The article doesn't provide much more context to work with. Crystallina 02:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep page was vandalized (diff) and has now been reverted. --Daniel Olsen 02:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep After two years of sex therapy, you too can finally achieve the thermophobic orgasm. Google hits for "thermophobic" and "organism" seem to confirm that this is genuine.-- IslaySolomon | talk 02:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
keep. I've restored the pre-vandalism text of the article. Now, although brief, it makes sense. The AfD nomination was placed on a vandalized article. Please check article histories before nominating for deletion. Un focused 03:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per Daniel Olsen. hateless 03:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Shouldn't this be at Wikitionary? It sounds like just a definition. TJ Spyke 04:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, agreed. As you pointed out this, I shall not participate in this AFD. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 05:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment True, as it stands, this article is just a one line definition. However, I think this can be addressed by expansion rather than deletion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm gonna go with Keep, per the other keeps †he Bread 06:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary or expand. Guy 11:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I have expanded the article to include examples of thermophobic stuff. Kavadi carrier 13:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and kudos for the cleanup. Sandstein 23:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep post-expanded and newly referenced version by Kavadi. Solid work. Kuru ^talk 01:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, though I would fact check the business about dandruff. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as above. Robovski 00:37, 8 November 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 patent nonsense. Guy 11:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Siantonian Proof

Siantonian Proof (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

"created between 2nd and 3rd November 2006". Original research. Slac speak up! 03:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Pffft! Delete per nom. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 03:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Obvious original research, sourced by someone's myspace page (!) and blog (!) Baccyak4H 03:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Literally born yesterday. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. IslaySolomon | talk 03:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFT. --Daniel Olsen 03:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete obvious WP:NFT. JChap2007 03:30, 4 November 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 claims of notability, speedy deleted, violates WP:BLP User:Zoe|(talk) 04:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milagro Cunningham

Milagro Cunningham (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Old stub of a news event which wholly lacks context GilliamJF 03:46, 4 November 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. Glen 01:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skeet (slang)

Unreferenced and rather unorganized collection of unrelated lewd slang definitions GilliamJF 19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

keep. Clear evidence of use in 3 pop cultures, complete with where it can be found in recordings. It appears to me that a good faith attempt to document that usage is presented. This article needs attention, and a lot of trimming, but doesn't merit complete deletion. Un focused 04:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

keep. Article seems to contain relevant information. As usual wikipedia seems to be the only place to find definitions of these "newer" terms. Would be a shame to lose this information. (OsbornW) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.218.214.121 (talk • contribs) . — 69.218.214.121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete The exception in WP:NOT 1.2.3 reads, "In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate." I don't think this qualifies as "essential". The Literate Engineer 04:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete If Wikipedia is the "only place to find definitions of these 'newer' terms" then it is not notable. Resolute
Delete Largely unverified original research. Not that that matters since wikipedia is not an (urban) dictionary. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. hateless 06:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The comment As usual wikipedia seems to be the only place to find definitions of these "newer" terms reveals both the fundamental problems with the article, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is here for. Take it to Urban Dictionary. Guy 11:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a place for repellent rubbish. Moreschi 13:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki some to wikt. --Rory096 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not urban dictionary (we should really add that). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — For a start, WP:NOT a dictionary, and WP:NEO says that we don't accept neologisms, which this appears to be (failing that, it's just as bad - a protologism). M a rtinp23 21:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Aow, delete delete delete Danny Lilithborne 01:04, 5 November 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. --Daniel Olsen 03:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ageiola

Not notable, not verified, questionable point of view, and does not meet criteria for bio of living person--"speculated A.G is a former mid level drug dealer" Glendoremus 04:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, no assertion of notability, totally unsourced, violates WP:BLP. Kavadi carrier 05:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Speedy Delete as above. Potentially slanderous biography of a living person made up of unverified original research. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - please delete this rubbish quickly. Libellous material and non-notable. Moreschi 13:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, probably speedy assuming it's really even a BLP. Can find no references, except for frequent board postings by someone using the name 'ageiola'. Whole thing seems like simple nonsense. Kuru ^talk 01:22, 5 November 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, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanguinarium

Sanguinarium (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Fails notability and verifiability metaspheres 04:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, claims of having members "all over the world" are unsourced. Kavadi carrier 05:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unverified and probably unverifiable. Shimeru 11:05, 4 November 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 reposted material (previous AfD). --Daniel Olsen 03:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temple of the Vampire

Temple of the Vampire (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Fails notability, verifiability, and practically nothing about the organization can be substantiated due to its secrecy. In addition, much of the present article is copyvio. metaspheres 04:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete no assertion of group's notability. It may also be repost of deleted page Temple Of The Vampire, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Of The Vampire. Kavadi carrier 05:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Commercial pitch. Plus, these poseur vampires are, like, totally ruining vampirism. Auto movil 06:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as an article about a group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. The introduction vaguely cites a big-book-of-vampires otherwise this is just a rephrasing of content from the group's website. I'm pretty sure we have a policy against that... -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as per above. And below:

The Temple supposedly exists in the town of Lacey, although its presence there is doubtful (Guinn, 1996: 50-55). Given that the Temple is largely a mail-order organization like The Church of Satan, the lack of an official establishment is hardly a surprise; Lucas Martel, the founder of the Temple of the Vampire, was a member of LaVey's organization. Many contemporary vampires become involved with the Temple for a time, but few continue because they disagree with its brutal world-view and come to believe that it is little more than a money-making scam.

from Kenworth, David. Socio-Religious Beliefs and Nature of the Contemporary Vampire Subculture. Journal of Contemporary Religion; Oct2002, Vol. 17 Issue 3, p355-370. Lowerarchy 03:02, 9 November 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 Steve Jobs and delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa Nicole

A (poorly titled) bio article on Steve Jobs' daughter, Lisa. Lisa does not seem to be a notable individual; IMO she does not meet the standards of WP:BIO on her own, and being related to Jobs is not in itself notable. Some will argue that the Apple Lisa was supposedly named after her, but as far as I can tell neither Apple Computer nor Jobs have ever confirmed that theory, always officially stating that the name is an acronym for "Local Integrated Software Architecture". Therefore, the only "notable" information about her can't actually be verified. It could be argued that the industry speculation about the origin of the name is itself somewhat notable, but that is already mentioned in the Apple Lisa article and doesn't merit a separate article for Lisa Brennan-Jobs. -Big Smooth 21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete It is ridiculous to have an article about a barely notable person without even using her last name. Nuke it. Danny Lilithborne 21:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Lisa Brennan-Jobs seems to have become a journalist, or at least writer of magazine articles. One notable article is "Driving Jane" for The Harvard Advocate, about how her aunt Mona Simpson fictionalized her as a character in the book A Regular Guy. It also looks like she also wrote a whole series of (less autobiographical) articles for Spiked (magazine): [5], and the Harvard Crimson: [6]. Don't know yet if being a writer for notable publications, fictionalized book character, as well as daughter and niece of notable people combine to make her sufficiently notable. It's close. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good finds. Personally, I still don't think she meets the notability guidelines of WP:BIO as an author, but you're right, it's closer than I thought. -Big Smooth 21:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Chick Bowen 04:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Steve Jobs, with some mention of her in Jobs' article. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 05:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable--if writing is her job, you'd expect to find a few magazine articles under her name. Real test is whether articles have been written about her. Per WP:BIO, notability means "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" Glendoremus 05:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not a "computer specialist", nothing written about her in independent reliable sources. Kavadi carrier 05:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Having a notable relative does not equate to notability. The trivia surrounding the naming of the famous computer model is already covered here. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Steve Jobs. Yet to establish individual notability, and the Apple Lisa story isn't enough. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Merge anything salvagable to Steve Jobs. 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Steve Jobs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Steve Jobs as above. Robovski 23:13, 4 November 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 13:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next Era Wrestling

nn wrestling promotion. Only 58 Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, Google hits have their deficiencies, but for popular culture topics like this should be an accurate gauge of notability. Lack of results would therefore indicate non-notability. Also there are no cited independent sources. Kavadi carrier 05:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 13:01, 4 November 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. --Daniel Olsen 03:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darla Sawler

Darla Sawler (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Apparent Hoax, talk page violates WP:BIO Risker 04:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, article gives no idea what Darla is. An organisation? Group of people? A person? Kavadi carrier 05:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Sorry, I failed to note that this article had originally been listed for PROD, but the tag was removed with an edit history indicating that the Guinness Book of World Records should accord some notability. Hence the listing here. Risker 05:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Good old fashioned vandalism by a single purpose account. Ghits as expected [7]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Nothing notable here. - Triviaa 21:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete If she had the most sightings of the Loch Ness Monster, then I'd say keep! --Oakshade 08:29, 5 November 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 spam, unfortunately; created by the artist and no credible claim to significance. Guy 11:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joie

Joie (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Proposed deletion of non-commercial CD album recorded by a non-notable artist who is currently the subject of AfD debate. Ohconfucius 04:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The claim of being "the second solo organ recording made on the Harrison & Harrison organ of Holy Trinity Cathedral" is unsourced. Kavadi carrier 05:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete not only is the supposed claim to fame unsourced, it's also not a claim to fame. We don't even have an article on Gillian Weir's recording, the first to be made on the rebuilt Royal Albert Hall Organ, which was (a) first, not nearly-first and (b) a much more significant instrument in the world of classical organs. Guy 11:33, 4 November 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 third-party sources were provided verifying notability or claims, and no other suggestions for fixing the article were offered. The article can be recreated if and only if those issues can be addressed and conflict of interest can be avoided. --Coredesat 04:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Jewish Magazine

The Jewish Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

I declined a speedy deletion under G11 (advertising) for this article, and thought to bring it here for deletion discussion. This is a Canadian free magazine, formerly known as the Israeli Magazine, that has as it's key audience the Jewish community of Toronto. The article claims readership of 500,000 but I could not find sources. I abstain procedurally. Samir धर्म 04:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources for that 500,000 readership is needed, and I believe it does not assert much notability. If sources are cited, then it will be a keep, if not during the discussion period, it will be a delete. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 05:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete The official site [8] estimates the readership at about a fifth of that, with only half of those actually physically reading the publication itself. Going on messages left on the talk page and a user's talk page this seems a likely case of WP:AUTO/WP:COI. Without any assertion of notability and verification this is a borderline speedy as advertising spam. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Hi there, please feel free to delete the 500,000. That number reflects the readership worldwide. The Jewish mag site reflects canadian #'s only. Remove the readership number so it doesn't sound like a sales pitch...what is important is the fact that there is another jewish publication that is not being recognized. Thanks kindly! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.156.201 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 4 November 2006.Template:HH, 4 November 2006—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.156.201 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 4 November 2006.

Comment The real issue here is notability. Does the subject of this article meet Wikipedia's notability criteria? So far, there is not evidence that it does. If you are involved in this magazine and are trying to get it recognition then you are in absolutely the wrong place. "What Wikipedia is not" and WP:AUTO are both worth a read. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Okay, i'm new at this....you are obviously well versed in the wikipedia ways. I am an advid user of wikipedia and saw toronto life and numerous other publications on this site....help me understand the difference here....off to bed...i'll look for your response in the morning. Good night. HH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helen Hatzis (talk • contribs) .

Delete Dubious readership claims, notability not established. Vanispamicruftitisement I think I saw someone call this sort of thing once. --NMChico24 06:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no sources and spammy appeal Sandstein 08:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

CommentMorning...has a final decision been made?'74.116.156.201 13:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

These things usually take five days for the full process. You can read up on it at WP:AFD --Wafulz 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable. Moreschi 14:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Commentcan we agree to leave this article up deleting the readership numbers...i thought it would be useful to add under the Canada Jews section as a link to other Jewish publications. That's it, that's all....no alterior motive. The bottom line is that it is a successful cool ethnic magazine in the Jewish community...there is no advertising motive...it's a free magazine. I made haste when adding it to wikipedia as an article. I use wikipedia as a resource often...I was not aware that regular folks like us could add info to the site, so I took the opportunity. Next time, I'll be sure to read through the instructions properly. Have a great day.--[[User:HH]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Shuki 22:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless notability can be demonstrated. Highly likely NN. - crz crztalk 22:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Abandon AfD The writer has used those magics words "I don't understand" - it simply isn't possible to judge the article until they have had time to work out what is needed in the article, by which time the AfD will be closed - this AfD is a waste of time. He has asked for help, yet I see no offers. As a relatively new user myself I'm not in a position to help but until someone has actually worked with the user to bring out the full potential there is no information on which to base a delete - this appears to me as yet another instance of Wikipedia failing treat new users appropriately and is a serious failing in the AfD procedure --Mike 18:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- AfD has nothing to do with the user who made the article, and editors should not feel bad if articles they wrote are brought to AfD. This AfD is about to the notability of the subject of this article, as found in the article, and in sources discovered during the AfD process. -- Samir धर्म 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Commenthi there...I have located the magazine contact info from their website, please feel free to obtain all the pertinent info needed 416.987.3210 thank you. User:HH

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Glen 01:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eli Makowski

Eli Makowski (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

No apparent notability with uncited claims; Google shows nothing -- Tim D 05:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per evidence on talk page. Appears not to have won any awards for his work. Kavadi carrier 06:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete The google hits are pretty damning. The article doesn't mention the names of his "more controversial films" and a google search for "Eli Makowski" and "conspiracy" only turns up this article. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I believe it to be a Hoax.There is no notable Eli Makowski, filmaker. Google returns only Wikipedia entries. I previously (Nov 1) tagged it as a probable Hoax, and the creator of the article has removed that tag. The Talk page contains a garbled plea to leave the page but no references in rebuttal of the Hoax claim. They also blanked from the article previously asserted films (no record of which seems to exist anywhere) . Pudgey 06:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - oh dear. A weaker hoax I have not seen. Moreschi 13:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I am creator of the article originally on Eli Makowski. For those who do not know, Eli Makowski is an extremely popular filmmaker in Australia and won several awards. He has left the 'public eye' and as a result, has made no more new films or won more awards. After further correspondence I believe it to now be okay to delete and re-published if his career in filmmaking proceeds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.143.0.230 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 4 November 2006.

May I ask why this article still hasn't been deleted?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.143.0.230 (talk • contribs) .

It will be deleted as soon as an administrator comes to end this discussion. Kavadi carrier 00:43, 9 November 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 there are two reasons why. "All schools are inherently notable" arguments were disregarded because no reasons were given for why. Secondly, part of this is unverifiable. The article may be recreated if these issues are resolved. --Coredesat 04:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Louis Grammar School

St Louis Grammar School (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Article about an elementary school. No evidence of notability. Valrith 05:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

*Delete. No assertion of notability. The editor doesn't even state what country the school is in, let alone what city. Vote changed to Weak Keep It is not an elementary school. "Grammar School" only means elementary school in a few countries, such as the United States. I Googled after I made my vote: this is a private school in Kilkeel, Northern Ireland for students up to 18, so the equivalent of an American high school.[9] Apparently it's well over 50 years old so may qualify as notable under WP:SCHOOL --Charlene 05:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep as long as criteria can be met for WP:SCHOOL. Someone needs to go through the work to do this, though. -- Tim D 06:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment WP:SCHOOL is not a guideline and almost certainly never will be. JoshuaZ 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Perhaps, but it works as far as my opinion goes. -- Tim D 07:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No assertion of notability (and I don't buy into that BS that all schools are notable that someone always yes in these school AFDs). TJ Spyke 06:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 06:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I have added some material and cleaned it up a bit on the assumption it is St Louis Grammar School in Kilkeel. However it could be the one in Ballymena, also in Northern Island. This has to be resolved before this AfD is closed. If it is not cleared up, it should be deleted. If it is cleared up, I support keeping it and expanding it. High Schools are notable. --Bduke 07:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a non-notable school with no notable alumni, no team or club which has performed at a national level. Nothing to distinguish this school at all from other schools. JoshuaZ 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JoshuaZ... not like it matters. -- Kicking222 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Obviously more important and notable than the average Pokemon character. See Kingler. Unfocused 01:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment**Comment Actually in terms of the number of people whose lives are affected the pokemon easily wins. Furthermore, just because we have bad standards about Pokemon doesn't justify them for other things. JoshuaZ 01:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or expand so it is more than a directory listing. Not every school is so notable it needs its own encyclopedia article. It could be mentioned in an article about the geograpic area. Edison 03:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete all non-notable schools! In the absence of that, start with this one. Montco 06:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JoshuaZ. Encyclopedia people, not a repository for a content-free stub on every school on the planet. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - school is already mentioned in Kilkeel. Add a little bit more information in the latter article, perhaps, for a proper merger, but delete this article or change to a redirect. --JohnDBuell 18:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep this is a high school, which have an extremely strong precedent for retention. Article makes explicit claims of notability in terms of alumnus and athletic achievement. Alansohn 19:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep for my usual reasons. Nominator misunderstands the non-US definition of a grammar school. This is a selective secondary school. -- Necrothesp 00:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Cribcage 05:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Is there some reason that you are saying that? Remember, AfD is not a vote. JoshuaZ 05:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, meets all content policies. Certainly, there has been no assertion otherwise in this AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above comments, article makes explicit claims of notability as noted by Alansohn. Silensor 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keeeeeeep It is a school, it is noteworthy, it is a valuable source of information, it would be in any encylopedia if they had the space and time to write it - why is this AfD here? --Mike 18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- What makes you think that it is noteworthy and that it would be included in "any encyclopedia if they had the space"? JoshuaZ 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Joshuaz, I simply use the criteria that I would expect to find the entry. All schools appear in numerous official guides, they appear on local information sites, they have a huge local audience, and they contain probably the biggest user group for Wikipedia. The only reason I can see for not having schools, is their huge number, but there is a clear policy (WP:?) that says this is not a reason to prevent entries. --Mike 20:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Having a huge local audience isn't very relevant. So does every car dealership and movie theater, nor is having a large user group an assertion of being noteworthy. JoshuaZ 04:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 22:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per all of the valid arguments above. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete unremarkable school Catchpole 12:36, 9 November 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. --Daniel Olsen 03:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darrell Bedford

Darrell Bedford (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Delete, fails WP:BIO Deproded by serial deproder Kappa, so have to turn it into a AFD nom Brimba 05:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems very much like an attack on Kappa. Please don't imply that another user's opinion is less valuable based on how he chooses to improve Wikipedia. We all have our preferred areas to edit. Un focused 06:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Kappa's recent activity (as far as a quick look at his/her contributions can tell me) is heavily concentrated in deprodding articles, often without comment beyond "deprod". While not every article marked with {{prod}} deserves deletion, removing the tag without supplied reasoning isn't the most helpful behavior. Zetawoof^(ζ) 11:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And others recent activities have been directed at AfD's. So? WP:AGF. Address the article, not the editor. Edison 03:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO. The bit about the mayoral race is interesting, but garnering 2% of the total vote doesn't exactly make him noteworthy. Being one of five finalists in an online stand-up comedy competition, likewise. Shimeru 05:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable politician, reality show contestant, and comedian. Appearing at Yuk Yuk's does not make an individual notable - a dozen or more people appear there on every amateur night. The original editor (Dbcomedy (talk • contribs)) has only made edits to this page and to the sandbox. --Charlene 06:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 06:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
keep. Nice, well written article, complete with references and external links. Based on username, it was likely started by the article's subject but since it's been edited and doesn't read that way, I'm fine with it. Un focused 06:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and per Shimeru. -Seidenstud 08:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable. Moreschi 13:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete "best known as one of the final 5 contestants" of a reality show? Reality show contestants have no inherent claims to notability. JoshuaZ 23:50, 4 November 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 13:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonkum

Bonkum (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

User says he wants to "Trying to craft this into an article about unique furniture that can be used for health and sexual enhancement." Keep or Delete? No vote. -WarthogDemon 05:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as advertising for a company, product, group or service that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopaedia article. Created by a single purpose account named for the product. The references citied are just pages on the company's website. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Advertising spam. --Charlene 06:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Kind of stinks of advertising. -- Tim D 06:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep seems to be mentioned in the press quite a few times. [10] Kavadi carrier 06:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete The product sounds interesting but the article is unencyclopedic advertising spam.--Dakota 06:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Could be notable if the article weren't a sales brochure, and if health-enhancing fisting swings are an idea whose time has come, or whatever. Auto movil 06:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I have rewritten the article to mention only details of the item which are described in magazine reviews. Kavadi carrier 06:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as spam, since Bonkum (talk • contribs) created the article. So tagged. If not, then regular delete - the reviewer magazines aren't notable with 231 and 48 ghits for the two googleable magazines. This is despite the <euphemism>search engine optimisation</euphemism> the porn industry does. MER-C 09:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete t his is clearly spam TheRanger 19:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
What is spam? ATA_Airlines, Boeing, or Sears show me the difference? Both these examples and the Bonkum page seem to be talking about the products, the history, and the company. 'Spam' is a relative term. Much the like the term 'Pornography'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boudle (talk • contribs) .

