Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 13

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< October 12 October 14 >

Purge server cache
















































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

The result was speedy keep, patently ridiculous nomination. Mangojuicetalk 14:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese mythology

edit

It has been pretty much established that Japanese mythology content is not notable enough for Wikipedia's standards. See here. Delete. Shikino 14:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

























































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

The result was Redirect to Eminem. If someone wants to merge parts of the article, the edit history is still available. trialsanderrors 18:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hailie Jade Scott

edit

a.k.a. Eminem's daughter. First AfD in August ended in a clear merge consensus which was never performed. To wrap this up I recommend Delete and redirect. ~ trialsanderrors 00:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, I think it's clear that this article needs to be deleted. After two relistings, the only !votes are to delete. The consensus is very strong to delete here. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Irvine

edit

Notability? (converting contested speedy to afd - association with CIM asserts some notability) — ERcheck (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a little confused about the policy here -- and where exactly I'm supposed to "defend" keeping this page, but I created this stub and I will copy here what I wrote on its talk page about Jeffrey Irvine's notability. "Jeffrey Irvine is one of the leading viola teachers in the US today, and the list of where he teaches/has taught ought to lend enough clout to his name to assert his significance or influence, without other superlatives or generalizations. His students hold positions in major orchestras and they are teachers in university music departments all over the world. As a student of Karen Tuttle he is also part of her legacy as an annual organizer & teacher of the Karent Tuttle Coordination Workshop." J Lorraine 09:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with Uncle G; if a person's field of work IS teaching, then whether or not they are notable teachers depends not only on what they teach, but where and who they teach. If a music teacher's students are themselves teaching & performing in major musical venues all over the world, then that person's influence is felt all over the world. Thus, such a person is notable because of their students' activities. J Lorraine 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


WP:BIO lists a number of ways a person can be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but it also seems to say that passing or failing such tests is not a sole reason to either include or delete an article, and that the whole idea of notability is not a wikipedia policy. It does point to verifiability, not original research, neutral point of view, etc. I contend first that this article is verifiable, it is not original research, and it has a neutral point of view. I'm in the process of finding more references (besides the link to his bio on CIM and ASTA's webpages), so I would like to request some time to finish doing that before any consensus is reached to delete this page.

I also would like to point out that he does meet some of the criteria for notability on WP:BIO and on WP:MUSIC, even though such criteria is not supposed to be a sole reason for keeping or deleting an article. For example....

  1. made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. (Organizing, publicizing, & teaching at Karen Tuttle Coordination workshops, and, through her work, contributing to the spread of William Primrose's techniques in the following generations of violists.)
  2. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.[2] (as a performer with the New World String Quartet in the US and in Europe.)
  3. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (The Journal of the American Viola Society, the Journal of Performing Arts Medicine, several news articles (I'll try to find exact dates))
  4. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style (This is not exactly spot-on, since I'm claiming that the "style" he represents is a technique or school of viola teaching, not a musical style of performing; and he is one of the most prominent, not the most prominent).
  5. Has won or placed in a major music competition. (Aspen Music Festival Viola competition, Cleveland Quartet competition)
  6. Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in ... teaching in a particular music genre. (notable teaching organizations such as Cleveland Institute of Music, Meadowmount, American String Teachers Association; also referenced as a notable teacher of Karent Tuttle's Coordination technique in places like the Journal of the American Viola Society)
  7. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. (well, if you call classical violists a 'sub-culture').
Again, I'd like to reiterate my request for more time to find exact references, since most of them are in journals or newspapers, and the dates and article authors of which aren't readily stored in my brain. J Lorraine 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In addition to what I listed above, he also passes several of the "alternative" tests for notability on WP:BIO.
  1. The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included. (He has published more articles on teaching in American String Teacher and in the Journal of the American Viola Society than most average college Viola professors).
  2. Verifiability -- Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now? (yes, it can)
  3. Expandability -- Will the article ever be more than a stub? Could the perfect article be written on this subject? (yes, there is sufficient information to provide a full-length article)
  4. 100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful? (yes, although this will probably be limited to those in the field of classical music, in particular those interested in 20th & 21st century performance practice)
  5. 100 year test (past speculation) -- If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today? (yes, again, though, probably only in the specialized field of historically informed performance, which is a sub-field (albeit a large sub-field) of current performance practice in the classical music world).
  6. Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism? (yes, although the word "lots" is somewhat ambiguous)

J Lorraine 09:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 00:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete AdamBiswanger1 04:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Levitz

edit

Surgeon biography with nothing to substantiate inclusion in wikipedia Droliver 02:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Werner

edit

Yet another politician mistaking Wikipedia for a free promotional vehicle. Third-Party candidate for Texas governor; otherwise, completely unnotable (unlike, say, Kinky Friedman, who did a few things before running). Calton | Talk 02:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is meant to provide information and there was no intent to use Wikipedia as a "promotional vehicle". The information included in the Wikipedia article is similar to the information found on other candidates' articles. Their education, residence, and other information is mentioned. It is better to edit this article, if necessary, rather than delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty6 (talk • contribs)

  • There are a number of 666 mentions in Google News about this candidate but mostly are in the also running categoty. [2]. a

There are many articles on people who are not as known as James Warner. James Warner's status as not being very popular is not a legitimate reason for deletion of this article. If that was a legitimate reason, that than deleting every reference of him on every article in Wikipedia would be reasonable along with deleting every reference of every person not as popular as he is. The information regarding why he was not invited to participate should be added to the article if you believe the article is biased in that respect. Also, I do not know what is meant by,"Most are of the also running is variety." Use correct grammar if you wish for me to understand what was attempted to be conveyed. Liberty6 04:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't understand the grammar, let me clarify: Most of the news mentions were of the "Also running is James Wermer" variety. He was mentioned in the articles, but only barely. Fan-1967 04:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In order for article mentions to matter for WP:BIO and similar guidelines they need to be more than just passing references. JoshuaZ 20:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete And we are woking on deleting THOSE articles as well. From the relevent guideline, WP:BIO: A political subject is notable if they are, and I quote, "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature." This guy holds, nor has ever held, any political office at the international, national, state or provincial level. If he has nothing else to make him notable, he doesn't belong here... --Jayron32 04:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless. --MonkBirdDuke 05:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any relevant information about him can be listed on Texas gubernatorial election, 2006. Cynical 22:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because he is not a main candidate it would be wrong to not let him have an article in the same way that they didn't let him in the debate I say keep and if the article is deleted i'll recreate it and if it's deleted again i'll recreate it again, and again, and again, and again. --Jimwitz 20:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the article will be protected, and you will be blocked. Announcing your intention to violate Wikipedia procedures is perhaps not the wisest course of action. Fan-1967 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • among the many things that WikiPedia is not is a blog. Wikipedia is not about unfettered and free expression. It is an encyclopedia, and as such, there are certain standards against which a subject will be judged by community consensus. The basic guidelines of verifiability and notability require that a subject meets a minimum baseline before the community will accept it. This guy does not rate. If you wish to find a vehicle to bring this guy greater exposure, great, more power to you. The internet is FULL of websites and tools to do exactly what you wish. Wikipedia is not one of them. --Jayron32 20:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said I was going to do anything bad. Obviously I would just forget about it if they blocked e from recreating the article. I just want to have an aricle for James Werner but if you want me to stop on the article so bad I will but what you have to relize is i'm no trying to vandalize anything and i'm writing about a real politician who's name is going to be on the 2006 Teas Governor Race ballot just like Rick Perry, Chris Bell, Kinky Freidman, and Karole Keeton Strayhorn. Im not writing about my 6th grade talent show. Jimwitz 22:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify the standards: if an AFD nomination concludes with a consensus to delete, recreating the article in defiance of that decision is considered to be vandalism. Abiding by community consensus is one of the practices necessary in order to keep the project running (semi-)smoothly. Fan-1967 14:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If for any reason it would be an act of vandalism I would not recreate the article but if their was no notice indicating that it would be vandlism their would be no harm in recreating the article. I admit I overeacted but if they deleted it a second time I wouldn't keep recreating it. Jimwitz 16:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my elaborating can be found by simply looking for what I typed on this page. Also, to further elaborate, the article(James Werner) should be kept and revised. Revising, if done correctly, is obviously something that can be done that will make the article easier to understand and verifiable. In addition to that, Jesse Ventura polled about 10% before the debates and he went on to win the election, despite the fact that no major polls indicated that he was leading. While, it is true that James Werner is/was not as popular as Jesse Ventura and he is not polling 10% in any major polls, he is still polling in single digits, not a fraction of a percent, and although he did not participate in the debates, he is a candidate that should have an article. Michael Badnarik can be considered a person and a candidate(former and present) that shouldn't have an article, but does. How is he extremely more significant that James Werner? Is it because Michael ran for president and James is only a candidate for a less significant office? Think about it, what harm is done by keeping the article on James Werner, considering the article will be revised in the ways necessary? Liberty6 04:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Harm is not a criterion for keeping the article in question. Notability IS. You merely claim that he is notable. PROVIDE SOME SOURCES. Dozens of people run for dozens of local elections. What makes him more notable than the average political candidate. Be careful with the "If Y than X" arguement. Every article needs to be judged of its own merits. Still, if we must use Badnarik for analogy purposese, here goes. Badnarik received CONSIDERABLE national press coverage during his run for president. Though Nader ultimately received more vote, the Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the U.S. via total registered memebers, and the Presidential Election is considerably more notable than a congressional race. Its the nature of the race he was involved in. Badnarik's political positions were put under the scrutiny of the national press. He merits significant NON TRIVIAL mention in several fact-checked sources. We have no evidence that Werner has been covered by any source more notable than a voter guide. THAT is the standard that we are going by when we make the case for delete. If you want to change our minds, provide evidence to the contrary by putting forward NON TRIVIAL, FACT CHECKED references to this candidate. If you can provide them, you will swing the discussion to your favor. In the absence of such sources, however, your pleas, however heartfelt, will not sway the consensus. --Jayron32 05:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think about it, what harm is done by keeping the article on James Werner, considering the article will be revised in the ways necessary?
  • There is no necessary way to revise this article because no matter how it is done, the subject will still not be notable. Above, Liberty6 argues that Jesse Ventura has a Wikipedia article but then goes on to admit that James Werner is less notable than Jesse Ventura. This candidate is simply not significant enough for this encyclopedia. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 17:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Jesse Ventura is notable independant of his political career. His notability comes from his career as an actor and wrestler, which would have made him worthy of a Wikipedia article had he never even run for Governor. ALso 2) Had Jesse Ventura not been notable before he ran for governor, he would not have been notable polling only 10% of the electorate. He would have become notable the day he won the election. If THAT had been the case, he could only get an article after he had won. This guy is in the same situation. If he wins, we'll write an article about him. He hasn't won yet. Therefore he doesn't yet need an article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Jayron32 02:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's BEEN thought about and thought about plenty, long before you showed up. The harm, as I stated in my nomination, is in allowing Wikipedia to be mistaken for a free promotional vehicle. It's not; nor is a free webhosting service, a blog, a mode for free expression, a repository of unreferenced and speculative factoids, a way to attract attention to someone's cause, an unmediated and one-sided depository of candidate press releases and soundbites, a disguised campaign position paper, a dessert topping or a floor wax. Wikipedia aspires to be a vital and valuable online ENCYCLOPEDIA; devaluing it just so someone can get a few more votes for his pet candidate or pet cause DOES do it harm. --Calton | Talk 05:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I realize that we can't list every candidate for every office up for grabs in the United States (or anywhere in the world), but I think WP:BIO as it relates to politicians needs to be revised. I think we need to include information about candidates as well as victors in important races. A consensus should be reached as to what those races are, but I would definitely assume that governor, secretary of state, AG, etc. would be among them. I am in COMPLETE agreement that articles need to be NPOV - we don't want them to be big, free promotional vehicles (and it sounds like this has been an issue here), but then that's a different issue, and we need to address that accordingly. I can't think of one thing more confusing and in need of clarification than politics to most people - having a deletionist policy and only listing winners/officeholders seems to be well beside the point of what Wikipedia is for. My humble opinion. (Full disclosure: I was the author of an article of a candidate for secretary of state in my state that was deleted, despite media attention and notability.) NickBurns 19:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball All-Star Game Records

edit

Article is just a list of facts. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see the parent article contains hundreds of words on "2008 All-Star Game and beyond". WP:NOT a crystal ball and most of that section isn't encyclopedic. Cut the fluff, if size is a reason the list of records was separated. Barno 12:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not? Per the AfD page's introduction: "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, or another language's Wikipedia—please note that it cannot be transwikied to WikiTravel [1] or Wikinews), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." Barno 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Votes to merge are OK here. Discussions of the nature of the merge are not. If it is decided to merge, how and why that is to be done are carried out elsewhere. --Jayron32 18:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's only an anti-merge argument. The reality is that all of the information on this page is available here, and Major League Baseball All-Star Game could then include a link to that site. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability was never in question here - you won't find a sport with better statistical records than baseball. The point is that this information is easily available elsewhere, and simply reproducing that content here is a violation of WP:NOT. If the article could be expanded to include something more than just a list of stats, I'd see the logic behind keeping it, but I don't see how that is possible. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. Fair enough arguement. But the information is valid for inclusion in wikipedia. Where do you propose it go? I already noted that a merge with the main article may be in order. Do you have a better place for it, or are you contesting that WikiPedia not include such information at all? --Jayron32 03:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing in favor of deletion. The article can't stand as is, nor is it ever likely to become a free-standing article rather than a list of numbers, leaving deletion or merge as the options. The All-Star Game is a meaningless exhibition, one not taken even a little bit seriously by most of the players (witness all the defections from the announced rosters each year), and I don't see how information like most All-Star Game balks (2) or triples (also 2) is encyclopedic. I'll respect the consensus, of course, but if we're not deleting, let's trim this to the major stats before a merge with Major League Baseball All-Star Game. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opie and Anthony's Traveling Virus Comedy Tour

edit

Delete - This article is for something that no longer exists and certainly does not need it's own article. Attention whore 02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect both to Kingdom Hearts. Yomanganitalk 14:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keyblade, Princesses of Hearts

edit

As this was part of Glossary of terms from the Kingdom Hearts series, which was deleted, I don't see any particular reason why this shouldn't be deleted as well. Interrobamf 02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Princesses of Hearts has been added since it is in the same situation. Interrobamf 12:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, leaving 'the nature of keyblades' and intro out, the remaining three headings could be slapped straight into the KH article during the AFD if nobody objects? Let's see how it goes, but if more contributors think this should be merged/redirected/deleted then it'd be the work of a minute. QuagmireDog 00:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The info really should be merged into the story section. No separate sections. "Sora gets the Keyblade, an important weapon/object because blah blah blah". Interrobamf 00:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. The story section of KH (possibly most of the article by the looks of it) needs rewriting anyhow, so it's not like the article will be compromised by inserting that text, but it will at least serve as a reminder to expand on the keyblade point when the article is overhauled. QuagmireDog 00:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (not that that stops anyone redirecting this where they wish). --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spitting dragon

edit

Fails to assert notability. Note that it is about a project rather than a band (thus not under the scope of csd a7). Contested prod. MER-C 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanieo

edit

Appears to have been submitted by the subject. No independent evidence of notability. --Peta 03:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. As far as I can see, all the concerns of the delete proponents were addressed by Arthur Rubin. It is the responsbility of participants to watch discussions for new evidence and either change their opinion or explain why the evidence is insufficient. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drugs I Need

edit

Contested {{db-web}} speedy. Editor removed tag saying "Video is done by notable group." The problem is, it's not. I'm assuming the editor was referring to the line in the article that reads "The animation, which is supported by JibJab...", but all that means is that JibJab is hosting a copy on their servers; they did not do the animation. Take out the JibJab line and I see no notability at all. To make matters worse, the animation is a highly POV ad attacking drug companies. To top it all off, zero wikilinks. --Aaron 03:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Further reasons to delete: I just discovered that JibJab no longer even offers this video on their web site. I've removed the JibJab references from the article. --Aaron 03:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe the notable group to which they refer is the Austin Lounge Lizards. SteveHopson 03:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, they sang the song, but they didn't do the video... --Aaron 03:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where's the video? El_C 08:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 12:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drausio R. Haddad

edit

Subject is not notable. Page author and suspected sockpuppets have repeatedly inserted name into multiple articles. Also note duplicate of this article, Drausio Haddad has been previously nominated for deletion SteveHopson 03:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Can't sleep, clown will eat me. MER-C 08:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kenneally Features

edit

Article consists entirely of nonsense, inside jokes and personal attacks. Dyfsunctional 03:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by JesseW. MER-C 08:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PIITB

edit

Silly neologism of uncertain notability. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - as has been pointed out, WP:WEB requires coverage that is directly related to the subject. Some of the 'coverage' presented here by the keep side doesn't even mention the website, only the emulator, whose article is not up for discussion here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emulators unlimited

edit

I don't believe this website meets WP:WEB. Now don't get me wrong the emulator UltraHLE which they helped distribute widely is (or at least was) notable, no question about it. The website however is not. I suppose we could redirect to UltraHLE but then again, I'd rather have even that choice confirmed through AfD since I've been in disagreement with the creator (and sole editor) of the page. The search "emulators unlimited" on Google returns about 10K hits, not bad but then again not so good given they've existed for 10 years and that of the first 1K hits, only 260 are unique [5]. More problematic is that searching those links I could not find any solid third party references. Pascal.Tesson 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dont feel that this reason for deletion is appropriate, wikipedia is meant to be based for things also in the past, just because the website isnt as popular now as in its heyday, doesnt mean that during the times your question, that it wasnt a huge aspect of why UltraHLE was popular and infact released and a solid piece of emulation history which provided emulator homepages for its authors to use, without any financial gain.

I am the webmaster of emuunlim.com and any questions on why you dont think that this (alongside other websites included such as Zophars Domain) shouldnt reside on wikipedia please ask, whether you feel that the website didnt have any significance on the emulation/internet regarding media attention and regarding UltraHLE, is souly down to your judgement at this moment of time, im sure that Realityman (Gordon, UltraHLE) will vouch that we played a major part of changing history & bringing it into the forefront (myself being the first person to test it also) of the emulation fans and the media, if you need any more validation, contact Nintendo :)

want some validation? okay:

http://www.emuhq.com/idx/5/004/article/UltraHLE-In-the-Press-News-articles.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/02/03/n64_emulator_vanishes_after_lawsuit/

correction, the current search of "emuunlim" (emuunlim.com is the website) shows 126,000 on google and "emulators unlimited" shows 1,570,000.

thanks and keep up the great work on wiki! ste (fox)

Comment Well if you put quotes around "emulators unlimited" it's below a thousand. Note that the search without the quotes is meaningless since it will hit any page with the words "unlimited" and "emulators" in it. The search with the quote tells you that about 1 out of every 1500 of this million and a half hits is relevant to the website. As for the search for emuunlim, yes it does get a lot. Yet half of those are the pages from the site itself! [6] A quick look at the remainder of the hits shows that the site does not come close to meeting WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 20:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The notability of UltraHLE isn't in question here (the links you gave solved that one pretty thoroughly). The link between emuunlim and UltraHLE is harder, and if I ask Realityman, he will probably say you were influential in the distribution of UltraHLE. Unfortunately, Some of Wikipedia's principles are Verifiability, not Truth and No Original Research, which means that we couldn't use his statements unless they were published in a third-party reliable source. We also couldn't contact Nintendo for this information for the same reason. ColourBurst 02:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:V. If "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" are found I will certainly revise my opinion. --Satori Son 02:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Emulators Unlimited isn't even the focus of the story linked by Mr Manticore above; the story is about a lawsuit against another company, with later content describing the subsequent announcement of UltraHLE, mentioning that "it relies on illegally copied ROMs." Frankly, a hack based on illegal copying may easily get popularity among a small niche, but it needs real evidence of mainstream coverage to meet WP's standards. I read references to MIME (another game emulator) frequently, but if I ever heard of "Emulators Unlimited", it was in a throwaway context. Barno 13:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commment I'd like to second the previous comment. Noone is contesting the notability of the emulators. We are contesting the notability of the website itself. Pascal.Tesson 13:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol :)

here is the UK's leading PC gaming magazine "PC Zone", covering my website etc in May 1999 just after UltraHLE was released:

(please scroll down to the part that says: "The Fox was interviewed by PC ZONE, the UK's biggest PC magazine. Who gave us the following three pages" and you should see three page scans)

http://www.emuunlim.com/about.php

IGN magazine covered it too, but need to dig that out :)

just as a snippet, Gremlin Graphics officially allowed emuunlim.com to host the back catalogue of their titles online:

http://gremlinworld.emuunlim.com/

and i interviewed Jeff Minter (creator of Tempest, Tempest 2000 and Llamatron):

http://pt.emuunlim.com/interview.htm

ESPN.com LINKS OF THE DAY: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/links/050801

- emuunlim (fox)

  • Delete - Press coverage consists only of trivial mentions to the website in conjunction with the emulator. The articles linked-to only seem to attest to the notability of the emulator, not the site. The website deserves some mention in the emulator article, but there isn't enough independent info on the site to warrant an article of its own. Being "mentioned" and being "one of the bigger emulation sites" does not meet WP's criteria for sourcing and verifiability. Wickethewok 14:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've been well acquainted with emulators and emulation sites since about 1998, and the fact I've heard of UltraHLE but not this does not bode well. Anyway, all the press reports focus entirely on the emulator, with its host site being merely an incidental detail. GarrettTalk 22:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Havok. ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as an indiscriminant information. Wickethewok 14:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chiki Kah

edit

Non-notable game information from an MMRPG. Not worthy of its own article. Should be deleted. I considered a PROD for this article, but as it appears to be actively being worked on, I figured the PROD would be removed anyways, and so jumped a step. Also, it appears that the original author intends a whole series of articles like this. He should be dissuaded. Jayron32 05:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep by default - there are too many issues under discussion here, none of which seems to involve deleting the article, and the subject has shifted halfway through the process with the creation of the environmentalism article. Discussion of the relative merits of a disambiguation page, redirect or move can be discussed on the talk page. Yomanganitalk 17:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bright green

edit

Two problems here. 1) This article, which was created to be about the color bright green, has twice been hijacked by environmentalists who blanked the article without any discussion and turned it into an article about a supposed "subcategory" of environmentalism [8] [9]. 2) The term is a neologism that apparently is in little use even within the environmentalist movement. A Google search on "'bright green' +environmentalism" pulls up only 445 hits total [10], and even starting on the first page of results, most of the hits use the phrase "bright green" purely to mean, well, "bright green", as in "bright green oasis", "bright green in color", etc. Since there appears to be an orchestrated campaign by a certain few editors to hijack the page, I felt it would be best to go for a full AfD instead of simply reverting to the page's original content. Delete. Aaron 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


I have considered the discussion and the page in question: a delete verdict it is, for reasons best summed up by User:Khoikhoi. —Encephalon 05:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters missing an appendage

edit

Because ... uh ... WTF!!??!? Just look at it! --Aaron 05:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Lists are important enough to wikipedia to have their own official guidelines. This list should be kept because a) the content is notable and verifiable and b) it meets the guidelines as spelled out in WP:LIST. Besides, WTF, regardless of how many random punctuation marks follows it, is not a valid reason for deletion. --Jayron32 05:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:LIST, of course, is largely a style guide that says little to nothing about what sorts of lists are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. By Jayron32's standards, any list about anything would get a speedy keep as long as it was formatted correctly. As for me being a little lighthearted in in nomination, guilty as charged. The reason for the nom is self-evident. --Aaron 05:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, only lists whose content is notable and verifiable should be included. This meets both tests. Consider the following from Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Appropriate topics for lists:

