Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
< July 11 July 13 >

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 of the discussion was malformed, not AfD anyway. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phil

delete Inappropriate subject for icon. In any event, this stub is not used as there is already a standard {{philately-stub}} in wide use. --Jack 05:43, 12 July 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 of the discussion was malformed; not AfD anyway. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phil-stub

delete Entirely inappropriate subject for an icon and there is in any case a standard {{philately-stub}} in wide use already. I believe only one user page links to this. --Jack 05:37, 12 July 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 13:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Cohen

This article is not very notable and is difficult to verify. --GoOdCoNtEnT 22:54, 12 July 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 13:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Success measures

Apparently part of a short lived OR campaign by the departed User:Rimini. No hits for googling "Success measures" + "Copernicus factor".TheGrappler 19:38, 12 July 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 13:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copernicus factor

Apparently part of a short lived OR campaign by the departed User:Rimini. No hits for googling "Success measures" + "Copernicus factor". TheGrappler 19:38, 12 July 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 of the discussion was speedy deleted, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Liberty

Band started by 16 year old musician who fails WP:MUSIC. Nice guy, means well I'm sure, could well turn out to be an excellent contributor, but this isn't myspace. TheGrappler 19:03, 12 July 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 of the discussion was Speedy A7 by Fang Aili. Tevildo 22:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Micallef

16 year old musician who fails WP:MUSIC. Nice guy, means well I'm sure, could well turn out to be an excellent contributor, but this isn't myspace. TheGrappler 19:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --AaronS 19:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I ought to point out that the speedy tag had been removed before, otherwise I'd have put this up for A7 myself. Similarly for the article above. Is it allowed to speedy on AFD if there's a "quick consensus", despite the fact the tag has been removed before? TheGrappler 20:37, 12 July 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 13:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kabobeesh

Advertisement for restaurant; article makes no attempt to establish notability. Tapir Terrific 17:54, 12 July 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. Mailer Diablo 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAJOLE

Article about a programming language CAJOLE. It's mentioned on an online dictionary of terms and some minor publication, but doesn't seem notable enough.--Konstable 04:44, 12 July 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. Mailer Diablo 13:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Four Motorsports

Doesn't meet inclusion standards. Has only made a handful of starts. Unlikely to run again. --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 23:56, 11 July 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 of the discussion was speedy delete. --Ezeu 01:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War of the worlds - first strike

Not notable; not verifiable; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Caesura(t) 00:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Delete. -Fsotrain09 00:12, 12 July 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 13:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Walker (second nomination)

Delete It has been over a month. The article has not improved. It is still one massive quote, with the rest being heavily based on another web page. It still doesn't satisfactorily meet WP:V, as there are no credible sources given (the only semi-credible source is the Discovery channel documentary, but their criteria for inclusion is incredibly lax nowadays). All sources that can be found reference the Discovery channel documentary. It violates WP:V for those reasons, though it may also fail to establish notability. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the first nomination, which ended in No Consensus
  • As it currently stands there is not enough about this published anywhere reputable to possible satisfy WP:V. Mentioning something once in a Discovery documentary about UFOs is not quite good enough for me, if there is nothing else on this available. If everything dubious and unverifiable was removed, it would be a stub of an entry ("Fast Walker is the name given to an object by UFO watchers which they claim to be travelling at high speed towards Earth, and the nature of which to this day has remained unidentified. The UFO theorists claim that the object was detected in 1984 by a U.S. Defense satellite used to normally detect military threats heading towards the U.S.A, but unfortunately we have no way of verifying this claim at all. In fact, this entire article is based on one fringe website which itself looks like a second-hand account of a short segment of a Discovery episode on UFOs, taken out of context.") The entire "mystery" of it exists because there is a complete dearth of knowledge available, which I think is a good sign that it is not notable or verfiable enough for WP. Delete, or stub-ify. --Fastfission 00:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other comment: I can't conceive of a way of writing this in a NPOV style without doing original research, owing to the lack of material on it available. I think that's a sure sign that it can't pass WP:V. --Fastfission 02:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. How do we integrate Hotwalker, Jaywalker, Fastwalker, Skywalker worldwide test range monitoring, and space infrastructure attack characterization capabilities?
2. How do we perform IR multi-stage correlation, sensor cross-cueing in the Space Surveillance Network, and multi-source fusion of space tracks using IR and radar?
I also found this pdf document that mentions the same terms in a similar context. This suggests that "fastwalker" is indeed a term used in military space surveillance, and perhaps not invented by UFO buffs. However, for the article to qualify as a "keep," I think we'd have to remove the unverified account of the UFO incident (or at the very least mention that the sources are dubious). Unfortunately, that wouldn't leave much of an article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, right, it would pretty much just leave a dicdef or "technical manual" style page. I already said my concerns with the Omni article in the other thread: Omni got to the point where they were putting in various crazed theories every month without much in the way of editorial review or skepticism. This one seems fairly minor and not to have gained the public eye, based on the low number of Google hits (above). Doesn't count as a Reliable Source either. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:46, 12 July 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 13:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xcellery