From WP:CSD: Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. MER-C 04:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete — per WP:SPAM M a rtinp23 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I am surprised that it has not been speedy deleted; it is clearly spam.--Runcorn 09:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete The article is bunkum.--Taxwoman 12:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. --Easyas12c 14:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete-- This article doesn't really mean anything to me- I like police stuff, but they shouldn't go advertising: This's Wikipedia, not ADdiepedia (my ahem, "non-existant version" of ADs) My userpage Chicochango 22:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
weak delete - i wanted to assume good faith, detailed encyclopaedic knowledge on notable aspects of BDSM is reasonable. However, after looking over this user's true contribution history, and after noting the fact they have changed their name to try and disassociate themselves from what they are doing, I have to say that this should be deleted, and all edits made by this IP need to be reverted. -Zappernapper 18:37, 8 November 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. W.marsh 13:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yuvashakti

Yuvashakti (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This is a sub-article about a religious organization, which does not have any reliable sources, and does not have any assertion of notability. Multiple attempts to merge/redirect the subject to a more appropriate location have been reverted by someone with a conflict of interest, so I am proceeding to AfD. Recommend speedy deletion, otherwise they're just going to trot in another herd of sockpuppets, like they did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaja Yoga International. --NovaSTL 06:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete no assertion of group's notability. Tagged. Kavadi carrier 07:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - bad faith nom. novaSTL has been persistantly pushing his POV in continuously labeling the organisation cult-like, not participating in discussion, and bad-faith attitude (see comment above for example). The article is a stub, more content is forthcoming, and yet, well aware of this fact, here we are. Sfacets 07:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

note: A reference has been added. Sfacets 11:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

- Not a bad faith nom. The article has been around for a year, without any valid sources. That's plenty of time to allow for expansion, especially considering that there's been a merge template on it for the last few weeks. I would also point out that Sfacets (talk • contribs) has previously been blocked for disruption [11], and has a long history of reverts and false personal attacks. --NovaSTL 07:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

- I had been blocked (mistakenly, I might add) once a long time ago. I now have many thousands of edits under this username. A long history of reverts and false personal attacks? Such as? As usual this user has demonstrated his total disregard for proof to back his arguments and relies on generalisations. Also please note that NovaSTL is a sockpuppet, Sockpuppeteer unknown. it shows bad faith that he would refer to my one supposed transgression in the past, when he will not even share his real identity. Sfacets 09:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Stop it, both of you. We're here to discuss the fate of the article, not the contributor(s). In any case I must say that "more content is forthcoming" is probably the most common argument used to argue for an article to be kept — and the most vacuous and ineffective. Kavadi carrier 10:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Stammer 11:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 12:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - weak assertions of notability. Please note that AfD is not the place for such bickering: get a room. Moreschi 13:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - per sfacets. I'm trying to find some links.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Doctor Bruno 16:00, 5 November 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. --Daniel Olsen 03:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Videos Featured on Toonami Jetstream

List of Videos Featured on Toonami Jetstream (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's a simple matter to check which videos are on the website. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep First of all, the website is not available to everyone. How would you explain your argument to them? Secondly, there is no other way to track what videos are featured. Finally, third, It is relative to the subject. NIVINCo 01:41 EST, 4 November 2006

Comment If people can't access the site in the first place, what good does it do to tell them what they're missing? Relevant or not, it doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion. It's an indiscriminate list and nothing more. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

But it is more, it is the whole essence of Toonami Jetstream. NIVINCo 01:45 EST, 4 November 2006

No, the shows are the essence, not your list. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There are more videos than just the shows. Plus there is the times when Toonami Jetstream changed premieres, the duration of how long a video is featured, etc. All this information can be found in the list. It is more than just the videos featured. NIVINCo 01:52 EST, 4 November 2006
Delete. WP is not an indiscriminate list of info. ju66l3r 06:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Kavadi carrier 07:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 07:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sandstein 08:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 12:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as listcruft. Moreschi 13:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 18:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete fails WP:NOT and WP:OR. Danny Lilithborne 01:07, 5 November 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurd-Dagh

Kurd-Dagh (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Vanity (def #1) article. Unsourced, unreferenced and overall unhelpful. Article focuses more about controversies than the geological data. The name itself is a subject of controversy apperantly.

As Geography of Turkey article points out, south eastern turkey is a very mountainous area and I feel better to cover the mountain range (Taurus Mountains) in a single article as the individual mountains don't seem to have stand alone notability.

--Cat out 06:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Unless I'm missing something, this appears to be a legitimate place. -- Tim D 06:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is an existing, notable region in Syria and Turkey, as proven by the three references I just added to the article. Google also confirms this. It also gets 155 hits on Google books...I don't get how an article about a region is "vanity". Khoikhoi 06:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Chill will ya? You do not need to vote the second I start an AFD. --Cat out 06:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Ha. Ha. Punkmorten 15:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - precedent says that real places (ie towns, mountains, lakes, etc) are notable (see WP:AFDP). --Daniel Olsen 06:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but this mountain is a part of a mountain range. Individual mountains dont have any true distinction... --Cat out 06:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Where is the guideline that says individual mountains aren't notable? Punkmorten 15:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - If the mountain has offended you in some way, you should probably first try to take things up with it personally... -- Tim D 16:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    
    There is no such guideline, just how I feel it should be covered. We do not use guidelines to do everything.
    
    Huh? There is no way a rock can offend me...
    
    --Cat out 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Per WP:AFDP "Geographical features such as lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., are notable." Single mountains are included in the term "mountains" like single rivers are included in "rivers." Besides, this article is of a region, not just a mountain. --Oakshade 06:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, isn't a statement like "it is among the three "ethnic mountains" of western Syria" assertion of notability? Kavadi carrier 07:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per.. oh, everyone else. :-) Let's go ahead and speedy keep this one. - JNighthawk 16:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Tim D. Clackmannanshireman 17:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep I don't really see how an article about a mountain can be vanity, since mountains don't write articles. I know the "other things like this have an article so this should have an article" argument often doesn't go over well in Afd, but in this case I think it applies, as there isn't a guideline. If you check the categories related to mountains there are tons of individual US mountains with article (9 in Massachusetts alone, and we're not really famous for our mountains.) Most mountains are part of a mountain range, so that argument doesn't really fly with me. Dina 18:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep An article of a region that speaks of "charcoal production" is VANITY?? Anyway, it's a place that has thousands of people living in it. Inherently notable. --Oakshade 06:45, 5 November 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 an advertisement. An article being the "only article on the subject" does not justify it being an advertisement. --Coredesat 04:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EMSN

EMSN (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Article was marked as {{db-spam}} and was deleted, but the original author contests its deletion, and so I am nominating this article for AfD, with no vote on my part. Tangot a ngo 06:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Spam. TJ Spyke 06:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Regular delete since a sysop is kind enough to let us comment, but this still fails WP:SOFTWARE by a mile or ten. Kavadi carrier 07:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 07:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Kavadi carrier. utcursch | talk 12:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I agree that this fails WP:SOFTWARE, but remember that it is currently only a proposed policy. Keep it at least until (if ever) this becomes an actual policy. Kurt Weber 21:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I obviously think it should be kept... 'cuz, you know... I made it and stuff. And I do believe having an "advertizing" article is better than not having an article at all on the subject. Gothic Embrace 15:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:SOFTWARE InvictaHOG 04:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment All these people who are saying "Delete per WP:SOFTWARE" need to clarify what they mean. Are they saying that they agree with the rationale on WP:SOFTWARE as to why articles not meeting the criteria listed there need to be deleted, or are they simply saying that it needs to be deleted since it violates WP:SOFTWARE, regardless of whether or not they agree with it. If it's the latter, then that argument is completely bogus as WP:SOFTWARE is not policy!. The former is somewhat more reasonable, but still, the fact that it's not policy but only a proposed policy which may or may not pass should give one pause when invoking it. Why not wait and see if it becomes policy, and act then, rather than delete an article which under current policy is perfectly acceptable? Why remove perfectly good content (and risk pissing off a potentially valuable contributor) because of something that's not even policy yet? It's ridiculous. Kurt Weber 20:07, 7 November 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. W.marsh 01:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aplus.Net

Aplus.Net (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This article was deleted back in August per a previous AfD nomination. The article was recently recreated, but the content has changed. The author opposes its speedy deletion, so I am putting it up on AfD for reconsideration. Tangot a ngo 07:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep seems to meet WP:CORP now. Has been mentioned multiple times in independent reliable sources. Kavadi carrier 07:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I agree the company may meet WP:CORP, however:
- the article is clearly Wikipedia:Conflict of interest it has been created and predominately written by the company sockpuppets: USER:216.55.131.77 and USER:Dnate76
- This is not a company that anyone other than itself has seen fit to add.
- Checking the history list, this article was recreated less than a week after the last WP:AFD (with only a trivial name change)
- Neither of these sockpuppets have made other useful changes to other parts of the wikipedia
- the sockpuppets have however unnecessarily been wikilinking it around as in: [12] [13] [14] [15] (presumably as a form of cheap advertising)
- then they renamed it with the comment '(moved Aplus.net to Aplus.Net: Company name was capitalized incorrectly.)' back to the original article. It all seems a bit slimey to me. Personally, I've got nothing against companies in general, but in this case, I'm unclear what the advantage is for the wikipedia for having this article, and allowing this kind of stuff.WolfKeeper 17:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and salt. Absolutely not. See WP:SPAM, "Advertisements masquerading as articles". There is nothing substantive or encyclopedic here, just a laundry list of accomplishments and awards. Look at the author's contributions - they are all either working on this article, or spamming other articles with links to this one. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I would say KEEP. This simply an informational page about a company that is large enough and has created enough notable products to be featured in Wikipedia. The fact that the company has been featured in such large publications means that they are doing something important that will benefit the Wikipedia community.

I would disagree with the “Conflict of Interest” point. I do not see exactly what part of that policy the articles breaks. I am assuming some users may think this is self promotion but the wikipedia policy is

Examples of these types (self promotion) of material include:

1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).

2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages (vanity links).

3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

I do not think the article breaks any of the above rules.

This is the first and only edit for Wiki-enforcer (talk • contribs) - isn't that weird? --Aguerriero (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Everything I've seen here leads me to believe this is spam. While maybe someone will start a legitimate article on this eventually, this isn't it. Wickethewok 20:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ - It cleary states in the Wikipedia policy page that

When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view.

to me this article is written in very neutral point of view. Wiki-enforcer

there are some curious omissions however, it strangely doesn't cover the sleezoid google bombing techniques that push the company way up in the google ranking, described here: [16][17][18] Under the wikipedia rules, this would clearly need much more coverage in the article, including detailed description of how this works and why this means that the very high google ranking may be unjustified for the company. It's unclear that the article would end up in a positive light at the end of the day for the company.WolfKeeper 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I do believe the artcile has encyclopedic value. The company is in the top 25 web hosts in the world http://www.webhosting.info/webhosts/tophosts/Country/US?pi=2&ob=RANK&oo=ASC. There are many smaller web hosting companies listed on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Web_hosting .

apparently another decisive opinion by Wiki-enforcer WolfKeeper 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-enforcer (talk • contribs) is a likely sock. Only 2 edits, both were to participate in this debate. Ohconfucius 03:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as spam. This is one of the better written advertisements I've seen, but it remains nothing more than an advertisement none the less. Few of the links under "recognition" actually talk about the company itself. The rest are included because an employee of the company got a one line question/answer in an unrelated article. The entire section is basically nothing more than name dropping in an attempt to add legitimacy. The blatant linkspamming does not help their cause at all. Resolute 00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Notability seems to be better established, but I still don't see this meeting WP:CORP. The citations provided are rather trivial - just a one sentence blurb from the marketing director. In order to keep, I would like to see articles featuring the company and their contributions to the web hosting industry. With all the awards that they claim on their website, I would think this would be easy. I tried searching CNET, but found no mention of the Editor's Choice award and didn't go further than that. Keep if the awards can be verified. I'd also support Speedy Delete under G11 unless it is substanstially rewritten in a NPOV manner since the article seems rather spammish to me. Leuko 00:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete:Agree with Resolute and Wickethewok. The page may be able to be encyclopedic, but certainly not in its current incarnation (or last). Unless a neutral editor completely redoes the article, it needs to be removed, IMHO. --Benwildeboer 02:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as WP:SPAM. This is all very distasteful. Clearly the author's intentions are dishonest per research by WolfKeeper. It's a possible that the company could conceivably meet WP:CORP, but the author no favours by using tactics like what we have witnessed. Dnate76 (talk • contribs) has made no other meaningful edits apart from this article and associated spam links. The subject's website ranks a healthy 1,105th, and the Tophost award checks out. Curiously tophost ranks 22,111th (lower than the subject), As pointed out aplus consolidates hits belonging to many of its clients by googlebombing. pcmag (1 & 2) and cnet searches all reveal zerohits other than directory listings. the links to about.com and Hostreview are but infomercials, as is the Tophost article, which is completely written by the company's PR department. Also curious for someone who appears to be so well acquainted with wiki's policy on speedy deletion, the author is nevertheless guilty of WP:NPOV, using weasel words: I take issue with the unjustified use of terms such as "regularly profiled" and "drew national attention" when many of these articles linked to are clearly "trivial" (ie only mention the company fleetingly or where one of its officers is merely supplying a quote). I find that even the use of the word "Recognition" as a paragraph title is NPOV. "Ranked by" doesn't mean squat if you're not ranked #1 in a basket of important criteria, judged againts solid competition: so what if it's ranked by Netcraft? What is more, the Tier 1 Research ranking is unimpressive. I strongly suspect if we re-wrote the article and added references to the google bombing (which although are from blogs, are objective and easily reperformed), the author will beg us to delete the article ;-) Ohconfucius 03:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Amusingly, I did track down the CNET 'favourite web host' award[19] and it is sponsored by the top two recipients of the award. :-) It wasn't clear what they did to deserve it, but I speculate that the award goes to the CNET's favourite web hoster, which I would guess would be the ones that pay them the most money.WolfKeeper 05:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Not a dumb marketing move - create a category you know you can win, and sponsor a prize for it. The CNet site says the winning criteria are "based on how many visits per week they get from CNET Internet Services". Some expert can probably explain how they managed to click-bomb or link bomb CNET for 322 consecutive weeks. Ohconfucius 13:24, 8 November 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 Westlake High School (Texas). Yomangani ^talk 00:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westlake Featherduster

Fails AfD precedents and more or less fails WP:V. The only verifiable part of the article is part of the list of awards and the "founded in" date. Is that really an encyclopedic article or just a school newspaper's homepage? Seidenstud 07:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

keep. Multi-award winning school newspaper with national recognition, easily verified with a ten second google search. Columbia University verification is in the very first google hit. Nominator confuses "needs expansion" with "needs deletion". Unfocused 08:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Is that vote a f***ing joke? And yes, I said "vote". -- Kicking222 01:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  - What do you find funny about it? Please be more civil in your reply. Un focused 01:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
~~Speedy delete~~ in its current form, if I was looking at the article without having looked at this AfD first I swear I'd have totally no idea what/who "Westlake Featherduster" is/was. If this is indeed a major school paper, it needs cleanup before AfD closes. Otherwise delete. Kavadi carrier 08:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Added content, no longer appropriate for speedy under A-1. Un focused 08:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I'd choose to merge to Westlake High School (Texas) instead. There's not much else about the newspaper itself other than the mentions of awards, but including this information within the parent school's article will give it more context. Right now all that the independent sources say about this paper is that it has won awards by the boatload. Nothing more. The section about the editors is OR as far as I can tell. Kavadi carrier 12:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as lacking context per Kavadi carrier. So tagged. MER-C 08:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. MER-C 12:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or merge, but in no way should it be its own article. Not now, not ever. -- Kicking222 01:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge The impressive list of awards suggests it's noteworthy, but if there's nothing more to say about it than "It's the student newspaper of Westlake and it's won lots of awards," I think that's better used to expand the school article rather than to start a new one. If there is more to say about it, in the vein of the Berkeley High Jacket, that's another matter, but I suspect few high school papers have sufficient impact outside of their respective schools to warrant an encyclopedia article. Shimeru 07:51, 5 November 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. Clearly a consensus to keep (although I see the scenario playing out much as predicted by Bishonen). The "mistakenly created" argument doesn't hold much water, the nominator has edited the mistake hundreds of times and clearly believes there is case for an Erich Heller article, just doesn't like this one. Yomangani ^talk 00:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erich Heller

Erich Heller (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Deletion is requested under CSD G7. The cited rule has two conditions: both are met. The second condition, concerning the original post having been made in error, is certified by the user in question on the article’s discussion page. The fulfillment of the first condition is borne out by investigation of the article’s history. Some users, including User:Charles Matthews, and others, made objections to the proposed deletion on grounds extraneous to the rule. Those objections, as well as being predicated on false assumptions and unsubstantiated defamatory remarks, are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