    " If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.)."

by analogy, a list of fictional characters would be too long. This is merely a listing of fictional characters by a notable trait. This is hardly a normally deletion worthy article. Check the history. It has dozens of editors and dates back over 2 years. If the page was not useful, it would not show this kind of activity. The list article has proved its usefulness by that standard. Oh, and nothing at wikipedia is self-evident. If you want to delete, make a point that shows this information is a) not notable b) not verifiable or c) redundant. If none of these apply, the article has no reason to be deleted. --Jayron32 05:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Looking at this list, it's simply a lot of characters that share an arbitrary trait. There is nothing to be said about them. You cannot draw any sort of connection that helps one understand their encyclopaedic notability. As it stands, it just exists for the sake of documenting minutiae - not a good thing. I would contrast this with, say, List of fictional pirates, which can be used to draw connections among and typify the portrayal of pirates in fictional works, or something of that nature. This list helps little to not at all with such matters. GassyGuy 07:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At first, I thought this list might have originally been created as a, uhh, "service" for those with Amputee fetishism. But given that the list skews heavily toward comic-book characters and sci-fi movie heroes who had their limbs replaced with better ones, I can't even figure out what an amputee fetishist would get out of this list. --Aaron 14:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, "It's useful" is a valid supporting argument, if used to mean "it helps readers make encyclopedic use of the article". But "usefulness" by itself doesn't get a topic past core inclusion policies like WP:V or WP:NOR. Barno 17:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In certain cases, amputation is a core trait... I agree with that and believe that should be covered in the characters' respective articles; however, in many of these cases, this does not hold up and, again, it's just an arbitrary trait that they share with other characters. It is of little difference from "Fictional characters with long hair" or "Fictional characters who live in mansions." My test is, after reading through the entries in the list, is there a possible reasonable answer to the question "So what?" If the answer is yes, there is likely an encyclopaedic use for this list. If the answer is either no or is a contrived, strecthed sort of case, as occurs here, then it probably doesn't belong. GassyGuy 23:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of people with visual disabilities - no, I wouldn't make the same sort of argument. List of Jewish superheroes - I don't read comic books and therefore couldn't tell you how the religion aspect plays into them, so I would feel unqualified to offer any sort of opinion. However, I do make the same sort of case by case basis, and I was not saying that I attempted to find relevance to me - I was saying I attempted to find a possible reasonable answer - as in, something that could be relevant to people even if not me personally. Please don't twist my arguments. GassyGuy 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not clear how you view a list of fictional characters with visual disabilities as different from a list of fictional amputees? You wrote, "My test is, after reading through the entries in the list..." that's a pretty clear personal discretionary method. The answer to "So what?", as I gave above, is that the motif of amputation is used for a specific purpose by authors; it is not an arbitrary or accidental trait in fiction.--LeflymanTalk 01:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The amputation of Captain Hook is similar to the amputation of Frodo Baggins which in turn was employed with a similar purpose as the amputation of Thomas Covenant? Sorry, perhaps you can help me with this one? GassyGuy 02:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the question -- and if you'll allow me to expound on this rather interesting topic, I hope I can answer the "So what?" to your satisfaction. First to clarify: I wrote "amputation is used for a specific purpose" -- not "similar" purpose. The amputations of the characters you've mentioned are central to their characters and story development. Captain Hook's amputation of his hand by Peter Pan, and the subsequent eating of his appendage by the Crocodile are the core axes of his character's arc: because of this, Hook is set on a vendetta against Peter, and is in turn hunted by the Croc (who found the taste of the hand delicious) -- both of which prove to be his undoing: hook is ultimately defeated by Peter and swallowed whole by the crocodile. In the case of Frodo Baggins, the amputation of his finger, by being bitten off by the Gollum, is the climax to the entire course of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It is only through this, that the One Ring is ultimately destroyed. Thereafter, he's called "Frodo of the Nine Fingers" in acknowledgement of his status. Finally, and just as critically, Thomas Covenant was actually created by Stephen Donaldson based on his father's description of experiences with leprosy in India. Covenant's leprosy is discovered after the amputation of his fingers, and becomes the central thread of his struggle to survive. In his first appearance in Lord_Foul's_Bane, his amputation is what identifies him as the reincarnation of Berek Halfhand. You may be interested in reading an article from the April 2001 American Psychologist journal, "Creative Cognition, Conceptual Combination, and the Creative Writing of Stephen R. Donaldson "[11], which notes, "To help himself to avoid the prospect of future amputations, Covenant has developed a rigid discipline of regularly surveying his extremities for injuries... The dynamic tension between the attractions of the fantasy world and Covenant's fear of neglecting the discipline that has kept him well sets the stage for a remarkably compelling story."--LeflymanTalk 03:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but when you'd said specific, I'd assumed that meant one specific purpose - so, in essence, if I read you correctly, your argument is that these people all have a purpose for having a missing appendage. I never said they didn't. In fact, I'm sorry you wrote all of these explanations, because I not only agree but already found those three amputations important to their respective stories. What I'm saying, however, is that that purpose isn't similar. I think that the missing appendage should be documented in each character's article because it is indeed important. What I am saying is that this list cannot demonstrate much because the purposes and portrayals are starkly different, so that this list, again, becomes a group of characters sharing an arbitrary characteristic. The characteristic is important enough to be documented in the character's articles, sure; but the memebrs of the list are related by any sort of encyclopaedic connection, just a common trait. GassyGuy 03:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've just acknowledged why this is a notable list: that the amputations are an important part of the fictional characters. However, it's inaccurate to claim that it's an "arbitrary characteristic" -- as you've just pointed out yourself, it's not at all arbitrary. The choice by an author of making a character an amputee is a trait perhaps more significant even than being visual disability in fiction-- amputation becomes a critical element of change for most of the characters, whereas blindness in fictional characters is either inherent from the beginning or a motif of symbolic significance as an outcome for some wrongdoing (e.g. As in Oedipus and later fiction, eyes being plucked out is a popular theme).--LeflymanTalk 07:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we must be arguing different things. I have never argued against the missing appendage being somehow significant to the character or story - I am saying that there is no actual encyclopedic connection among characters who have missing appendages. You yourself said that the authors' purposes are not similar, just that each individual case has a purpose. What you've given is a very good argument for why missing appendages should be detailed in the individual articles for these characters, and I agree. What I still don't see is any explanation how this list helps to elucidate on characters missing appendages rather than simply collects them indiscriminately. GassyGuy 08:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you have a differing understanding of what an "indiscriminate list" is. There's no need for the authors to have exactly the same purpose in making certain characters disabled -- as you have already agreed, the use of amputation by an author is notable, in and of itself. That's what makes it encyclopedic. How is this list indiscriminate -- or any less descriminate than the hundreds of other Lists_of_fictional_things that make up Wikipedia? Perhaps you might apply the same metric to the dozen other articles in the category Lists of fictional characters by medical condition?--LeflymanTalk 23:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that not everyone on this list is an amputee, so they don't even have that in common. GassyGuy 02:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Leflyman. This category is informative and i think it would have taken a lot of time to find all those amputee characters, its just as notbale as most of the other categories! (Neostinker 10:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep Being an amputee or not is important for a character. Interesting for anyone looking into the role of being an amputee. Delta Tango | Talk 02:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would have supported deletion with this made into a category, but having centralized information on what appendages are lost and how they were removed is useful. Someone researching disabilities in fiction might otherwise have to go to each wikipedia page in the category, and that's assuming such information is on each wikipedia page. Half of these entries don't even have wikipedia pages. This is more than just entries on a list.--Trypsin 10:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --86.140.144.83 11:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: 86.140.144.83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

That name would be inaccurate. Not everybody on this list is an amputee. GassyGuy 00:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. Well, renaming optional then. Still keep, as this is a case where imo a list is better than a category. --tjstrf 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who on this list is not an amputee? Amputation doesn't require a surgical procedure; according to that article, "Amputation is the removal of a body extremity by trauma or surgery." Everyone listed here would seem to qualify.--LeflymanTalk 23:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of what amputation is. I also think Wicked is an awesome musical and can't recall any element of the plot that establishes Nessarose Thropp is an amputee. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe her lack of arms was not through amputation, but rather was because she was born without them. GassyGuy 01:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I meant the novel in this case (though the musical was great too) and mistyped. Apologies for any potential confusion. GassyGuy 01:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you remove that entry? What significance do you attribute to amputees somehow? It still doesn't serve a similar purpose within the story. While I repeatedly agree that the authors have a purpose, I maintain that there's no reason to group them when all of the purposes are dissimilar. I feel as if we're going over the same ground repeatedly and see no reason to do so, so I shan't be adding to this AfD anymore (I pretty much said everything I had to say days ago and have just been rephrasing myself since.) Anyway, at a glance I don't notice anyone else who wouldn't fit the amputee list, but I can't be bothered to study a list I think ought not exist in the first place. GassyGuy 04:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sometimes this is important, sometimes it's not. Sometimes the character is a cripple, sometimes it's just a distinguishing feature. Sometimes the character had the limb amputated in the story, sometimes it's backstory. Sometimes the character is legitimately limbless, sometimes the character has an equally-efficient replacement, sometimes the character has a superior replacement.
    In short, this hopelessly broad list covers so many dissimilar cases that it isn't illustrating a topic, but merely indiscriminately including anything with a single feature, like a (hypothetical) List of blue things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utter listcruft ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Tupac Shakur. - Yomanganitalk 15:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makaveli Records

edit

It is about a company that would have been created if we were in a differnt universe - Wiki in not a crystal ball ArmadilloFromHell 05:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because this record company really was not started up, everything there is to say is mentioned in Tupac's article, and the theory that Suge killed Tupac is not verifiable, therefore not relevent to this article. Resolute 03:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noot

edit

Contested prod [12]. Dictionary definition/NN neologism. -- IslaySolomon 06:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Consequentially 06:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am from Australia and have never heard it. It's a neologism and if it is actually used, it's too minor to be on wikipedia. James086 11:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced neologism, no indication that it is a notable term. --NovaSTL 23:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain The term 'noot' is used by an exclusive South Australian sub-culture, and naturally, a user from Western Australia would not have heard of this term. I had expected Wikipedia to cater for all groups, even a relatively small one, as in this case. We are outraged that genuine, factual information is being deemed "too minor to be on wikipedia" by a user who clearly has no knowledge of our culture. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.118.49 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 14 October 2006
  • Retain I too, am from Australia and familiar with the term noot. While not having been personally involved in such scenarios, I can vouch for the validity of this wikipedia contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.23.22.151 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 14 October 2006)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cedars 09:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. It's a load of rubbish. The word does not exist in Australia. Maustrauser 13:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close because this is re-opening a closed discussion, that is currently the subject of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 21#Web_operating_system, which review has not yet concluded. Uncle G 14:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web operating system

edit

Previously deleted Sleepyhead 13:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web operating system

edit
Links to Web 3.0 seem to crop up in all of those articles as well. Artw 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - WP:V is of course not negotiable, but the subject does have a good number of hits on Factiva, some substantial, so there isn't enough convincing argument or majority here to justify deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enver Masud

edit

I am concerned that the article cannot be verified and that the subject may not be notable under WP:BIO. All his books are self published and the only web reference for the award is his website. The organization has no web presence but may actually exist as it is listed here. With no website or listing in catalouges of human rights organizations it is probably not notable in itself. Eluchil404 07:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but it is, at least on the internet the only evidence of the award is his own website. Eluchil404 02:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - as has been adequately and coherently pointed out below, despite mass armwaving actual multiple credible third-party sources (i.e. not press releases or passing mentions) are conspicuous by their absence.

The majority for keeping is rendered insubstantial by the fact that a significant proportion of its editors have no reasoning, faulty reasoning (claiming inclusion as an indicator of notability among the least bizarre but nonetheless incorrect) or empty assertions with nothing to back them up. I expect this to be controversial but evidence and policy, not votes, is what decides AfDs. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jurong Point Shopping Centre

edit


Non-notable shopping mall. --Nehwyn 07:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ok lah, reference added liow lah, satisfied or not? Not happy then boh ban huat loh....Lol —Sengkang 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, write your motivations in English! This is the English Wikipedia. Thanks! :) --Nehwyn 11:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:STYLE: Article have strong tie with the region, and the use of dialect is understandable. Look up the meaning if you are looking so much forward to know what it meant. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 05:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dialect is fine, as long as it is an English dialect. "boh ban huat" is hardly English. --Nehwyn 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then that is just too bad for you. I dont supposed you know what that means, or do you?--Huaiwei 07:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia has English discussions. For article and discussion in other languages, other Wikipedias exist. If an article or comment is posted in another language on the English Wikipedia, it is fair to ask for a translation into English. --Nehwyn 08:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Jurong Point is one of the major shopping malls in the western area of Singapore. It is one of the largest malls as well, the articles is in need of a cleanup. --Terence Ong (T | C) 08:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article, and both of your arguments, are in need of cited sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Neither you nor the article have cited any, not even one to support your assertion that this is a major shopping mall. Uncle G 09:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOCAL; Place of local interest. Jurong Point is neither a company, club nor corporation. Its a public commercial complex, and it is the focal structure within the town centre of Jurong West and Boon Lay. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 05:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... but you haven't cited any sources. Re-arranging the deck-chairs won't help make a case for keeping the article. Sources will. Uncle G 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. Instead of making fallacious arguments, please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied, as already requested above. Uncle G 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the article would be "a great insult to all Singaporeans"? You mean this mall has relevance as a national monument for Singapore? If so, please accept my apologies in proposing this deletion, but make sure that statement is included in the article. As for the rest of your argument, as it has been remarked already "if X then Y" is generally not considered a valid point in Wikipedia deletion debates, except for reporting other articles in need of a prod tag. I did propose deletion for some of them; the others did have a claim to notability. --Nehwyn 15:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. (was delete, see below) If the page defenders want to make a run at establishing notability, I would give them a day or two to do it.) Page fans, per Wikipedia's notability guidelines for businesses, you need to come up with at least a few non-trivial articles about the mall in reliable sources. The easiest way is to go to your local library and ask a librarian to help you search newspaper records, or just call the mall and see if they have a press clipping file you can review. TheronJ 15:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Update: after waiting "the few days" mentioned above, I think there are a lot more reasons to delete. I've explained them below. TheronJ 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see more reason to keep this article than the article on Jurong Entertainment Centre. Firstly, it is a more popular mall than Jurong Entertainment Centre. Secondly, Jurong Point had been mentioned on local papers as they are expanding it and building an interchange under it and a Condominium, (The Centris)Andersenhwl 12:27 14 October 2006 (UTC +8)
Note: The comment above is from the article author. --Nehwyn 10:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again... then "if X then Y" reasoning is not generally considered a valid point in a deletion debate, which should be based on the article in question. Your second point, on the other hand, may meet one of the WP:CORP criteria... any sources for that? --Nehwyn 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've worked places with parking lots bigger than 700,000 square feet, and those lots don't get WP articles. Why should size matter unless the mall is notable specifically for being "the world's largest"? I don't see that we should include every nation's largest mall, every nation's tallest building, etc. unless there are verifiable third-party sources featuring that fact. A local newspaper's article saying "mall being expanded" is of little weight by itself, as every mall has probably gotten a two-paragraph blurb in its local paper. Is this one Singapore's largest or just "yardstick of other ... malls"? Barno 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the population density of Singapore? - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance of this datum to Wikipedia inclusion policies? Barno 20:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The small land area of Singapore limits the size of architectures, which make Jurong Point one of the largest and most notable in Singapore. Perhaps Jurong Point is insignificant compared to American or whatever standards, but are you saying that we are supposed to neglect local standards when editing articles relating to local events/places and adopt only American standards? Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 05:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I'm saying we are supposed to adhere to Wikipedia standards, including verifiable significance rather than whether a couple of local people claim importance without evidence. Note that at least one other editor claims to be from there and claims it's not more significant than other shopping centers. Freddy's General Store might be the most important shopping facility in a town of fifty people in South Dakota, but that "local standard" isn't evidence of Wikipedia importance. Otherwise WP would be swamped in articles for a hundred thousand malls "one of the largest and most notable in XXX" for which nothing encyclopedic could be documented. Barno 13:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not limit yourself to "major mall"; give a motivation why the article meets WP:CORP.  :) --Nehwyn 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about a corporation, WP:CORP does not apply. This article is not about the owner or management of the mall, most people don't really care or know who the owner is. This is about a public place, with tens of thousands of people visiting there each day. It has medical clinics and a public library, etc, and is major part of public amenities in Jurong. --Vsion 18:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Tens of thousands of people visit the mall every day..." - sources? The problem with this article has been clearly stated early on by Uncle G - sources are needed! Without sources, anyone can say that about any place and there's no way to verify what they are saying is correct. If I were more skeptical and hadn't seen the place myself, I'd say the page writer is just making it up. "Major" and "many people visit this place" are what you can hear at the kopitiam ("coffee shop", for non-Singaporeans); (un)fortunately, Wikipedia is not the kopitiam anyone can edit - sources have to be provided. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what you are talking about? The nomination said the subject is not-notable, which is false. The source to these facts is already given in the "external link" before the nomination. If the nominator missed it, and someone had to highlight the infor, it is perfectly alright and that is what I was trying to do above. On the other hand, if one editor doubt another's comment for no apparent reason and don't bother to do his/her own research or even follow up with the links, that is not very constructive.--Vsion 05:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "external link" you mention as a reference for your statements is the shopping centre's own website. I did not miss it; I merely believe that cannot be used as an independent source about the shopping centre itself. --Nehwyn 11:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of "independent source" would you like to see? If I march up to that mall and snap a photo of the crowds, is that "independent" enough in your books?--Huaiwei 14:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's in my books is of little importance; it is Wikipedia:Independent_sources and WP:V which count in this case. I still think th official website of a commercial venue cannot be considered an independent source for claims about that venue. --Nehwyn 16:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do expect my question to be answered thou.--Huaiwei 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note sure I follow you on the last one... doesn't anyone? --Nehwyn 17:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I arent sure what "note sure" means either, but I can overlook that.--Huaiwei 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. What I meant to say is that I haven't understood why you stated that you expect your questions answered. If by that you mean that you feel I haven't answered "what kind of independent source would you like to see"?, I should probably rephrase my answer then: "The kind of independent source I would like to see is the one which would satisfy the definition of independet source found at Wikipedia:Independent_sources. A venue's official website cannot be defined as "independent" from that same venue." Again, sorry if that wasn't clear from the start. --Nehwyn 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are still not answering the question. I asked about the acceptability of my own photos. Do Wikipedia:Independent_sources make any mention of that?--Huaiwei 04:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The claim was "tens of thousands of people"... So no, I don't think a single photograph can confirm that number. We need factual, written references by third-party sources. --Nehwyn 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, you are making the assumption that my photo is meant to support that particular claim. Where did I make this association? Second, your statement "factual, written references by third-party sources" suggests that I am not an independent source, and that only "factual, writtern sources" are permitted. Is this true? Please point out the relevant wikipolicy which explicitely states as such.--Huaiwei 07:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What claim would your photograph be considered a source for? As for my statement on the need for third-party sources, if persons provide direct evidences (in this case, a photograph) of a certain state of affairs, those evidences may be used as Wikipedia sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher. If you edit the article to insert your photograph, the burden of evidence for that edit lies with you (the user who has made the edit).. --Nehwyn 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, be more specific as to which reasons motivate you. Thanks!  :) --Nehwyn 11:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and attempt to expand Matthuxtable 12:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I beg to differ in opinion from Awyong. I live in Hougang, yet I know this mall very well indeed, and have been frequenting it since it opened in the late 1990s. The impact it has on the commercial landscape in the West is pretty obvious, for prior to its existance, the lack of a centralised commercial facility meant it was spread across a far larger area around the various neighbourhood centres. Such an impact is difficult to judge from its physical size, but to say it is non-notable for what it is physically is way too dismissive.--Huaiwei 14:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Huaiwei - what you say is all well and good and would result in a keep, except without a citation what you say is entirely your own conjecture (original research) and can't be put forwards as a reason to keep - can you get a citation to that effect? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet. And how nice it is to sit around demanding for citations when practically every person who knows about its existance are vouching for its prominence, which should surely motivate some of you to do some checking up as well? A bit of googling wont hurt. The simple reason why I arent doing it yet is because I arent gonna waste time citing sources to be rejected at the whimp and fancy of some folks here.--Huaiwei 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that... but please, do keep in mind that notabiity is not "vouched for" by editors on Wikipedia. It requires sources. --Nehwyn 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also do be aware that any editor can jolly well be bold enough to help find sources for any article, irrespective of whether they are the original authors or not.--Huaiwei 04:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they can. Anyone can help!  :) --Nehwyn 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does "anyone" include yourself?--Huaiwei 07:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You conveniently lumped an essay (WP:INDY) with a guideline (WP:CORP) and treat them as thou they are policy. There has been contestations that a shopping centre, which is in reality a piece of real estate, is not a corporation, nor a singular business, and does not fall under WP:CORP. One also notes that sources deemed non-independent are not in themselves ample criteria for deletion. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Company_and_organization_websites clearly indicates that company or organization websites should be treated with caution, but makes no mention that this amounts to outright rejection of the said source and hence, deletion.--Huaiwei 15:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of non-independent sources is indeed not a deletion criterion. It is the absence of independent sources that is. --Nehwyn 16:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is true, it will not make logical sense. How is it possible for non-independent sources to be permissable, yet non-permissable at the same time? And mind telling us if all articles in wikipedia who base much of their content on an "official site" are now worthy for deletion?--Huaiwei 16:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My statement above does not regard "permissibility". It regarded deletion criteria. From a logical point of view, it is perfectly possible for "presence of non-independent source" not to be a deletion criterion, and for "absence of independent sources" to be one. As for your observation on other articles, again I must state that I prefer to judge each article on its own merits. --Nehwyn 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article can have both independent sources and non-independent (related) sources. A good article will use both independent and related sources. The issue isn't whether or not the related sources are used. The issue is whether the independent sources are available and used. If the independent sources are not available, the article should be deleted as a consequence of WP:NPOV and WP:V. If the independent sources are available but not used, the article should be improved by using them. The best evidence that the independent sources are available is their use, but pointing out other sources that cite such independent sources is sometimes adequate. The opinions of individual editors that something is significant enough to cover carry no weight compared to the opinions of independent sources. We ignore related sources in discussing notability because related sources are inherently biased.
I also think it is obvious from my comment that I said WP:CORP was the standard. Links to essays are perfectly acceptable as longer explanations of an opinion given in discussion. The failure to use independent sources is evidence that it is impossible to write an article adhering to WP:NPOV without violating WP:V or WP:NOR, all of which are core policies. GRBerry 22:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started an enquiry in [14] on the application of that guideline on shopping malls.--Huaiwei 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness' sake, let us report here that said enquiry has been answered. See the link above for the discussion. --Nehwyn 16:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterate WP:LOCAL; Place of local interest. Jurong Point is neither a company, club nor corporation. Its a public commercial complex, and it is the focal structure within the town centre of Jurong West and Boon Lay. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That dosent stop others from using WP:INDY, also an essay, as a reasoning for deletion.--Huaiwei 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a major difference between the two. WP:INDY leads with a one sentence summary of the essay that is an argument from policies. No such summary of WP:LOCAL exists or is possible. To top it off, WP:LOCAL says in the section entitled "Creating articles about places of local interest" that references should be included in an article about a local place of interest. So I can also argue "Delete because the article does not have the references required by WP:LOCAL." WP:LOCAL is a reason to delete the article, not to keep it, because the article is not up to the level that WP:LOCAL expects. GRBerry 16:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether there is a difference between two essays isnt for a single wikipedian to define, however. We are concerned about policy implimentation here, not about writting styles. If both are indeed essays, then both should be treated with equal weightage.--Huaiwei 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The defenders of this mall have now had several days to provide verifiable references of notability, and have failed. I think the page should be deleted, for the following reasons.
  1. Notability: Whether you think this page is controlled by WP:CORP or the general notability guideline, notability has not been established. WP:LOCAL is not helpful, as the proposed guideline explicitly states that it does not establish notability requirements. There is no verified statement anywhere that establishes why this mall is notable, other than that it is a large mall in Singapore. The basic requirement of most notability pages -- two non-trivial references in verifiable and reliable sources is not onerous, and has not been met.
  2. Verification: Not one statement on the page is verified by any reliable source. As written in WP:NOT, "all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small 'garage' or local companies are not likely to be acceptable."
  3. Advertising: The page as it is written reads like advertising copy, and its only function is to advise readers of the amenties available at the mall, and to direct readers to the mall's website. This fails for several reasons: (a) Advertisements masquerating as articles are not only inappropriate, they may be speedy deleted; (b) Wikipedia is not a directory; and (c) Wikipedia is not advertising.
  4. Incurable: As I've said, the page's defenders have had several days. I don't see that any of the problems above are curable, much less all of them.
Thanks, TheronJ 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with the article, Jurong Point is notable and verified. The article is referenced, NPOV, not disputed, informative, and has a picture. --Vsion 00:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I point out, that the conclusion "notability is not established" is no longer governed by whether this comes under WP:CORP or not, but whether the sources which are already listed are Independent enough to be considered reliable. As is the case for many above, I dispute the notion that non-independent sources are always assumed to be unreliable. None of the stated guidelines above explicitely rule out the possibility of reliable non-independent sources, and not one person here could proof that those sources are indeed unreliable.--Huaiwei 11:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change reason for nomination: To clear up the confusion the last post engenders, as the nominator I state again that the proposed reason for deleting this article is that it does not meet the relevant notability criteria. In this case, WP:CORP applies, so multiple, non-trivial, independent sources must be quoted by the article to establish its notability. As it stands, the article contains only one such source, whose reliability I have not questioned. As for non-independent sources, whether they are reliable or not, the article can of course contain them, but they are not eligible as notability criteria under WP:CORP. --Nehwyn 14:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple such sources. In the above, Mailer has already given another source from the Business Times. Let me add another one from a govt. agency [15]. So, any remaining problem? This Afd is already a futile effort, we are just entertaining each other here ;), which is alright. But basically, if the article was to be deleted, it would just be wasting the contributors' effort and reducing the comprehensiveness of wikipedia (although some editors don't care about shopping malls, but the majority do.) We can discuss forever, but in short, the reason cited for deletion is really very weak. --Vsion 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The webpage quoted by Mailer above mentions Jurong Point Shopping Centre when stating that a new large mall may be built near it in 2008-2009. That is not a notability assertion for the present mall. --Nehwyn 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Verifiability policy: "Material from self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as it is relevant to the person's or organization's notability." Does this apply here? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, non-independent sources can be used as sources, sure; they just cannot be used as notability criteria under WP:CORP. This being a debate on notability, that concern indeed does not apply here. --Nehwyn 04:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intermix (store)