Spamvertising for nonnotable software product; article author removed prod tag w/o explanation. NawlinWiki 00:26, 12 July 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 13:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett Rakestraw

This article shows why an IMDB listing doesn't in itself prove notability. This guy has 10 screen roles, all "uncredited", and is "consulting producer" of one syndicated TV talk show. Nonnotable in my book. NawlinWiki 00:57, 12 July 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 of the discussion was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 10:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liam O'Shea

Can't find any Ghits for a "famous chef" and his age may preclude him becoming a famous chef (less that 28 years old at time of death).--Richhoncho 01:08, 12 July 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 that no valid conclusion regarding consensus can be drawn from the debate as it exists. This is not a "no consensus" closing, and no precedent should be drawn from this nomination.

In the absence of clear policy of factual outcomes, the outcome is determined by vox populi. But a deletion discussion is a sampling excercise to determine consensus, not a census. Anything that skews this sampling is a bad thing. There is a clear line between drawing attention to a debate and freeping and that line was clearly crossed in this case. Let there be no mistake: This is behavior that is not tolerated.

However, having examined the interactions on the talk pages at great length, it is impossible to determine what effect this outcome has had on the debate. While the majority of those contacted did not comment, the effects of a message on a talk page are often felt far beyond those who comment directly. Thus this debate is broken beyond repair.

With regards to the arguments raised regarding maintenance and red links, it should be noted that Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) states clearly Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article... The current list violates the policy on verification and reliable sources, however these flaws are correctable. Sources are a necesarry but not sufficient condition for inclusion however.

The most positive outcome would be that the tremendous energy devoted to this deletion debate be refocused on attempting to make this list first conform to all policies and guidelines, and then considering a renomination for deletion if required.

brenneman {L} 01:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of tango singers

WP:NOT, and also not clear at all what merits membership to this list. Wikipedia is not a meaningless list of information. --Ragib 01:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