The administrator who suggested the AfD process wrote here the opinion that ‘There is a case for speedy’ (3 November 2006, 09:05 UTC). — Prof02 07:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This is a page with a long history. To assert now, after half a year, that the original page was mistakenly created, beggars belief. We do not allow wikilawyering about speedy deletion to trump the basic principle that content once submitted should not be 'revoked' by an author, who finds that editing here is collective. CSD G7 should not be a loaded gun that any page's original author can point at the community, as a threat, in order to get leverage on the page's content. WP:OWN applies here. Charles Matthews 09:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Charles Matthews. 1ne 09:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The nominator's amusing reasoning doesn't help his case, and has been amply answered by Charles Matthews on the talk page of the article and on this page. So that leaves us with only this professor's notability according to our academic biography guidelines to consider. However, any doubts that this person is notable are soundly demolished by pages like this obituary from the New York Times, the 13 boxes of papers he wrote, and the many other books he wrote which is surely more than the output of many academics. Hence keep. Kavadi carrier 10:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the above, it seems completely untenable to suggest an article created a long time ago with over 500 edits by the nominator was done "in error". The actual history of the article appears revealing edit summary such as "(art split off and moved from userpage without user's approval or consent, in an act of hidden vandalism)" and it's original userfication do support the suggestion that the nominator is actually complaining about their lack of ability to have long term exclusive control on the article, not a free webhost. Irrespective G7 is not a "will" be deleted, but "can" be deleted, we aren't in the business of deleting encyclopedic material to fulfil some bureaucratic process (not a bureacracy etc.) --pgk 10:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - CSD G7 does not apply here. As has been noted on the talk page, this is content that has been submitted under the GFDL. Please note the warning: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." - if you want to maintain control over a piece of text, don't post it to Wikipedia - it is as simple as that. Carcharoth 12:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Or follow Bishonen's suggestion below. Carcharoth 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - the log history of this article, seen here (or use the links provided above) show that deletion and recreation has occurred before. Carcharoth 12:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - furthermore, in support of the assertion that CSD G7 does not apply, from WP:CSD#Non-criteria we have: "Author deletion requests made in bad faith: Sometimes an author will ask to have content removed because they feel frustrated with the project and resent it profiting from their work. However, they licensed their work to be used in this way and they have no legal basis for asking for its removal. The article must be "mistakenly created", for example if the author created it unwittingly by misspelling a name. Of course, anyone may request deletion of pages in their userspace." See also Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Explanations#General: "Does not apply to long-standing articles or quality articles not created by mistake. Such articles were duly submitted and released by the author and have become part of the encyclopedia, obviating others who otherwise would have written an article on the subject.". Note that the article history goes back to April 2006, and there are 26 links to this article from other articles in the encyclopedia, establishing that this is indeed a long-standing article and one that has become part of the encyclopedia. Carcharoth 12:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- See here and here for more background on all this. Carcharoth 13:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, sort of: Keep at this time: the argument here is self-destructing, as the "author" is not the "author," having gotten an account change since beginning. However, this is, absolutely without doubt, not an "author blanked" article or an article created in error. Geogre 12:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Which other account would that be? If you feel you can reveal this. Carcharoth 13:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I would like to know that also. For the sake of explanation to other users above (not to User:Geogre, whose other misunderstandings of this very subject are recorded here), it may be added that the fact that the article was created in error on 24 March 2006 is borne out by the fact that the user, then relatively new, requested its transfer from the mainspace to userspace back on 19 May 2006 (memorialized here), indicating his mistake less then two months after starting off. So no, this is not a new tack on my part. Deletion under CSD G7 calls for establishment of only two facts, indicated in official policy posted at that address, not for voting: a rational response, on two issues of importance, is required (see also WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_Democracy). — Prof02 14:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - - Oh, dear. Still thinking that I had some misunderstanding there, are you? That's fine, if you think it. Others can form their own opinions. Since your talk page has no official capacity and you were engaged in a Mad Hatter's tea party in your own mind, I really didn't feel there was any profit to being there. Unfortunately, your talk page is not your blog, and, if you cannot contribute and do not want to have your words edited, you shouldn't be trying to use it that way. Geogre 02:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  - It has been pointed out above that the official policy you are quoting has specific sections that apply here, and which make clear that CSD G7 is not appropriate here. In case it is not yet clear, you will find that people here will greatly respect 30 years of scholarly work, but if you don't want to put this work on Wikipedia to be collaboratively edited by others, then you should publish it elsewhere instead (you still retain copyright on what you originally wrote, but cannot copy current versions without attributing Wikipedia). For example, you could publish your work on a website of your own. If you did that, the article on Wikipedia could be rewritten from scratch and include a reference to your website as an external link. Since most of the content at the moment is undoubtedly contributed by you, the ethical course for Wikipedia would most likely to agree to this (though technically I don't think we have to, as you 'released' your material under the GFDL by pressing 'save' in the editing window). Anyway, if this hypothetical website of yours ever died, Wikipedia could just revert back to the most informative version of the article (which would still exist in the page history). The ethical course for you would be to acknowledge on this hypothetical website that the material was first published at Wikipedia. For most people's contributions, which are tangled up in amongst other's, this doesn't work. Your contributions are still relatively easy to distinguish from others, so this course of action is probably possible. Others may have differing opinions though, as the possibility of someone later republishing what they have contributed to Wikipedia might be discussed elsewhere and rejected (ie. I might just be wrong here). Carcharoth 17:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    - As you say he has copyright ownership over his own work, releasing it under the GFDL doesn' restrain him in any way on that, he can release his own work under an alternative license quite freely without any need to mention wikipedia or anyone else (The GFDL as a license is him as the copyright holder agreeing to license his works to others under certain conditions, not a license to himself...). Only if he makes use of other peoples work would he need to license their work under the GFDL and thus be subject to it's conditions. --pgk 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  - This is in addition to the fact that he has not contributed as a signatory. I.e. his name is not "Prof02" at birth, and, since Wikipedia does not require the real name, we cannot "give" the rights to "him." I cannot call back all my contributions, for example, because no one at Wikipedia or in the software knows my legal name. We ran into this problem when we had reports of a contributor "dying" and then having "him" try to reclaim his account. We couldn't know if the "him" asking for rights back was the "him" who "died." Basically, Wikipedia is in a position of neither claiming nor granting rights other than the GFDL. Geogre 02:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Not a speedy candidate, and seems to pass notability Avi 00:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I can hardly believe this article was nominated in the first place. Un focused 01:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. G7 specifies 2 criteria, both of which must be met: (1) that the page's only substantial content was added by its author, and (2) that the content was mistakenly created. In this case, neither of these criteria is satisfactorily fulfilled:

Criterion 2: Prof02 created the Erich Heller article in mainspace on March 24, 2006 and edited it there hundreds of times. When making each of those edits, he viewed an edit page containing clear admonitions and policy links, which explain the operation of this wiki. He has long since forfeited the right to say "Oops, my mistake, I didn't mean to be here at all." That's like speeding down a highway marked with signage for hundreds of miles and then telling a police officer, "Oops, I didn't realize this was a public road."

Criterion 1: In mid-May at least one other editor made good faith edits to the Heller article. Prof02 expressed displeasure with this turn of events and explicitly characterized these edits as "arbitrary changes of substance" (see here). He then asked that "my article" be moved offline, a request which was granted on a temporary basis by a helpful admin, Bishonen. Prof02's own words clearly indicate that it was his own considered opinion that another editor was making substantial content changes to the Heller article. — WikiPedant 20:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

- CSD G7 concerns itself, not with changes of substance, but only with additions of substance: the rule states that the only substantial content must have been added by its author. One could delete 236 words, or even all the words from an article, instituting as a result the most drastic changes of substance, without thereby becoming a co-author in the understanding of Rule G7 (to say nothing of common sense).

- As regards the second G7 criterion, that concerning the author’s mistake, it is clear that I have created a work-in-progess in the main article space by mistake (from inexperience with the technicalities of the site, as this was only my second article on Wikipedia, and the first of this size and caliber), and that, when the concept of user subpages as the appropriate place for a work-in-progress is brought to my attention by User:Charles Matthews, I had never heard of the idea before, and declare openly that I do not know how to create a user subpage and need help with the task (the literal quote, recorded here, is: ‘I lack however the technical knowledge of how to do this’). The principle of ‘tough-cheese’, which seems to actuate at bottom some of the reasoning here, is not recognized by any judicial system in the world. — Prof02 07:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Please don't let's stand on ceremony and the GFDL in a case where common sense ought rather to prevail. The article is clearly of immense value to the main author and of little value to Wikipedia, being written in an unencyclopedic, reverential, circumlocutory mode. Did you people who want it kept actually read it? I don't mean to suggest anybody's commenting carelessly, I'm sure you checked out the facts in the text and the claims to notability, but did you read it as a piece of writing? Yes, it could probably be ruthlessly edited down to an encyclopedic stub, but why lacerate the user's feelings (and incur his flamethrower) for so little gain? It would surely be simpler to start over and write a new, Wikipedia-type, article about Erich Heller. I nominate Charles Matthews, who knows the subject. ;-) Note that I'm not proposing that the page be reuserfied, there's been enough of that. I'm sure the user has somewhere off wikipedia to put it. It has generated enough battleground, please let's get rid of it, and also of this newly created userspace fork, and any future versions which may be created using Wikipedia resources without being freely editable by Wikipedians. Bishonen | talk 00:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

This argument makes sense. I'd be happy to support this. Carcharoth 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I greatly respect Bishonen's fine track record as an admin and mainspace contributor. She makes sound points about the shortcomings of this article and the behavior of the original author. But I am not comfortable with her proposed course of action. Sometimes, to be sure, situations present themselves where rules should be held in abeyance. However, "common sense" can be a slippery guideline and the common sense page she cites is not an official policy page. While it is true that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, Bishonen is proposing a leap in the direction of frontier justice. G7 and the other AfD rules are the products of consensus and they should be respected in all but the most exceptional situations. Without the consistent application of criteria like these, all AfD discussions would degenerate into debates invoking ad hoc principles. And Bishonen suggests not only that the G7 criteria be bypassed, but that the working drafts of the article in the user's subpages be deleted too (I see 2 such copies: here and here). It is not clear to me that this extra step falls within the purview of an AfD decision. If the user is the real problem here (and he is, to say the least, a "civility-challenged" character), there probably are ways to deal with that, but this does not strike me as one of them. - WikiPedant 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, WikiPedant. Your keep !vote is very logical, and it's clear enough that the article will in fact be kept. I don't really object. I guess I was most of all expressing my feeling of how nice it would be to get the whole thing off of Wikipedia. I do have some logic of my own, though: as soon anybody but Prof02 tries to edit it, it is incandescently clear from User talk:Prof02 and Talk:Erich Heller that he will defend its present state to the death, then quickly be blocked for edit warring, then quickly be indefinitely blocked. Honestly, Wikipedia is a chrystal ball sometimes. What's the point? As for ways of "dealing" with the user's civility issues, I've been trying to do that since May or whenever it was, and I really doubt it. Never mind, though. I just wanted to explain my angle. Oh, and I was indeed thinking of putting the user subpages on WP:MFD, I quite agree that deleting them can't be decided on AFD. Bishonen | talk 05:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC).

Yes, Bishonen, I think your prediction is quite likely to prove accurate. Perhaps there is a way out for all concerned. If the finding of this AfD process is that G7 has not been satisfied and the article stays, Wikipedia functionaries could make Prof02 an exceptional offer -- to delete the article and Prof02's userpages if Prof02 withdraws voluntarily and permanently from the Wikipedia project. He may well be as fed up with the contributors to this project as some of them are with him, and be quite agreeable to a mutual parting of the ways. But I don't have a clue who has the authority to make or implement such an offer. - WikiPedant 06:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep per above; Pgk has a nack of being able to sum up things beautifully like that. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Obviously Erich Heller is worthy of an article here, but is this article worthy of Erich Heller? That a man described as an essayist can have a page of this calibre devoted to him tells the world more about Wikipedia's standards than about Erich Heller. It cannot under any stretch of the imagination be described as objective or encyclopedic. If an editor is prepared to take it into userspace, and heavily edit it until it conforms to the standards expected of a Wikipedia article then perhaps it could be given a limited trial life in order to conform. I could prune this by a third and make an encyclopedic page within twenty minutes - but it's not my subject - I would probably remove something important, and this is the danger, editing this page cannot be tackled by just anyone, we could have something of even less use than the present article, if not downright misleading and dangerous to Wikipedia's reputation. - So for Erich Heller's and Wikipedia's sake this has to go - and then if necessary be re-created in a more encyclopedic fashion by a new editor at sometime in the future. Giano 09:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you realise that User:Prof02 has had this page userfyed, and edited it over 1500 times in that state? I'm sure the article could be improved. Since when has that been a reason for deletion? Charles Matthews 09:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In reality this is not about User:Prof02, nor should it be, it is about if the article is suitable for retention. 1.5 or 1500 edits is neither here nor there. Everything can be improved, but surely the pages sojourn here would have been the impetus for some one to do just that - no one has. This page does not cut the mustard - It cannot remain as it is - there is no one to able to fix it so it must be discarded. I would have thought you would welcome giving some one the opportunity to start again with a clean sheet. Giano 10:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's entirely to do with editors not wanting to be abused. I could quite happily start sorting out the convoluted Thomas Mann stuff, using Anthony Heilbut's book. I would want to retain the references, which are good, while removing more of the POV and tangled logic. Michael Hamburger has some useful things also. It seemed sensible to let the dispute over who was competent to edit the page run its course, ignoring some of the vitriol. Doesn't mean the page should be torched. Charles Matthews 13:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know whether or not User:Giano II is aware that the Erich Heller article he is looking at is not an article that its contributor, the undersigned, intended for Wikipedia. That article is still in the process of being prepared here, and at the present stage is still not ready to be released to the main article space. The article on Heller which Giano is looking at, and which constitutes the subject of the present debate, has been forcibly wrenched — in violation of Wikipedia guidelines — without the user’s knowledge or consent, from that work-in-progess on the user’s subpage (I use the Saxon genitive judiciously here). When I asked that the article be re-merged with the body from which it was truncated, the administrators involved refused point-blank, without stating valid (or indeed any) reasons. The matter, as a result, is a subject of a very, very serious dispute, involving pre-eminently User:Charles Matthews, User:Bishonen, User:WikiPedant, but also others, who are now locked in a battle of their administrative lives on Wikipedia. Let’s therefore keep the proceedings on this page simple, and constrain ourselves solely to the subject-matter at hand, which is the CSD G7 rule. Either it applies or not, and if not, why.

Parenthetically speaking, the reason why works-in-progress cannot be edited by others, even if they show the compulsive eagerness to do so exhibited by User:Charles Matthews, is the circumstance that the ‘progress’, as in ‘work-in-progress’, is arrested in such conditions. I have never had anything close to the unreasonable problems created artificially by a single user, with the support of a group of others who benefit from the protective umbrella that his membership of the ArbCom in their eyes bestows, with the ten or so other articles I have contributed so far. And this situation I do mean to change, permanently, even if I have to suffer mud being thrown in my face as I methodically pursue this. — Prof02 07:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Really, I am so 'compulsively eager' to edit Erich Heller that I have put up with half a year of this sort of prevarication from an editor who simply doesn't understand our policies, and, more importantly, our way of doing business, and, more importantly again, shows no signs of being able to take in any explanations of anything to do with Wikipedia. Unreasonable problems created artificially by a single user refers, apparently, to the operation of normal policy and collective editing. Can we cut the chop-logic short and just keep the existing page? Charles Matthews 23:04, 9 November 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. Note that references were added after many people commented. W.marsh 13:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enochian angels

Originally researched, unsourced, list in relation to a 16th century text by by John Dee and Edward Kelley. Article was previously nominated for deletion in September 2005 here hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, unverified original research, with no reliable sources. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete primarily listcruft and OR. Kavadi carrier 10:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The names of most Enochian angels are derived from several complicated tables of letters through a fairly mechanical process, and little is published about each individual angel. I imagine that this list is just a large collection of these. --mkehrt 11:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep only if properly sourced This article could be useful if properly sourced. Enochian angels play a key role in John Dee's life and work. Stammer 17:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:OR by default for having no external sources... since 2005! Too bad for the minor angel Hxgzd and his colleagues. Sandstein 23:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep or redirect if it really can't be made into a proper article. John Dee was a hugely important historical figure, and this represents some of his most enduring work. Merge to his main article at least, but we could easily have a proper article on this subject if only someone cared to write one. Friday (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
There are hundreds of redirects to this since many of the angels used to have their own articles and they were all merged into this list. Perhaps just the list could be removed since the text may be easier to source than each entry on the list. Angela . 00:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Reliable sources exist out there, in the great land known as "print media". This article was started back in 2004 by User:Danny, who now works full time for the Foundation, and said on the talk page back in April 2005 that at least one source was used. Given the amount of science fiction Dee has appeared in in recent years, multiple works of which mentioned/used these angels, sorting out the fancruft from the real stuff online is more than I want to dive into. GRBerry 04:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep There are many reliable print media sources for this material. All this article needs a single good citation. --Davecake 04:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The topic is notable, and I have added sources and an external link to the article. I'm ambivalent about whether it's worth keeping the entire list, but the article itself is definitely worth keeping. --Elonka 08:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - but scrap the list I was sadly disappointed by the article. Why is there so little about the subject? I can't see any reason simply to list all the Angels, but that has nothing to do with an AfD, since the subject itself deserves an entry. --Mike 19:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and keep the list--they appear in numerous compendiums of mythology and the occult. Much better than getting a crappy stub about each article. Danny 20:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep How do you know it's original research? —Jo nMo ore 17:46, 8 November 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 (merge tags are up). W.marsh 01:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croatoan Society

Croatoan Society (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Simple idea from only one issue of a comic. Has had no ramifications on any other title whatsoever. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge into 52 (comic book)--TBCΦtalk? 09:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge into 52 (comic book). Kavadi carrier 11:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It hasn't even been two months since the concept was introduced; please give it some time to resurface in other comics. Like, perhaps, the five issue HELMET OF FATE saga that was just solicited. Nick Curtis 12:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge into 52 (comic book) (& redirect?) If it comes back then the article can be recreated (and in the mean time no info lost) but for the time being it doesn't deserve it own page. Palendrom 01:58, 6 November 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. Disregarding "all schools are inherently notable" arguments, the arguments to delete are stronger than the ones for keeping. The article also has little useful information ("the school is made of brick"), so there isn't really anything to merge, particularly if the outdated link on the school district is fixed to reflect the school's new designation. --Coredesat 04:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maurice And Everett Haines Elementary School