edit

Article about a small store chain does not establish notabilty or contain encyclopedic information - Wikipedia is not a business directory Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus whether to delete or merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon types

edit

This article is entirely original research and violates Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:NOT, which states that Wikipedia is not a venue for game guide information and is not a dumping ground. I suggest that this be placed in an interested party's userspace to transwiki it or keep for personal use and then delete it from Wikipedia hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not like there's anyone who actually thinks it should be kept... -Amarkov babble 04:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage of popular game/anime series seems to have improved vastly recently; it seems that the wikiprojects are now taking maintenance as seriously as expansion, and simultaneously the deletionists have stopped being so aggressive (no references to notability so far here, only one mention of cruft, etc). I think it's safe to be optimistic. :)
    As for this article, merging the details that pokemon experts consider useful and well-established is the way to go. — Haeleth Talk 11:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Cartel

edit

Article was prodded and expired its duration. Thought it deserved an AFD so listing here. No Opinion from me. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 08:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. Nothing here that doesn't flow naturally from the title ("Digimon Wii is a Digimon game for the Wii"). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon Wii

edit

Article doesn't adhere to Wikipedia policies, specifically that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If and when the game is actually made, the article can and should be recreated hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE both. -Splash - tk 19:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitecross Systems

edit

Also nominated is Netezza. The nominated articles were created by a corporate vanity account, Kognitio (talk · contribs). The two articles that share the username have been tagged for speedy deletion as spam. Both show no indication of meeting WP:CORP. MER-C 09:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Chris Wallace interview of Bill Clinton

edit

This is an article about an interview. We generally do not have articles on press conferences, interviews, talk show appearances, and the like. Rather, important material from such events is added to the relevant articles either on substantive topics or on the participants. Any important new points that Clinton made should be merged into the relevant articles on those topics. If it is important that Clinton accuses Wallace of bias, that should be merged into the Wallace article. Derex 10:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete & merge anything important elsewhere, as nom. Derex 10:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This article originated only because, in the aftermath of the interview, some people were hot to debate the respective Clinton and Bush records on terrorism. They kept trying to do so within the Chris Wallace article. When the material was repeatedly removed from that article as being off-topic, it ended up here. By now, I think the furor has died down. A separate article on one specific interview is pointless. JamesMLane t c 10:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge elsewhere. Its (marginal) notability will only decrease with time. --Alcuin 11:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews and WP:NOT a debating forum. Barno 13:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Merge any relevant information that isn't already in other articles jaco♫plane 13:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was a one time interview. It's notable because of what happened, but it certainly can be explained at Chris Wallace and Clinton articles. RobJ1981 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I concur, except I'd note that what should be explained in the Chris Wallace article is the material relating to Wallace's conduct and alleged bias. The Wallace article isn't the place for rehashing the substance of U.S. anti-terrorism policy in the 1990s. I mention this because I wouldn't want deletion to be read by the Clinton-bashers as a license to go back to trying to turn the Wallace article into an off-topic conservative hit job. JamesMLane t c 21:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response It's not rehashing policy, it's talking about Clinton's response to Wallace's question, which Clinton provided in the same breath that he accused Wallace of conducting a "conservative hit job." Gee, if Chris Wallace were here, what would he say in his defense? Juliandroms 05:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an indicidual interview is not notable, unless it ends or starts a career, which this certainly did not.-- danntm T C 15:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. But a possible article of value would be "Famous Interviews" - in which this, and other interviews (such as Frost's interview of Nixon) could be listed and briefly discussed.PaulLev 16:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not significant by itself. Gazpacho 18:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --ASDFGHJKL 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. Part of a disturbing trend of making articles about every "incident" briefly in the news instead of covering the event in the relevant preexisting articles. Gamaliel 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thank you Derex for failing to notify me of your request to delete this article. (I originated the article.) (1) In response to the comments above, there is no explicit attempt to "debate the respective Clinton and Bush records on terrorism" on my part. There was however, an attempt to discuss Clinton's response to the question that was provided part & parcel with Clinton's characterization of Wallace as a "Republican hit" man. Given that Clinton raised ire and accused Wallace of engaging in a "conservative hit job", whether or not Clinton was factually incorrect or evasive in answering the question is certainly relevant information for someone to know, if they want to know whether Chris Wallace is biased, or just doing his job. Otherwise, the report is just heresay. My opinion, so long as the discussion talks about what Clinton and Wallace actually said during the interview, which is the topic of the section in Wallace's biography, then it's fair for inclusion, on-topic and relevant.(2) I certainly did attempt to include this information "merged" with the article on Chris Wallace, but Derex and a few others repeatedly removed that material from the Wallace entry, claiming it was "off topic." Suffice it to say, certain people wish to characterize Wallace superficially as having committed a "conservative hit job" without any counterpoint or in depth discussion. Boogers.(3) Also note from the history, that it was Derex and not I who added completely extraneous material about Napolitan. I tried to delete it numerous times, but it was Derex who kept adding it in. (It's included in the wiki entry on Napolitan anyhow.) Juliandroms 05:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so let me get this straight. If we add this material to wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_clinton#Fox_News_Interview_with_Chris_Wallace , then you're all going to be quiet and stop complaining, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliandroms (talk • contribs) 06:07, 14 October 2006
Comment: No way. You just have to get off your fixation with this interview. The interview is only one piece of "Clinton administration anti-terrorism actions", which in turn is only one piece of "Clinton administration", which in turn is only one piece of "Bill Clinton". If the article on Bill Clinton tried to cover everything at the level of detail you want for this tiny piece, the article would be book-length.
What Wikipedia does instead is to use a hierarchical "daughter article" system. See generally Wikipedia:Summary style. For example, the Clinton bio article contains a reference to the Cole bombing, with a wikilink to the article USS Cole bombing. The latter article includes a mention of the different POVs about the Clinton and Bush administration responses (or lack thereof) to the Cole bombing. That section could be expanded with information from different sources, including but not limited to the Wallace interview. Other parts of the interview, of course, related to other subjects. The interview itself just wasn't such a significant event in Bill Clinton's life that it deserves that much space in his bio article. By way of comparison, note that the current version of the Bill Clinton article gives much more attention to this fifteen-minute interview than to Clinton's own autobiography of several hundred pages. The treatment of the interview in that article shouldn't be further expanded; it should be reduced substantially or eliminated. JamesMLane t c 07:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight: Someone responds to Chris Wallace's question by criticizing him as a "conservative hit" man and that goes in his Wikipedia entry. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton can say whatever he wants, and Wikipedia is expected to parrot this at face value, with no contarty viewpoints to express. Does not adhere to an overal neutral policy, IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.234.11 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I just looked at the text on the interview in the Chris Wallace article. It does present Brit Hume's critique of Clinton's claims. For want of a better phrase: it reads pretty fair and balanced to me. First, in the description of the interview. Next in the Media Matters (pro-Clinton) and Brit Hume (con-Clinton) paragraphs.PaulLev 05:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My response to the anon: No, you haven't gotten it straight. Whether Chris Wallace is biased is a subject that's about Chris Wallace, so it goes in the Chris Wallace article. Whether Bill Clinton, when he was President, acted appropriately after the Cole bombing is not about Chris Wallace and does not go in the Chris Wallace article. Where that subject is properly addressed, i.e. in the USS Cole bombing article, we should report all notable points of view. That means we report what Clinton has said on the subject but we don't "parrot" it (if by that you mean that we assert the truth of one side of a contested issue). We also report any notable criticisms of Clinton, though again without adopting them. The same is true of the other aspects of the underlying disputes about the Clinton administration's and the Bush administration's respective responses to terrorism. JamesMLane t c 05:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is very heavy on the Fox News "side." There should be an article about this interview, but it should be based ONLY in facts about the interview itself, not about the ideas disputed within the interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.125.85 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Coredesat 23:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon game mechanics

edit

Clear example of failing Wikipedia policy in regards to no game guide information. The title alone lets us know that policies are being violated (game mechanics) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 10:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak keep now that the article has been significantly cleaned. GassyGuy 23:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk 11:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome (talk • contribs)

Eichmannphobia

edit

A sick joke, and a WP:OR. Please recategorize as you see fit. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A verifiable condition. Personally, I think it's contemptable that you would claim that the condition does not exist. Are you a scientologist? In my opinion, the article should be kept until more research is completed. --64.121.58.61 11:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not a sick joke. You're the joke. It's a real condition that has been under observation by at least two American universities, and a university in Krakow, Poland. Amazing how you ever got to be a Wikipedia admin.--MonkBirdDuke 11:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Coredesat 06:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knox Glass Bottle Company

edit

For your consideration, a non-notable local bottlemaking company, which was bought up by another non-notable bottlemaking company now defunct. An attempt has been made to show some kind of notability - an apparently ground-breaking decision involving the company in Mississippi. Nuh-uh. It's just corporate cheerleading from the lawfirms website ("define in detail" is the relevant weasel phrase). This fails WP:CORP. Eusebeus 10:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radiohead overview and influence

edit

yes People, I am the one who is deleting the majority of the aritcle. I am the one that wknight94 was talking about, and yes untill you can source whatever it was that I deleted, I'm afraid it will stay deleted. 71.236.225.50 03:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom political polls

edit

Mainly repeated infoormation from Opinion Poll Rob.derosa 11:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anydays

edit

Non-notable band, 23 Ghits. Speedy delete tag removed twice. - TexMurphy 12:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Tenendum est, designatione revocata, nullo suffragio deletionis. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Caecilius Iucundus

edit

Subjectus de articulus anti-notabilis est - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Io concedo. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Normally I might relise, but the nominator and participator are right; view this as a kind of PROD-esque thing adn speedy-restore with relist if contested in good faith. -Splash - tk 19:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mastercare

edit

Tagged for speedy deletion with the explanation "advert". I don't think it's speedyable; let's try it here. (No opinion from me) – Gurch 12:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's not an advertistement, exactly, but it sounds like a self-written corporate profile. There are many companies called "Mastercare," and I'm not sure if this one is the most important of them. Mangojuicetalk 12:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Karate organizations

edit

I was tempted to speedy delete this under criterion A3. This page is a spam magnet that doesn't work: it does collect linkspam, but it doesn't keep it off of any of the other martial arts pages. There are no established editors watching this page: I couldn't find any examples of an organization being removed from the list, so this counts as "indiscriminate information", advertising, and a web directory, all in direct violation of WP:NOT. Furthermore, having a list of all Karate organizations is just a bad idea: there's no selectivity implied in the title and there are hundreds of thousands out there, ranging from single dojos to international federations. Nothing in this list is worth saving. Delete and quickly. Mangojuicetalk 12:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversational publishing

edit

Non-notable neologism (WP:NEO) that gets all of 56 Google hits – few indeed for an Internet-related concept. The only source cited is a blog. Contested PROD. Sandstein 12:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah quelle surprise

edit

juvenilia - trivial, unsupported by sources, appears to relate only to a single school in Istanbul. Rbreen 13:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstated comments as deleted by Osmancan:

osmancan- it is important for it's users, also other high schools in that district use it besides it is something symbolic for students of that school and that school is the best school of turkey.An encyclopedia is a source of knowledge and this is knowledge. İt may be treeitorial however there are some territotrial informations and it is a commonly used idiom that is why i found the the proposal for it to be deleted is riddiculus. This article is not something made up in a school in one day. It's been using for a long time but was not carried to wikipedia untill now and if it was something made up in one day then it would be forgotten in one day. It was born in a schoollike some other traditions burt it is not used only by students that makes it is out of categopry WP:NFT. [ —The preceding comment was added by Osmancan (talk • contribs) .
Osman, please do not delete comments made in an AfD discussion, even if they are your own. It's important to leave them there so futiure contributors can follow the discussion. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

osmancan- However I am boycotting this article now because of political acts of france[ —The preceding comment was added by Osmancan (talk • contribs) .

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Botardz and Stunts performed in Botardz

edit

This appears to be a borderline-vanity/advertisement page for a non-notable group of stunt performers. A Google search "Botzards" yeilds only four results, none of which reference the group, movie, or YouTube clips.

Only two of the words in the article are blue links -- the year 2008, and the language "English" in the film's infobox. I might be hopelessly ignorant on the topic, however, which is why we're seeing this debate here. Consequentially 23:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Jenkins is a pop-culture phenomenon, to the point where it was mentioned on Jeopardy. Google it, and you'll find dozens of imitators and hundreds of mentions. This movie, on the other hand, has zero Google presence, and no pop-culture notability. There is a large difference between the two. Consequentially 21:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Can (band) - Yomanganitalk 15:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Johnson (musician)

edit

Contains no information that isn't in the main Can article already and the Internet in general does not seem to contain any information about this guy either so there's no point in keeping this stub.--HisSpaceResearch 14:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redir per Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia (AfD discussion); no need to repeat this waste of editor's time for a slightly different spelling. `'mikkanarxi 08:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia

edit

WP:OR or WP:NEO, either way, I gave up looking for genuine references for this word after the first 15 pages of Google hits. I don't think every "jocular" (i.e. something someone made up) definition deserves a unique page anyway. Earle Martin [t/c] 13:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart

edit

The edit wars over this article appear to be out of any kind of proportion to the subject's verifiable importance. With under a hundfred unique Googles and none which appear to meet the test of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent media of known authority, I'd say the importance tag which was the subject of the latest spat was more than justified. In fact, I see no credible evidence of importance at all here. Guy 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as the subject has changed her name several times over the course of her life, this search for Morning Glory Zell would be more accurate. It returns 82,900 hits. Also note that Morning Glory Ravenheart, her name before marrying Zell, returns 15,700 hits. -999 (Talk) 14:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those searches are invalid, because the names are not quoted they return all articles containing the word morning, glory and zell. Quoting the text gives 238 and 21 unique hits respectively - the 238 will include the zell-revenheart ones. Guy 15:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you may have a point, but I have to agree with 999. The search '"Morning Glory"+pagan' returns 39,300 Ghits. I've also added references to the article of mentions in such publications as Hinduism Today, Salon and Nerve, among others. She is notable. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further results: "Zell-Ravenheart" gets 34,900. "Zell-Ravenheart"+"Morning Glory" gets nearly 2000, and that doesn't include references to her as either "Morning Glory Zell" or "Morning Glory Ravenheart". Unfortunately, she tends to get mentioned only by first name in articles which refer to her husband, so restricting to the full name in quotes is not a fair test. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pagan community would, then, appear to be too small to generate significant coverage. Where are the multiple independent non-trivial articles? Guy 15:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's discrimination. As I am sure you know, the notablity guidelines are guidelines. If a person is notable within their religion, they deserve an article. Otherwise I'm sure there are many minor figures important to Islam, Judaism, Bahai, Sikhism, etc. that should be removed, because you probably haven't heard of them either. Bah! Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for reiterating some of the statements above. I'm still kinda new at this.
Septegram 13:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto: Ninja Chronicles

edit

Non-notable Half-Life mod. --InShaneee 13:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep (no arguments other than the nominator's for deletion, redirection etc is up to the usual workings of consensus). --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minmatar

edit

This is a cruft-heavy article that almost completely duplicates information in some of the other, better-written articles about EVE Online. As one of the major contributors to the better EVE Online articles, I think the EVE Online category as a whole should stay small, and that articles aren't needed about each of the major races... because then we'll get articles on the bloodlines... then the ship classes... then the individual ships... and so on. I am also nominating Amarr with this. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 14:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 15:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didge (acronym)

edit

Neologism. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Delete. —Brim 14:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark hearts

edit

non-notable band. They haven't released an album yet. Delete. —Brim 14:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Fanon

edit

Non-notable wiki for Star Wars fan fiction. Fails WP:WEB. I don't have a problem with Star Wars pages, but this is just a site where fans make up their own stories and characters. No mention in any independent third-party sources I can find. Kafziel Talk 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThePete

edit

Appears to be one staff member of a small, local radio program from a small market, who is only known by a pseudonym. Doesn't assert notability, and doesn't come up anywhere of consequence unfortunately on searches. Recommend deletion. · XP · 14:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I talked with the webmaster of the radio station that broadcasts the show...his (and other members of the show) profiles were supposed to be on the station's website. The pages were left in a "pending" status and never published. This should be getting corrected in the next few days. This would address the verfiability.

My question is, should this be a stub instead?tony garcia 14:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a primary source, and that would not be sufficient. There are no outside 3rd party WP:RS sources talking about them, to establish notability. · XP · 14:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the arguments that is attempting to be made is related to St. Cloud's status as a "small market" and KNSI's status as a "small local radio program." St. Cloud is hardly "small market." St. Cloud is the 8th largest city in the state with a population of 64,308 (as of 2000), and KNSI's broadcasting is not limited to the city limits, as well as online. Could you please give us your qualifiers for "small market" and "small radio station" so we may reference these qualifiers with other Wiki articles? As a member of the staff, who has an influence on what is put on the air of Race to the Right, I would also like qualifiers that you are using for "obscure staffer." From what I understand (according to Wiki's own definition, "there has been controversy over Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy with the site receiving criticism for its (among other things) preference for consensus or popularity over credentials." Members of Race to the Right staff are not going to win an argument about popularity. But the staff for this radio show can hold their own when it comes to credentials. Articles from the Always Right Usually Correct blog have been featured throughout the blogging community as well as sites that track the notability and popularity of articles ( http://www.buzztracker.com/ for example). Would it not be also good to know of decendants of notable historical figures as well? (Jean-Baptiste Faribault for example) If needed, I can provide birth records. Pete Arnold 22:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wiki guide on Notability, personality notability can be determined by: A large fan base or Name recognition (ammong other things) What would you consider a "large fan base"? Also by what do you define "Name Recoginition"?

[20] has had over 76720 visators since 3/17/06, with an average of about 360 a day. The name recoginition leads out of this as well.Pete Arnold 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment those criteria are intentionally ambiguous to allow editors to make a judgement call; there is no hard number. Still, the number of hits a website gets is an argument for the website being notable, not "a researcher and contributor" for the radio show tied to the webstite (and personally I don't think it really demonstrates notability for the website... my blog gets roughly the same number of hits). Again, the relevant notability guidelines for a person are at WP:BIO and that is what you should be basing your argument on. I don't think being a researcher for a show, where the host has a blog that gets a certain number of hits meets any of the WP:BIO criteria.--Isotope23 20:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Ambiguous nature of Wiki's rules not only allows editors to make judgement calls, but allows preferencial treatment of some articles, and exclusion of others based on editorial opinion. If rules are going to be cited as criteria to be meet inorder to be allouable in Wiki, then Ambiguous or not, of something meets those criteria, it would be expected to be kept. Race to the Right meets the notability guidelines by having 1. A large fan base and 2. name recoginition. The entires on the contributiers to Race to the Right (Tony Garcia and Pete Arnold) show what makes Race to the Right what it is. Pete Arnold 20:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man weapons

edit

Essentially a game guide, and perhaps of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. Combination 15:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not function as a game guide, if only because the information contained in it is inapplicable to the games. It is a article on the technical specifications of the weapons used in the game, which are actually un-selectable for most of the games, and more of a storyline concern than any kind of hints page.

As for having less citations than normal, this is because the information for the weapons is mostly contained in the japanese sourcebooks and in-game dialogue/captions.128.211.254.142 16:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete total fancruft. wikipedia is not a gaming guide. DesertSky85451 17:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - I would say to keep it and turn the stuff that would be from a game guide into actual encyclopedic information. It really doesn't look that much like a game guide to me. It doesn't seem bad to keep and article for the main weapons of a well selling series of games (like the Zelda article). Or the info could just be merged to the specific character or game articles. Nemu 18:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- United961 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mega Man article. --ASDFGHJKL 21:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP. Way too large to merge with the main article. There are dozens of Mega Man articles- killing this article would cause all the info to spread out over many many articles. This nom doesn't make any sense... Also, this article is currently a Good Article, which would be difficult to obtain if the article was non notable, right? --- RockMFR 22:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No, it's not at all difficult to get a Good Article rating: GA ratings require only two people, one to nominate the article and the other to review it and decide whether it meets the criteria or not. There is no vote and there are no formal restrictions on who is allowed to review articles. — Haeleth Talk 11:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Into parent. · XP · 22:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOT a game guide. Too much content for a merge, and most content would have to be totally rewritten to conform to WP:WAF anyway. Sandstein 16:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEPIn what way is it a game guide? Absolutely none of the information is applicable to the games! It's pure story information, that at most indicates that different characters hae different methods of fighting. It could be made shorter by removing the extra weapons of the same type (the sabers, specifically), though.
    • Comment The parts of the article like the MMBN and ZX sections can be taken as game guides, but the info can easily be removed or rewritten. It doesn't seem like a good reason to delete the article. Nemu 01:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this mess. Nothing here is verifiable; it's all just interpretation and supposition and speculation and sometimes fanon based on direct observation of the games themselves, with game guide content (the ZX and Battle Network stuff) added for flavor. You can tell from the cited sources; they're all GameFAQs or fanpages. A yeoman's job was done merging awful stubs into this mess, but there's nothing here to save or worth saving. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Long and does not meet critera Cs california 06:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE This is a huge amount of cruft. Look, I'm a MM fan, too, but can't we just put a link to MMHQ or something at the bottom of the Mega Man page instead of having a gigantic article about ultra-specific obscure game storyline information? Also, I'm confused at some of the arguments here. Nemu, are you saying that the only useful stuff on the page should be deleted?TheWarlock 19:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - No, I'm saying to just rewrite or remove the game guide type of info. I really think there should be some sort of limit to the whole verifiability and notability guidelines, or any sort of fictional information beyond the main work and absolute main character should all be deleted. Nemu 19:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Chump

edit

Fictional band created by university student who produce mock videos- --Nehwyn 15:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. I tagged it as such, but author removed the db tag.
  • Delete per WP:NMG, obviously. I guess the author feels the bit about having "an extensive cult following amongst the students of the University" is enough to assert notability. Wrong. PJM 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Demented Cartoon Movie

edit

Non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (web). Vectro 15:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS, all the usual suspects. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 April 30. The result of the discussion was no consensus. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 17:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there appears to be no non-trivial third-party coverage of this Flash series by reliable sources, meaning it fails WP:WEB. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable animation. Characters and scenes from this work have appeared in other animations. (See the previous discussion for a partial list.) --Billpg 02:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this Flash cartoon has had a large effect on the internet culture. Phrases such as "Zeeky Boogy Doog" and "Kamikaze Watermelon" have become known on their own. Of all the junk articles on Wikipedia, this isn't one of them. --Ridesim 07:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide a citation showing that this cartoon has had the "large effect" that you claim? If so, please add it to the article and make a note here. Thanks, Vectro 06:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I listed some of the repeated use of catch-phrases and characters in the last deletion discussion. I'll add them to the article if it survives this round. --Billpg 11:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps you could repost them in here and get them on the article page. I'd like to see how it looks in the article. I think the list he had was a good indicator of the type of impact it has had.--Ridesim 07:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Citations
          • For example, although user-submitted, there are 15 definitions on the Urban Dictionary having to do with one of the film's catchphrases. [1]
          • "Zeeky Boogy Doog" has shown up in numerous YTMND pages (url removed by Vectro because of blacklisting)
          • Fooby, the Kamikaze Watermelon makes an appearance in this short, user (not me) created video. [2]
          • Or there's this Garry's Mod rebuild of the first Fooby appearance [3]
          • I'm sure a Google search could find more, but these tidbits from this cartoon have bled into other media forms. If you wanted, you could argue that YouTube is a film media. Either way, there's a clear impact on the internet world. If anyone would like to do hitcounts on Google, they can, but evidence such as this helps more.--Ridesim 07:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Ridesim. This movie is one of the more well-known Flash animations, and as he said, some of the phrases used in the movie are used elsewhere. Not to mention it's simply hilarious. --Xbolt 05:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Xbolt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep In fact, furthermore, deleting this article would be like deleting the article on Monty Python, or the Three Stooges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.188.16.20 (talk • contribs)
    • No, it would not be, for the simple reason that both of those articles provide substantial citations to reliable, independent sources providing critical analysis and coverage of the works in question. Vectro 23:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that the opinion of a guest is moot, but this article is long enough, has at least 5 ciations & has mutiple links. PLUS it has a crazy fanbase and its cool!***** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.57.107.1 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 17 October 2006
  • Comment What references? What citations? All the links given are either mirrors of the Flash series or (in the case of Urban Dictionary) are not reliable sources. Also, media that make references to a subject are not a guideline for notability; 20,000 Flash animations can make a reference to an obscure in-joke but unless the joke has coverage from an independent source, it's not notable. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 22:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you like to see the article improved with a section on the impact of the cartoon? It seems to me that there is none right now, but we have some information for starting a section on it. --Ridesim 03:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. Let me repeat myself, "impact" is not a criteria for notability. Read the notability guidelines for web content to understand what constitues notability on Wikipedia. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 04:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case, the article complies with the notability standards. Chriterion 3 indicates: "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." The subject gained notability after being published on Albinoblacksheep.com, a "well known" website whose publishings are made by webmaster, rather than by simple user publishing. The creator (Brian Kendall) does not own or operate said website. This qualifies the article as compliant and should be decided as keep due to Albinoblacksheep's notability as an "online publisher." --Ridesim 07:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and swift Burn it with fiar. I've seen it before and it's funny but it fails every notability test, is completely unverifiable and looks a lot like original research. Axem Titanium 23:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, please note this tag from the article's discussion page:
WikiProject iconAnimation Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
--Ridesim 07:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suntec City Mall

edit

Shopping mall. The only claim to notability, being the largest in Singapore, has expired since a larger one was built. --Nehwyn 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any source to that claim? --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As written below, the largest fountain claim is contested, and no independent source has still been found to resolve it. As for the Singapore 2006 event, according to its own article, that has been hosted in the nearby Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre (built by the same company, but not a mall). Any source on the fact that it was specifically the mall, and not the congress centre, that hosted the World Bank meetings? --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article you mention states that a drop in sales occurred during the Singapore 2006 event due to security restrictions because of the meetings going on nearby. Hardly a claim to notability per se. --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This nomination is ridiculous. This is the first afd I've seen, where the nomination statement itself prove that the subject is notable. --Vsion 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I may have not made myself clear. I meant to say that currently there is no notability claim, although it may have been notable in the past (when it held the "title" of largest mall). :) --Nehwyn 17:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that many hold by a "once notable, always notable" attitude. Certainly, most guidelines seem to take that for granted. JoshuaZ 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any specific statement on that? --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per diablo.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Terrnece and Mailer diablo. Wow, finally a mall that has something resembling a plausible claim of notability. JoshuaZ 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible withdraw AfD: It has been brought to attention that this venue holds the world's largest fountain. This is more than an acceptable claim to notability. The article makes no mention of that, so in its current form is not notable; however, were that fact to be added to it, I would happily withdraw this AfD. I have tried Googling for it, but the claim seems to be contested by another fountain in Illinois, and the Guinness page about the fountain is no longer supported by the official Guinness of Records website (Google has a cache copy). Anyone with the actual book able to help? --Nehwyn 20:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Singapore Book of Records (2005) still assert this as world's largest. [22] - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in a Singapore vs USA contested record, the fact that the Singapore book of Records supports Singapore is not really a surprise. Any independent source? --Nehwyn 10:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do write your motivations in English. This is the English Wikipedia. Thanks! :) --Nehwyn 11:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Singapore 2006 page, that would be Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre (still Suntec, but not a mall). --Nehwyn 11:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I smell something too...But I'd rather assume good faith here. :) - Mailer Diablo 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated them all together because they were brought to my attention all together after I nominated one. As for the rest, I too smell something fishy: it seems to me that far too many of the "keep" comments come from Singaporean editors, and it is conceivable that they may have contacted one another to try and lobby the debate page... although again, WP:AGF applies, so let's assume that is not the case. --Nehwyn 15:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And so I suppose you expect most of the "Keep" comments to come from Italians, for something less fishy? It is a no-brainer why most of comments are coming from Singapore. And if you wondering why most of them are "Keep" votes, have you considered the fact that not every mall in Singapore has got an article? How sure are you that I will not question an article about a truly insignificant Singaporean mall?--Huaiwei 17:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would prefer if comments on the inclusion or deletion criteria for any given article were not based on the editors' area of residence, but only on the article itself. For an example of what kind of reasoning I'd prefer not to see, try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurong Point Shopping Centre, where the deletion of the article has been defined by one editor as "a great insult to all Singaporeans". I wish this kind of reasoning would not become a factor in Wikipedia debates. My concern is not really that being a resident in the area might colour a single editor's judgement on differentiating between local notability and Wikipedia notability (although that is certainly possible); my concern is that some editors with a common interest or characteristic (in this case, residence) may have rallied privately to "lobby" the debate in disregard to the Wikipedia public. But again, let's assume good faith and deem it not the case. --Nehwyn 17:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed for the AR3 mention, but as far as the Singapore 2006 page, please note that would be Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre (still Suntec, but not a mall). --Nehwyn 15:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Suntec City Mall is one of the most recognisable retail icon in Singapore. Apparently this nomination is done without familiarity with Singapore, above all, the mall is well-visited by tourists due to the tax rebate scheme that made the venue popular among visitors. As per abovementioned, the mall is noteable internationally, represented in a couple of advertising regimes to promote Singapore as a tourist destination and retail haven. The corporate site: Suntec City Mall. Absurb nomination. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 03:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Highly notable.--Tdxiang 04:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hildanknight has withdrawn his Keep vote. The original vote and reason for withdrawal are available in the page history.
  • To substantiate my post earlier: Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), a Singaporean government statutory board cites that Suntec City is one of the largest commercial developments in Singapore to date at [23]. Suntect REIT, developer of the Suntec chain of commercial complexes, cites that Suntec City Mall is Singapore's largest shopping mall at [24], further stating that Strong branding of the Suntec name and Fountain of Wealth is recognized domestically and internationally, and Fountain of Wealth attracts half a million visitors a year, while quality tenant base including oreign institutions, prominent local corporations and multinational companies provides enhanced stability of rental income. The Mall along with the exhibition complex, was awarded two FIABCI Prix d' Excellence awards for excellence in all aspects of real estate development (Overall winner and Commercial / Retail winner) in 1999 and the Outstanding Contribution to Tourism award in 1998 from Singapore Tourism Board. The site too states that the mall is a one-stop shopping, fashion, dining, recreation and entertainment destination that attracts about 24 million visitors a year. Notable enough for you? Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 03:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is what a Wikipedia reference should look like. Kudos to Silvester. The Suntec reference cannot be considered "independent", but the URA reference and the awards definitely are. Personally, I think that if the AR3 and this one are added to the article, that would be referencing it enough for a speedy keep. =) --Nehwyn 07:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting to note that Nehwyn considers a Singaporean statutory board acceptably "independent", while a publication called the Singapore Book of Records (2005) is not.--Huaiwei 07:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the URA is a governmental entity, not part of Suntec, and thus considered independent. Suntec, having built the venue, cannot be considered an "independent source" about the venue itself. As far as the Fountain record goes, on the other hand, the Singapore Book of Records statement currently is contested, and the Guinness World Records (generally considered the standard authority on world records) has withdrawn mention of the Fountain of Wealth as the world's largest fountain about a week ago. They might in fact be checking the claim, for all we know. As soon as the record is re-listed by Guinness, I'd say that will solve the problem. --Nehwyn 07:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still, even though this entry has been withdraw by Guinness, it once appeared in the book for a period of time. Even if it is disputed, the fountain is still notable, and is still the largest outside North America. Is that notable for you? Singapore Book of Records is an independent source and what's wrong with it? --Terence Ong (T | C) 12:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't get us started on that.  ;-) --Nehwyn 07:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being the largest mall in Singapore is a valid claim for notability; this nomination is a bit dumbfounding. Yamaguchi先生 10:55, 15 October 2006
Note: Suntec City is not the largest mall in Singapore; that claims does not apply here. --Nehwyn 11:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw deletion nomination - Given the fact that deletion debate has brought forward new sources, allowing for sufficient improvement of the article to the point that it now provides satisfactory evidence of notability, in the absence of further dispute, as the original nominator I change my stance to keep and request early closure of this debate page. =) --Nehwyn 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus; despite SPAs, and despite the armwaving nature of some of the arguments for keep, there isn't a sufficiently coherent case for deletion - some of the links presented are passing mentions, but crucially not all.

It goes without saying that insufficiently-sourced 'controversies' (forum posts do not meet reliable source guidelines) should be reverted on sight. That's not a judgement formed from this AfD, that's cornerstone encyclopaedia policy. Perhaps those personally involved with the site should avoid editing the article - and if that leaves no interested editors to work on it, perhaps this would merit another AfD in the near future to form a clearer consensus from outside editors, without prejudice from this one. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boxrec.com

edit

WP:NN ,fansite which only claim to fame is a nationality dispute Gnevin 16:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Its not a fan site it is supposed to be the biggest compliation of Boxing facts and records anywhere on the net. Maybe you need to look around the site to get more of an appriciation for it. Secondly, this nationality dispute my be a very hot topic at the moment and should be reported but there is no need to delete the article because of one crazy editor who has just joined the site today! Beaumontproject 16:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you could establish that it's the "biggest compliation [sic]" through a reliable outside source that might help sway some editors (such as myself) to share your opinion. If it's so large then surely there are outside sources such as prominent boxing and sports media that mention the website, right? We need something other than just your word or the word of those who operate the website to establish that it's noteable. --ElKevbo 17:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommmentHey...I have no problem with the Criticism, but if it is to stay up then so should the Comment about the Criticism comment only being the view of a couple of people and certainly not the view od all wikipedians...that's a clear way to resolve the issue. You want it up fine, but I want it to be clear that it is only the view of a couple of people...can you live with that, or is your grudge just too bad to have a opposing voice...after all, wiki stresses opposing views in an article! And Beaumontproject joined only a few days ago also and the boxrec page and the John Duddy page is the only thing he has edited. And also for the record...I belong to several boxing organizations...what kind of orgs do you two cats beloing to to make such claims about boxing...are you the press?--Ozzwald35 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment I welcome criticism as long as it is constructive! Just stop making wholesale deletions. I have been following Wiki for months and only recently started editing after I got the hang of how the place works - maybe you should have done the same. You really have caused havok here today. Beaumontproject 16:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Google search for (link:www.Boxrec.com) returns 100 unique hits out of 171 [25]. All return links seem to be directory or profile listings instead of mentions in 3rd party press. The website has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (web). --  Netsnipe  ►  16:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not a web directory. Has anything about this website ever been newsworthy? All I see are some trivial statistics about the website and meaningless wikilinks to male, female and a bunch of countries. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommmentNetsnipe - you obviously havent looked around the site - boxrec is quoted in countless boxing articles, you obviously have no knowledge of the subject and should probably stick to subject that you do know about. First you said it was NN, that was proved wrong, then that it was a directory- thats wrong - what next?? In fact if you search Wiki for "boxrec" you get over 800 hits!!! Vintagekits 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment*Whereas a Google search just for "Boxrec.com" turns up about 527,000 hits. While this is obviously a very flawed methodology that's a significant number of hits. --ElKevbo 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. The links presented below by Ozzwald35 seem to be from a diverse set of sportswriters and make a decent argument for notability at least amongst sportswriters. --ElKevbo 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Also...for the record...Boxrec is the biggest records source in boxing history and it is the most popular boxing website on the internet. Boxrec administrators attend Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC)meetings every year. Boxrec also has a brother/sister wiki site, Mediawiki, which the page on that site would be ideal for the Boxrec page here:
http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRec.com
Anything else, that is irrelevant to describing Boxrec, should be made in the Talk area!!--Ozzwald35 17:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Websites that refer back to using Boxrec as they’re source…I don’t know how long the links will stay up, but below are a few! There’s a lot more…everyone in the boxing community refers back to Boxrec for fighters records from promoters to reporters to researchers to fans! But the information on the page needs to be correct and accurately backed by valid sources--Ozzwald35 17:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.inthecorner.net/story.php?id=696 http://www.fightnews.com/hoffman119.htm http://www.realitytvworld.com/index/articles/story.php?s=3441 In German http://www.ingogazelle.homepage.t-online.de/homepageboxen/reportagen/boxrec.htm Honolulu http://starbulletin.com/2003/04/14/sports/story1.html Rochester, NY Newspaper http://www.rochesterdandc.com/sports/general/0606story2_general.shtml Savannah, GA Newspaper http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/062803/SPTguideraboxing.shtml

  • Comment Actually if you search Boxrec.com on Google you get 1/2 million hits. Obviously those who are looking for deletion are not sports fans and without doubt not Boxing fans - have you even visited the site or done any research? Vintagekits 17:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I own boxrec.com and don't need all the emails and aggravation that I get about it's Wikipedia entry JohnShep 17:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment You could be Hitler and not want a page about you but you get it, but its not your choice unfortunately that not how wiki works! The article was put up for deletion for the reason of being NN - that has been shown to be untrue so its a Keep Vintagekits 18:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia should stick to notable/interesting/relevent facts, their BoxRec article is just about an argument that is completely irrelevant to 99.99999999% of the population. What next another article about the article about the argument and then another article about that, it's ridiculous. You should take a look at the BoxRec Wiki 40,000 articles and not one page of crud, delete please.JohnShep 20:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone here is disagreeing that the current article sucks. But that's a poor reason to delete the article entirely. Clean it up, yes. Delete it, no. --ElKevbo 20:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment if this issue is causing so much debate then it is obviously notable - racist and racism should be tackled head on in my opinion Vintagekits 23:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally said keep, but if the proper material and data about the page, according to Wiki rules and standards as listed in the links below cannot be met and irrelevant material is allowed then it should be deleted!--Ozzwald35 19:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Reliable_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB

  • Comment Closing admin: PLEASE pay close attention to the arguments laid down here. Keep votes seem primarily to represent the view that this website needs to be 'outed' in its criticism section. --InShaneee 14:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This site is the premier depot for boxing-related information, especially fight-related information. I suggest everyone on Wikipedia focus their efforts on removing more worthy BS this site occupies BoxNut83 15:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep Its a strong well known tool for boxing data. Why not delete Google page while you are at it? I had originally thought that Wikipedia would only delete pages, that are non-sensical, hoaxes, or self promotional. If anything it needs editing/some rewriting. Maya Levy 16:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep - Boxrec is the only site on the net which has the records of pretty much all active professional fighters (and thousands of retired boxers!). It's a vital source of information for ALL boxing fans. How can you even consider deleting this vital boxing website from Wiki? Many professional boxers have a boxrec hyperlink on their personal websites to show everyone their career results, which merely emphasizes how important Boxrec is! - LAWLLB

If Boxrec is all it's saying, surely it wouldn't be too hard to rectify it's mistake and change Duddy's nationality.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban (disambiguation)

edit

This disambiguation page has only two items in it. I added Chevrolet Suburban as a toplink to Suburb. G Rose 16:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Rosenfeld

edit

Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable local theater actor. Delete. —Brim 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


I have considered the discussion, and am inclined to view deletion of these two pages as appropriate for the moment; equally, I should not be surprised if a well-sourced article may be written on the subject before very long. —Encephalon 05:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil as an emerging superpower

edit

Information essentially duplicated from Brazil, I can't see the need for a seperate article on this. Contested prod, so sending to AfD to get consensus. For my part, Delete as duplicate material. Akradecki 16:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of Oct 16, I am adding Brazil as an emerging great power to this AfD, based on the fact that it is OR copied from other deleted articles, and essentially duplicates material found in the existing Brazil articles. Akradecki 22:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are other possible emerging superpowers which have sometimes been mentioned in these pages, these have prominently been Russia and Brazil, but there have been examples of Japan, the UK and even Pakistan sometimes being mentioned by some users as emerging superpowers. If we let such unilateral decisions made by users stand then we'll have way too many emerging superpower articles. Brazil's rise is not as widely documented as that of India, China's and the EU's. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 02:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but South America isn't exactly a continent which is noted for its decisive influence on world events, nor does this affect the primary issue, the lack of any real sourcing for the basic premise.
Xdamrtalk 02:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment...we need some consistency. The article Superpower defines such a country as "A superpower is a state with the first rank in the international system and the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale". The article provides no quality references to demonstrate in an academically acceptable way that Brazil is anywhere close to being able to project power anywhere in the world, at any time. Yes, Brazil is growing, but there's no verifiable sources to say that it's actually emerging with that ability. Akradecki 04:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely a regional power, but it is not in a state of growth to an extent to which it seems likely that it will become a superpower, or a nation that is likely to contest the United States and European Union. Note that much of the article is copied from the history of Major power, which was deleted per WP:NOR. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 07:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It does seem that the concept or idea that Brazil is an Emerging Superpower is out there in the academic world, and the article does now have some citations to back-up it's claims. I say if the China and India articles can exist then this one can too, it's not about whether we think Brazil can be a superpower or not, it's whether the concept is out there, Wikipedia is about Verifiability not Truth, right? --Hibernian 14:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is that it isn't verified. The facts such as GDP etc are easily enough sourced, but the main premise most certainly is not. The Jonathan Power article is the only source, a source which in itself fails WP:RS.
Xdamrtalk 22:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This whole series is riddled with OR, but this article in particular is very problematic. The only source which actually addresses the subject of the article is the Jonathan Power one, and that is a very flimsy source upon which to base an article. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy about that. Xdamrtalk 22:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, added above under my first del reason for the original article. Akradecki 22:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe… what you they want? At least one emerging great power or global power Brazil is. João Felipe C.S 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I've said it already: put this information where it belongs. We don't need multiple articles on the same subject. Secondly, I think there's folks here who'd say that they want to stop the recreation of OR that has previously been deleted. The definition of "Great Power" includes: "is able to exert power over world diplomacy." Brazil certainly isn't there yet. It's not even in the G8. And, the article that I've added, despite its title, makes no case with verifiable refs that the country can actually do this. All it does is rehash stats on the country without showing how the country influences world diplomacy. (On a side note, I think it's amusing that the article includes a pic of Brazil's lone aircraft carrier, a used boat bought from the French...hardly sufficient "power" to project around the world.) Akradecki 23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can't deny what? Xdamrtalk 00:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate, otherwise I suggest your vote be disregarded. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 07:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brazil is NOT a emerging superpower. Yes, their are reason why some time in the future it could become one but I can also make those reason for some 30 other nations. Also the article is unsource and unverified. Aussie King Pin 06:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idea - Instead of having some articles on emerging "superpowers" and emerging "great powers", why don't we just have a page about the international status or power status of any country that editors feel it necessary to write about. Leave it up to the editors to some up with the facts (keeping within the WP:OR policy), and let the reader decide for himself! Kevlar67 02:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment umm...I think that's what I've been saying all along, including in my original nom...we already have existing articles that deal with these subjects (in the case of this country, we have Brazil, Foreign relations of Brazil and Economy of Brazil, among others, all of which would easily accomodate the issues involved in the international status of the country). Akradecki 04:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wickethewok 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Lim Square