Maurice And Everett Haines Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Contested prod. My reason was given as primary school with no assertion of notability per WP:SCHOOLS or otherwise the prod was removed with comment deprod school, mergable but no merge was carried out nor a target identified. I would rather see this deleted as non-notable and lacking relaible sources, but if people prefer a merge, I urge them to carry it out rather than leave a poorly referenced stub of dubious notability. Eluchil404 08:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete for lack of apparent notability (a rough Google doesn't even give many results, let alone independent ones). Merge to the locality if we must, but I doubt that's a great idea. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 10:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Gotta love de-prodders who give zero reasons why (and saying, "Sweet crackers! It's a school! Heavens forbid!" is not a reason). -- Kicking222 15:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment — Read the prod instructions. It only says to note the removal in the edit summary; not to give a reason why. Some of the prod postings themselves are similarly lacking in suitable justification. In some cases I think that just the lack of a prod comment is sufficient justification for removal of the PROD. The prod itself may simply be a form of vandilism or spite. — RJH (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Looks like just another elementary school, with no assertion of notability. TJ Spyke 21:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I don't think that I have encountered an elementary school restricted to a single grade (Grade 6, in this case) before. I hope that the school board will eventually publish some kind of evaluation to discuss the advantages and problems associated with a single-grade school like this. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There are tons of schools in Jersey that only cover 6th grade. This one is in no way unique, and in addition, it completely fails your precious WP:SCHOOLS. -- Kicking222 01:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep this article about a very unique and interesting school, per TruthbringerToronto, but I will probably move it to its current proper name. Unfocused 01:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment How is it unique, and how is it interesting? If it's either of those things, please feel free to add sourced information to the article. Right now, it's just a school, and no interesting qualities are given. Your vote amounts to "keep all schools for no reason." -- Kicking222 01:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Given that I believe every school I've ever seen or read of serve their communities with an importance that far exceeds the societal impact of the average music CD, yet we keep those CDs, is not "keep all schools for no reason", it's "keep all schools for very good reasons that Kicking222 doesn't agree with". In my experience, a school that serves only one grade is unique and interesting. I'd never even heard of such a thing, and I've been editing schools here for over two years, logged in and anon. That you find them common suggests that more of them should have articles here on Wikipedia. Un focused 01:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete "The school is made of brick." Good, the 6th graders don't need to worry about the Big Bad Wolf. But no claim of notability. Mention it in the article for the town, until evidence of notability is found. Edison 03:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - school is already mentioned (and links to it are external, not internal) in the articles both about its community and its school district. --JohnDBuell 18:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per TruthbringerToronto. Delete votes are destructive; Why not merge?!?! Alansohn 19:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If you think it should be merged then say so. And general claims about deletion being "destructive" with the use of many exclamation points is not an argument for the keeping of this school in particular, unless you want to go through and keep everything since deletion is "destructive"
Delete As another not-notable school. It doesn't even meet the generous WP:SCHOOLS inclusion criterion. The school has nothing unique about it, no notable alumni, no clubs or teams that performed at a notable level, no awards or any other distinguishing features. JoshuaZ 20:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge into school district, per nomination, and then delete DesertSky85451 01:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment We can't do that per the GFDL. If we merge we need to leave a redirect. JoshuaZ 02:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  - My bad. DesertSky85451 03:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and allow the article to be expanded; I would like to know about it personally and I'm sure that there are thousands of others who may as well. No opposition to this being merged in the meantime. Silensor 23:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no assertion of notability. Okay, it exists. It's required by state law to exist. —ptk✰fgs 11:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge Lets start being honest, no school ever deserves to be deleted. It either stays or it gets merged. These AfD's are just a waste of time and very detrimental to Wikipedia's outside image! --Mike 19:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment None "deservers to be deleted"? How did you come to that conclusion? JoshuaZ 19:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  - The smallest level at which I would expect Wikipedia to have entries is the local area equivalent to a small village. In a modern village the school is often the main if not sole focue to the community. It therefore follows that it would be impossible to write an article on each geographical area without mentioning the school. So, much better is to turn it around and have an entry for each school and tag onto it a bit of information on the local area. By tagging it to the school it also ensures that sub-areas with less population than a school are not included. But most of all, I've often had to resort to school web sites to research local areas because the school web site is the only source of local information. If I have found information on schools of invaluable use, then I see no reason why numerous other people would not, and to my mind that warrants an entry on most schools (although I might merge infant schools by area). I hope that answers your question! TO recap: I use WIkipedia, I have need of information on most schools, and therefore as a user i wish Wikipedia to have entries on most schools QED -keeep --Mike 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    - The school is the main or sole focus of a whole community? You cannot possibly be serious. This is true in a number of college towns, but it's beyond ludicrous to suggest that this elementary school is the sole focus of the community in which it resides. —ptk✰fgs 22:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Of course I am serious. There are many places where the only information on the locale is the school. WIkipedia does not pay its contributors, it can't force a comprehensive coverage of all areas, but if it has a positive attitude to school then it will achieve this. I'm amazed that I have to explain this! Of course schools are the centre of whole communities. Within our local, the only is the only social facility - there are no shops, no pubs, no hotels, no factories, no square, there's a garage, and around 5000 people. In fact, the only reason most people live here is because the secondary school (there isn't any other reason to live here!). I am much more a user of wikipedia than a contributor. I know what kind of articles that I find useful - and by far the most useful articles are the ones that cover micro-geographical details as contained in most good school articles. I explained that Wikipedia needs to work with schools rather than trying to piss them off! There is no good reason to delete this article except prejudice by those that don't live in the area (and I don't!) --Mike 23:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      - First, let me state that you are welcome to delete articles about schools in my area. I really don't mind. Now as to the more substantial points, while we are concered with users of Wikipedia that isn't the be-all and end-all. As a user, I'd like to have all mathematical knowledge on the planet in Wikipedia. It would be quite convenient. And I'd like to have individual articles on each stamp ever issued by the US government, and each coin as well. That doesn't mean we should have that. Furthermore, we have no evidence that this school is the sort of hub that you are claiming it is. While colleges (and occasionally highschools) sometimes seem to be such hubs, the claim that an elementary school is such a hub is very hard to believe. If you had a reliable source that claimed that this school functioned as a hub or some similar comment, that would be worth something. It is however, very hard to credit things with the notion that because it might function as a hub we should keep it. (And there is always Wikitravel). JoshuaZ 08:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep All schools are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 01:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment And the reason for this would be? Keep in mind that not even countries are inherently notable...JoshuaZ 01:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep: meets all content policies. The sources provided are reliable, but of course they only cover a small amount of information. A merge might be a good idea. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In what way does it meet all content policies? The sources provided indicate that the school exists, which is a good start, but that's not what we're in the business of here. Additionally, since many of the sources are in fact direct from the school itself, I'm not sure they're exactly reliable in the way we define the term. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

keep please there is no need to erase this at all Yuckfoo 01:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That in spite of a lack of reliable independent sources? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude the sources in there are fine. A source written by the subject about itself is considered acceptable per WP:SOURCE. Keep ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? I suggest you look at WP:RS. In general, sources are considered most reliable when they are "independent." Indeed, the guideline says "multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability" - these sources do not pass this guideline by any stretch of the imagination. JoshuaZ 06:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Really? WP:V says that Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources. Point taken regarding WP:SOURCE, but I'm not convinced that the self-published sources here are in fact relevant to the person's or organization's notability. They prove the school exists, which is a nice start, but they don't go much further than that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is all that matters however... the sources within the article prove its existance, back the content of the article up... what the hell else do we need a source for really? Are you guys claiming that some random person invented a school and then made up the web pages to prove its existance... I mean seriously. The sources are FINE for proving its existance and all data within the article. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, even if WP:V were all that matters (which it isn't), this wouldn't meet it. And actually we have had hoax websites of a variety of insttitutions up before, including schools. Furthermore, even if you had a verification of its existence would you really be in favor of the one line article "Maurice And Everett Haines Elementary School is a school" or something like that? JoshuaZ 06:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to be overly argumentative. This school has references with the Lenape Regional High School District, the New Jersey Department of Education, and the National Center for Education Statistics (nces.ed.gov) so I have zero doubt that it is real and it exists. Yamaguchi先生 06:29, 9 November 2006

I'm real and I exist. There's considerable proof of that fact, so can I have an article here? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please spare everyone the immature rhetoric. Yamaguchi先生 07:00, 9 November 2006

I'm just pointing out the problem here. That the school exists is great and wonderful, but Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, not a directory of everything that exists. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If the multiple sources cited above and within this article ever find reason to write about you, please let me know and I will consider developing a Wikipedia article in your name. Yamaguchi先生 07:07, 9 November 2006

That's the point, the sources cited in the article are duty bound to report on the existence of the school. One of them is the school's own website, and the others are simply organisations (School Boards and the like) which mention a series of schools, much like the website of a club or society having a membership list. The existence of the school isn't in doubt, in other words. Neither is my existence in doubt, but it's not proven by anything that establishes my notability (just the standard birth certificate, passport, bank account etc). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Many people at this point comes with multiple indepenent sources. For example, in many areas, birth certificates and marriage certificates are open to the public, thus giving many people automatically two independent sources. However, these sources like the above are trivial. This school does not have non-trivial independent sources. JoshuaZ 16:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 06:32, 9 November 2006
Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete unremarkable school Catchpole 12:38, 9 November 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 13:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dialects of the world

Dialects of the world (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This article is not currently comprehensive and is too broad of a topic for a single article. Only 8 languages are listed and info can easily be placed under respective language articles — AjaxSmack 09:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as perpetual hopelessly incomplete list. Kavadi carrier 10:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Categories are better. utcursch | talk 12:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete', unmaintainable super-list. Pavel Vozenilek 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all the above. Merging not necessary, since almost all the material is already taken from existing language articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 6 November 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. --Coredesat 05:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Insulator Company

Victor Insulator Company (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable company (despite its age), no context, not linked, no cat, not referenced, no sources. Ligulem 10:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And no keep too. Delete in its current form unless sources are provided. Kavadi carrier 10:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's going to be hard finding online sources, if anyone feels like expanding this. I can't even find an official website for the company. Kavadi carrier 10:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - REALLY? www.victorinsulators.com was that hard to find??? Unfocused 14:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Neither searching for "Victor Insulator" [20] nor "Victor Insulator Company" [21] get you that website within the first two pages of results. Kavadi carrier 15:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Your google-fu is lacking, grasshopper. Remove the quotes from your first query and the official company home page is the second link. [22] Un focused 16:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
keep. Company is a pioneer in their field, and has been in business continuously for over 100 years. Un focused 14:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that age alone qualifies as being encyclopaedic. However, your are welcome to add something interesting to that boring article. It's rather like a directory entry. --Ligulem 13:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Added reference stating it is the oldest insulator manufacturer in North America, which should qualify it notability-wise. Edison 03:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Edison's addition. Thanks for the amusement, Unfocused. --Oakshade 05:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Being the oldest company of its kind on its continent makes it reasonably noteworthy. Shimeru 07:30, 5 November 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 13:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Kalegi

Ed Kalegi (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable voice actor, contested prod. 17 Google hits for "Ed Kalegi" and most of them are from message boards on which he posted using that name. None of his work appears to be notable, it's all local commercials and public address announcer for a second tier league (for those of you unfamiliar, check out American Basketball Association (21st century). Metros232 10:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination, article fails our biography guidelines. Also there might be conflict of interest here (note the username of the editor who created this). Kavadi carrier 10:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. - Triviaa 21:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Kavadi carrier. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 06:06, 9 November 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. W.marsh 14:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GFP Personal Finance Manager

GFP Personal Finance Manager (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Appears to be non-notable according to WP:SOFTWARE. Kavadi carrier 11:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, I did not see any reliable sources in the 100 or so unique Google hits for this product, nor are any cited in the article. Since it's still on release zero that is not a big surprise. Redux: just another SourceForge project with no evidence of significance. Guy 11:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 12:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete: I disagree, if you type gfp and “personal finance” on google you will see that the first 10 result pages are about the software, some of then not in English (Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, French), indeed the software is more used for people that does not speak English natively. Even if you type only GFP on google you will see that that 7th result is about GFP, but it isn’t in Enlgish. It was published in an article on Italian Magazine named “PC Professional” (It’s obviously written in Italian) as you can see clicking on the link in this article: http://gfd.sourceforge.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=12. There are articles about GFP on http://opensourceinstall.org/ (In Chinese), and http://www.clubedohardware.com.br/ (In Brazilian Portuguese). In any of these articles it is indicated as a good Open source and multi platform alternative to MS Money. Just because its popularity in other languages is grater them in English, isn’t a reason to remove it from English idiom articles (the idea is that with the English article on wikipedia users that speak others languages in witch GFP is more used can write their idiom translation).
Delete, spam Naconkantari 19:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
~~Do not Delete~~ I don't see it as a spam there are other similar software topics on wikipedia see, (some of then not so expressive):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JGnash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddi (They will be deleted too? Why?)About the zero release:Many softwares that run on Linux are release 0 is just a matter of version control discipline; when the developer advice the user that the system will be more complex when reach the 1.0 release that will be considered full featured. There are others similar OpenSource software that are 1.0 relase but haven't all features that GFP has, and GFP web site was ranked as one of the 7 best sites for "Personal Finance Manager" according to search engines result, as you can see here: http://www.best7sites.com/finance/finance7/Personal%20Finance%20Manager/index.htm?k=personal%20finance

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazmi

Nazmi (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Augh... where to start? All 150 kB of this article were pasted in at once by a user who has made no contributions outside this article, and the article has barely changed since then - not because it's perfect, though, but because it's impossible to know where to start. The article starts out like a biography of Syed Aley Rasool Hasnain Miyan Nazmi (now that's a mouthful), but goes off on a series of mini-biographies on various other persons and anecdotes, then - around halfway through - launches into a treatise on Islam.

There isn't a single reference, and almost no wikilinks, in the entire thing. Almost none of the names show up on Google. If this isn't patent nonsense, it's unverifiable and unmaintainable. Tktech put a tag on the talk page noting that he was working on it, but that was over a month ago and nothing has changed since. Delete without prejudice to a well-written, well-referenced article if one can be created. Zetawoof^(ζ) 11:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete totally unsourced and possibly copyvio. Kavadi carrier 11:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Portions found here and here - (parts) seem to be have been directly copied from external sources. --Ouro 13:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Copyright violation. Storm05 18:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete I would also think this is copyright violation. I'm no expert on India or Islam, but the article contains some many seemingly disconnected ideas that it would be extremely hard to fix. There are also no sources, and few can be found. Maybe someone could create a new article from scratch.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Doctor Bruno 16:00, 5 November 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 (CSD A7). utcursch | talk 12:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team Semi

Team Semi (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Doesn't seem to be notable, or assert notability. The article itself contains little information, all of it breaking neutral point of view. Ruaraidh-dobson 12:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - csd a7. So tagged. MER-C 12:10, 4 November 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 deleted under A7 by Fang Aili -- Dina 22:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fancey

Fancey (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Content is " Fancey is the solo project of Todd Fancey who is a member of Canadian indie rock group The New Pornographers. Fancey released his first album in 2004." No assertion of notability whatsoever. It's a project, not a band and thus can't be speedied. Contested prod. MER-C 12:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete still. What this "project" sounds like to me is a one-man band. Therefore, still a band. The article says nothing to make me think that this is anything but an artiste going solo under a (not very imaginative) name. Therefore a resounding non-notable according to WP:MUSIC. Kavadi carrier 13:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as junk. Moreschi 13:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Delete I don't think this is a speedy, I just think its an awful article. The New Pornographers are a notable band on Matador Records (most well known in the US I think for working with Neko Case.) I think this might qualify as "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." from WP:BAND. I suggest renaming the article Todd Fancey (most of the other New Pornographers have their own articles) and including this info about his solo work. Dina 17:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Okay the creator of this article has created another one titled Todd fancey. I've dropped a note on his/her talk page about why that wasn't a really good idea. I might take a stab at cleaning that one up though, and then change my vote here to delete. Dina 17:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I worked on Todd fancey and am now changing to delete on this one. (Now if I can only get the title capitalized properly) -- if the editors involved still feel its not a worthy subject for an article, I suggest we find a way to speedy Fancey and nom Todd fancey to put it through its paces. Cheers. Dina 17:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've suggested the author "db-author" this article and concentrate his or her energies on the article Todd Fancey. We'll see how that goes. Dina 18:06, 4 November 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. W.marsh 14:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bharat Yoga

Bharat Yoga (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable "Orthodox Yoga". No sign of notability, no references. Delete. utcursch | talk 12:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep Firstly, in the context of international readers and a google search, I have to agree that this type of Yoga is not-notable. However, one must take into consideration of the verifiability of the content. It is indeed possible to verify the content based on a google search. This article also gives us a detailed explanation of this yoga. Considering the amount of subjects based on Western knowledge on Wikipedia currently, I feel that keeping this article with the addition of proper references would somewhat, albeit in a micro manner, balance the scope of this project. One must also remember that yoga in general is very popular in India and there are thousands of different types of yoga being practiced at a national level in this hoary nation. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The link provided by you is not about Bharat Yoga, it is about Bharat Yoga Centers ("India Yoga Centers") operated by RSS. utcursch | talk 10:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless sourced. Kavadi carrier 13:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - unsourced and 28 Ghits shows an overwhelming lack of notability. The spelling and grammar make a pig's ear look attractive and the article contains advert-like statements such as "to double and even tripple the will power of an individual...and above all to go beyond the thought.". Also please note that Wikipedia is not the place for affirmative action. Moreschi 13:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep- whatever the contents are they are somehow attractive, its tru that yog has been originated from India I thing Bharat Yog z new and appealing concept. Sign of Notability is a different matter but concept sounds attractive.- nick280 — Nick280 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Doctor Bruno 16:00, 5 November 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. W.marsh 14:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pratishtha Sharma

Pratishtha Sharma (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Kathak dancer, who is not notable enough yet. Daughter of Bharat Bhushan, the founder of Bharat Yoga. No references, no sign of notability. She finds mention in a single The Hindu article, which is not about her. utcursch | talk 12:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Asserts notability, however. Kavadi carrier 13:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Her googlability is practically zilch. Moreschi 13:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
week check Notability is not there bot achievements are very high I saw her performance at my country Japan which was really great as for me too that was 1st ever and only till now, performance at Icelend n Indonesia for tsaunami victims is also mentioned i think it can be kept.- Kenichiro — Kenichiro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Doctor Bruno 16:00, 5 November 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. *burp* Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drunk blogging

Drunk blogging (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable neologism. No internal links. I doubt we could find any reliable sources for an such article; it consists basically of original research. Any mention of the topic could easily be incorporated into blog. --Slowking Man 12:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge into the article blog. A google search shows about 150 unique hits. Although the article contains at least one external link, I do not think that the link is a reliable source of content. The low number of unique hits on google further states the case of the lack of notability on this subject. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, after some consideration, I have decided to change my opinion to Strong Delete. Lack of reliable sources for this subject is a concern here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Unlike drunk dialing, this appears to have no impact significant enough for any reliable sources to mention. Delete as unsourced. Kavadi carrier 13:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete outright as a non-notable neologism. Moreschi 13:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. We don't need articles on drunk blogging, drunk wikipedia editing, drunk emailing, drunk pie eating, or any other stupid crap. --- RockMFR 17:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete outright per Kavadi carrier. Andrew Levine 17:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as self-explanatory dicdef. It's just a combination of the words drunk and blogging. --Metropolitan90 17:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom TheRanger 19:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, and further my feelings suggest this perhaps should have been db'ed under nonsense. MidgleyDJ 19:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT urban dictionary. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — not notable neologistic dicdef M a rtinp23 20:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and send drunk bloggers to AA. Danny Lilithborne 02:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Inadequatedly Caffeinated Delete oh my god my head hurts argh. *great big coffee sip* Uh, we're talking about a rather obvious content here. "Drunk blogging is when you blog while drunk" kind of obvious. Look, it's probably notable if you patent thing "X" and some other company patents "X over the Internet". Especially if there's bazillion lawsuits. But this isn't necessarily notable. We don't have article on Drunken Counter-Strike Tournaments, Drunken Astrophysics Exams, or Comment Moderation on Crack. We don't need to cover every obvious syllogistic expansion of articles (as in "it's possible to do X while drunk, therefore we can make an article 'doing X while drunk'"). Cover it in main article, though I don't really think this is widespread enough to be considered a notable phenomenon. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as amusing put above. Robovski 00:45, 8 November 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, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KidCast

KidCast (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

More self-promotion from User:Peterrosen. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pronoia Tour. —Cryptic 12:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete this spam. The bold text is overpowering. Ugh!Kavadi carrier 13:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Moreschi 13:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The article's creation was a conflict of interest as the original author also is the creator of this project, which does not appear to be notable. --Metropolitan90 17:54, 4 November 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 13:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental interaction

Environmental interaction (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Looks like some kind of essay, which falls under original research. I'm not aware if the term is commonly used; it sounds like a neologism to me. If the article can be improved, by all means go ahead. I'm just listing it here because I'm not sure there's anything else to do with it (the article was tagged as a speedy, but "original research" isn't a valid criterion for speedy deletion). --Slowking Man 13:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Unreferenced essay. Moreschi 13:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete unsourced, original research. Kavadi carrier 13:46, 4 November 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 13:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aikido Institute

Delete This appears to be more advertisment than notable. Peter Rehse 08:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete appears only in one ABC article. [23] Not sufficiently notable. Kavadi carrier 13:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sheuynd 23:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, martial arts seems to be a magnet for this type of (self-?) aggrandizement. Dekimasu 04:13, 9 November 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. W.marsh 14:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inquisition Revisionism

Delete: This article is being used to promote original research and POV peddling.

The article is highly POV. under the title The Inquisition Myth the title is POV. Under the title Recent Scholarship the article is presenting highly controvertial work as being the current state of the field. The peddlers of the POV keep switching titles to avoid the term used by the authors themselves --Gorgonzilla 18:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep and change title to Recent scholarship on the Inquisition.