edit

Shopping mall; no claim to WP:CORP notability given. --Nehwyn 16:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, that was fast - just as your were nominating it for deletion, I was actually adding a reference to a two-page broadsheet newspaper feature report on the mall that appeared just three days ago on Singapore's computer history. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, the article states that it is the "most established IT mall [in the country]". Why did the nominator choose to ignore that? The place is very notable, well-known to foreign visitors also. --Vsion 17:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ignore that - I just do not consider that (unsourced) statement to meet the WP:CORP criteria, as specified in my nomination. --Nehwyn 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any success? And please note, the fact that the square is notable, does not automatically imply that the venues on it are. --Nehwyn 11:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some citations to the article already. It may be difficult to add more without a physical presence in Singapore. Also, if the square is notable, then it makes sense to mention vendors in the Square's article; the vendeors only have to show separate notability if they want their own article. See e.g., WP:CORP, WP:C&E, and WP:BIO for examples of this principle. Cheers, Vectro 16:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has several non-trivial published sources independent of the mall. Can you expand on your reasoning why it still fails WP:CORP? - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that WP:CORP states that media sources should be centred on the subject, and not cover it peripherally, such as on a survey of prices. Two of the references in the article fall into the "trivial coverage" category. The other two, on the other hand, seem to be legitimate. --Nehwyn 10:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"lah" is hardly a valid argument in a Wikipedia debate. :) --Nehwyn 10:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... but any claim to Wikipedia notability? --Nehwyn 11:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"for goodness sake" can hardly be considered a valid argument in a Wikipedia debate.  :) --Nehwyn 10:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, not that "if X, then Y" is generally not considered a valid point in a Wikipedia debate. :) --Nehwyn 16:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you apparantly applied the same formular when nominating them for deletion.--Huaiwei 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated each article individually. Group nominations are possible under Wikipedia policies, but this is not the case. An individual nomination, like this one, is best evaluated individually, based on the article it refers to, and not on others. --Nehwyn 18:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So how did you come to the conclusion that people arent exercising their votes "individually"? Just because the same logic applies in one topic happens to apply in another doesent mean it is a collective vote. Mind sharing with us how different each of your "individual" nominations are, then?--Huaiwei 07:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather assume good faith and hypothesise that no "anti-national conspiracy theory" has been formulated, and that no reaction to that has been discussed out of Wikipedia channels on the concern that said discussion would have been unsuitable to the general public. As for nominations, nominations are termed "individual" if each article has a separate nomination; they are termed "multiple" if a group of related articles is listed in one single nomination. Personally I prefer the former option, as each article should be assessed on its own merits. --Nehwyn 08:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Noting that I've participated in this AfD, closing on the basis of WP:SNOW and WP:IAR given that this has been left open for more than a week. - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jurong Entertainment Centre

edit

Shopping mall; no claim to WP:CORP notability. --Nehwyn 16:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but I'm not sure that would satisfy WP:CORP. --Nehwyn 21:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow me to explain the local context. The name "Shopping Center" can be quite misleading. But these "shopping centers" are actually major service, commercial, and entertainment hub, located at the center of a large residential district serving hundreds of thousands of people. These are not just business corporations. The supermarket in the mall is a business, but the "center" is the hub for many activities in that community. You may still think it is not worthy for wikipedia, that is a fair opinion. But WP:CORP does not apply here because it is not a purely corporation or business entity. --Vsion 06:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! :) Any source on the not-for-profit activities? --Nehwyn 11:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a need for not-for-profit activities in this mall for it not to be classified as a company or a corporation? Now since you insist on using WP:CORP, kindly tell us just what is the name of this "company" or "corporation", who is its CEO, where is it listed, and where is it corporatised?--Huaiwei 17:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of non-business activity has been mentioned by another editor. Since that may be an important fact to include in the article, I have asked whether there is any reference on them. As for WP:CORP, please keep in mind that, despite being called "corp", it does not apply to corporations or companies only, but more in general to commercial and economic entities. --Nehwyn 17:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:CORP implies that it's rules applies to all commercial and economic entities? Kindly quote the exact line which explicitely states it as such.--Huaiwei 05:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The very first line in the page. --Nehwyn 06:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"a product, company, corporation or other economic entity". Explain in what way is this a "product, company, corporation or other economic entity"?--Huaiwei 07:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the article "has a net lettable retail floor area of ...". Malls are in the business of renting (letting) retail space to chains. This is a company and the letting of space is economic activity. GRBerry 15:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, IMM Building is the other major mall in Jurong East. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, oops forgot about it. —Sengkang 05:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The gist of Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) is to act against advertising by companies and corporations for services and goods. Taking the sentence "a product, company, corporation or other economic entity" literally as meaning every single entity with any remote sense of "economic" activity will result in Human being deleted as well, for who else is responsible for and engages so actively in it? I do not think it that difficult for anyone to take a step back and realise just what is the core intent of wikipolicies and guidelines before attempting to blanket-apply them all over without much consideration for common sense.--Huaiwei 16:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it has been pointed out to you on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(companies_and_corporations)#Application_of_this_guideline, your understanding of this particular guideline is fallacious. The gist of WP:CORP is to set notability criteria for economic entities, so as to avoid non-notable economic entities showing up in Wikipedia. There is another guideline which acts, as you say, "against advertising by companies and corporations for services and goods", and that is WP:SPAM. --Nehwyn 17:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close, this article is already covered under the AfD that I closed here as delete (I must have missed it). Deathphoenix ʕ 19:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marapets

edit

I deleted Marapets per this AfD. I believe this article is also covered under the same topic. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - verifiability is non-negotiable, and all research in this AfD into verifiability counts against it. The existence of other sources is asserted, but their details have not been given so we can form no judgement on them (and as the credibility of the sources which have been given have been cast into doubt, such assertions count for even less than usual). Bear in mind that if a sourced article can in fact be written, this deletion of an unsourced article does not prejudice against it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis Corporation of America

edit

non-notable [26]--Syunrou 08:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the corporation does seem to have been involved in a fair number of legal cases surrounding cannabis use in the US, so may be borderline notable (despite low number of Google hits). However, the article is utterly appallingly bad. — QuantumEleven 09:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisting following remarks that this corporation might not exist. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; possible hoax? Vectro 18:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • AOL user 64.12.116.203 (talk · contribs) left the following message on my talk page. Vectro 00:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know virtually nothing about Wiki, and less about HTML and so I'm sorry to barge in, but this is Laurence McKinney and Cannabis Corporation was not only real, there are plenty of references to it. That was a bad little paragraph, I have no idea who wrote it, I cleaned it up, added a ref ... why didn't you just drop my name into Google? You would have found lots of stuff .. try Google image ...there too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.203 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 21 October 2006
  • Keep and cleanup. Not a hoax. Some of the sources in the linked Google search are reliable, non-trivial, independent coverage of notable events in the biomedical, legal, and legislative fields. The sources need to be added and relevance explained. I'd start work on it now if I weren't behind an overly censorious filter that blocks most of the legitimate sources for this topic. Barno 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give an example of one of these reliable sources? Dmcdevit·t 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • [27] is an academic paper presented at the Maxie Richards Foundation Conference, Glasgow, Oct 2003. The reference to CCA is in passing (and thus not sufficient by itself), but it refers to a noteworthy attempt at getting the USA federal drug-enforcement regimen changed in how marijuana would be controlled. There are also mainstream-media (and less-citeable special-interest media) reports which feature CCA's efforts at legal change and research into synthesis of the active component. Barno 20:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of non-trivial independent coverage. Cynical 11:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: AOL user 64.12.116.133 (talk · contribs) added two offline citations to the article, but researching them failed to show them as valid. I have moved the questionable citations to the talk page; see my comments there. Vectro 15:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cynical. Valrith 20:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Walter

edit

Was previously nominated and headed for delete until substantially rewritten towards the end of the process. A second trip to the dancefloor seems like the way to go. No vote from myself. Deizio talk 16:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Walter meets WP:BIO as he has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial news reports. --Hyperbole 02:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let me restate the reasons given for deletion from the first nomination:
"Fails WP:BIO, person is notable only for offering a 9/11 conspiracy theory reward. This article is part of a walled garden of 9/11 conspiracy theory articles. Fails to cite to reliable sources, violating WP:NOT, WP:RS and WP:NOR."
A few Wikipedia:Reliable sources were actually in the article, though admittedly, hard to see under the thick cloud of unreliable sources. The other problems, I suspect, stemmed from that. I rewrote the article focusing on the reliable sources: New York Times, Reuters/Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Der Spiegel, and (with thanks to User:Ohconfucius), ABC News. Notice from some of the most influential media entities on three continents make the person pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) (WP:BIO) in my opinion. True, he is mostly notable due to spending millions on an advertising campaign, but that is not the silliest thing for which people are notable. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as previously, an ad campaign doesnt make someone notable, especially since its during the 9/11 rush where everything related to the twin towers had articles about them, including a pizzaria that appeared on channel 9 and the NYTimes. Being mentioned after 9/11 for anything should be weighed heavily, its one of the most publicized events in the US history and everyone down to janitors around the location were interviewed, starting an ad campaign asking for evidence obviously gets you in the news, however it does not make you notable. WP:BIO is a guideline and this person is obviously not notable. --NuclearZer0 18:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep If you want to refactor this AfD nomination to list some reasons why it should be deleted, please do so. Otherwise, it just passed AfD on the same criteria, there's no valid reason to go through it again. *Sparkhead 18:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about when you say "it just passed AfD on the same criteria" --NuclearZer0 18:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just had an AfD, closed with no consensus. There's no new nomination reasons at the top of this one, there's no reason to believe this nom will end up in anything but a keep (consensus or no). Not a vote, based on policy. *Sparkhead 18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw it was closed and relisted. Doesn't seem productive to do so and it'll just get the same votes from the same people. If it was clear to delete in the last AfD, it would have been deleted. *Sparkhead 19:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, glad to see honest reconsideration of the article (even in the case if your vote did not change). However, even when the evidence is obvious for a keep, there are some who will still vote delete simply due to the topic. It's always the same editors, the same who bring forth what might be construed as bad faith AfD's. *Sparkhead 01:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the article was substantially rewritten but the original AfD had passed the five-day threshold and could easily have been closed as delete, it was closed and relisted so the article could be considered on its revised merits. This nomination is entirely different to the first AfD, being made by myself as a neutral admin on a technical basis rather than by an editor who objected to the content of the article. There appears to be no criteria within WP:SK which allows for this to be speedily kept. Deizio talk 19:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(squeak) 22:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Peephole and NuclearUmpf. Em-jay-es 21:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His bio can be re-written any numbre of times. It doesn't make him more notable.--Tbeatty 22:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again Still fails WP:BIO, person is notable only for offering a 9/11 conspiracy theory reward. This article is part of a walled garden of 9/11 conspiracy theory articles. Morton devonshire 22:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability has been established per various amounts of international media coverage. Keep. · XP · 22:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm changing my vote from the previous nomination because the rewrite has persuaded me that this is useful and notable information that can be presented with a NPOV. Per the argument that 9/11 nutcases are non-notable, I would respectfully note that the whole concept of 9/ll conspiracy theories is now notable. I would suggest an umbrella nomination for merging, or an acceptance that this article is effectively a spun-out part of the larger (and notable) topic of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I ask myself: will people now and in the future want to read articles about the topic of 9/11 conspiracy theories? I can only answer 'yes' to that question, so the point here is to keep the material, but find the right home for it. Carcharoth 22:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - technically this is not a second nomination. It is a re-listing of the first nomination. The page has already been created, but if this comes up again at some future point (if the article is kept), then that future case will be the second nomination. Carcharoth 22:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Okay, let's see, three assertations of notability. 1) He's so-and-so's son. No, fails WP:BIO. Next. 2) Bought an ad campaign (about as notable as buying a pack of gum) and was humiliated in passing on a single episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. No, fails WP:BIO. Next! 3) He was a founder of the Walden Three. Well, the Walden Three article was just deleted for being non-notable, ergo his creation of it is non-notable. Three strikes, you're out. Bye bye. --Aaron 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Bullshit! paragraph was added by someone voting Delete just above you, I agree with you it is trivial, and Walden Three and the "son of" are not notable in and of themselves. However, the assertion of notability is not any of those things, and not even the award or campaign itself, rather WP:BIO "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." - separate articles for the ads, and the site, and the awards, by the New York Times, Der Spiegel, Reuters, and ABC. AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still not notable. The ABCNews article didn't even spell his name correctly. GabrielF 23:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to agree with the others about the issue of an ad campaign making someone notable. That was easy for Walter to do by the way – offer to reward someone for accomplishing the impossible. This like some common person offering a $100,000 reward for proof that man has not set foot on the moon. Any takers? If Charlie Sheen did this, big deal. He was notable before the reward offer, unlike this crackpot. Fails notoriety. Maybe if he did something really worthwhile he could have an article. Delete as nominated. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough media coverage to justify inclusion. Gamaliel 01:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above. New York Times and Reuters found him notable enough. Let me repeat, the New York Times devoted an entire article to this man, yet we at Wikipedia, who devote thousands of articles to minor characters in minor video games, find him so unnotable that we believe it's unlikely that anyone out there would be seeking neutral information on him. Derex 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This now is in line with WP:BIO. Useful and well sourced info. Good re-write. Jpe|ob 01:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aaron --rogerd 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as I previously stated, just one more non-notable conspiracy theorist. Brimba 02:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JungleCat. Akanksha 04:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Do we have an article on every tom, dick and harry that has been in the news briefly...no. I'll now start my effort to become notable by stating that anyone that can prove that the official facts about the events of 9/11 are grossly inaccurate will get not one million, but 1 trillion dollars from me...I have my checkbook handy. Now all I need some airtime.--MONGO 05:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Pulsifer and Amos Urban Shirk. I realise that simply saying "but those articles are just as bad" is not a valid argument (so please don't repeat it back at me), but the concern here is that AfD should be consistent about the articles it keeps. Otherwise it becomes a laughing stock. Carcharoth 10:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, get the (paper) New York Times to devote an article to you and I'll start the Wikipedia article myself. I think you'll find that's tougher to do than you might imagine. Derex 17:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but my claim isn't notable since it is preposterous, while the million is because it's not...and he paid to advertise anyway. If other articles are nominated for deletion and I see that there is a criteria that supports keeping or deleting, then I will vote accordingly.--MONGO 04:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Rachko, tell me who he is without looking at the times. If you cannot then you only prove that simply being mentioned in a paper does not make you notable. --NuclearZer0 18:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Can you tell me about the 14th Earl of Someford, in England, who lived to the age of 30 in England and died circa 1520 AD, and did nothing notable in life, yet has a Wikipedia article that is uncontested? Because your statement is a hollow one. Notability is established in policy. Published or written about in multiple non-trivial works. This man qualifies. Any opposotion to our policy therefore, and all above deletion "votes", as that is all they are in truth, can be safely disregarded by the closing admin as politically motivated. Non-policy based reasons to delete should have no validity (and it is from following this all on multiple articles) past time that the AfD process by permanently in writing modified to reflect that. Note that this is not a lapse of AGF, but simple fact, based on observed AFD behaviors and pattens by certain Wikipedians. · XP · 18:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but WP:BIO is not a policy, hence it is your statement that is hollow. Since you do not know who he is my point is proven, news coverage doesnt prove notability. --NuclearZer0 23:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also try to assume good faith per WP:AGF, which actually is policy. --NuclearZer0 23:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
XP...be careful with your accusations.--MONGO 04:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. james(talk) 11:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alamy

edit

advert for NN-stock photo corporation DesertSky85451 17:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Alamy is an important player in a two billion dollar industry [28]. What does NN-stock mean?? (NN means Not Notable - thanks Desertsky85451) --cda 20:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, clearly satisfies WP:CORP. Vectro 06:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a signficant web 2.0 player, perhaps the page could use edits but where in Wikipedia has the decision been made that companies can't be written about. Its there some communist kabbal that asserts that there is no meaningfull knowledge formation about business activities unless they are in to making star trek movies?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - already an entry on Wiktionary - Yomanganitalk 10:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace

edit

Purely a dictionary definition, not an encyclopeadia entry Emeraude 13:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 17:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CRA International

edit

advert for consulting firm, no claim of notability. wikipedia is not a directory of corporations. DesertSky85451 17:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect, cheap and easy. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focus Fusion Society

edit

Advertizing two non notable organizations. --Pjacobi 17:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectsCenter

edit
  • See www.swb-consulting.com for assertion of quality.
  • Also the site is ranked high on msn.com for highly relevant keywords, such as "project management tool", "online project management tool", "web based project management tool", "online collaboration tool", "project management scheduling tool"
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Cox

edit

Delete, Yet another political hopeful who does not satisfy WP:BIO nor WP:C&E. Vectro 17:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Smith (California politician)

edit

Delete, Yet another political hopeful who does not satisfy WP:BIO nor WP:C&E. Vectro 17:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete His campaign does "not even have a website"? Not notable and almost no chance that he will be notable. JoshuaZ 19:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete He is of no importance whatsoever. I am doing a paper on him and the other three candidates for the 14th district for a class, and there is NO information on any of his campaign finances whatsoever... he has no chance. 20% to 25% of the vote is about all he will get. Electricbassguy
  • Commentary Is someone going to delete this? If we delete Bill Durston, we should delete Rob Smith too.Electricbassguy 07:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Bruno

edit

Delete, Yet another political hopeful who does not satisfy WP:BIO nor WP:C&E. Vectro 17:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X. Claire Yan

edit

Delete, Yet another political hopeful who does not satisfy WP:BIO nor WP:C&E. Vectro 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Article claims she has New York Times best sellers. If this is accurate it should be kept. JoshuaZ 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough as candidate. Surely she has numerous newspaper articles during the campaign. The author role would qualify as well. Architectsf 05:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if claims of bestselling or newspaper articles can be substantiated, then I withdraw the nomination. Vectro 01:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if and only if the best selling claims can be sourced. Otherwise... RFerreira 00:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after research implying the best sellers bit is mistaken, and her candidacy is quite low profile. Her site seems to be down: http://www.claireforcongress.com , a web page endorsing her doesn't mention and anything about the best sellers, and neither does the Associated Press report on her candidacy. The latter also says: "She has not filed any campaign finance reports with the Federal Election Commission, signaling that she has not reached the $5,000 reporting threshold. By comparison, incumbent Doris Matsui has raised more than half a million dollars as of June 30." AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her site came up, which explains the bestsellers thing. She writes that she edited books that became NYT bestsellers.[30] Ahem. Humbly don't think that meets WP:BIO. I added the references to the article, and otherwise wikified the thing. Still think she's not notable enough, though. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dollar amounts raised in a campaign do not make notability, but this article seems notable enough independent of the author status. Cdcdoc 18:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's the nominee of a major party in a Congressional race - that should be notability enough. The people who will be seeing her name on the ballot should be able to look her up on wikipedia and get some information. The page regarding notability of candidates indicates that if an article on a candidate is big enough not to be a stub, it should be kept. Rather than advocating deletion, why not add something to the page? HunterAmor 15:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That proposed guideline also says that information on a candidate should be so big as to not fit on the page for the race itself. Since the race page does not (yet) exist, it's a bit disingenuous to say that this information wouldn't fit. That same page also suggests that the main page for a candidate should be created "Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article", and you conveniently ignored the part about the information boing independent and verifiable, which it's not here. Cheers, Vectro 16:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, this isn't just any district she's running in. The 5th California district means it is high profile even if she doesn't have much of a chance. People will be looking her up for specific information. Which leads me to my second point, she is more than just a 'candidate,' but a well known columnist and researcher from the Pacific Research Institute on her own. Finally, I have seen many candidate stubs worthy of deletion, and this one doesn't even come close to what the policy was probably intended to keep us from. In my view, there's plenty of doubt here which, in line with the Policy for Deletion, means we should abide by the presumption of keeping the article. Admiral 16:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User:Admiralwaugh (Admiral) has 2 contributions, the other one being making his user page link blue, just before commenting here. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As sophisticated and relevant a comment as I have ever seen, AnonEMouse, considering that it only means I have edited those pages *while logged in*. In any case, we're not competing for who has edited the most articles, we are discussing whether or not an article should be deleted from Wikipedia or grouped with another article. Although grouping seems like a decent option, I want to reiterate that the presumption for keeping articles ought to control in this case. Admiral 05:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see how the 5th California Congressional district is more high profile than any others. I've been looking at the New York Times congressional political map [31] and see only 3 districts that are slightly competitive (neither are the 5th). The only other "high profile" CA race is the district that Tan Nguyen is running in due to that stunt his campaign pulled. --Marriedtofilm 03:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability...she does not meet it. Even under the proposed compromise regarding candidates she does not qualify (basically, article about the race THEN the candidates). Re: 'nominee of a major party in a Congressional race'...this does not bestow notability, especially in a district where the losing candidate is more of a ballot place holder than a candidate with a chance. As an example, look at a similarly Democratic stronghold district in Minnesota (MN-5)...please locate the article about the Republican candiate Frank Taylor or Daniel Mathias...the incumbent's victims since 1998. The discovery about her 'best selling' publishing...well, just further emphasizes the lack of notability.--Tony 01:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mnyakko. Fails WP:BIO and has only edited some books and it isn't even clear what books. JoshuaZ 02:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She's not competitive against Doris Matsui – can't find a poll because it's so one-sided, but several political sites say Matsui's going to win easily on November 7. KrakatoaKatie 12:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan C. Ting

edit

Delete, Yet another political hopeful who does not satisfy WP:BIO nor WP:C&E. Vectro 17:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Grotberg

edit

Delete, Yet another political hopeful who does not satisfy WP:BIO nor WP:C&E. Vectro 17:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm generally in favor of keeping candidates when their elections are close but the probabiity that this candidate will win is close to 0. If that unlikely event occurs we can always undelete it. JoshuaZ 19:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Changing from delete to weak keep Sholom's point about a statewide primary has merit. The candidate is for a Senate seat, not a represtantive seat. JoshuaZ 20:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Benson