This is a straightforward historiographical essay. There is no controversy over the work of Kamen or Peters. The former is the standard English language work in the field, originally published in 1965 and continuously revised, updated and republished for close to 40 years. Richard Kagan of JHU calls it "the best general book on the Spanish Inquisition both for its range and its depth of information..." Peters is the Charles Henry Lea Professor at U Penn, Lea wrote was was an earlier standard work on the Inquisition, and Peters continues his work. Despite repeated requests, Gorgonzilla has produced no evidence of any substantial controversy over their findings. "Recent scholarship" accurately reflects the content of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobomojo (talk • contribs) 03:14, November 3, 2006.

Speedy Keep. Nominator is using AfD to make a point about the article title instead of working it out on the talk page, or through the article rename process. Article title complaints have nothing to do with AfD - article titles are placeholders, symbolic of what is contained in the article, not statements of fact. As for "POV", there has been a revision of Spanish Inquisition history with recent new evidence that has come to light starting in the 1970's - if you agree with it or not, if you think it is good history or bad history, doesn't matter - it's a lengthy enough subject to warrant an article. -- Stbalbach 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The result of the first AFD was inconclusive, many thought that the article could be NPOV if renamed. The fact that the article is repeatedly renamed in order to promote the assertions as fact shows that this is not a viable option. --[*[User:Gorgonzilla|Gorgonzilla]] 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you and think "Inquisition revisionism" (or "Spanish Inquisition revisionism") is a neutral name, it's been in place for a while now without any problem. One user recently changed it, and he did so without following the rename procedures for contentious moves (he's a new user so probably doesn't know about those procedures). So, you are in the right to restore to the original article name and ask him to please follow the rename procedures for contentious moves - most likely you and I would vote against his proposal and that would be the end of it. Instead you chose to put the article up for AfD using his article rename attempt (and subsequent edit war between you two) as a reason. -- Stbalbach 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep. This is serious scholarship. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep issues raised by the nominator are grounds for cleanup, not deletion. Kavadi carrier 13:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Reluctant Keep An intrinsecally controversial topic of great relevance. Expect an editing war. Stammer 18:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete This article is rife with POV and OR. In its current incarnation it simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I suggest moving this into Userspace until it has been thoroughly rewritten. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle}
Keep, but retitle at least to Inquisition revisionism.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge any verifiable and notable content to Spanish inquisition. POV fork, too much duplication of history with slightly different spins. Edison 03:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge as Edison with disclaimers ie pointing out there is controversy if there is. shld note contra above there is already a lenghty edit war & multiple arbitrary attempts to re-name. the user User:Hobomojo (who made the anonymous comment above) is heavily involved in this & is almost a single article user (this art. & 'spanish inquisition') Bsnowball 10:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I happen to know User:Hobomojo does excellent work. After my pleas for help, he translated the entire Spanish Inquisition article from the Spanish Wikipedia (it is Featured there) - before that, the Spanish Inquisition article was a disaster zone of early 20th century polemics. It is now up to date with the latest scholarship and we have Hobomojo to thank. Hobomojo is a fairly new user so I don't think he has had any experience in renaming articles - I don't think he knew that your supposed to make a rename proposal and get consensus on controversial moves, which is why he ended up in an edit war with another use who should have known better. -- Stbalbach 13:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Translation, someone needs to check the Spanish version for similar POV peddling --Gorgonzilla 13:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a featured article. Also if you could please respond to repeated and multiple requests on the talk pages why you think it is POV. You keep screaming "POV POV" -- it's old. -- Stbalbach 14:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not signing my comment above was an oversight on my part, nothing more. As for being a single article editor, guilty. I stick with what I know, and what I have time for rather than spread myself too thin and get overwhelmed and give up. I will say that I am always (or at least try to be) very explicit about the edits or reverts I make, in edit summaries and talk pages, something that can't be said for Gorgonzilla. Had he reverted my change and pointed me to the rename procedures, rather than start an edit war and an AfD, I would have learned something about Wikipedia and been happy to follow procedures. I would not object to merging parts of this article with Spanish Inquisition, Inquisition, and Black Legend. Hobomojo 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, it's valid scholarship. Wkerney 06:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep It does appear like a valid scholarly issue. --Oakshade 00:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Looks like usefull and valid work. Neutrality should be worked on, but that's no reason to delete all of this. Robovski 00:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Stbalbach. AfD is not meant to be a weapon in content disputes. POV issues should be addresse but there is no valid reason for deletion. Agne 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Based on the nomination. This is a content dispute and so not a valid reason for deletion. JASpencer 11:35, 10 November 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. W.marsh 14:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James L. Clark

This page should be deleted because it is almost entirely self-referential and derivative of sources created by the subject. The subject also does not merit an independent entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArkansasRed (talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete unsourced article, Google brings up 130 hits for "James Clark" "Wading in the Crap" which is supposed to be his best-selling work. [24] Kavadi carrier 13:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep sourced article, Google brings up 23,500 hits for "James L. Clark" "Wading THROUGH The Crap" which appears to be a best-selling work given by the numbers. [25] Further, it looks like he comes up over 4,400,000 times as the editor/author of other books including The Man Who Knew Too Much, Preemptive War, and others on both Barnes, Amazon, Albris, and so on [26] At what number would this person pass a given litmus?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.97.16.44 (talk • contribs) .
- You link to a search that searches for all words in no given order. If you really did search for "James L. Clark" "Wading Through The Crap" (including the 2 sets of quotes), it only shows 73 hits, a astonishing 24 of which are unique. [27] As expected, none of them are to independent reliable sources. Kavadi carrier 16:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Let's round up the sad statistics for his other "best-selling" works: "James L. Clark" "Becoming a Man of Influence" = 4(!) hits [28], "James L. Clark" "Preemptive War" = 13 hits. [29] Kavadi carrier 16:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete the 'Wading through the Crap' book has an Amazon sales rank of 1,296,458. How is this a best seller? Was it a best seller at a former time. and how would that be accessed? Where is the independent mainstream press coverage which might help to establish notability?Edison 03:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Edison, per Kavadi Carrier. Montco 06:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure yet, doing more research; you may all be right. Looks like the book came out back in 2003. There are a lot of ways a book can be a best seller, or so it would appear based on what I read. Sometimes it is based on numbers, but that is not always the case; it often based on category. I don't want to be so quick to rush to judgement just to delete this, but, like I said, you may be right. I added the quotes for the names and found it pulled over 14,000 on his name. I went through about 200 before I got tired of it and most looked to be this guy. Honestly, I am not sure what test works for an author and what does not. But it also seems there is more to the guy than this. I am not sure I would be so quick to remark that the lack of coverage online as "astonishing." I consider it remarkable that he (or anyone) has writen a book in the first place; I have never done so, have you? It is easy for us to debate this on Wikipedia, and who knows, he may not even want it here. Went to his site but saw no way to contact him. But also, people these days seem way to fast to want to get rid of pages and the tone concerns me. Has anyone else checked, because I do not see it the same way as Kavadi carrier who seems heck bent on getting rid of this entry and, at that, using "verifiable" when even that standard is in dispute right now - just my two cents. I just don't want this to be a vote of heads but a well reasoned process. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.97.16.44 (talk • contribs) .
I find it ironic that the above editor added the following comment to the article, which I happen to agree with: "This guy is a nobody! It should be deleted". Although it may be the subject's best seller, a book which ranks in the 1.3millionsths is to be dismissed instantly as irrelevant. "A Preemptive War" also ranks in the 1.33 millionsths, "Becoming a Man of Influence" is not available from B&N nor Amazon. The subject must not be confused with a namesake who writes "How to" books; ditto author Jamie L. Clark. BTW, the author of the article and the person above identifiable only by IP:68.97.16.44 can be traced back to the same service provider, Cox Atlanta. Ohconfucius 05:49, 6 November 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 14:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lady P

Keep notable, if delete merge into Los Abandoned and maintain as a dedriect. Qrc2006 01:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Los Abandoned. Nothing to merge. Kavadi carrier 14:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No real content. Once you get rid of all the unencyclopedic garbage (she will not be in her mid-twenties forever, and who cares if she is "semi-depressed" or has a "joyful face"?) you basically have an article that reads "Lady P is the lead singer of Los Abandoned," which the Los Abandoned article already makes abundantly clear. Wavy G 19:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Los Abandoned. utcursch | talk 12:53, 10 November 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 13:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mazzembly 1997

Delete. Non-notable roguelike game. Google for "Mazzembly 1997" -encyclopedia -wikipedia returns under 200 hits. Not listed on MobyGames. --Vossanova ^o< 20:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete no assertion of game's notability. Kavadi carrier 14:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep --Easyas12c 19:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why? Remember that AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no indication of meeting WP:SOFT. Sandstein 23:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Totally unnotable. Also, as the original author of this game, I'm quite shocked that someone even cares about writing a Wikipedia article about it. --Viznut 19:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
delete per Viznut then! — brighterorange (talk) 15:24, 8 November 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 13:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Kids

Does not establish notability, contested speedy, contested prod HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete appears to be non-notable cartoon characters. Unsourced article. Kavadi carrier 14:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, probable fiction. When I first ran across this article, I assumed it was a real show in the Phillipines. However, Googling for the first actor, Jaehwa Fernando, only got two Ghits, for Justin Neypes zero. It looks to be a fantasy page of its creator, Jaehwa. --Groggy Dice 19:48, 4 November 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 Taijutsu - it's not the same thing, but is a likely mispelling. This article on this particular style can be recreated if it become notable. Yomangani ^talk 01:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tae Jitsu

Not notable. The actual term means body work and has a separate wikipedia entry see Taijutsu. As such this enty is just advertisment for some school. Please see the articles talk page. Peter Rehse 06:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. First, the article is not an advertisment for some school, several months ago, I saw that the article had no external links (and was tagged with a "references" tag), so I did a quick google search and added the links to 2 websites that described this martial art. This was before I had a username. If you think this article is an advertisment for the external links, then you are mistaken, becuase that was not my intention when I added them (I added them to provide sources for the article). Second, a google search seems to incicate that Tae Jitsu is, in fact an actual, indepentant martial art, even the articles talk page has someone who says they hold a black belt in it, and the two external links belong to two completly different websites, both saying that Tae Jitsu is an authenic art. as far as notability, what makes this any less notable than any other martial arts article? If it's an authenic art, then it should be kept. Furthermore, "Taijutsu" is a martial arts term while Tae Jitsu is a martial art. I really don't see how a martal arts term can be compared with a martial art (the two may sound similar but theres a difference between a term and an actual art) MasterGreenLantern 14:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition to my above comments, I would also like to add that This site describes several different martial arts styles, and includes Tae Jitsu (about half way throgh). Which is a further indication of this style being authenic. MasterGreenLantern 15:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge to taijutsu (except the disgusting Fictional practitioners section). Kavadi carrier 14:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. --MaNeMeBasat 14:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect, do not merge. Taijutsu seems to be a hand-to-hand style for ninja, but this "Tae Jitsu" (Jitsu being a common western misspelling of jutsu, and the whole phrase being a bastardized mix of Korean and Japanese) thing doesn't seem notable enough to garner any third-party reliable sources. ColourBurst 15:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
There are many websites that describe Tae Jitsu as a hybrid martial art that combines Tae Kwon Do with other arts, making it a new, seperate (but still hybrid) martial art. What makes Tae Jitsu any less notable than AMOK!, Zen Do Kai, Vacón, and all the other mybrid martial arts? If Tae Jitsu is an authenic martial art (A hybrid, but still a seperate, indepentiant art, as I think I have shown in my orginal comments) than it should be kept. I don't understand why anyone would want to merge or redirect to TaiJustsu, when Taisutsu and Tai Jitsu are completely diferent. There are many websites, This site, for example, as well as the two external links in the article and other sites (Try a google search) all of which seem to show that Tae Jitsu is an actual (Hybrid) martial art, which people actually study and practice (even the articles talk page has someone who is a blackbelt in Tae Jitsu). So I still stand by my original vote to keep.MasterGreenLantern 19:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and understand why we don't tend to use websites as reliable sources. Specifically, Look out for false claims of authority. Websites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable. The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web. If you can convince me that the credentials of the WIF (whose website you mention) is sound, it will help your case. ColourBurst 19:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't just mention one website, I also mentioned the two websites in the External links section. Additionally, this site, from the International Combat Martial Arts Unions Association, describes Tae Jitsu as a "Scientific street fighting approach". As far as proving the credentials of the WIF, I am unsure how to do that. But the fact is that there are several different schools that teach Tae Jitsu, and I found websites that list or mention people who practice it, including this site, which talks about a kickboxer who is also an expert and instructor in Tae Jitsu. Also, I still want to know what makes Tae Jitsu any less notable than AMOK!, Zen Do Kai, Vacón, and the many other similar martial arts articles. MasterGreenLantern 20:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. An article should stand on its own merits, not because it's similar to another article on Wikipedia. Also read User:Uncle G/On notability which is an essay that describes the notability guideline in an objective way. However, I'm going to go ask the Martial Arts Wikiproject what they think about this, because it's a fairly specialist area (however, this article specifically is about a modern martial art and there should be verifiable reliable sources, see if you can find books on the subject) Again, the main question to ask is, how do we know if the WIF and the ICMAUA are really experts in the field of martial arts? (You can ask the question about the other three articles, and if they don't pass either, they should be listed for deletion.) ColourBurst 21:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Merge for non-notability and lack of authoritative sources. There is no evidence suggesting that the fictional depiction of "Tae Jitsu" in Family Guy is linked to an authentic school, rather than using a Japanese-sounding term. It looks like the art is taught out of a single school as a hybrid art, but there is no notable presence of it elsewhere. --Scb steve 22:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
There is more than one Tae Jitsu school. There are schools in the US and UK. (the external links section links to two seperate schools).MasterGreenLantern 22:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think User:MasterGreenLantern really feels strongly about this so I propose we hold off for a week to give him a chance to address the concerns in the article rather than here and elsewhere. The article itself (not the links) has to make the case for notability, it does not. I suggest using Hakko Ryu as an example of a minimal article. Who founded the art, when was it founded, where is it practiced, who's in charge? Of course if it is expaned beyond that great. I put a few tags into the article itself.Peter Rehse 09:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unless the article in significantly expanded (e.g. origins, how it's different) it dose not provide any useful info.
I'm trying to do some research and gather information right now. I'll see if I can expand the article in a few days. I honestly know almost nothing about Tae Jitsu (personally, my favorite martial arts are Jeet Kune Do and Systema, and I don't know much about martial arts beyond those two). But I'll see what I can do about expanding the article (unless someone more knowledgeable shows up). MasterGreenLantern 22:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have spent the past week trying to get information about the history and background of Tae Jitsu, but unfortunatly, the only sources of information I can find are the two websites in the external links section (the two Tae Jitsu schools), and the websites I already mentioned above. So I can't find any independant sources, and everyone here seems to think that the school websites are not acceptable sources, so I am unsure how to procede. I sent Emails to both schools 5 days ago requesting additional information, but they have not responded. I thought about expanding the article using information from both Tae Jitsu schools websites, but as I just said, it seems they are not acceptable sources. So I am unsure of about what to do next. MasterGreenLantern 19:47, 10 November 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 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Lost Numbers

I thought there was some general consensus somewhere that we weren't going to have an article on this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to make a page on the numbers ShadowUltra 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete (or Merge): I have not been involved in those discussions and just came across this page today, so I don't know what has already been decided. The information on it seems to have been carefully gathered and it is interesting to look through, but there is already sort of an entry for the Numbers that other pages refer to, only much smaller and without details like this. I think that this page, as is, isn't really right for Wiki, but I think that the other Numbers article could certainly be fleshed out a lot more on its own. If this page gets deleted, perhaps some mention could be made on that article about the extent to which these numbers are interconnected to the characters and what happens on the island. I like that someone put the work into gathering this info, I just don't know that this is the right forum for it (but I will print it out and show to my Lostfriends!!) Riverbend 19:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like at least part of the first paragraph could be incorporated into the other article for "the Numbers" (I think it is under Mythology of Lost??) Riverbend 20:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that under Mythology of Lost the Numbers should definitely have their own heading, not just be under DHARMA Initiative (maybe they are somewhere else and I am just not seeing?). Riverbend 15:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as totally unsourced. And all of the article after the lead paragraph is in all caps. Ouch. Kavadi carrier 14:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, look, no one's ever done this research before, it's totally original. Delete -- IslaySolomon | talk 14:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It is FILLED with OR and general cruft. Once that all got out, you would be left with "There is a special sequence of numbers, [I'm too lazy to look them up], which have been prominent in the lives of the people on the island. Oh wait, that's already in the main article. -Amarkov ^babble 15:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - If sources can be found, merge it with the Lost article. Otherwise, it should be deleted. - JNighthawk 16:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete obviously, since I nominated it, I mean, if we have an article on the Numbers, shouldn't we, by that theory, also have an article on say, the Monster? ShadowUltra 18:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
~~Merge~~ prose back to Mythology of Lost. It was spun off, without any discussion I can discern, in this edit, who then created this article. I, of course, favor the elimination of that long OR list of occurrences of each number.-- danntm ^T _C 19:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Okay, now that the material is back in the Mythology article, this article is no longer needed.-- danntm ^T _C 14:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I can't think of a better place for this than Mythology of Lost. The numbers are notable in a pop-culture sense, but they don't need thier own article. Robovski 23:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC) was merge, but the material here has been returned to the Mythology article.
Merge per above. Logical solution to argument over this article. Un focused 01:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge or it will be lost forever, no pun intended, and someone will come back and make a shitter version of it and we'll be in this debate all over again.Simondrake 15:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge - find references, re-write, and merge into Mythology of Lost. --JohnDBuell 18:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge - Merge into Mythology of Lost. When (if?) the story develops enough to expose the real meaning of the numbers it might be split off again if it warrants enough content. (Don't expect a full disclosure on the numbers in the series though). JillesOldenbeuving 20:30, 5 November 2006 (GMT+2)
Delete/merge - All we need is the first paragraph on "mythology of Lost", where it belongs! All this speculation (which I do with my friends in my spare time) does not belong on Wikipedia in this great extent. And FYI, Ana Lucia was shot once and Libby was shot twice! Everyone enjoy your Fifth of November. Cheerio.- Just Phil 19:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge Ppe42 01:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete/merge. The initial portion should be kept and merged into the orginal article, whereas the other is speculation/OR. If necessary, someone should put this speculation on a non-WP web page and then link it. Janbrogger 08:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete (not merge!): this was already part of Mythology of Lost, until it was mysteriously deleted by the originator of this article. I have returned the content. There's no need to expand this fancruft explosion. Notice to those commenting "merge": that is typically "counted" as a "keep"--Leflyman^Talk 21:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Totally unsourced, badly formatted list of original research. The numbers of lost are already covered in Mythology of Lost at a more appropriate length.--Opark 77 19:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, without question, OR and listcruft. Where is this info coming from? Who says that these things are related to the numbers? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete ~~If anything was removed from Mythology of Lost to make this page, those things should be put back in that article. The rest of~~ this OR should be deleted. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ
- Comment I just noticed that Leflyman has replaced the deleted portion pf the Mythology page. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:52, 7 November 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 seems harmless. W.marsh 16:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Secret Art of Seamm Jasani

The Secret Art of Seamm Jasani (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

*DeleteNon-notable. The information is basically contained in the wiki page Boabom so this article is just advertisment Peter Rehse 06:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to boabom which is more detailed. Kavadi carrier 14:19, 4 November 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. W.marsh 18:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Bottin

William Bottin (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Does not established notability, contested speedy and prod, seems to be written by the subject of the article. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, has entries on Discogs and Allmusic which seems to make him notable per WP:MUSIC, and "Many releases with Irma records under the pseudonym Bluecat" and "Collaborates with major Italian artist" are at least assertions of notability. Kavadi carrier 14:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not saying he isn't a fine fellow and skilled musicion, but the two web sites just look like directory listings. I would like to see more articles in mainstream sources. Edison 04:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as vanity, subject is non-notable. Montco 06:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep has more complete entry on the [Italian Wikipedia] Lumpa23 07:46, 7 November 2006 (CET)

Also with no citations. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:31, 7 November 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 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Sdraulig

Harry Sdraulig (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Article about a non-notable child composer. His only works are those released on his personal page at sibeliusmusic.com. 100 Google hits. No internal links. --Slowking Man 13:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it is about another sibeliusmusic.com artist, and the above criteria apply to it as well:

Jackson Sweeney

--Slowking Man 13:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete both as non-notable per WP:MUSIC. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete both, neither assert notability. Kavadi carrier 14:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of notability. It is great they have composed symphonies, and I hope they achieve renown sufficinet to have articles here someday. Edison 04:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as WP is not a place for low-budget talent agents to get free advertising for their clients. Montco 06:37, 5 November 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 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Mario series items

List of Mario series items (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This artice was PRODed, then contested at DRV. It is brought to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as listcruft. Wikipedia is not here to help out gamers get through the next level. Moreschi 13:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as an indiscriminate list of information. Combination 14:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
According to the rules, indiscriminate lists of information lose all their lives automatically. Delete. Kavadi carrier 14:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The notable Mario items already have their own articles. A list isn't needed. --- RockMFR 17:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT a list of indiscriminate info. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sheuynd 23:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I think that combining most of the articles on things on this list should probably be merged into a single article, but this list, as it stands, isn't that article. Eluchil404 22:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep (and cleanup). By no means is this featured list material, nor is it necessarily any good. However, it has the potential to be useful. Many of these items have their own articles, and if someone were looking for an item the name of which they didn't know, this list would be a place to start. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information because there are criteria for an item's inclusion, namely being in the Mario series. It is not an instruction manual either. Furthermore, it seems to me such a list would be more useful to someone who has never played a Mario game and is looking up a reference they saw outside a video game context (where these items do appear). It could be a very useful list, especially as it is annotated as well. --Keitei (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete The information is interesting yet useless. Delete as indiscriminate information I say! The Kinslayer 10:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information, not to mention WP:NOT instruction manual. Garrett^Talk 21:03, 8 November 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 regrettable delete as unverifiable. DS 18:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troy Tedford

I firmly believe this to be a) a hoax or b) should be deleted as unverifable.

Zero google results Link shows two irrelevant results, the first is an example of all the possible Tedford names, the second is re a Billy Troy Tedford born in Texas.
Article originally stated one of the most decorated War hero's in World War II - the most decorated with zero google hits?
Numerous requests for sources have been fruitless - requested here and directly to author here
Prod removed, so here we are.

In short, we have two options - a or b above (in my opinion). Both result in Delete Glen 13:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Even without quotes, there's sweet FA (and I don't mean featured article). Moreschi 13:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe since he is going off the Honorable Discharge Papers the article should stay. War Heros aren't ness. on the web. he used the words "one of the most", that could be one of the top 100 or top 1000. millions served in that was and if the guy has Discharge papers saying he won 4 bronze stars than he was one of the most and he deserves his name to come out. lot's of those old was heros got lost in time. Johnmvp33dont delete Comment actually made by Johnmvp33 (talk • contribs)

Comment - Ummm - this isnt terribly convincing, and this was a very silly move and a major giveaway Glen 14:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I googled your name glen and came up with nothing. r u bogus??? Anykind of historian would know that people in ww1 and ww11 weren't automaticlly given there own link. I have the metals, Legel papers, Honorable discharge papers and diary of a man who was truley a war hero. just because he has been put on the internet doesn't mean a thing. Like i said, anyone can make a internet site and say whatever. Thats why it better to have papers from the US government than unclebobs candy site.com. The man was one of the most decorated ww11 vets. i'm part irish but i don't have my own link, does this mean i'm not even though my birth cert says i am???? Keep the page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedfordc (talk • contribs) .

Comment - actually my full name produces over ~~500~~ oops, 2000 hits on google, but, I'm not the one who has an article am I? (well, in all fairness I do have an article but this isnt relevant! Glen 14:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete in current form. No sources either offline or online have been given which testify not only to the existance of this person but also to the impact of this person on society at large. If he were really notable we'd see evidence of that in two or more mentions of him in newspapers or magazines, or a list of decorated WWII veterans elsewhere. Nothing of this sort has been presented. Kavadi carrier 14:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No assertion of notability. Many hundreds of thousands of people were awarded many hundreds of medals in many different armies during the Second World War, we are not in the business of cataloguing them. Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- IslaySolomon | talk 14:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

KEEP THE SITEI found where glen was a faggot. r we in the business of this??? There is many many war vets who won metals and many more who should have and didn't. i don't give a shit that you can't find it on your little "links," many of these men aren't on the internet nor is a newspaper arkansas from 1945. i didn't say he was RAMBO, but his damn papers say he had 123 confirmed kills. how many damn people did he have to kill? i see other people on the "never bogus" wilkpeter that don't have half the shit. i will go and send deletion for them all. i have the damn metals in a case! they where actually re-org because his org burnt up in a fire. 4 bronze stars, not 2 or 3. but 4!

User has been indef blocked for personal attacks Glen 15:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Do Not DeleteWW1 and WW11 vets hero and other wise may not be found on the net or in a newspaper. John Gotti is on the site and so should this 4 time Bronze Star winner! The last thing we need is the CNN saying we cut War Vets off because we said they weren't important and they didn't have their own Web link. Millions of Military records have been misplaced or lost. Stephenjones99 — Stephenjones99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment You are fighting an uphill battle here because you clearly do not understand what Wikipedia is and is not. A good place to help clear up these misconceptions is a page entitled, appropriately enough, "What Wikipedia Is Not". I'd strongly suggest reading it and some of our other policies and guidelines before contributing further (or using sock puppet accounts to conduct personal attacks on administrators).-- IslaySolomon | talk 15:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Brimba 15:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

How about I fax you the Legal papers? R i could make some web sites and then he would have a link. I am not a stock puggett? what ever that is, did glen stollery come up with that, nice web site GS, my friend was right! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedfordc (talk • contribs) 15:34, 4 November 2006.

Comment The issue here is not so much whether or not the contents of the article are true, but whether or not the subject of the article is sufficiently notable to deserve an article. So far there is no assertion in the article that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for individuals. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Hoax, fake, destroy, DESTROY, DESTROY! :D --- RockMFR 17:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above GabrielF 17:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Can't decide if it's vanity or a hoax, but it damned sure isn't verifiable and that's the final nail in the coffin.--Rosicrucian 17:53, 4 November 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 13:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aggressive watersliding

Aggressive watersliding (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable sport. 60 Google hits returned on "aggressive watersliding." cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. 60 Google hits. No sources. And some text saying that for aggressive watersliding you need strong triceps and that the people who don't are embarrassed by their small triceps. Delete. SupaStarGirl 14:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unsourced. Kavadi carrier 14:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep It needs sources, but the article isn't a lost cause. - JNighthawk 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT for something made up by some business one day. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Royalguard1. It surely is a lost cause. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:17, 5 November 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 13:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaming World

Gaming World (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This article was brought to VfD previously (January 2005), where the discussion was closed as reaching no consensus. After almost two years, the article appears to have changed very little, other than to accumulate a bunch of unverifiable trivia. Essentially, the article's subject seems, to me, to be a non-notable website for amateur game developers. There are no internal links to the article from other articles, which makes me doubt the article is necessary.

Sorting through Google results for the phrase "Gaming World" shows no dominance of the site in the usage of the term. Even the first page of hits is a random assortment of sites calling themselves "Console Gaming World" or something similar.

With no references from reliable third-party sources, the entire article qualifies as original research. There's been plenty of time for this article to establish the notability of this subject and provide sources for the claims made in the article. I believe the fact that it has not shows that the article cannot comply with Wikipedia's policies due to the nature of its subject, and therefore should be deleted. --Slowking Man 15:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete no assertion of website's notability. Kavadi carrier 15:14, 4 November 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 13:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leich

Leich (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Computer game with no indication of notability and I can't find any third party mentions of the game. The author of the article is also the author of the game, and has stated before that this game is non-notable (the first keep comment here), but doesn't believe it's a reason for deletion. I disagree, so it's here. - Bobet 15:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Kavadi carrier 15:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete but for a different reason. The article in its current form is not encyclopedic and has too much in-game information, as opposed to encyclopedic information. In its current form, I don't believe there is any hope of it becoming encyclopedic. - JNighthawk 16:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:36, 7 November 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 13:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JHR

JHR (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

not notable. never heard of this term Sleepyhead 15:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete essentially meaningless TLA. All the article says is that it has "some enhanced contextual value" (what?) over other acronym. But without prejudice to making a new page on something more notable also using this TLA. Kavadi carrier 15:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete The article doesn't explain much, and I agree that it is not notable. - JNighthawk 16:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about the acronym per se. Maybe it should have an article about the concept that the acronym stands for, but this article doesn't adequately explain what that concept is. --Metropolitan90 17:45, 4 November 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 13:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joyride to Infinity

Joyride to Infinity (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Delete fails WP:BK Amazon.com Sales Rank: #3,462,126 in Books Brimba 15:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Kavadi carrier 15:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination - JNighthawk 16:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, subject of multiple independent reviews. Kappa 17:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- For people voting with WP:BK, I don't see why we have to ignore a review like this one [30] Kappa 17:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Can you cite other reviews? -- Tim D 22:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - There's another one in the article. Kappa 03:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    - All I see are two links to the author's web site and one to the review already mentioned. Just so people don't have to work too hard, how about just linking it here. -- Tim D 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Oops OK not independent. Probably should still opine "keep" on the basis that its a non-vanity book, but that's not too clear. Kappa 03:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Not independent? Which part is not independent? Is the review not independent? Un focused 22:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        The one review appears independant, but it looks like there aren't any others. -- Tim D 00:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
keep. Verifiable and written factually. Un focused 01:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No notability asserted at all. One review in a non-notable publication does not confirm importance. Fails WP:BK on all counts. -- Kicking222 02:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete If no evidence of notability surfaces. Montco 06:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:BK. JoshuaZ 20:53, 6 November 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. --Coredesat 05:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ninth Day of Creation

Ninth Day of Creation (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable book per WP:BK. The book has already survived an AfD debate which ended in no consensus a year ago, with what seemed to be a couple of single purpose accounts and some particularly odd rationale[31]. The book's publisher admits to having created the article. Also nominating Immunological Technologies which was created to support this article. The article about the book's author Leonard Crane currently is tagged with a prod but I suppose that if it's deproded, it should be added to the current debate.Pascal.Tesson 16:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I disagree with some of Wikipedia's notable policies. The book was published, which I believe makes it inherently worthy of an article. However, by the strict Wikipedia guidelines, this book is non-notable. Still, I'd rather see the article stay than be deleted. - JNighthawk 16:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
keep. Obviously verifiable. Guidelines are NOT policy, and the one referenced is particularly bad. I'd rather have future anthropologists decide the notability, thank you very much. Un focused 17:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep the main Ninth Day article but delete the Immunological Technologies one. The net change in the main article between this AfD and the last [32] has only been to remove the entire plot synopsis and insert an infobox. I suppose that the two reviews cited do come from third-party independent sources which choose books to review based on notability, and can hence be considered assertion of this book's notability. As for Immunological Technologies, I do not believe it is major enough to deserve its own article. Kavadi carrier 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to add that the book's publisher had published nothing else than this single book. According to Worldcat, the book itself is not in any public library in Canada or the UK, in only one in Australia, and in 37 in the US which is very very low. It's also a fact that the creation of this article was part of the publisher's effort to make this book more well-known [33]. Yes there are two reviews but the idea that they choose to review this book because it is notable does not make any sense. Anyone can send their book for review to the SF site [34]: ok so someone there liked the book and wrote about it but they most certainly did not choose to do so based on the notability of the book. The book gets 82 unique Ghits. If you go through these, you will get a definite sense that this book has completely flown under the radar. I just don't see how this article can be viewed as anything but spam. Pascal.Tesson 17:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete both as efforts at spamming. Kavadi carrier 18:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete both as spam. Also, the editor, Kappa, that de-prod'd this article the other day had just deleted (within the same minute) a key, relevant phrase from the proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (books): "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." He/she then removed the PROD tag, noting the article had two reviews. But they were not in "works serving a general audience" (Chemical & Engineering News and SF Site Games). The guideline change, made with no talk page discussion, was immediately reverted. So, except for when Kappa has deleted that language, this article does not meet the relevant notability criteria in the proposed guideline. --A. B. 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I will remove prod tags from articles which appear to have multiple indenpedent sources regardless of what WP:BK says. Kappa 05:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Kappa, are you saying that you will be the ultimate arbitrer of notability, not community consensus if it goes against you in the form of a proposed guideline you disagree with? --A. B. 05:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Kappa 20:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good -- I was worried. --A. B. 20:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I found out about the book after the book's promoter spammed multiple submarine-related articles and categories with links back to this vanity article. This single purpose editor hyped the book in various articles scattered across Wikipedia. --A. B. 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as spam. Montco 06:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete it's a book, but so what ? It was reviewed, big deal ! Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. Never mind Kappa's rewrite of WP:BK, notability is neither claimed nor implied here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn meshach 19:55, 5 November 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. —Mets501 (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nanyang badminton team

Nanyang badminton team (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This article has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. JNighthawk 16:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Zero Ghit may support speedy deletion.--Jusjih 16:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't you just have tagged this as db-group? Kavadi carrier 16:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. I have an inkling what this article is about, but in itself it's too incoherent to be saved and the school group it describes isn't really notable anyway. Kavadi carrier 16:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- What is db-group? This is my first time calling for an AfD. - JNighthawk 16:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - For really awful articles that fit these criteria, you can put one of the speedy deletion templates (also described in WP:CSD to tell a sysop to delete as soon as possible without having to create an Articles for deletion page. This article would be suitable for deletion under criteria #7 of articles, and hence I've put the {{db-group}} template on it to arrange the speedy deletion. Kavadi carrier 16:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Ah, thank you. - JNighthawk 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Clackmannanshireman 17:08, 4 November 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. DS 18:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cancer conspiracy

First Deletion Reason: Fabricated conspiracy cruft original research. Thought to implement a New World Order/The Brotherhood of Death (aka Order of the Skull & Bones) imperative to depopulate the Earth. Article fails to assert notability by reference to a single reputable source. Complete bullocks. Kill it before it has a chance to metastasize. Wikipedia commands you! Morton Devonshire^Yo 17:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete - if only I could have speedied but alas not CSD criteria... "complete bullocks" per Mr. Devonshire Glen 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- You didn't prod it as your edit summary promised? And delete per nom for the record. Kavadi carrier 17:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Was going to but since writing that the creator removed my prod tag from another of his articles so figured I'd have to afd (as I had to with that one. Luckily (being lazy...) I was beaten to the punch :) Glen 17:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete per nom. --- RockMFR 17:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this really could have been prodded. Andrew Levine 17:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Andrew see my comment re prodding above Glen 17:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, such a crazy theory that you'd never find enough people to make it notable. Probably a candidate for WP:SNOW--Rosicrucian 17:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, can't tell if this is a joke GabrielF 17:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Complete bollocks that provides links to moronic conspiracy theory sites in place of verification. Personally I'm glad this went AfD, I doubt the ProD would have gone full term and, with this debate on file, we can speedy any recreations. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete there is enough sources of people alledging an AIDS conspiracy to keep an article on it, however not a cancer one, this is actually the first time I ever heard such a thing. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:18, 4 November 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. W.marsh 18:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] College Tonight

College Tonight (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

"As it turns out, this page was twice speedily deleted before, but since I can't see what was there before, I have no idea if this is substantially the same as before, but it reeks of advertising, and the company is so new that I suspect Wikipedia is not a crystal ball may also be in play." -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 17:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Advertising. --- RockMFR 17:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep seems to satisfy WP:WEB by being mentioned multiple times in independent reliable sources. Kavadi carrier 17:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this should be kept merely because of the two media mentions (one of which is a school newspaper). This site has an Alexa ranking below 300,000. It has an incredibly low amount of traffic. --- RockMFR 21:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Kavadi carrier. Trebor 20:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
keep. Well written and verifiable. Un focused 01:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
DeleteNot quite there yet in terms of multiple mainstream press coverage to establish notability. The first reference, Atlanta Vice" by Chris Megerian, msnbc, Fall 2006 issue, does not even mention "College Tonight." Edison 04:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Atlanta Vice by Chris Megerian, msnbc, Fall 2006 issues, does mention "College Tonight." See Press Page on website for more information.
Delete per nom and Edison DesertSky85451 01:47, 6 November 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 14:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanguard News Network

Vanguard News Network (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

In short, the subject fails WP:WEB. The limited media coverage of the site has solely focused on the actions of a few users of the website, all of which already have their own articles. The site itself is not notable, and a low Alexa ranking seems to confirm this (insert typical Alexa disclaimer here). --- RockMFR 17:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 17:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. yandman 16:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Marcus1234 11:22, 8 November 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. Glen 11:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zionist Occupation Government

Zionist Occupation Government (edit|talk|history|links|logs) Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Organization is not notable, and content is redundant Tarinth 17:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional information:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is not a neologism, because it is not in common use outside of certain anti-semetic groups, and fails to cite any reliable secondary sources that meet the standards of Wikipedia's "Reliable sources for neologisms." At best, the subject appears to be a protoneologism, in which case it should be deleted because this article appears to exist only to promote the use of the term (despite that the article mostly contains critical discussion of the term, and many Wikipedians have attempted to correctly portray it as a fringe-term, they are merely playing into the hands of the individuals who wish to promote its usage.) In fact, the article has existed for several years and has neverbeen edited to include any references of sources.

If one considers the subject to refer to an actual organization, it should be deleted because it does not meet the criteria for the notability of organizations. Unlike significant items of historical interest, such as the Elders of Zion conspiracy-hoax, this "organization" is not notable; again, its presence as an article merely acts to ascribe notability to something nonexistant and invented by certain groups with ulterior motives.