edit

Delete; Yet another political hopeful that satisfies neither WP:BIO nor WP:C&E. Note that despite Deidre's claims, this article does not satisfy WP:BIO as a playwright, actor, or poet, because there is no indication of notability in those fields, either. Vectro 17:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Any evidence she has a snowball's chance in hell of winning (say, some recent polls)? Or is this one of those cases where she'll be lucky to crack 35%? --Aaron 19:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep 66.229.188.247 20:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This isn't a vote but a discussion, simply saying keep won't be useful unless you can give a reason why the person in question should be kept. To get an idea what matters, you may want to take a look at WP:BIO and WP:C&E. JoshuaZ 20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Resolute 04:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The more AfD nominations I see because of WP:C&E, the most I realize that it's a really bad idea and needs serious rethinking. And as much as I hate the idea of deleting a major party candidate for the US House, I'm having a really hard time finding reliable sources to add to the article. Yes, she's published several books, but it's difficult to find reliable sources about her being an author/poet. So, as much as it pains me, I'm leaning towards "delete." But I'll keep looking. - Lex 05:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don’t forget that neither WP:C&E nor WP:BIO are actual policies that must be followed, more guidelines that indicate the best way to proceed. In this case, I urge people to follow me in voting to keep, because I would argue that any professionally produced playwright of Tlingit ancestry, writing about Tlingit themes, is notable. Benson has definitely accrued some serious coverage, including through the American Indian Quarterly (you can search this via Project MUSE, JSTOR and Chadwick Literature Online (LION): look for volume 27:1). Don’t forget in searching for her on Google to include the middle initial "e". A good bibliography can be found on her bio created when she was an invited guest to the ninth "Returning the Gift" conference – see [32]. While the WP:BIO and WP:C&E guidelines are very useful when it comes to US or UK mainstream politicians who should always garner major press headlines, they can be less useful for marginalised peoples or smaller nations, and should be treated with care. Vizjim 13:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: I'd like to point out that this article is still a stub; research is ongoing. As Vizjim points out, there are quite a few references to her out there. Deirdre 15:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's forget about WP:C&E here; I asked two days ago if she has any chance of winning, and have received no response, so I can only presume she's not a viable candidate and her district is safe Republican. Given that the article, in its current state, is pure political advertising (and, interestingly, never existed before September anyway) that means she fails WP:BIO, so bye bye. If someone wishes to do a full rewrite of the article that describes her as a Tlingit playwright, actor and poet, and only mentions her candidacy in passing, I'll be happy to reconsider my vote, but I must admit that as of yet I haven't seen any evidence of her notability there either. We need some verification that she's somehow a notable playwright, actor and/or poet. Her ancestry does not grant her inherent notability --Aaron 16:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment -- like Aaron, I'd be happy to keep this page if we can say something interesting about her literary and theatric works. Vectro 01:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment--I created this article in the first place, and not just because she is a political candidate. She is pretty well known in the state of Alaska. It was not intended as political advertising; that content was what I knew about right away and could slap up on a wikipage. Again, I'd appreciate some time to work on this. I really am grateful to Vizjim for the extensive work done on this article; it fills it out much more nicely. My understanding of Wikipedia's basic purpose is to create a freely accessible online encyclopedia of human knowledge. It's not like we have a shortage of space in the virtual world, and she certainly seems worthy of inclusion to me. With regard to her political viability, an (admittedly unscientific) poll conducted at the Tanana Valley Fair by the local League of Women Voters put Young vs. Benson at 53 to 47 percent out of a sample of 249 voters. (This is, of course, being touted by Daily Kos.) Deirdre
  • Comment. I've done as much of the requested rewrite as I can manage. Agree that the political stuff was overplayed in the original article. There is more that could be done, but it will need an expert contributor with access to more journals etc. Vizjim 10:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I should point out that the page still fails WP:BIO. The only citations we have are as follows:
      • [33], an article not about Benson.
      • [34] only mentions Benson in passing, in that she is performing her own play with no other actors, as part of a listing of a large number of other events.
      • [35], an article about benson that is not from a WP:RS
      • [36] is itself certainly a reliable source, but the topic of the article is the Tlingit people, not Benson.
      • [37], a very short (but probably reliable) biography of Benson, with no other sources.
      • [38], a non-public copy of a poem by Benson.
      • [39] notes a performance (again by Benson alone) of the same play aforementioned, plus some minor biographical details. The topic of the source is not benson (despite our article's claim to the contrary), but rather Elizabeth Peratrovich, who seems on the whole much more notable than Benson.
      • [40], the IMDB page, which has no material except a mention of two film credits, one as the last credit of an unrated film, the other in the end credits of a rated independent film.
      • and of course, the official election page.
    • I'm still willing to countenance the idea that Diane Benson may be notable, but nobody has yet to establish it -- the best we've got is a bunch of things out on the periphery. It may be that she's actually notable, but it may be that she's good at getting her name out there and not much else. Given the straws that are being grasped in the article so far, I'm inclined to think that this source-gathering is motivated by her politics rather than by her art, so until we can say something interesting about that, delete. Vectro 15:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you check my contributions you'll see that I have a long-established interest in literature by Native Americans, and almost zero interest in American party politics (I'm a Brit living in Cyprus). The motivation behind my research comes from knowing how much more difficult it is for Native writers and performers to get coverage, hence the paucity of information on them: I don't like to see potential sources of information deleted. I'd remind you again that BIO is not a policy and that there are many borderline cases tht are kept as WP:PAPER. Vizjim 18:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not-notable until she wins. --Tbeatty 07:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least that's what I think. I don't really get it. She's a major party candidate for Congress, and she has quite a few published works. These both seem like reasons folks might want to know more about her, without a lot of campaign spin interfering either way. I can understand that you don't want this place to be promotional, but she's running for Congress and I can't imagine that Wikipedia is part of her campaign strategy or anything like that; she's already well known. Seems to me like even in the future schoolkids might be curious about who ran in the past and lost. Sounds like you have pretty strict rules about who is important enough for people to care about, though. Anyway, that's my two cents. I just registered today, so you might not care what I have to say. Garrote 07:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A poll published on October 20 indicates Benson is behind by more than 15 points. Don Young, the incumbent, is going to win. KrakatoaKatie 12:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bechna.com

edit

Serves as advertising for online Indian classifieds site. Non compliant with WP:V and WP:WEB. Deizio talk 17:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A quick look at the front page shows around a thousand postings for Delhi, some of which are at least ten months old. (Posts don't show a year, so it's impossible to tell exactly how old everything is. A post dated in January, though, can't be any younger than ten months.) Assuming that ages are evenly distributed, three posts or so a day doesn't seem very popular. I'm unable to find any evidence of any support for Canadian cities, as is claimed in the article. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essemtially spam. Eluchil404 06:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aulenre

edit

fails WP:MUSIC. Label seems to be akin to vanity presses. ccwaters 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I'm all for it. That's enough reason for me and I'll just keep to the more fimiliar things I guess. --Redkane 10:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if there's a problem here I would please ask for some reasons that I can agree to the removal of this article or requirements of information, sources and/or references. Also I notice it's just the label you seem to have a problem with and it was my misunderstanding of the actual label that may have caused this afd. --Redkane 16:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, none of the links are Reliable Sources, and we seem to have problems with WP:V as well. The label looks legit to me, but Aulenre is not on their list of groups. Vectro 06:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was actually referring to the label he originally had listed: [41] (also used as 2nd reference link). Whatever, like you said the new label listed doesn't mention this band at all. And it doesn't look like this band is anywhere near passing any other criteria at WP:MUSIC. ccwaters 13:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Ral315 (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research Institute for Transnational Education University

edit

Content of this AFD nomination has been blanked; see the history. Ral315 (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Transwiki. Trebor 10:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integral (examples)

edit

Not encyclopedic article. Visor 21:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 18:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Now transwikied, see b:Transwiki:Integral (examples). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 12:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 06:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyke tyke

edit

Unverifiable, unsourced neologism; purely Original Research. Further, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. LeflymanTalk 18:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A neologism is any recent term created by an individual or group which does not have widespread recognition. In this case, it's a slang term that has extremely limited recognition, according to Google -- which shows only around 1300 entries when Wikipedia is subtracted out. Wikipedia is not "a usage guide or slang and idiom guide". This plainly violates WP article policy. --LeflymanTalk
  • The article is meant to cover several related terms, some of which are more popular than the current title. Maybe if the title was "Article that discusses men who hang out with lesbians" and had a section covering slang terms this wouldn't be an AfD about a neologism. But instead we use common names. SchmuckyTheCat 17:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO requires reliable sources about the term. The article evidences a couple sources that use the term, but none that are about the term. GRBerry 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NEO is a guideline, not a policy, and so cannot require anything. Reporting widespread usage of the term is non-novel, non-interpretive, primary sourcing. Yes, the article badly needs secondary sourcing, but thats a reason for a needs sourcing template, not a deletion criteria. SchmuckyTheCat 17:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:RULES: "A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus." Guidelines do have the weight of Wikipedia consensual practice, but are more flexible than policies, which are the core principals (which this article also fails to adhere to).--LeflymanTalk 18:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book you've mentioned as a reference is a humor work from 1996 called "So You Want To Be a Lesbian", not exactly a Reliable Source. That same page also posits "Celebudyke" and "Cyberdyke" as terms. The only source I see at Google Books that might qualify is the single mention in "A Companion to African-American Studies" -- however that mention doesn't define or discuss the term as a concept, and by placing "dyke tyke" in quotes confirms it as a slang term. --LeflymanTalk 18:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:RS, which is under some discussion but still a worthwhile reference for the moment. "However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on...may only be found on what would otherwise be considered unreliable....When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included." It's more than a-okay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting aside that the particular section of the WP:RS guideline is highly disputed, you appear to have not given due attention to the last sentence you quoted, "When a substanial body of material is available..." -- there's the exact problem with this article: there's no body of material. 1300 entries on Google is hardly notable. By that metric, I should be an article. --LeflymanTalk 02:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

talk 10:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article isn't a dicdef, and would read the same if you did a find-replace of "dyke tyke" to "lesbro" Would you think the same if the article was titled "Straight men who hang out with lesbians"? SchmuckyTheCat 03:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very weak keep. While I grant that the phenonmenon exists, I've personally never heard the term in real-life use. In fact, the only place I've ever even seen in is on Wikipedia. Sources are going to be a major problem in the article. Notability is another problem, if the only sources are on the Internet and there are so few of them... Exploding Boy 16:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was Keep and rename. KrakatoaKatie 12:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First MiG behind the Iron Curtain

edit

This baffling article starts with a rather unencyclopedic title and premise, and from there just spirals off into a series of increasingly irrelevant tangents. No sources whatsoever for any of it. wikipediatrix 18:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As it is, this is just an indiscriminate collection of information. Are all defections notable? I don't think so. Do we need a list of them? Doubt it. Do we need a list of specifically only defections by pilots? Definitely not. wikipediatrix 23:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - there is agreement that it scrapes through WP:SOFTWARE and there was also a request for reliable sources which a Sky News article and the PC Gamer article just about fill. 99% of the content of the article could still be removed on the basis of being original research though, so it needs cleaning up and could be proposed for deletion again if no work is done on this (and please check WP:RS to see what reliable sources are). - Yomanganitalk 11:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Battles

edit

Contested prod, article doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE and is also a how to guide/game guide which is not allowed on Wikipedia Whispering(talk/c) 18:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article. The modification is one that deserves no notation and should be removed from the memories of everyone.

* Strong Keep - Featured in PC Gamer UK, even included on CD. Notable, most popular JKA mod. How-to article feel is being cleaned up, and just three days ago I asked for comment on this article. Cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion. In addition, WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline, not a rule. Not to break WP:AGF, but I question the spirit of this nomination - user has been involved in a series of mod deletions recently (see his talk page). Wooty 21:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Again, "needs cleanup" is not a valid reason for deletion. If you'd review the history of the article, you'd see that extensive work is being done to improve the prose of the article. Wooty 22:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Appearing on the CD doesn't make it notable. An absolute assload of stuff makes it onto cover CDs, single player mods, random maps etc. What would make it notable would be multiple references from reliable sources, PC Gamer is one of them, but it'd be nice to work more in. - Hahnchen 01:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note - Actually, I just took a look at that source, and its not that great. It's absolutely tiny, I thought you were referring to a full page review, or even a half page review. If thats the best that you can come up with then I would vote to delete. You can see another AFD for a game mod where I've argued to keep. If you can promise further upcoming sources, then it'd be OK. - Hahnchen 01:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That mod also had no cited sources and its like a half page of text...Yzmo 08:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem is that u have NO VALID REASON for deletion, thats the point. No citing is just no valid reason, it would be better if u could say exacly why u want it deleted, and just why u want to clean up the game mods section...Yzmo 13:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But at least half of all the articles on wikipedia have no sources or anything like that, and there ARE some sources in the arcticle, but its hard to write about a mod without using the info u have in ur head which u got while playing..Yzmo 16:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yzmo, that's invalid reasoning. Satori, WP:CORP does not apply to game modifications. As stated above, Movie Battles does pass WP:SOFTWARE (though barely), and cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion. Wooty 01:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 18:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete [Cid88] If your going to enforce this policy with the Moviebattles page, you may as well enforce it with the Nuclear Dawn, Natural Selection, Science and Industry, Alien Swarm, True Combat Elite (which is known to site no sources, but has no deletion notice), etc mod pages. TO be frank, very very few mods fit Wikipedia's rules, so you may as well delete all the ones that don't fit, or don't delete at all. As it is, the mb page is longer and actually sites a source, unlike some of the pages I listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.233.200.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Have patience. Many editors have been going through mod articles and finding the ones failing guidelines and policies. If you wish to help with this process, you are of course welcome to. I assure you no one has anything against "moviebattles" personally. Wickethewok 22:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - In looking for citations I've pretty much come to the conclusion there aren't any, and the article should be deleted, even if it is notable within the JKA community. Abstain - New sources. Wooty 20:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete [ACiD]How about moviebattles.de or ModDB for verification. As one of the developers I can vouch for this articles accuracy (and so can our official on-site guide), and I must say I fail to see how a mod with hundreds of thousands of downloads, millions of hits cannot be notable when it has had a pc gamer mention/mini review and cover cd, a 2 page spread in the french magazine, and been the full focus of a sky news article on mods (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,31500-13209702,00.html for your reference). To make matters worse there are mod information pages hosted on wikipedia about mods that I personally know have had only a few hundred players at best, and seem spared from this sort of bullying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.31.209 (talk • contribs) — 86.1.31.209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment - Vouching for an articles accuracy yourself does not make it vefifiable, a reputable third party source must be used, and articles written from one's own knowledge (without such sources) can be deleted as original research. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - [ACiD] As far as I am aware(till now having no involvement in this wiki) the article was written primarily from the guide hosted upon our own website, www.moviebattles.com, but as mentioned moviebattles.de is a third party source that could be cited, and on the notability front for wp:soft guidelines pcgamer and sky news are hardly questionable sources, I also might add that comparisons with mods such as science and industry really betray a lack of knowledge about the video game industry, given that hl experienced media sensationalism, while jka is a practical blackout.
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is Wooty, too lazy to sign in. Another source has been added. 63.227.185.86 03:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Now it looks like you scan though the rules of Wikipedia to find one which allows you to delete the Movie battles article.Yzmo 10:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - consensus that he fails WP:BIO - Yomanganitalk 09:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Martina

edit

I speedy deleted this, the Aecis put this in a deletion review, I decieded to undelete and put in a AfD so the contents of the article can be seen to all. As a result I am doing to say Neutral as I am the one who speedied this. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 18:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Seringhaus

edit

Is a non-notable newspaper columnist. Fails WP:BIO and as an academic fails WP:PROF. Also note that the most of the edits come from an IP address which goes back to Seringhaus's university (also a comment in the YDN a few days ago implied that he started the article himself, so it has a vanity element as well) JoshuaZ 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Watson (hiker)

edit

I'm really having trouble believing that this person is notable enough, nothing links to the article. Can't find anything on them via google as it's quite difficult as there are many Thomas Watson's, so the article may be unverfiable (WP:V). Even if all the things in the article are true, I still don't think the person is notable enough per WP:BIO. Andeh 19:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That bio page doesn't include anything that would be a claim to WP inclusion even if verified. The WP article mentions he started a fansite that is claimed to be large and might meet WP:WEB, but that notability doesn't carry to him as its founder, so far as I see from the evidence so far. Delete per WP:BIO. Barno 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nitro Pro Wrestling Alliance

edit

Non-notable wrestling promotion, PROD removed without a reason TJ Spyke 19:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete. Surely the whole point of Wikipedia is to let people get more information about things, in this case the NPWA. The NPWA is one of the up and coming promotions in Great Britain and run shows on a more regular basis than many of the other British promotion featured on wikipedia, including 1PW and the FWA. Plus several members of the roster are some of the biggest names in British wrestling today, including Jonny Storm and Jody Fleisch who themselves are considered notable by this website and other big names like them will be a part of the promotion in the future. The point of the page in that people can come onto wikipedia and find out more about the company, it's wrestlers and it's history. I personally think it has as much right as anything else to be a part of Wikipedia. NPWAFireball 00:54, 15 October 2006
  • Delete. I agree, non-notable. Stephen Day 21:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per nom--Inhumer 21:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom--Unopeneddoor 19:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Shot and Botched 03:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Policy Innovations

edit

This is a non-notable program within an organization (whose article suffers from its own notability/spam issues. At best this should be merged into the organizations article. ju66l3r 19:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, after discounting IPs (whose arguments do not relate to Wikipedia policy anyway). --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After An Autumn Day That Felt Like Summer

edit

This film lacks notability and fails WP:NOTFILM. A google search [44] returns 256 hits, none which are independent, reliable sources that can be used to source this article. --Aude (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, as there has been no challenge to the indications of notability presented. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robbins Burling

edit

doubt it passes WP:PROF. Inquired via a prod which was removed without explanation. Also looks like WP:VAIN/WP:AUTO. ccwaters 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Your average professor, basically, but that's not quite good enough under WP:PROF. His CV, from which this was mostly taken (Google search the text), has just more of the same. Sandstein 21:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry; I'm a newbie at this. The article previously existed, but with his name mis-spelled. Since I was dumb, I didn't discover 'move', and did the incorrect cut/paste and then edited the original down to a re-direct. Honestly, if you feel the article doesn't belong, feel free to delete it, but I guess I don't understand why the same content (modulo the mis-spelled name) was acceptable before, but isn't now. (his kid) Srburling 22:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More... Is the appropriate thing to do with this to move it into a different namespace? Again, I'm new here, so don't really know the rules. Srburling 22:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. The problem is that we, on Wikipedia, generally expect the people we have articles on to be notable, i.e. they must be in some sense important or interesting enough that others would want to read an encyclopedia article about them. For academics, the rules most of us use are at WP:PROF. If you think your father meets any of these criteria, you should update the article to reflect it, and provide a external source for it. The fact that no-one had gotten around to delete the original article doesn't mean it was acceptable - we unfortunately have many more inappropriate articles than we can keep up with. Another namespace isn't the solution either, because encyclopedic content belongs in the Wikipedia namespace, if at all - unless your father were to become a Wikipedia editor. Then one could put this content on his user page.
  • You know, I simply don't care that much, and doubt very much that my father does, either. I was simply attempting to correct an error in the spelling of his name. My father is well-known in the linguistics field. (Heck, I'm well known to most linguists, since my early language acquisition was the subject of one of his early papers that virtually all linguistics students read.) From my reading of the section on WP:PROF, the fact that he's published a significant number of books in his particular area of expertise should be enough, but I guess I'm not understanding. So delete at your pleasure. Srburling 16:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep actually in linguistics and anthropology he seems to be well cited, and he's written extensively. I think he passes wp:prof with ease. --Buridan 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add references. Seems to be a published, reviewed author. Popular Science Review. ADE Review. 12,000 Google hits (which may not be much for a rock star, but for an anthropologist is quite a bit). Sburling, if you can add references to the book reviews, and ISBNs to the books, the article will look better, and there won't be as many notability worries. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a couple of ISBNs and copied the link to the review from the note above. Srburling 23:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning his patriotism, I'm questioning his judgment

edit

Strange essay, violating both WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Article name is not something that a user could ever be expected to search for on Wikipedia. Zero wikilinks. Only source in the entire article is a link to a Daily Kos blog entry. As a topper, it's been tagged with a {{cleanup}} tag for ten months now without any action. Aaron 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn, pending proposed changes. Wickethewok 21:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of music releases featuring a vocoder

edit

This is a potentially huge list that would encompass pretty much every eurodance song and thousands of other songs. While this list would be more limited and feasible, say, 15-20 years ago, the prevalence of vocoders in modern music makes this on par with List of songs featuring guitar or at least List of songs featuring cowbells, which was deleted less than a month ago. Wickethewok 19:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unlike guitar or cowbell, most people outside the electronic music scene are unfamiliar with the sound of a vocoder and frequently mistake it for other voice-based electronic instruments like talk boxes and Autotune. My suggestion for making it maintainable would be to limit it to charting singles, so for example, O Superman and Hide and Seek would be listed but "Nightflight to Venus" by Boney M (and most "eurodance" songs) wouldn't make the cut. Raindog469 20:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In American music, the vocoder is far from prevalent. Putting stricter criteria in place would effectively limit the list to charting singles (not excluding eurodance songs, etc.) List is potentially useful, encyclopedia-worthy, and feasible in my eyes. --EndlessVince 02:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simdesk

edit

Simdesk is a real company, but this article is focuses solely on the speculation (original research) that it is the company that a series of message board posts were about. If the article is to remain, it should be about the company, and the Virtudyne thing should be at most a footnote. Coneslayer 19:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if the speculation becomes more important than the company? - purposely unsigned
Who cares? Its not that big of a deal.
The article could be moved to Virtudyne, as it is more likely people look up the article for Virtudyne looking for the real company. Bernhard Bauer 19:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could also rename the article to something like "Virtudyne-Simdesk Theory". The fact is that nothing before this DailyWTF article justified Simdesk having its own article, but now it deserves mention on its story alone. I'm okay with this page being a description of Simdesk, but its story isn't a footnote, it should be the meat of the article. Klondike 20:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtudyne. Fagstein 22:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article posted here is pure speculation of a company that could be Simdesk. The story itself has not been verified or even researched (to my knowledge). The wikipedia entry for simdesk should first contain information only about the company. Anything else should be addressed as footnotes, or like wise. Atmostphere 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Came here from TheDailyWTF (although I'm a regular Wikipedia editor in any case). While I believe that Virtudyne may indeed be SimDesk, I don't believe it has any place here. As mentioned above, it's pure speculation, and something tells me that the editors here won't want to get themselves involved in a libel lawsuit if they happen to be wrong. Delete. --Ciaran H 20:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Simdesk has been in the news a decent amount over the past few years, and there are plenty of reputable sources to write a decent article - except one without any reference to The Daily WTF's near-fictional 'VirtuDyne' whatsoever. Unless the latter is confirmed to be connected with Simdesk through some other means - such as Simdesk suing for libel, or something like that. But otherwise, no VirtuDyne! --HiddenInPlainSight 09:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Simdesk is worth of mention for the controversy/scandal in Houston, regardless of whether the daily wtf had an article about it. Brianski 10:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Simdesk seems more than notable in its own right (though my prurient interest in The Daily WTF story is probably biasing me) Pattermeister 12:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete keep: At this time, there is nothing of value in this article. From my limited understanding of Simdesk, however, there *could* be an acceptable article written. There are enough reliable sources that this to pass WP:CORP. I will keep checking to see if this article gets expanded and will change my vote to keep if it improves. Wrs1864 01:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This still isn't a great article, but it certainly qualifies as a stub Wrs1864 12:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, full-throated, possibly indecent KEEP: Practically the only thing notable about Simdesk is its dot-com era swindling of Houston, but it is a pretty good case study. Maybe there should be an article about dot-com scams, which Simdesk/Virtudyne would nestle very cozily into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.118.101 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: None of the reasons cited for deletion apply at this time. The article definitely needs work, but the company is notable and seems reasonable to include in wikipedia. --jackohare 04:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G11--Konst.able 23:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Laminates

edit

promotional Tom Harrison Talk 19:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

NS Variables

edit

The result was delete. No Guru 03:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a listing of variables or something used for modding a video game or something similar. Not encyclopedic whatever it is. PROD removed by anon with no explanation. Delete as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a coding repository. Wickethewok 19:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Neigel von Teighen 19:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT whatever this is. Sandstein 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not for modding, as these are ingame console variables and commands. However, this is something that would belong in a guide to the game, not on Wikipedia. a civilian 19:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is not a dump for game guides. Pavel Vozenilek 19:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems like a manual. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. may seem like a manual, but i would argue that this is instead a completely systemized and well compiled (if not an almost complete) article on the uses and function of the half-life (and through half-life, Natural selection) console commands, many of which can seem esoteric even to the longest time vetrans of this game. This is the only reference i have ever seen with this level of systemization. The encyclopedic value of this compilation is the explanation of useful netcode and console commands that were never formally released by valve, the designer of the engine for this particular game. I can understand that to others this may seem simply like coding, or modification terminology, but to those of us who play this particular game, and to many outside communities involved in running and playing this game, this page is a priceless reference when discussing the improvement of the game, as well as improvement for the players experiences, and to remove it will remove an amazingly rich resource for those of us who do play NS. If anything, do not delete, but merge with the Natural Selection article which exists here. Tehavenged 16:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above Faulty 12:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Impulse 7. Please transfer this to the Valve Developer Community. - Hahnchen 01:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete and protected. Spam, no assertion of notability.. Aguerriero (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googie.com

edit

Spam, personal research (editor says to be still researching about the topic)... It can be a noble try to stop a false ad, I don't know, but it's clearly not an encyclopaedia article. Delete --Neigel von Teighen 19:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This page really seems like an advertisement for the website, and doesnt seem fit for the encyclopedia.