Redundant: this subject is adequately dealt with as part of List_of_conspiracy_theories and therefore does not require more extensive coverage (and debate) here. If there is any content in the article that is additive to the subject of Jewish world domination conspiracy theories, it should be dealt with there. If it is determined that there should in fact be a separate page on Jewish conspiracy theories, it should be relocated to there.

keep It is notable, has been discussed in the New York Times, has other sources such as the ADL and SPLC. JoshuaZ 17:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Is there some sort of general antisemitic conspiracy article this can be merged with? --- RockMFR 17:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There are pages for Antisemitism and List of conspiracy theories that would be more appropriate for this. Also, the page Jewish conspiracy currently redirects to this page. I'd suggest that when/if the content is merged elsewhere, that that page redirect to the new page (Jewish Conspiracy is clearly a larger subject than one particular acronym that hasn't met widespread usage.) Tarinth 18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, too much information to merge elsewhere, and mentioned at length in multiple sources. Kavadi carrier 18:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I am undecided, but I have added some potential references to the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Article decently sourced (could be better). Too long an entry to be folded into another article. IronDuke 19:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep and Comment The term, despite its dubious merits, is notable. We aren't going to start deleting neo-Nazi terms like 88 next are we? ZOG is referenced constantly on supremacist websites, forums and propaganda. Comment though, can we clean up the talk page and keep it only to the article content? The tit-for-tat jokes and assorted silliness is not what talk pages are for. They are for discussing the current, past or future content of the main article. Thank you.--Son of More 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep — The article is appears nicely neutral in its current form, and this is a frequently used propaganda term of bigots and hate groups. It's a fine example of what's wrong with some members of the human race, and it's definitely encyclopedic. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Shuki 22:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)"
- I don't think the article has anything in the world to do with Judaism. Suggest removal. - crz crztalk 22:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Those who choose to refer to a so-called "Zionist Occupied Government" are almost all the basest and vilest bigots on earth. That this so-called organization does not exist does not detract from its widespread use and notability. I don't see the unidentified flying object article being deleted, despite the paucity of little green men (another non-existant entity) detected by the folks swarming around our nation in black helicopters under the direction of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (ditto). Let's devote efforts to stamping out anti-semitism, not information. Alansohn 23:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with JoshuaZ that like it or not, the term meets WP:N and WP:V. It's been used by enough notable extremist groups that a number of major publications have reported on it. --Shirahadasha. Could possibly be Merged as part of the articles on Neonazism, Antisemitism, etc. 03:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notable topic, properly sourced. It's a shame it has to exist, but the world is what it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup. Needs more secondary sources, though. If there are no such sources, it should be stubified. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:41, 6 November 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. W.marsh 16:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anything But Monday (magazine)

Anything But Monday (magazine) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

disputed PROD for NN-humor magazine delete DesertSky85451 18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete for being unsourced. Kavadi carrier 18:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
keep this very well written article. Unfocused 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- AfD is not a vote. I don't think it matters whether or not the article is well-written; what's your rationale for wanting the article to remain on WP? -- Kicking222 02:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Since I'm commenting here, you may assume I disagree with the nominator; I think it's notable and worthy of an article. AfD is not a vote. What's your rationale for wanting to delete the article? Un focused 09:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep this article. As a nationally-distributed publication, listed in various price guides, I think notability has been established. As far as sourcing, the author has cited a major radio news report, interviews with the creators of the magazine, and other online resources.--Impglein 12:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember this book. They sold it in comic book stores. They also talked about it in a course I had in college called "Ethics and Laws of Mass Communication". The content apparently caused some kind of furor throughout New Jersey.

Keep this article. It is sourced well enough, and the author has demonstrated his willingness to continue his contributions to this entry. Anything But Monday must have had enough of an impact on Americana if a "soon to be famous" pop band has assumed the publication's name over 20 years later.

Not sure what the objection to this article is. The author HAS established notability with the links that point to the magazine’s inclusion in various comic book guides and databases. This makes it at least as notable as other lesser-known comics (of which there are many that have articles in Wikipedia.) As to sourcing, besides the comic itself, the author has included an audio news report as well as links to podcasts that discuss the publication. That being said, I do see a few instances where citations are needed. (The reference to the creators of Anything But Monday having worked for MTV, for example.) But those parts should be flagged "citation needed" or edited out of the article rather than deleting the whole article itself.12.193.56.130 20:39, 7 November 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 WP:CSD A7 Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 20:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skinsize Kings

Skinsize Kings (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

disputed PROD for NN-band delete DesertSky85451 18:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also nominating Skindipendent as it is their "indipendent record label"

Speedy delete both if possible. Weak or no assertion of notability depending on how you view myspace charts. Kavadi carrier 18:21, 4 November 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 Alex Bakharev 11:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stable band

Stable band (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Article about a band that has no released albums, as far as I can tell. The article looks like a collection of unverifiable original research, and the only sources of any kind given are a few MySpace band pages. Google shows no relevant hits for STABLE, STABLE band, or Stable band.

The article was tagged as a speedy delete, but the tag was removed by the creator. I basically didn't feel 100% sure it was a speedy, so I figured a few extra pairs of eyes couldn't hurt. --Slowking Man 18:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it is about a song by the band:

For The Record

--Slowking Man 18:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete both articles. Band does not currently meet WP:MUSIC's notability criteria. --Muchness 21:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Z388 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: I was the one who placed the speedy delete template so my opinion is already on record. Very much a WP:MUSIC failure. Palfrey 22:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete and tag re-added. I was going to refrain from saying "speedy" because a sysop was kind enough to start this, but the way this page is written shows that it was created to be nothing but blatant promotion of a totally non-notable band, and we must not tolerate such vanity pages to exist. Kavadi carrier 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
As the writer of this article I can say that STABLE are in fact influential within the Yorkshire area of England. This surely means that they should be able to remain in the encyclopedia. If there is anything that I can do to make the article less bias for example, then please do not hesitate to tell me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oliverstable (talk • contribs) . (Comment moved from top of page—please leave new comments at the bottom! Kavadi carrier 10:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC))
- If they really have made an impact, then there should be at least two articles about them in reliable sources, such as newspapers or magazines, which have independently written about your band. Right now no mention of anything like this has been forthcoming. Kavadi carrier 10:01, 5 November 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 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esato

Esato (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

A web forum that doesn't seem to have ever been covered by any reliable sources. Even the Bigboards website, which people often like to quote to get their forums kept, is unimpressive regarding this forum. Delete as failing WP:WEB and WP:V. Wickethewok 18:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Borjon22 18:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Appears to fail WP:WEB M a rtinp23 21:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sheuynd 23:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not going to revert your addition, but this doesn't look Japan-related at all to me. And delete as non-notable according to WP:WEB. Kavadi carrier 08:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 05:43, 7 November 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 as an alternate spelling. --Coredesat 05:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gil Fox

Gil Fox (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

The alleged creater of the covers of a comic book series. It is unreferenced, and unnotable. Borjon22 18:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand. I never said he created anything. I said he drew covers for comic books. There is a difference between the two. Rhino131 18:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you wrote contributed. Not that it matters, but i just want the facts to be right. 11kowrom 01:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete This person is non-notable; this site is not for everyone who ever worked on a comic book. - Triviaa 21:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Gill Fox which is the usual spelling. Newyorkbrad 22:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Gill Fox. Nothing to merge. Kavadi carrier 08:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect. Definately. 11kowrom 01:48, 6 November 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. Harr o5 08:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey Dixon

Jeffrey Dixon (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Suspected hoax. The current article contains obviously ridiculous claims, like finding and losing the first graviton, but even the earliest version has silly claims (Googling for his name with Survivor turns up a handful of irrelevant hits, graduating from college in three months, being cast in Spiderman 6). Groggy Dice 18:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Hoax / joke article. --Muchness 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as complete bollocks. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Full of ridiculous information, per nom. - Triviaa 21:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 02:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete if possible. Tagged. Kavadi carrier 05:01, 5 November 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Eyre (1973 TV serial)

Jane Eyre (1973 TV serial) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable, no refs IronDuke 18:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The BBC has a long tradition of excellence in producing TV drama. Perhaps some text from the IMDb listing (which counts as a reference) could be rewritten and added to the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment It could indeed. And yet, a warmed-over copyvio sidestep from IMDB wouldn't make it notable. As for the BBC, they do indeed have a long tradition of etc., etc. That's why, I think, we have an article on them. IronDuke 20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment You mean this page? It provides nothing. IMDb is a reference, but it is NOT a reliable source. Like WP, anyone can add anything to IMDb. I could list myself as a cast member in Casablanca, and it wouldn't even be corrected for a few weeks. IMDb can confirm cast lists, but nothing else; what could one pull from an IMDb listing, a bit of trivia that may or may not be otherwise verifiable? -- Kicking222 01:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. IMDb is not a wiki. Submitted information is not added immediately or unedited. -- Necrothesp 17:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep; the subject is clearly notable. However, all four tv series articles appear to be nothing else than year+cast+summary (the latter is really redundant). Merging all of them into one (if no info is added) could be an easy solution to their lack of content. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 20:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment If it's notable, can you say who has noted it? IronDuke 20:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe the people who decided to produce a DVD out of this series 23 years after it was initially broadcast [35]? The people who entered a review on Amazon? Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 20:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  
  Amazon reviews can be made by anyone. It's like quoting a MySpace page. What I'm getting at is that there have been no critical reviews. It has made, AFAIK, zero impact on any culture. Just cause something appeared once on TV (even if it gets reissued by someone looking to turn a quick buck) doesn't make it notable. It isn't even close. !IronDuke 20:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  
  There were probably several reviews when the series was first broadcast, but locating them might require a visit to a library that has a collection of British newspapers from 1973 on microfilm. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk |contribs) 21:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Even an ancient review by a faceless hack in `73 would not confer notability, per se. IronDuke 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

- (to IronDuke) There is a difference between citing a source to support a statement and citing a source to backup the notability of a subject. The latter only shows that someone who is independent on the subject has considered the subject interesting/important enough to talk about it. I myself would not made an article out of Amazon reviews; the Amazon reviews only show that someone was interested in the series enough to write something about it.
  
  Of course, if your idea of notability is "having a lasting impact on a culture", what I said makes no sense to you. Good luck on trying to enforce such definition of notability on Wikipedia, then. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 21:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  
  Thank you for your warm wishes. It's true, I'd like to keep WP from metastisizing into a giant cruft-magnet, and urge other editors to join me in this. However, I completely understand if you don't want to be a part of that. IronDuke 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep of course. Fg2 00:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per others - JNighthawk 00:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep if only on grounds of adaptation of one of the most well known books in the langauge. obviously it's only a stub at momment & reviews will tend to be on paper in archives (1973, remember? no internet!) Bsnowball 11:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No internet in 1973? Dangit, why do people never tell me these things? IronDuke 03:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

dumb joke, comment cos it's difficult to work out where to start. but seriously, what it is yr NN claim based on other than some version or other of "i haven't heard of it?" regarding the no-sources, there's a specific template for that, & u shld have put that up 1st. & if u don't know, for instance, how well known the book is (from which some notablility follows), maybe u cld leave these subjects to others. (yes, this happens to be a personal crusade of mine, but realy, you cld have been informed of all this on the article's talk page, & the article probably wld have been improved, all w/out clogging up afd). & obviously point of above is (as the guidline says, but perhaps shld spell out in bold) high hits is prob. notability, but not necessarily other way around esp. frm 1973. so, justifications pls? → bsnowball 14:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no way to prove something is non-notable. Is that so hard to grasp? If someone puts an article up about their dog Fluffy, and I wanted to delete it, how would I prove Fluffy wasn't notable? It would be up to the article's editor to, when challenged, come back and say "Oh, Fluffy saved a schoolbus full of kids from drowning." If somebody wanted to come up with a reference saying that this production was somehow notable, as opposed to all the many, many adaptations there have been before and since, please do so. Happy to be proven wrong. And no, no notability whatever "follows" from the trivial reproduction of a non-trivial work. IronDuke

Keep as someone who planned to deprod this. BBC adaptation of Jane Eye. This is a question? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "This is a question?" This is an argument? IronDuke 03:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  - This just seems a little obvious. A BBC serial of one of the best known novels in the English language. To say it's non-notable doesn't seem all that logical. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    - But that's nothing more than argument by assertion. If it is so notable, surely someone must have noted it, e.g., "This is the finest adaptation of any novel there has ever been." Or even, "This is the finest adaptation of Jane Eyre there has ever been." IronDuke 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Being a guy in Massachusetts lacking access to British papers, no one can say for sure at the moment, but given that it's still getting attention today, this may call for a little common sense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Who is giving it attention? And I know that there are UK folks reading this, love to have them provide a source. If I may use the language of your people, Jeff, that would be wicked cool. IronDuke 17:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. We have many articles on TV series and films. There is absolutely no reason why this one should be any less notable than any of the others. -- Necrothesp 17:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please see my "yes this is crap but there's lots of crap on WP so what?" point on the talk page. IronDuke 03:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep It's notable. Major television film production. --Oakshade 06:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - It's a television series.. of course its notable.. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 09:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as above. Seriously, we are debating if a TV show that was made/shown by the main broadcaster in a country of millions is notable? Should we start deleting articles on all 'old' TV shows next just because someone hasn't heard of them or seen them? Why stop there - let's get rid of DuMont Television Network while we are at it. Robovski 00:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep clearly meets notability guidelines and precedents. I wouldn't object to a merge, however, but that can be decided on later on the article talk page. Eluchil404 11:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep this is a clearly notable TV show, and its notability is established. The nomination seems to be a mistake. --SunStar Net 11:10, 9 November 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 01:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Susanna Gregory

Susanna Gregory (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

No reviews or awards, non-notable IronDuke 19:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Notable, search engines provide sources such as this or this.--Hús ö nd 21:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Have you seen WP:BIO, where notability is conferred for "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"? Being on Amazon is not a review, and the interview you reference is from a source I've never heard of. Is the source itself notable? IronDuke 21:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment In fact, I do agree that this author isn't the best sourced I've seen around. But with so many books published and thousands of results on Yahoo! and Google, I'd say that she appears to be notable enough to justify inclusion. The article is likely to be expanded so I believe there's no need to delete it.--Hús ö nd 22:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Now there are sources. Added 8 reviews from Publishers Weekly and Library Journal. That plus numerous books by major publishers establishes notability. How do we check actual sales of the books? Edison 04:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Edison. Kavadi carrier 04:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable author--Edchilvers 14:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Well-known author who is the subject of many independent sources. -- Necrothesp 16:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per above comments.Dahliarose 23:56, 5 November 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. W.marsh 16:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Crossroads of Destiny

The Crossroads of Destiny (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Textbook case of a source source claiming false authority. This article's source, TV.com, gets its information from a mysterious and unnamed person at Nickelodeon. There's no way to verify it. Listed here because of a contested PROD. --Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom unless other independent reliable source mentions this. And the talk page argument comparing this to Watergate Scandal is ridiculous. Watergate information initially all came from a leak, to be sure, but it has since then been mentioned in many, many sources. The information in this article, however, appears not to have been. Kavadi carrier 04:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

- Hence the quote on every article that is talking about a future product, " This article or section contains information about a scheduled future television show or episode(s). It may contain non-definitive information based on commercials, a website or interviews. The information may still change as the date of broadcast approaches." Tv.com has been quite reliable in the past, with many correct predictions of future episodes. It may change though, because, all of these types of articles are based upon speculation that may or may not be true. The people who read the article, take the risk of having the information in the article being false, by viewing the notice at the top. Likewise, I don't think this article should be deleted. --Black Stone157 16:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. The source of this is not official in any way, shape, or form. We don't even know who this "source" at Nickelodeon is. Adding the future tv template doesn't render Wikipedia:Verifiability void.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

- Ok, I get it now. I have no further comments against the deletion of this page. The only information it really provided was, the title of the episode; which seemingly seemed to come out of nowhere. And, I see Kavadi's point, how Tv.com is the only site, with any claims to the name of the site, and its airdate. --Black Stone157 03:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I say we definitely keep it with some sort of notice at the top. If/when the episode is confirmed, it would be annoying to go back and make it all over again. We should keep the article, but putting it on the list of episodes is a whole other discussion. -Dylan0513 03:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a crystal ball. Delete. Interrobamf 03:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

it's a shame that we can't just make barebone pages in preparation of a page, but if everyone were to do that it would get kind of crazy. i say we delete it now and when the episode comes out, or we have reliable info, ask an admin to undelete it. -Zappernapper 17:15, 9 November 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. W.marsh 16:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exceptional balance

Exceptional balance (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

DELETE - There is no such term in accounting called "Exceptional Balance" and the article does not provide any citations to support its existence. Octopus-Hands 13:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as unsourced. Kavadi carrier 04:53, 5 November 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 Alex Bakharev 11:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damian O'Doherty

Damian O'Doherty (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Completing incomplete nomination. Procedural only. -- NORTH ^talk 21:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete no assertion of notability, tagged. Kavadi carrier 04:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Ditto to what Kavadi carrier said. Sounds like the subject is a graduate student looking to build name recognition. Caknuck 09:49, 5 November 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 rename. W.marsh 01:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Route 309A (Florida)

Route 309A (Florida) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This article has been nominated before in September. (Prior AfD here.) Since September, the article has not been touched. The article is still a one-sentence stub about a road claiming to be a Florida State Road when in actuality it isn't. (According to SPUI's comments in the prior AfD it's now County Road 308B.) It is a non-notable former state highway that doesn't fall under the precedent (which I agree with) of keeping all state highways. NORTH ^talk 21:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This will contradict the "keep all roads" policy that I have admittedly adopted, but delete unless the article is significantly expanded and the importance of the road is made clear. Optionally, the road could also be moved to represent its current status as CR 308B and expanded upon, including a mention of "Route" (whatever type of route it was, as this fact is not clear either) 309A in the history. But as it stands right now, I would support its deletion, not because of its short length, but because it has not been altered in any way since the last AfD, which tells me personally that no one was willing to add to the article, even when it is on the verge of deletion. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Now that enough information has been added to the article to determine what the route was/is and where the route is located, I say rename to ~~County Route 308B (Putnam County, Florida) or~~ County Road 308B (Putnam County, Florida)~~, depending on what other Florida CRs are named~~. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable road. Kavadi carrier 04:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unless multiple independent sources are shown to have written about the road. I do not see how every road in the world is deserving of an encyclopedia article. Edison 04:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Rename County Road 308B (Putnam County, Florida). Sorry about the non-conventional vote, but this one threw me for a loop. I think all highways are notable... but this FORMER highway? I'm surprised that there was no improvement of this since the last AfD. But I did a couple of things. I learned it is an actual road and added its current status... which is no longer Route 309A and now County Road 308B... and added a citation (I even kept it cached so you can find it in the link!). I say rename this and include its former designation of Route 309A in the article --Oakshade 04:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida State Roads folks should give their wisdom on this (left message on talk page). --Oakshade 05:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it "Country Road 308B" or "County Road 308B"? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

County Road. --NE2 20:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very sorry, "Country" was a typo. It's "County Road 308B" --Oakshade 22:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - With regards to the former highway question, Wikipedia is supposed to be timeless and not have a bias to current items. So a former highway has just a right to have an article as a current one. --Holderca1 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename per ~~Oakshade~~ NE2. Well at least off the "Route x (Florida)" standard as that is just a bad way of naming things, as it doesn't conform to P1 or even P2. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Now that someone's added enough context to the article to figure out where it is, merge with Putnam County, Florida per WP:LOCAL. JYolkowski // talk 16:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree, transportation stuff should never be merged with the article. What would happen if we merged every Interstate and U.S. Route article with United States? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  - I think you've inadvertently misinterpreted my argument. The reason I suggest a merge is because there's not a lot of information in the article and the road probably isn't too significant outside the local community. Articles on Interstates typically have lots more information so there's no need to merge. Having said that, we could merge them if we really felt like it. Per Wikipedia:Summary style, we'd probably have to break that stuff out into a new article on its own though. JYolkowski // talk 23:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep or rename. This was a state road; see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Currentness?. --NE2 20:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Rename to county road... --Holderca1 23:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment It appears that User:Florida Route Numbers created a vast amount of mis-named Floridian road stubs like this.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 0120 (Florida) Salad Days 21:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was aware of those other articles when I nominated this one. My plan was to nominate a single article for deletion to see where community opinion lay. This weekend when I have some time, I'll close this discussion (unless someone else beats me to it), move this page, and move all the other ones created by that user provided I can find an appropriate destination for them. If I can't figure out where they're supposed to be, then those leftover ones I'll nominate again, and maybe someone else can provide the necessary information as they've done here. -- NORTH ^talk 00:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I just moved a few, some of them I am not sure of and would have to do a little research. They say they are a county road, but don't say the county it is in. --Holderca1 01:31, 10 November 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. Disregarding "all schools are inherently notable", the arguments for deletion are stronger than the arguments for keeping here. The school is verifiable - we know it exists - but nothing has been presented to show that it is notable. There is hardly any mergeable information here. --Coredesat 05:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thayer J. Hill Middle School