Wdflake 19:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam, clearly non-notable, plus editor threatens to recreate if deleted. Delete Malpertuis

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

The result was no consensus, but leaning towards keep - in particular, it has to be noted that being in a foreign language does not have any bearing on a source's credibility, and that if a subject merits an article in one language Wikipedia it generally merits one in all of them. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B.A.P.!! (Basque band)

edit

Notability not asserted...no sources...no google hits...small useful content can be merged to Negu Gorriak. Annasweden 19:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... what specific criterion of WP:BAND do they meet, and are there WP:RS for it? Sandstein 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the notability of this band is likely focused in the Basque Country, which is not an independent nation. The criteria for national notability (charts, etc.) thus may not be met here. However, the Basques could be considered a specific ethnic, cultural and national entity (and in this case notability within the Basque Country could suffice to meet WP:BAND). Otherwise all bands singing in Basque would become inherently non-notable just because they are not notable Spain-wide. I think that this perspective should be debated. --Húsönd 22:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK: Assuming, arguendo, we treat the Basque Country as a country for the purposes of WP:BAND, what specific criterion of WP:BAND do they meet, and are there WP:RS for it? Sandstein 22:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not sourced, but the article claims that members of the band went on to play with a series of other bands, the first one of which appears to be relatively notable. Additionally, an argument could be made that the band is representative of a particular regional scene (that of the Basque Country). That said, the lack of sources for either claim is problematic, and I think whatever comes up is going to be in Basque. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the article claims something means nothing without sources. In addition the links provided by Husond are not in English, so maybe this article belongs in the Spanish wikipedia but certainly not here. It simply must produce sources. If no one is interested in this article enough to find reasonable sources, it should be deleted. i can see its been a redlink on the disambig page for a long time and no one has stepped up to state its case for many months. the logical thing is to merge its content into Negu Gorriak. Annasweden 23:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to scavenge the Basque Wikipedia but this was all I could find. I'll try to find some English sources on the web. In case of Transwiki, the Basque Wikipedia is more suitable than the Spanish one anyway.--Húsönd 00:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this website has a small description of "B.A.P.!!". Apart from that, only scattered mentions throughout the web. Anyway, this band conforms to WP:BAND on the grounds of the criterium that stipulates that a band is notable if it "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". Since this drummer Mikel Abrego later joined Negu Gorriak (which many websites regard as "with no doubt the most important rock band of the 90s in the Basque Country"), then I guess we need not delete this article. :-) --Húsönd 00:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would do it for notability, but I still see no WP:RS: this Mikel Abrego isn't mentioned in either of the band articles or in the external link you provided, which - as a random private website - is a bit dubious in terms of WP:RS anyway; plus the BAP article still has zero external links. Sandstein 06:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, most websites are private, I think that references on them should only be discredited when they're clearly spammy. But in this EuskalRock website I provided they write about "the History of Basque Punk Rock", so I think that the information contained therein is prefectly acceptable and conforming to WP:RS. Any search for "Mikel Abrego"+"B.A.P."+"Negu Gorriak" on Google retrieves hundreds of references that confirm that Mikel Abrego joined notable band Negu Gorriak, this is virtually impossible to contest. Even the Galician Wikipedia confirms it.--Húsönd 14:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right, as per BigHaz below, they probably just make the cut. Changing my vote. Sandstein 16:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether basque is a country or not, if this dissolved band ex-members is notable, this band should be noted too.Feureau 22:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No notability here. merge idea is OK. Foreign language google hits may support as Basque version. Cydperez 05:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just created it! Let the article grow, please. What's the point of deleting articles on relevant bands? Need sources? Husond has provided some. Edit and improve but don't sabotage others' work. --Sugaar 09:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this discussion. Deleting noncompliant pages is a necessary function of Wikipedia administration. This is not about you personally. Please read WP:DP, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Thank you. Sandstein 10:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to drop many WP articles that are irrelevant. What has to do Assume Good Faih and No Personal Attacks in this discussion? The only relevant page you mentioned is Deletion Policy and the article does not meet the criteria there: it's not vanity nor publicity article but one on cultural history. In fact the article has no relation with WP:NOT, where the policies for deletion direct too. So I understand that you are being very subjective here.
WP:MUSIC says:
Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country.
Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.[2]
Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable...
Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city...
B.A.P.! fulfills more or less all those criteria and the only problem is about online sources, that are scarce but do exist (see above). It's not one of those groups that appear now and vanish tomorrow. It's surely one of the most influential bands of the Basque scene, particularly as avantguard of hardcore music (that's why they went largely ignored before the 90s).
I insist that the very nomination for deletion makes no sense. I insist: Keep it and improve it if deemed necessary. --Sugaar 12:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Having followed the debate, I'm willing to put my neck on the line and say that the band seems to just sneak over the line as far as notability is concerned, given what Husond has tirelessly located. It's not much, but it just does it for me. Arguing that non-English sources are somehow less than English ones is a nonce argument, since a Basque rock group is always going to generate more information in Basque (and probably in Spanish) than in English. Yes, I'd love to see more sources in English too, but I'm also prepared to accept any sources. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete. The notability simply isn't existent. The one link given is out of date and has only a cursory mention fo the group. Seems like a vanity article. Cdcdoc 19:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should carefully review the discussion before presenting such a deviant position. The notability is not only existent as it is also confirmed with sources conforming to WP:BAND and WP:RS. I can't grasp your reasoning for "the one (!) link given is out of date". And no, it is not a vanity article.--Húsönd 20:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article's standing is not improved by Husond's personal attacks on those who speak for deletion. I have read the record and i object to my views being termed "deviant". The article's subject is clearly not notable; in fact, the article text makes no assertion of natability. In addition i dont find one google hit in english on this subject. If you read the one link given in the article you will find a brief reference to BAP somewhat far down in the text, and the implication is that the website thinks the band exists, when it is defunct. Thus the source is proven to be not only out of date but inaccurate; moreover, this source doesnt qualify as a reliable source per wikipedia standards. Upon re-reading the article the word "vanity" calls out. Cdcdoc 02:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not deem my objection to your objections as "personal attacks". I have a strict policy against personal attacks and I don't think that your accusation is even close to plausible. In order to find Google hits related to this band you must narrow your search by adding related words such as band/basque/euskal/etc. That will provide you with a vast array of results. The fact that the band is defunct does not strip it (nor any other band) from notability. Once again I recommend that you carefully read the discussion and realize that the band is notable at least for the fact that one of its members later joined a notable band (as per WP:BAND).--Húsönd 03:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - So you are somehow calling me vane (by arguing that my work is an act of vanity, like if I had anything to do with BAP! apart of having enjoyed their music) and you don't tolerate that Husönd considers your opinions deviant (I think he meant dissident, but anyhow). As long as we a re talking about each other opinions or actions there are no personal attacks. We are pondering not each other's essential qualities but our respective acts. If you say that something I've said is false, you are not necessarily calling me a liar, you are just saying that I've comitted an error. If You think my stub is "vane", I hope that you are not calling me that, just this specific act. If I wrote that Annasweden's decission of submitting the article for deletion was capricious and felt my effort sabotaged, I'm not implying that she is a capricious person or a saboteur.
Let's stay cool and accept the criticisms to our actions as what they are opinions, and opinions not on ourselves but on some of our acts. That's all.
(And, yes, the online sources are obsolete. That's a pity but I still don't think it justifies the deletion. I could create a page in my geocities site on them... but that would be really an act of vanity. So I won't). --Sugaar 21:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gloom (game mod)

edit

Game mod that doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP's criteria for products. Looks to be mostly original research to me and doesn't seem to meet verifiability or reliable sources requirements. I requested sources on the article's talk page and have not received any responses. Delete. Wickethewok 20:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Some references from outside the gloom pages. Description from moddb: http://mods.moddb.com/581/gloom/ Anouncement at planetquake: http://planetquake.gamespy.com/View.php?view=POTD.Detail&id=254 I think these where the ones you where asking for that match WP:V. Tneg 02:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning. It doesn't seem to meet WP:V, as the PlanetQuake and moddb listings seem trivial and are not from reliable sources. Many mods have been featured in magazines, so that doesn't seem to be an unrealistic bar for notability or verifiability. Wickethewok 06:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn; nominator was unaware of recent page vandalism. Aaron 20:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factions in the Republican Party (United States)

edit

Generally, if the article's opening paragraphs contain a line like "Defining the views of any 'faction' of any American political party is difficult," you've got a WP:V and WP:OR. This article has both in spades; basically, the "factions" have been defined according to the POVs of whichever editors have ever passed through and added their two cents; sources are nonexistent, save for an eight-year-old Washington Post article. Not that the information in it is necessarily wrong, in my opinion, but that's the problem: It's all just opinion. Suggest delete or perhaps merge into Republican Party (United States) where at least there will be a far larger consensus reached as to which "factions" are legitimate (the current article doesn't have very many wikilinks). Aaron 20:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that discussion of highly political issues brings out the POV in people. The editors of this very important, timely article have tried to overcome that problem with considerable success. The article of course is based on the current media--Time, Newsweek, NY Times, New Rebublic, Nation, National review etc have useful information every week. (and numerous books---of which Barone is essential). The critcs seem to have no specific complaints--which seems rather odd. The article of course is one of several spinoffs from The Republican Party, which is already very long. Rjensen 20:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References--the section on references had been vandalized. Here it is, noting the recent mainstream publications that cover the topic, as well as sources from left and right to provide balance. Rjensen 20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael Barone and Richard E. Cohen. The Almanac of American Politics, 2006 (2005) 1900 pages of minute, nonpartisan detail on every state and district and member of Congress.
  • Thomas Byrne Edsall. Building Red America: The New Conservative Coalition and the Drive For Permanent Power (2006) sophisticated analysis by liberal
  • Michael Crane. The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Book on Politics (2004), nonpartisan
  • Thomas Frank. What's the Matter with Kansas (2005) insightful attack by a liberal.
  • Bruce Frohnen, Jeremy Beer, and Jeffery O. Nelson, eds. American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia (2006) 980 pages of articles by 200 conservative scholars
  • Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten. One Party Country: The Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century (2006), hostile
  • Adrian Wooldridge and John Micklethwait. The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America (2004), sophisticated nonpartisan analysis
  • "A Guide to the Republican Herd" New York Times Oct 5, 2006 interactive graphic
  • Belief Spectrum Brings Party Splits Washington Post October 4, 1998
I was unaware the article had been vandalized; I'll withdraw the nomination. But the article seriously needs a good cleanup, preferably with each section individually referenced to some point; and it also needs better representation on main Republican Party (United States) page, where it currently gets only a passing mention. --Aaron 20:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul lally

edit

Article about some random comic with no claim to fame, includes unnecessary personal details. Could satisfy A7 & possibly G10, listing here because the author removed a prod tag. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noel (food)

edit

Delete: Unverifiable, Uncited, and possible not notable. Note that this page is the rewritten and relocated descendent of this edit, which was added on April 1 by an anonymous contributor who made changes to no other article. Vectro 20:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 06:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Mall

edit

Previous AfD ended in no consensus. Article is unsourced other than a link to the mall's website which establishes it's basic existence. Previous reasons cited to keep this article ran along the lines of it being an important part of local culture or important community landmarks. This reasoning is not supported by any reliable sourcing though. This is a simply an average, run-of-the-mill mall. There are no sources that show this mall has any notability, has any impact, standing, or importance on the local community, or that it meets WP:CORP (if one chooses to judge it as a commercial entity, though I'm aware that many editors don't apply WP:CORP to malls). without sources to demonstrate that this Mall has any local significance, this article should be Deleted.--Isotope23 20:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Han

edit

A teenaged saxophonist. Originally speedied as copyvio from his website, but that has been delat with. We still have the problem that this is a monograph by the subject's father and fails to establish encyclopaedic notability (yes, he's played with some great people, but my 12-year-old son has performed with some of the gods of the horn world and that doesn't make him notable; festivals are great that way, you can meet, talk and play with the greats). I think this is (a) a proud father's boasting of his son's talent, (b) at least somewhat promotional (see the earlier versions) and (c) too early. Wait until he has a recording deal, eh? Guy 20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Anime Convention

edit

non-notable event/convention CobaltBlueTony 20:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The following copied from the article's talk page:)

Why I think this article should not be deleted.
I believe AAC is a notable convention. It had 534 attendees in it's first year and will continue to grow. This article is to give people the history of AAC and information on the convention along with links to other such notable conventions. This is not a unworthy article and still has more to be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweetheart143 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 14 October 2006.

(I have explained further to User:Sweetheart143 on their talk page. --Confusing Manifestation 03:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep 534 isn't bad for a first year anime con. Listed at AnimeCons.com, which is a start towards WP:V. Crystal ball doesn't apply because they already have a year in the books. I'd suggest a NPOV rewrite. --RoninBKTCE# 11:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that I can see - even taking into account the fact that there may be a few Ghits for people talking about "another anime convention" in a generic sense, there aren't many results, mostly advertising the event on forums, and no news sources that I could find. Confusing Manifestation 03:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Blast/Blisskarm

edit

Two more Pokémon articles waiting to get yanked. Turned the prods into one AfD. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 20:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was already deleted as a {{db-author}} per the deletion log. GRBerry 16:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Juskalian

edit

PROD,deprod,PROD,deprod... so I'm bringing it to AfD for some community consensus. Mr. Juskalian writes book reviews for USA Today. I don't see any evidence that Mr. Juskalian meets WP:BIO as an author, so I'm leaning Delete.--Isotope23 23:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This AFD is hereby closed; the article may be kept. —Encephalon 08:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Governor's Mansion

edit

This article is about a hypothetical building; it simply states that there is no governor's mansion. Db099221 20:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many "significant" projects that have never been built, but I don't agree that it's encyclopedic. It's somewhat analogous to a movie that never makes it out of development hell or a bill that never becomes a statute. I'm also a small bit concerned about opening the floodgates to every failed project that never came to be. I still maintain my "delete" comment above. Agent 86 01:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my stance to Neutral following article expansion by Fg2.--Húsönd 04:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the template, at the time, had a red link pointing to it, and it was a better idea than leaving open the potential for someone from out-of-state to incorrectly assume there is one. Sahasrahla 09:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oy. I guess the floodgates are open after all. Agent 86 03:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For your other analogies, here are 64 bills that never became a statute Category:United States proposed federal legislation, and plenty of movies that never made it out of production: Category:Unreleased films, Category:Unfinished films. SchmuckyTheCat 04:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted for copyvio by User:Quadell on 23 October. Trebor 10:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon and Smith Surfboards

edit

Advert and non-notable company Rich257 20:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know if it is non-notable, but I think it is a copvio from here. Ozzykhan 21:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that! I think you should put a copyvio notice on the article then so the text is hidden. Rich257 21:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I blanked the page and added copyvio template. The article could've been speedied if it would have been spotted earlier. Prolog 07:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald Kids

edit

unreferenced NN-neologism DesertSky85451 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism in Iran

edit

This nonsense article had its prod removed. The numbers of Buddhists in Iran is negligible File Éireann 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ozzykhan 21:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - article by same author was deleted earlier today. I'm putting it up again. -Patstuart 21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are provided.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over. There does seem to be a history of Buddhism in Iran [46] [47] [48] and plenty to say about it. But this article makes what appear to be wildly improbable claims with no sources. --Hyperbole 22:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, immediately or sooner. The author has already been banned as a vandal/troll. The article cites no sources. Reliable sources ([49], [50]) offer no information or speculation about Buddhism in Iran. The CIA World Fact Book gives a breakdown of "Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 9%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 2%". -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Trebor 10:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradyon

edit

Neologism. Even the article itself admits that it's not commonly used. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noisegrind

edit

Non-notable ultra-fringe genre Inhumer 21:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

2nd time

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

The result was speedy keep. Real geographical locations don't get deleted, ever. — CharlotteWebb 04:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stotesbury, West Virginia

edit

Town is gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.25.57 (talk • contribs)
The nomination was added manually to AfD by the anon. I have reformatted it properly. Choess 21:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was lets have another AfD, shant we? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mall Sainthwar

edit

Not notable. Only one google hit for name. Creator removed prod, is civil but cannot provide other sources. Possible original research. Please also note Mall sainthwar rajputs redirect first created by author as a copy.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep
Dear Moderators of Wikipedia.org
The details mentioned about the ‘Mall Sainthwar’ community are based upon the facts and is a genuine one and in my humble opinion should not be deleted at all. This is evidenced by a strong community presence of over ‘1.2 million’ people residing in the Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and they originally belongs to the Rajput clan of Kshatryia's. ‘Mall Sainthwar’ community is prominently recorded in well known history books like Aaeene Akabari, Tujjak Jahangiri etc. which, if needed, we can supply for your verification too.
I would like to kindly request the Wikipedia.org moderators to first verify the facts with good resources before arriving to a conclusion to delete this article.
Kind Regards
Pradeep
pk_shubhi@yahoo.co.uk
Phone No. - +0044-7793962960
High Wycombe, BUCKS, UK
  • Keep
Dear Sirs,
History of Mall and Sainthwars which is written here is based on many books written by Historians on 'Type of Rajputs/Kshtriyas' in India and mainly in Purvanchal comprising of Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Western Bihar. Existence of Mall kingdom can be seen in ancient India. Mall are Visen rajputs while Sainthwars (or sihatwars) are basically migrants from western part of India. Detailed can be seen in AINE-AKBARI which gives name of villages where they settled, their original place alongwith their sect. Population of both rajput sect is around 8-9 lakh as per census of India and they are found in 6-7 districts of Uttar Pradesh & Bihar in India.
Literatures are available on these rajput clans wriiten in Moghul period like Aine -Akbari and British records which shows the existence of this great rajput clan.
So please verify before deletion.
regards,
jay singh
jaysingh_r@yahoo.co.in
phone no - + 91 09322697836
Mumbai -400080, Maharashtra , India
  • Keep
Dear Moderator of Wikipedia
The details mentioned at the wikipendia about the MALL SAITHWAR community is a genuine one and should not be deleted at all. This is strong community of more than 12 lakh people residing in the Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and belong to the Rajput clan of Kshatryia's. It has strong hold in cities of Uttar Pradesh namely GORAKHPUR, DEORIA, BASTI, SIDDHARTANAGAR, PADRAUNA, KUSHINAGAR, MAU, AZAMGARH, VARANSI, ALLAHABAD, KANPUR, EASTERN AND WESTERN BIHAR. The authencity of this community as a caste can be verified in Gazzeters of Government of India and also from the land records Uttar Pradesh Government. Kindly look into the matter and as a matter of expectation it would be unwise on the part of wikipendia team to move ahead for deletion without any prior verification as such.
For any clarificatins and details for historical accounts, kindly get in touch with me as well.
19:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
ALOK SINGH
09868877099
aloksingh_07@yahoo.com
Uttar Pradesh (India)
Currently residing in New Delhi.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloksingh 07 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep
Dear Sirs,
It is not my orginal rasearch but based on lots of history books (In Hindi Language)of India. This is a 5 to 6 lakh strong community residing in eastern part of U.P. stae of India. I can give you name of hindi books of some prominant writer or if you permit me , I can send these books to wikipedia office by postal mail for your perusal. It will be unfortunate if you delete itwithout verifying it thoroughly.
Regards
Shalendra Singh
Singh_shalendra06@yahoo.co.in
+91 9415875685
+91 551 2200777
U.P. IndiaShalendrasingh 15:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
I belong to this community and what ever written is correct to my knowledge. I know books and publish matters are the proof but it is not always possible to get in the English language. If you refer the history of Maharana Pratap great warrier and king of India, he belong to our community. It is small but very strong community in India. This mission started to educate our clans in all parts of the worlds. Kindly refer this link you can find the proof of existance [51] This site gives all the info and population spread.
I request you to consider the case and remove this article form deletion.
Regards Ajay Singh from Bangalore India +91 9341309636
Ajaysingh76 19:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)ajaysingh76[reply]
  • Keep
The article is very genuine and represent the history of prestigious rajput clan. The article deserve to be at wikipedia. It is going to get a big traffic to wikipedia (out of aroung 2-3 Million people of this community). So it is in the favor of Wikipedia also.
Best Regards
Narendra Pratap Singh, Delhi, India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npsingh (talk • contribs)
  • Keep
Hi,
Mall - Sainthwar Community name is also mentioned in following books
1)Aaeene Awadh
2)Aaeene Akabari part 2
3)Tujjak Jahangiri
4)Muntarkab Ultavarikh part 2 ...these books were world famous and were written during Mughal- Period which came into the history of Medieval India.
I request you to reconsider your decision of deletion of the article posted.Kindly let me know what kind of proof I should provide you, So that we can also be part of wikipedia-a great site.
Regards
-Chandreshwar Rao
IIT MADRAS
Chennai -36
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandreshwar.rao (talk • contribs)
  • Keep
Dear Moderator,
As the detail given in mall-sainthwar community was based on the fact.This community makes a major part in east Uttar Pradesh and some parts of Bihar.Also they have a great history.
So, I request u to reconsider ur decision of deletion the article without any solid ground bais.
Regards
-Pawan Kumar Singh
728,IIT Madras
Chennai-36,
india
  • Keep
Marriage this is the best thing to answer about the proof of this article as well as this community.Now it is easy to marry in other community ..may be easy. But in older time do you believe that a person belongs to Saithwar Mall community can marry in other community???[In normal way to any community in India was it easy to marry in any other community?].
This is what i wanted to explain that from olden time there are "n" number of marriages which can answer itself as a proof.
Community is haing strength of more than 12 lakhs.
For any clarification contact me.
Regards
Shashi Shekhar
shashishekharn@gmail.com
09343826707
  • Keep
This is one of the purest races of Rajputs. In ancient past, there were many powerful kingdoms having rulers from this community e.g. "Mall Rashtra",etc. In medival period also, there were many reputed and strong princely states like Padrauna, Dughara, Pali, etc.
It is a very good written article about "Mall Sainthwar Rajputs". Great Work!!
Ravi Singh
(9818136861)
  • Keep
The article is very genuine and represent the history of prestigious rajput clan. The article deserve to be at wikipedia. It is going to get a big traffic to wikipedia (out of aroung 2-3 Million people of this community). So it is in the favor of Wikipedia also.
Regards
nripendra singh
nripu2002@yahoo.co.in
mobile no - 09869441693
  • Keep
To , the wikipedia.org : from Shalendra Singh, Gorakhpur, U.P., India
Eye Opening Facts About Sainthwar And Mall Rajputs
Some representatives of Sainthwar community gave many applications in the court of Collector, Gorakhpur in the year 1942. The copy of that application is as follows
In the Court of Collector Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur, U.P. India
Subject: Correction of papers in matters of caste
Sir,
H’onably and respectfully the petitioners beg to bring following few lines for your kind consideration and favorable orders :
(1). That the Gorakhpur district beside the adjoining districts is widely inhabited by the people generaly known as Sahatwars or Sainthwars. They are also written as such in caste column in Government papers.
(2). That the said Sainthwar Rajputs are the descendents of grand Rajputs whose original capital was Sahat in Gonda District. The mention of Sahtwar rajputs is to be found in Aine Akabari* on pages 93, 151, 314 etc. The Sahat rajputs have also been mentioned in Tod’s Rajsthan.( * “Aine Akbari” is famous book written Abu al-Fazl ibn Mubarak, Vizier of Mughal Emperor Akbar the great * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar and the author of “Akbarnama” refer your own site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu%27l-Fazl_ibn_Mubarak & http://www.the-south-asian.com/Dec2000/Akbar.htm
(3). That among the people generally known as Sahatwars there are other sections of Rajputs who are incorrectly termed as such. They are Khagis, Thakurais, Mohits, Karkotaks, Dovis, Bishenmall, Gaharwars, Mohatas, Soharas, Mangras, Pushkars, Bellas, Bhathis, Uskas, Barhajas, Bais, Sahajs, Rawals, Kotharies, Rajpali, Khutahania, Barwas, Pundaris, Darwa, bhakhars etc. who are scattered over whole of the district. Thus the word Sahatwar though really comprising a part is by misnomer used for various independent deferent sects of Rajputs mentioned above. The mention of these various sub caste of Rajasthan is to be found in Tod’s Rajasthan and Aine Akbari* as well.
(4). That the said Saithwars and other Rajputs mentioned above being Kshatriyas*, it is also necessary and befitting to their position and status that they should be entered as Kshatriya in caste column in Govt. papers for the want of which they have to suffer many difficulties.
(5). That the paper of whole Gorakhpur Tehsil has been corrected. On the above grounds in the matter of the caste by the order of SDO sadar dated )*/1942 through which the caste of Sainthwar has been substituted by Kshatriyas instead of Sainthwar in the caste column. The copy of which is attached here with.
(6). That the petitioners have been authorized to move this application on the behalf of the whole community in Gorakhpur district by a special resolution, the copy of which is attached here with. SO, it is humbly requested that your honor may be pleased to order the correct papers in Khesaras and Khataunies in matter of caste so that in the column of caste the word Kshatriya may be substituted in place of Sainthwar, with the title of “Singh” in all the villages of the Gorakhpur district except tehsil Gorakhpur for the correction of the letter has already been made by the order above referred.
Thakur Jainath Singh & Other Petitioners
Sign. Jainath Singh, Sign Sarvan Singh, Sign Ganga Bux Singh , Sign Bansi Dhar Singh , Sign Thakur Mahatam Singh
Seal
Court of Assistant Collector & Magistrate
Distt. Gorakhpur
(True copy Sd. Inillegible, Head Copyst, Collectorate, Gorakhpur, Date 12/11/1942)
References : ( * “Aine Akbari” is famous book written by Abu al-Fazl ibn Mubarak, Vizier of Mughal Emperor Akbar the great * (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar) and the author of “Akbarnama” refer your own site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu%27l-Fazl_ibn_Mubarak) and (* http://www.the-south-asian.com/Dec2000/Akbar.htm)
Kshatriya * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshatriya
  • Keep
Dear Moderator,
It is good to see the things here related to mall-sainthwar community. It will be very helpful to oneline viewres...
JGS
IIT Kanpur
This is the true copy of the order passed by the District Collector ==
COPY OF ORDER
In the court of E.D.C. Moss Esquire, I.C.S. Collector, District Gorakhpur
Nature of Case : Miscellaneous application
Miscellaneous application of the Sainthwars of Gorakhpur district except Sadar Tehsil for correction of Papers in matter of caste i.e. their names must be written as Khastriyas.
Decided on 12/11/1942.
COPY OF ORDER
Action should be taken in accordance with orders of Government. Entries to be made as applied for.
Sd. E. Dc. V. Moss, I.C.S. Collector, District Gorakhpur 12/11/1942
Informations submitted by :
Shalendra Singh, +91 9415875685,
C-103/61-B, Near Ramgarh Lake,
Gorakhpur-273012, U.P., India
59.94.113.148 14:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above reasons
  1. Please note that Indian History is not found in the net in the same magnitude as European or American History.
  2. Also most of the Indian magazines (dailies, weeklies) do not have a online version.
  3. Another factor is that the vernacular (Hindi, Tamil etc) magazines use different fonts and is not searchable by Google
  4. Another problem is the use of different spelling for the same name. For example, my town is referred to as Tuticorin, Thoothukudi, Thoothukkudi, தூத்துக்குடி etc. You can get the complete picture only if you search all these. Even then since most of the matter is not online, you may not even get one hit
If something does not turn up in Google, it does not mean that it is non-notable for the above reasons.  Doctor Bruno  00:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northgate, Seattle, Washington

edit

Delete. This is an article about an "informal district of neighborhoods." No indication of notability is given. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this is an informative article about a verifiable region of an American metropolis. Probably one of the best such articles on Wikipedia. Gazpacho 22:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, as Seattle goes, this is near the low end of what's been done. With some insane number of local contributors here, I'd go so far as to say that the Seattle neighborhood articles are among the most developed neighborhood articles we've got.
  • Keep - Precedent says that all towns are notable. This isn't quite the same, but there are many, many, many other articles on neighborhoods of big cities. --Daniel Olsen 23:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Northgate is often considered its own neighborhood even if it is actually made of constituent hoods. As a designated urban center planned high-density area of the city, it is notable via government action, a fact that need to make its way into the article. It also has a ridiculous amount of sourcing, perhaps the first one i've seen in AfD where there's too much sourcing. hateless 00:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is a ridiculous nomination. SchmuckyTheCat 02:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. And with reference to "informal district": Seattle has no formal districts, other than for specific purposes (e.g. fire districts, police precincts). Even former cities that have been absorbed (Ballard and Fremont, for example) no longer have formal status. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for reasons given. It would be one thing if the included neighborhoods were better known than Northgate, but Northgate as the name for the area is much more than formulary.--Trypsin 10:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above (except nom). --Marriedtofilm 05:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. —Xezbeth 12:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Akkerman

edit

CSD A7 applied, as none of the edits for this person assert importance. Template removed without any change or discussion. Google shows 3 results for "Kirsten Akkerman" besides WP & mirrors. Gotyear 21:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SNOWBALL SPEEDY KEEP. Nobody here wants this deleted; Bamf himself even says "merged or deleted." Let's take this discussion of a merge to Talk:Gorath where it belongs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magma (Gorath)

edit

This monster appears for only six minutes in an obscure film. I tried merging the actual content with the films' article, but was reverted. This either needs to be merged or deleted. Interrobamf 22:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclaimer: I wrote this article) Actually, all you did was blindly copy the section explaining the character's relevance to the plot into the article, calling it a "plot summary". That's not "merging"; there was much content — explaining the character's importance, why it was included in the film from a production standpoint, and it's removal from the English language releases of the film, etc. that simply wallow in the history.
What you conviently don't mention in your nomination is that you "tried merging" it twice before[52][53], but, in reality, you simply turned it into a redirect without once edited the target.[54] All this before any comments on any talk page, which you only did after someone else tried to start a discussion.[55] I'll also note the frequent similiar attempts, characterised by the same style of "merging" (or lack thereof) and no discussion, to turn other kaiju articles into redirects.[56][57][58][59][60][61]
On your actual points, you'll note that the article clearly states the length of time the character appears. However, it also notes the character's significance to said film, and goes on to explain why it is important within the context of tokusatsu and Toho productions in general.
The fact of the matter is, there is clearly content here that is not easily merged with the film. The article is (if I may be so vain) reasonably well-written and well-referenced, so there is really no case for deleting it. Having said that, I would not oppose a merge into a list of minor Toho kaiju, if absolutely necessary. Thanks.--SB | T 22:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was never split off; the vast majorify of the information in this article was never in the Gorath article. In any case, you have an odd definition of "very short", as Gorath is a pretty substantive article. Why don't you give an actual reason this should be merged, instead of blindly citing notability guidelines? --SB | T 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and carry out your conversations in a civil manner.
It's a notability guideline and also a deletion and style guideline (it's the where the debate about character deletion was codified and the guidlines were recently updated to jive with the guidlines for writing about fiction.) The general premise of the guideline is to keep like things together until an encyclopedic treatment of the article makes it long enough to warrant its own article. In fact most of the information contained in Magma (Gorath) is duplicated in Gorath.
Gorath is an article just long enough not to be considered a stub. It is a very short article. It's one long paragraph and 5 short paragraphs long with a total of 418 words.

If you consider it substantive, then have a "odd definition" of substantive. --Kunzite 01:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Bamf seems to have stirred up some bad blood, but this is a single character appearing in an obscure film which has a very short (five parapraphs is very short in my book) article. This is a perfect merge candidate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nominating for AfD and seeking consensus is a far better approach than repeatdly converting an article into a redirect without merging content, and without discussing it anywhere. Thank you Interrobamf. Can we count on you to do the same for all the other articles you silently tried to merge out of existance? No comment on the merits of this article. ++Lar: t/c 05:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is complete on its own. The information contained within the Magma article is different from that of Gorath and they coexist separately rather well. Merging would be confusing and deletion wouldn't make sense as the character is important. In the interest of comprehensive, easy to understand topic coverage, I'd think it were best to leave them both as they are. --Keitei (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the character's so important that he was added at the last minute to the film to attract a Kaiju audience. No. It rampages around for six minutes and then dies. It's a distraction from the main plot. Interrobamf 16:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FILMharmonic Orchestra Prague

edit

Commercial orchestra, does not meet notability as an orchestra that has solely recorded music for a handful of video games, and Wikipedia is not for advertising. The link to the orchestra's web page is clearly a commercial link. SkerHawx 22:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Maine goes, so goes the country

edit

Essay, WP:OR violation. Zero sources. Highly unlikely any user would come to Wikipedia searching for this phrase. Aaron 22:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subeta

edit

Article (and potentially website) does not meet notability requirements for wikipedia WP:WEB. Certainly, the article is non-encyclopedic and notability is not asserted therein. For these reasons I propose the article be delete'd. MidgleyDJ 22:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: 'merge' on AfD means 'keep', to move the content then turn the page itself into a redirect, with edit history preserved. Merging and deleting is not a valid option under the GFDL. As I don't feel self-contradictory !votes can outweigh coherent ones, delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Jr on TMF

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

The result was: as the references found half way through the discussion clearly haven't convinced a significant proportion either way, no consensus, I'm afraid. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Parents Network

edit

Was originally put up for speedy deletion per A7, but I removed the tag and decided to send to AfD. I did some research and it appears to be notable (using Google and Alexa to back up this claim). Note: I am only nominating this article for deletion because I wanted some second opinions about the article's notability. Nishkid64 23:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 22:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Ryan Leaf (not Bryan). KrakatoaKatie 12:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brady Leaf

edit

Isn't notable in his own right until he reaches the pros, (which is not likely) for now, hes the page was created only because he is Ryan Leaf brother, all needed info is there already, revert war happened over the redirect so putting here, Redirect to Ryan Leaf is my choice-- Jaranda wat's sup 23:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no reason at all to get rid of it. There's practically no info about him on his brother's page. Hbk314 01:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nakul Shenoy

edit

Notability not substantiated by text, article is auto-biographical, only one contributor, no links to the page SkerHawx 23:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was AfD failed. Sherurcij obviously meant well, but he should not have attempted to close the AfD himself, as there are other voices for deletion apart from his, and as it is he hasn't closed it properly (that's what I'm doing now with the coloured background etc - until this is done, the AfD still appears in the lists of open AfDs). When he removed the tag, he should have been reverted. AfDs require that the tag remain on the article for the duration so that everyone knows it's going on who should know; deletion review has invalidated AfDs where this didn't happen and I'm forced to do so here.

Though it may be somewhat moot, as from the discussion here, a consensus doesn't seem to have been reached anyway. If anyone still feels that notability is in doubt, this AfD should not prejudice another. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadeq Mallallah

edit

Delete, while a bit of work could make the subject a bit more NPOV, (he was beheaded for apostasy presumably, not "for owning a bible"), the fact remains that there is absolutely zero evidence that he ever existed...900 google hits, all of them are Wiki mirrors, or copy/paste the exact phrase "In 1994, Sadeq Mallallah was beheaded for owning a Bible". The only quasi-basis for the name is seen in a statement made by the head of the Saudi Institute in Washington, Ali al-Ahmed, who said "In September 1993, Sadeq Mallallah, 23, was beheaded on a charge of apostasy for owning a Bible."[65], he offered no evidence or reference, and none was ever given by anybody else. No news agency ever reported such a beheading (and it certainly would've been a dear pet for media sensationalism at the time, if it were true). Basically it comes down to a completely non-notable person making an illustration of his point by inserting a name, fictitious, misremembered or actual. In short, let's not allow ourselves to further the misinformation out there...or else I want to start an article about how my priest discussed "There was a guy named Jack Straw, who was ploughing his fields one afternoon, when..." as a sermon illustration last Sunday. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 23:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment, I just found this message from Jimbo, which I feel (indirectly) supports the removal of the article. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this is hardly "I heard it somewhere." This is the Wall Street Journal. A2Kafir 00:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A2Kafir is the author of the disputed page, just for reference. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 00:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Beyond the passing reference in a single Wall Street Journal op-ed, I can't find any other confirmation of the subject's existence or that he was executed. Even if that could be verified, it might be better covered in a paragraph in Status of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia rather than a separate biographical article. --Metropolitan90 03:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; note the difficulty in ferreting out information on someone with an Arabic name that is subject to multiple spellings, as this one is for both first and last name (remember Khadafy/Qaddafi/Quadafi/Gadafi, etc. spellings for the leader of Libya). Further, future Arabic-speaking contributers may find further information on this fellow using his Arabic name (for instance, direct from Saudi judicial records). I also see no reason to challenge the WSJ article as a source simply because there aren't too many other people mentioning this fellow on-line. A2Kafir 21:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a Wall Street Journal article meets the criteria of WP:V, an op-ed is more like an internal Letter to the Editor, and does not. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Better sourcing for the claim is submission to the U.S. House as testimony, see [66]. However, this and the above boil down to a single source making the identical statement in multiple venues. The event occurred in the pre-web era, so online sources naturally are limited. [67] and [68] state that there was an article in the Wasington Post on 1 October 1992, stating that Sadeq Abdul Kareem Malallah was executed on 3 September 1992 for possibly different reasons. I'm reasonably comfortable that the year is an error in the article and that the two people are the same person. I'm not certan if WP:BIO notability exists, but given coverage by a major newspaper on a different continent, a case can be made that it does exist. GRBerry 16:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, thank you for the third link you provide, I'll rewrite the article to reflect the actual charges against him, and remove the AFD. Much thanks. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep of the new version. I'm not entirely convinced of WP:BIO notability. If the blogosphere were print media, it would be a slam dunk case that he is notable, but we discriminate against blogs because they are unreliable. And gee, he's in the blogs because they are unreliable. GRBerry 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Ani

edit

Has been speedy deleted twice before, but I thought it would be best to nominate the article for deletion just to get a community consensus. I don't have any background in this type of subject, but this article does not link to any other articles, and I only got 1,600ish hits on Google. The creator of the page left a note on the article's talk page contesting the article's deletion. (it was deleted earlier yesterday) Nishkid64 23:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • this is a great page! It's really important for kids to be able to find out more information about this character. it seems that the message that is being sent is a really important one! {{subst:unsignedIP:203.184.52.26}}
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Val_Henson

edit

Subject is not notable


This page has been prod'd twice before by others, and removed against the rules, without discussion. As others have noted, it appears to have originally been written by a fan-boy impressed merely with the fact that Miss Henson is female and attractive. Consensus in the talk page appears to be that her contributions as a programmer are not significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, and there's debate whether her "women in computer science" writings make her a notable figure. I don't think they do, but either way, this should be resolved with a proper discussion, rather than silent Prod removals.

(personal attack removed—Phil | Talk 12:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Rabbi 23:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • On a procedural note, anyone can remove a prod tag without explanation (although explanation is recommended). Aside from that, delete as nominated for failure to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quoting from the prod template: "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced". The error in procedure in this case has been restating the prod tag by the anonymous users. -- Petri Krohn 00:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm concerned about the nominator's provenance, but I'll set that aside for one moment. Searching Google News, I see that Henson is quoted in a recent article in IT Manager's Journal. She's also contributed to two major O/S kernels and she's also contributed to open source development in other ways. I can't see a good reason to delete this article. --Tony Sidaway 13:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing comment. I'll let the subject's comments take preference in this instance. --Tony Sidaway 11:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the subject requests deletion on Talk:Val Henson Thayvian 13:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject's request is not very relevant, failure to meet WP:BIO is. JoshuaZ 21:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Meets WP:BIO by being the subject of several biographies and meets google test. No reason to delete a good article. Just needs expantion is all. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 21:09, 17 October 2006 withdrawing per Tony Sidaway's withdrawal. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 22:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Made minor contributions to the Linux and Solaris kernels" is argument enough to delete. Dr Zak 23:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She has requested deletion, and, until the WiC movement grows, she's not really a celebrity for much else. - rik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.186.238 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I was mistaken about her contribution to the linux kernel. Still, why delete the article without debate? - Ioerror 02:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Disclaimer: I'm the subject.) Ironically, to improve the case for deletion, I feel it's best to correct some misconceptions in the original request for deletion.
    • "Written by a fan-boy" - The original article was a cut and paste from a speaker biography I wrote for, I believe, Ottawa Linux Symposium, with the addition of one paragraph about my Linux Weekly News (LWN) articles. Someone commented that it seems creepy and stalkerish; if so, I have no one but myself to blame. In fact, it may very well have violated Wikipedia's self-authoring rules. :) I am not sure why at least one person has repeatedly interpreted it as the result of infatuation, given the actual text of the article, but it's not a good argument for deletion and detracts from the good arguments for deletion.
    • "[Because she's] female and attractive" - The original article went up shortly after I first began writing for LWN and made explicit reference to the LWN articles. Given that I've been female and attractive for some years, but only recently began writing for LWN, the LWN articles are probably the proximate cause. Writing for LWN does not automatically make someone notable (although it will earn you a little extra cash).
    • "Consensus in the talk page [...] programming contributions are not significant" - No argument here that my code is insufficient for notability, but the only consensus I can detect on the talk page is that I'm so pretty that I intrinsically warp the minds of male Wikipedians. There's certainly no comments on any of my patches to either Linux or Solaris (perhaps because it's easier to look at photos than read kernel patches.)
    • "Debate [if] women in computer science writings [make her] notable figure" - I think "debate" is too charitable a word; this does not make me notable either.

While I am sympathetic to the desire to have more articles on women in computing in Wikipedia, I don't think this article will have a significant positive effect, and will all probability dishearten such an audience given the current propensity for discussion of female subjects' appearances and their effects on men. Given the enthusiasm of the various editors (hi, Rabbi!) and the relative lack of third-party source material, I still feel that the wiser course of action at this time is deletion.

For me, the loudest knell of doom for this article is the fact that even people who like me (or, heaven forbid, are infatuated with me) can't clearly explain why I'm notable. Therefore, I'm not.

Valhenson 07:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:Hi Val -- your use of the phrase "even people who like me" makes me want to point out that my nomination for deletion doesn't have anything to do with not liking you. It should be clear by now that I don't like the paper of yours that I keep hearing mentioned, and am concerned that people coming to this page because of that paper may come away with the impression, based on your biography here, that you have a cryptography background on par with John Black's. I don't particularly think it's "mean minded" to compare backgrounds and competency domains of two parties in a debate, but given the other issues about notability it seems easiest to avoid the debate and have the entry deleted than have it explained that the Compare-By-Hash paper wasn't written by (or apparently peer-reviewed by, judging from the workshop's program committee) someone with a adequate understanding of hash functions.
In my opinion, it's better that the controversy over that paper subside than to continue to confuse developers who don't wish to become experts themselves in the subject of hash functions, but simply wish to have an authorative source to turn to and direct them in proper usage of these primitives. I suspect this is likely to happen now that a peer-reviewed rebuttal has been published in academia -- but with John Black lacking a Wikipedia bio page explaining his background, and with edits expressing limitations of your background in this area being removed for NPOV reasons, I'm uncertain of a good way of presenting a coherent, unconfusing explantion of the controversy of the paper that satisfies NPOV and doesn't denigrate you unfairly. (The Usenix committee really fell down in accepting it, in my opinion, and did you a disservice by doing so.) It's important that developers think about the sorts of questions raised in your paper, but it's also important that they have an accurate source at their disposal from which to seek the answers to those questions.
It's rare that a good programmer is also a good cryptographer, and I hope I've made it clear that I'm not trying to imply that your lack of "kernel hacker celebrity status" means that you're bad at programming. One's level of fame is quite often orthogonal to one's talents or abilities. And as for my comments regarding the initial post and the presumed motives of the author -- I was attempting to sum up what had been previously expressed by others on the talk page. (I believe the original author represented it as his own writing, which explains the confusion.) I think we share the belief that your gender should be irrelevent, or only minorly significant, when considering your notability as an open source developer (and certainly not more significant than the actual code you've written!)
Thanks for commenting.
Rabbi 09:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To summarize, the above argues for deletion because the mere existence of a Wikipedia article about a person might improperly sway readers' opinions in favor of one of the subject's many publications. It is possible there are better arguments for deletion; if so, I plead that they not suffer by association with this one. On a side note, I appreciate John Black's criticism of my work, which has improved slightly as a result, and also his courtesy in attaching his name to his criticisms. Valhenson 09:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The point about third-party source material is well-made. "Just needs expansion" -- with what? Blogs and personal websites are not WP:RS, and code doesn't provide much biographical detail. More pressing is the "part of a cast of thousands". I don't think she currently meets WP:BIO. We can still include her name in the Linuxchix article (and relevant kernel articles?) without it needing to be a link; but there is no need for a stub, let alone an article. Telsa (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Her primary qualification appears to be her gender. Her kernel contributions have been minor, and her publication record is not particularly significant. While she might warrant mention on a page about women in computer science, she does not appear anywhere near notable enough for Wikipedia. With respect to the appalling compare-by-hash paper, that's the downside of being an academic. If you co-invent RSA, everyone knows your name. If you present a braino of a paper at a major conference, everyone knows your name. Rob 06:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant 10:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Con-Dom

edit

Tagged for speedy deletion, but I removed the tag as I didn't really understand how it was relevant to the article. The group seems notable and might pass WP:MUSIC (not confirmed yet). Nishkid64 23:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 22:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Although this article needs citations and cleanup, a quick Google search suggests that this topic is barely on the right side of notability. I say a meek keep. Vectro 21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep the redirect. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karma Police (music video)

edit

It's not notable enough. It's not a world famous video. why not have a article for every video Me and my robot 01:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • MoveMerge into Karma Police The song is notable, I cannot say the video is.

Later...It seems as though enough of this article is already merged into the Karma Police article, as it happens. doktorb wordsdeeds 00:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Urban Dictionary: zeeky boogy doog
  2. ^ YouTube - Broadcast Yourself
  3. ^ Fooby the Kamikaze Watermelon - Garry's Mod
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_13&oldid=1116878334"