Thayer J. Hill Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable middle school. Nominated on Prod but was removed only on grounds that the information is "verifiable" - it is, and in fact that's about the only information on the school's official "About Us" page (which could be seen as violation of copyright if it hadn't been rewritten with so many typos). Only claims to fame are known locally, if at all (and I doubt the fact that the school being its district's first middle school is widely known by residents of Naperville and Aurora, Illinois). Article doesn't even seem to meet any notability requirements of WP:SCHOOLS. --JohnDBuell 20:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete No assertion of notability, and doesn't come close to passing WP:SCHOOLS (even though that is just a proposed guideline and I disagree with parts of it). BTW, new AFDs are supposed to go at the bottom of the page. TJ Spyke 21:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I bypassed one of the templates inadvertently. --JohnDBuell 21:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, verifiable. For schools that don't meet WP:SCHOOL, WP:SCHOOL suggests merging them into an article on the parent community or school district (in either case, the merge target is Public school systems in Aurora, Illinois), not deleting. I'd be okay with a merge too. JYolkowski // talk 21:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hill is actually mentioned in the Naperville, Illinois article already (it's in Naperville, not Aurora), and it also garnered a mention in Public school systems in Aurora, Illinois#Indian Prairie School District 204. A mascot might be worth adding to the Naperville list (if mascots of the other schools in that article are added), but otherwise I don't think a merge is really necessary, the information is already there. --JohnDBuell 21:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

One other thing - if a redirect is used pointing back to any other article as a result of this discussion, I would ask that such a redirect be placed at Thayer J. Hill Middle School, the school's full name, so as to disambiguate with any other schools called "Hill Middle School." --JohnDBuell 21:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved to article title suggested. Hill Middle School can become the disambiguation page when necessary. Un focused 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation page is now done, as I noticed a Hill Middle School in a California school district. --JohnDBuell 02:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete No notability, no assertion of anything important about this school. It has no notable alumni, has had no teams or clubs perform at a notable level or anything else that might confer notability. As observed by TJ, it doesn't even come close to passing the highly generous WP:SCHOOLS. JoshuaZ 23:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - WP:SCHOOLS is just a proposed guideline. In my opinion, all schools are notable. --Ineffable3000 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Do you have some reasoning or basis behind that claim? Simply asserting it doesn't give it any validity. JoshuaZ 23:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Actually, asserting it does give it just as much validity as asserting the opposite opinion. Unfocused 09:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Actually no it doesn't. The default status for things is to be not-notable. It doesn't matter how much I assert that corner stores are notable. Unless I give some argument as to why that's true that assertion holds no water whatsoever. JoshuaZ 14:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      - The default status for a random item is non-notable, however this isn't a random article, it's a school, which for many editors includes inherent notability due to its mission function, and impact on its attendees. Un focused 20:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Which comes down to an assertion by fiat. I could make nearly identical arguments for hospitals (people are born there) graveyards (after death you spend eternity there (in some sense at least)) and many other institutions. Furthermore, schools are largely interchangeable and have little actual impact on many people for whom schools are holding pens until they got jobs or for whom there are benefit from schools but they in no way benefit much based on anything unique about that school. There is nothing which distinguishes this school from any others in that regard. Nothing in the article indicates that students here are having a terribly unique experience they wouldn't get at any other school. Schools as a whole are notable, that doesn't make each individual school notable. JoshuaZ 21:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
keep. Completely verifiable and important to the community it serves. Nice start on the article thus far. Unfocused 00:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry but this is bugging me. I don't see how a near-verbatim copy of information already online at the school's own "About Our School" page [36] can be considered a "nice start". Looks more like copyvio to me. And why should Wikipedia be reproducing information found on the pages that schools have set up about their own history all over the Web? --JohnDBuell 03:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Because there's nothing to suggest that the pages run by the schools themselves are or will remain a neutral source of information. Unfocused 05:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    - It's unlikely Wikipedia will ever be much better for a simple reason - public schools keep a LOT of information, especially negative information, out of the hands of the press. They don't want to alarm their public with all of the things that really go on within the buildings (thefts are a good example). But, as I only know this first hand, it would be considered WP:OR.... --JohnDBuell 15:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      - They can't keep negative police reports and negative state assessments out of the hands of the press, and this is a fine place to report them, where applicable. Un focused 20:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        Illinois State School Report Cards are one thing - but there are a LOT of things never reported to the police, see above. --JohnDBuell 00:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
        
        It's false logic to conclude that negative reports aren't worth gathering based on the assertion that we can't get all of it. Un focused 04:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Being important to the community it serves is not a reason to keep it. Corner stores are important to their communities as is every little park and day-care. Do you think we should keep all of them? JoshuaZ 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The busses that brings kids to school are incredibly important; why not write an article on every bus? Why not write an article on every teacher- teachers are surely important to the community, no? What about town halls, courtrooms, and hospitals? How are these any less important (or, more appropriately, how are schools any more notable)? -- Kicking222 01:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment Laidlaw has the exclusive contract for school buses for IPSD 204, and they already have an article. --JohnDBuell 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No indication it's noteworthy. Directory entry. Doesn't even meet WP:SCHOOLS' broad standards. Would be gone already if it were anything other than a school. Shimeru 01:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per, among other reasons, Shimeru's. If this were a hospital, or a residence with possible historical significance, or any other type of building (or institution), it would already be long gone. The school is already mentioned in appropriate articles, so a merge is unnecessary. -- Kicking222 01:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: We _could_ add EVERY public school in the United States, making Wikipedia a HUGE directory of schools (against WP:NOT) and boost the count of articles by an obscene number, against even Jimbo's wishes for quality over quantity. --JohnDBuell 02:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 04:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a non-notable school, devoid of any historical or cultural significance. Montco 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, JoshuaZ and Kicking222. Encyclopedia, not a near-infinite collection of content-free stubs. Hasn't anyone told the every-school-is-sacred crowd that this year's big thing is quality, not quantity ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Article has ample room for expansion. We're not going to achieve our collective goal pf having articles for every school in the US if we don't work together. Alansohn 19:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment WHOSE collective goal? I'll say it again - why should Wikipedia repeat those things that are already posted on school district websites across the United States and elsewhere? --JohnDBuell 20:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I repeat myself as well, and from this discussion, no less: Because there's nothing to suggest that the pages run by the schools themselves are or will remain a neutral source of information. Un focused 20:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I don't understand how that's relevant to John's question. Could you explain in more detail? JoshuaZ 02:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

keep. Completely verifiable and important to the community it serves. Nice start on the article thus far. SchmuckyTheCat 05:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's a nice copy of information from several pages at hill.ipsd.org - they must be so proud. --JohnDBuell 14:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, meets all applicable content policies. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per JYolkowski. No valid arguments for deletion have been made thus far. Silensor 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Lack of notability, and copyright violation of district web pages aren't "valid arguments for deletion"? --JohnDBuell 23:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, the current version of this article is not a copyvio. If it is, the correct place to list this is Wikipedia:Copyright problems, not AFD. Notability is not a criterion for deletion here. Silensor 23:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It may not be word for word but there's NOTHING within the article that isn't already found at hill.ipsd.org, as I've pointed out more than once. --JohnDBuell 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment, notability a deletion criterion. Its used all the time in deletion discussions and is officially enshrined in the likes of WP:BIO, WP:CORP WP:MUSIC and WP:ANYTHINGTHATISNTAFRAKINSCHOOL. JoshuaZ 04:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Would people be satisfied with a redirect into a brand new Indian Prairie School District 204 article? --JohnDBuell 00:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge (I'm going to make a template for this!) It is a school, it is notable, it would be in any encylopedia if it had the space, it shouldn't be deleted so why is there an AfD? --Mike 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per statements above. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Pls allow for organic expansion -- Librarianofages 01:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That's not a keep reason that's special pleading with buzzwords. What pray tell does "organic expansion" mean? JoshuaZ 01:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Expansion to what? A carbon copy of hill.ipsd.org except on one page instead of several? Links to the rare news articles from the Naperville Sun about the school and/or its teams and activities? That still sounds more like a stub/directory entry than a proper article to me. --JohnDBuell 01:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
keep please claims of copyvio are not true at all Yuckfoo 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment While I agree that there is no copyvio issue here, the lack of copyvio is not a reason to keep by itself. JoshuaZ 04:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep or possibly merge to the proper locality per WP:LOCAL as well as WP:SCHOOLS. Yamaguchi先生 05:47, 9 November 2006
- CommentSo what is the keep argument being used here? JoshuaZ 05:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - no assertion of notability, can't even tell without digging what country the school is in. Guettarda 06:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete unremarkable school Catchpole 12:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, does not meet WP:SCHOOL. Herostratus 05:06, 10 November 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 14:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buzz rings

Buzz rings (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Unencyclopaedic entry relating, as far as I can see, to a trade-name product. Google produces almost no hits. The article has been there for over two months, tagged as linkless, and no one seems to have been interested in doing anything about it. Time to get rid of it? Gnusmas 21:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete: per above. It is a product (see Buzz Ring), but I see no reason to keep this article as it exists. It does not exert the product's importance, and seems anecdotal. Gracenotes ^T § 21:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable product. Kavadi carrier 04:45, 5 November 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 14:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Mameluke EP

The Mameluke EP (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable EP by a band whose article has been deleted. No entry on allmusic.com; only 2 Ghits for "The Mameluke EP"; 3 for "The Mameluke" +"Technicolor Radio".Cúchullain ^t/c 21:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nom.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 04:44, 5 November 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. W.marsh 00:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Gaywads

The Gaywads (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable band. 382 Google hits, not listed in the http://www.allmusic.com/ database or http://www.discogs.com/, probably does not meet WP:MUSIC and should be deleted MidgleyDJ 21:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete not notable according to WP:MUSIC. Kavadi carrier 04:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete From Google... "Your search - "Virginia is for Gaywads" - did not match any documents" If your album isn't mentioned anywhere, then you probably fail WP:MUSIC. Caknuck 09:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Pump it! The Gaywads are awesome!. Blake Gay 06:405, 8 November 2006 (UTC)—this comment added by 70.105.56.142 (talk • contribs) — 70.105.56.142 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete it! - They can be awesome somewhere else. Fails WP:MUSIC, and when your only source is a freaking MySpace page, it begins to smell like a vanity page. I find it facinating that the above vote is purported from a member of the band. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 18:16, 9 November 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 14:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of anime clichés

List of anime clichés (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

The page that it was split from was also deleted. It's entirely Original Research. Kunzite 22:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kunzite 22:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It might be possible to make an encyclopedic list of this sort... but at the moment its completely OR and almost totally useless. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 22:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 22:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 01:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as original research. I think it's quite possible there could be an encyclopedia article on this topic -- there are probably secondary sources to be found -- but this one isn't it. Shimeru 01:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 02:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Big top 07:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MightyAtom 06:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Deja vu. Dekimasu 04:19, 9 November 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 14:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of dojin works

List of dojin works (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Dojin is essentially the Japanese word for vanity press. This list is restricted to non-pornographic titles. This goes counter to the Wikipedia is NOT censored. There are thousands of Doujin titles created every year, if not tens of thoudands. The list is unlimited and unmaintainable. The list was created just for the sake of having such a list. The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The list has no content beyond links to other articles and is already in use as a category. Kunzite 22:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kunzite 22:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- RoninBK_ETC 00:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete because the categories make the list redundant. _dk 00:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge anything relavent into dojin. I'd like to note that dojin does not necessarily equal vanity press though, since highly successful dojin often become published series after the fact. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say that the same thing is true of self-published and vanity press books. i.e. The Joy of Cooking was a self-published book. Dojin may become notable, but individual titles are inherently non-notable. This is true for most things, but has to be said because, as it currently stands, Wikipedia treats any anime or manga as notable. --Kunzite 03:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Censorship and redundant to categories. -- Ned Scott 01:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Dojin collectively are noteworthy, and individual titles may be, but this list is far too broad -- there are indeed thousands upon thousands of titles. Even restricted to non-pornographic titles, this list is unmaintainable. I'd think at the very least it would need to be 'List of dojin works based on X,' and even that could be hundreds or thousands of titles if X is a popular series. And since there's already a category for it, there's no need for such a list. Shimeru 01:17, 5 November 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. W.marsh 01:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Court Square Place

Court Square Place (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

No notability is asserted or can be found for this building, among the many thousands of buildings in New York City. DanMS 22:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep How come you didn't prod this first? I created the article from WP:AFC because I saw that it has been mentioned in a number of newspapers, including New York Post and New York Times, in the last two months, which looked like one or two other buildings in Category: New York City building and structure stubs had going for them. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletions. -- -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
keep. Clearly verifiable, and the information so far is very interesting. Further, I think it's asinine to delete an article that was requested for creation less than fifty hours after someone was kind enough to supply the stub. 72.240.211.151 00:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless information other the the standard owner/architect/construction company/location list can be provided to assert notability. Kavadi carrier 04:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep "the tallest building constructed in the area since 1989" asserts its notability for me. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom; "the tallest building constructed in the area since 1989" is nearly as unconvincing as "winningest beach volleyball team in Greenland". Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above, unless notability explained. utcursch | talk 12:54, 10 November 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 14:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alien harvest

Alien harvest (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Delete I prodded it - it was removed by the creating editor (who who's talkpage I left a message on about the prod). I can find no information about this film, I can find lots of references to Alien harvest but none seem to be related to this film. Charlesknight 22:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as hoax; a Google search shows no evidence of a film of that name, and IMDB has no entry on such a movie (which, considering IMDB's reliability, says a lot). NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per above. Lacking anything on Google and IMDB, paired with it being only 9.5 minutes long, makes it sound like a "YouTube exclusive." -- Tim D 23:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 02:47, 5 November 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. W.marsh 00:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of direct-to-video films

List of direct-to-video films (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Indiscriminate and useless if complete, better served by the existing category Category:Direct-to-video films Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Valrith 04:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and castigate those who deprod solely out of fear of anticipated "defenders". Kavadi carrier 04:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There's already a category for these films; I don't see a good defense for why it needs to be listifed as well.--Bacteria 20:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep valid and useful list. Dwain 12:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In what way is it useful when compared to ther category? Eluchil404 11:19, 9 November 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. (aeropagitica) 05:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skylake yosemite camp

Skylake yosemite camp (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable summer camp. Heimstern Läufer 23:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Kavadi carrier 04:32, 5 November 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 redirect to the Kite Runner. Kavadi carrier 06:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kite running

Kite running (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Unverified: the source given is a website run by some teenagers in San Francisco. No real assertion of notability. Heimstern Läufer 23:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to The Kite Runner, all Google results appear to mention the term in conjunction with the book. Kavadi carrier 04:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guess a redirect makes more sense than deletion in this case. Sounds good. Heimstern Läufer 06:13, 8 November 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. Note that apparently the only person wanting to keep who's editted outside of this article and its AfD was Oakshade. W.marsh 18:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Boag

Paul Boag (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Article about a Web designer without sources to its notability. Peter O. (Talk) 23:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean? The web designer runs podcast with the largest listenership on iTunes - is that enough? Rixo (Talk) 03:57, 5 November 2006 (GMT)

- That's like having uploading your own video onto YouTube and getting 100,000 views—still not an indicator of notability in itself. Delete unless independent reliable sources (e.g. newspaper or magazine articles) are provided that support this person's notability. Kavadi carrier 04:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Found him prominantly mentioned in an independent souce in even a current Google news search. [37] --Oakshade 05:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Article now includes notable sources such as published magazines and speaking functions. Shiftthis 07:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)— Shiftthis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Speedy delete, advertisement ({{db-spam}}), so tagged. The news piece above mentions his podcast - if the podcast is notable, it can have an article. Sandstein 07:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's like saying Jenifer Aniston can't have a page but Friends can. Rixo

Keep This articles interesting in the way that paul has quite a big name in web design and development especially the standards and accessibility side of web design and development. Keep This Up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.181.218 (talk • contribs) .

Keep Paul Boag is an accessibility expert, not only does he produce a pod cast but is an accessibility supporter, this page in not an advertisement, his pod cast allows spreads' the good word about accessibility in web design and how people can make their sites accessible.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.188.38 (talk • contribs) .

Keep Paul is notable within the world of web design, because of his podcasts, public speaking and articles. The article was started by me, and I'm nothing to do with Headscape or Paul, never having met him. I'm just somebody who listens to his podcast and reads his articles. If you look at the page history, you'll notice that I didn't originally add any links, in case that were misconstrued as wikispam. The links were added later by other users, who found the post independently. The fact that other people searched for Paul Boag on wikipedia indicates that he is a well-known person within the field.Rixo

Speedy delete Vanity article, let's keep it real. Vyse 13:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep This is not an advertisement for his podcast or his company. He really knows what he's talking about, and helping a lot of people making the right choice when it comes to webdesign, and running a website in general. Tursiops33 7:10, 10 November 2006 (GMT)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability (publishing 1 book through Lulu.com doesn't do it). NawlinWiki 04:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royls

Royls (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

An unencyclopedic article on a self-published author. Fails WP:BIO. Perhaps intended as a user page. Victoriagirl 00:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The subject has identified himself as the author of this article (and has stated that it is not intended as a user page. As such, the article runs against WP:COI. Victoriagirl 03:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete no assertion of notability, tagged as such. Just writing a book doesn't count thanks to these people. Kavadi carrier 04:16, 5 November 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.

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Gents

[edit] Tabb Middle School

[edit] Haverford Middle School

[edit] Gizmotron

[edit] Thornton Friends School

[edit] Signal Hill Elementary School

[edit] Hossam Shaltout

[edit] CrossRoads Middle School

[edit] Brazil as a possible emerging great power

[edit] List of references to Lost in popular culture

[edit] Voice cast in the Kingdom Hearts series

[edit] The Patient

[edit] Political Crossdressing

[edit] Anzor Kikalishvili

[edit] Mercedes Montgomery

[edit] List of Celebrity Laser Eye Surgery Patients

[edit] Babs Kramer

[edit] Thermophobic

[edit] Siantonian Proof

[edit] Milagro Cunningham

[edit] Skeet (slang)

[edit] Ageiola

[edit] Sanguinarium

[edit] Temple of the Vampire

[edit] Lisa Nicole

[edit] Next Era Wrestling

[edit] Darla Sawler

[edit] Joie

[edit] The Jewish Magazine

[edit] Eli Makowski

[edit] St Louis Grammar School

[edit] Darrell Bedford

[edit] Bonkum

[edit] Yuvashakti

[edit] List of Videos Featured on Toonami Jetstream

[edit] Kurd-Dagh

[edit] EMSN

[edit] Aplus.Net

[edit] Westlake Featherduster

[edit] Erich Heller

[edit] Enochian angels

[edit] Croatoan Society

[edit] Maurice And Everett Haines Elementary School

[edit] Dialects of the world

[edit] Victor Insulator Company

[edit] Ed Kalegi

[edit] GFP Personal Finance Manager

[edit] Nazmi

[edit] Team Semi

[edit] Fancey

[edit] Bharat Yoga

[edit] Pratishtha Sharma

[edit] Drunk blogging

[edit] KidCast

[edit] Environmental interaction

[edit] Aikido Institute

[edit] Inquisition Revisionism

[edit] James L. Clark

[edit] Lady P

[edit] Mazzembly 1997

[edit] Super Kids

[edit] Tae Jitsu

[edit] The Lost Numbers

[edit] The Secret Art of Seamm Jasani

[edit] William Bottin

[edit] Harry Sdraulig

[edit] List of Mario series items

[edit] Troy Tedford

[edit] Aggressive watersliding

[edit] Gaming World

[edit] Leich

[edit] JHR

[edit] Joyride to Infinity

[edit] Ninth Day of Creation

[edit] Nanyang badminton team

[edit] Cancer conspiracy