having sung tangos is one condition. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or being on a list in a publication with notoriety. Which seems to have been the case here. I see that The Grappler is dealing with this at this moment. If others can then be added when their article gets written, or when they get mentioned in another article (in that case the person who puts the name in, should provide a short bibliographical note), I think notability will not be a problem. --Pan Gerwazy 23:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete list is too vague, no real qualifications or vast "notability." Yanksox 01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, Tobias, but you cannot strike his vote out. It is not nonsense, as what he claims is precisely what both sides disagree on. And he is definitely a regular Wikipedia user, so you have really no reason to strike his vote out. Please revert that.--Pan Gerwazy 23:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was Yanksox himself removing his vote for now, not Tobias. --Ragib 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS. Thanks for the remark, and apologies to Tobias. Bitte verzeihen Sie mir.--Pan Gerwazy 23:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, I have removed my own opinion, and questioned the decision making at the time. Yanksox 23:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Category:Tango musicians, which seem to cover this a lot better. Thanks. --Ragib 17:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that musicians and vocalists are two very different things. Also, lists are helpful because they can be annotated and explained, like "So and so released one tango album early in his career". AdamBiswanger1 17:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wao, at least someone here with some knowledge of the subject. Yes, musicians and singer is not an identity. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these tango singers have contributed nothing - nada to tango music in se, because they followed the Argentine tango conventions of their days to the letter. But their voice and the way they sang invited millions to the world of tango.--~~
  • Keep as per AdamBiswanger1. A list like this should be treated with care - it is not the only controversial one. I see that a page like Oleg doubles up as a list of every famous Russian called Oleg, and as a redirect page to rulers called Oleg. Calling tango singers "tango musicians" may sometimes be inappropriate (some of them may find it funny themselves) and in the case of my addition to the list, Pyotr Leshchenko - who rearranged texts of Russian romance songs to make them conform to Argentine tango, but never (re)composed anything rather contoversial. Most of the singers who are (also) mentioned as tango musicians seem to have done some acting in films. Perhaps that made them "tango musicians" in the popular mind? Talking about Wikiprojects, I see Tobias Conradi has recently started Wikipedia:WikiProject Tango. He IS rather pushy, but hopefully there is no hidden agenda here - a lot of his stuff seems to be getting AfDed at this moment? --Pan Gerwazy 16:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I request you withdraw your last comment, unless you can reveal the hidden link between me and anything related to Tango. Feel free to dig up my contribution tree. --Ragib 17:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
chico,do we need a contribution tree? After attacking tango.info now it's list of singers. All within few days. All during or near to a 8 week block of mine, which was reduced. And you say there is no agenda? What a coincidence. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tobias, please refrain from such personal attacks. I haven't even read any Tango related articles before I nominated this, while going for cleanup of random articles. And I looked at the other article you have mentioned, which is under afd by someone I have never even communicated with. Whether you are under block or not is not a something I know or want to know. So, UNLESS you can show I am part of the global anti-Tango conspiracy, please refrain from making ridiculous claims. I hope you would retract your comments. As I said, my contribution list is open for you to look and find any relation with Tango. Thank you. --Ragib 21:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not suggesting that you had something against Tobias, or something against tango. It just seemed like "there was something in the air". Someone got himself blocked, and all of a sudden ... But OK, since at this moment no more than two persons are voting "delete" on both AfDs, my impression looks unfounded and I will have to withdraw the comment.--Pan Gerwazy 23:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. --Ragib 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you really were not invited by any anti Tobias, or anti tango.info wikipedians, then at least at that front it is fine. Since I have read somewhere that a community my recent attackers belong to use other channels of communication, a contrib list does not really help. But I trust you. Anyway, would be nice if you would have contacted some of the contributers or the creator before Afd'ing or at least inform them. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If somebody is non-notable, take them off the list. There's a reference given in the talk page. Have the delete voters ever read WP:CLS? This is a textbook case of when a list is a good thing. Not all the singers have articles yet (it looks like they'll be along in the future, though) so there's a definitely improvement over categories for a start. How on earth is this meaningless? I am really struggling to understand. There have been tango singers in human history, that's pretty clear, what would be wrong with a list that listed a selection of the more notable ones (notable enough to eventually deserve an article, perhaps) and provided some brief biographical details? This list isn't there yet but there's no reason why it shouldn't. AFD is not cleanup. TheGrappler 20:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And for those who haven't read WP:CLS, a short and unbiased summary is "lists, categories and series boxes have different advantages and disadvantages, and sometimes one, two or even all three of these are appropriate". If you read WP:CLS you will understand why Category:Tango musicians does not in the least make this list defunct, nor is at simple as "the category does it better" - the category does different things better. Does the category do red links, for instance? No! They are for different things and will work just fine side by side. TheGrappler 20:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consider, though, that WP:CLS is a guideline and that there are those who believe, for sundry reasons, all lists to be unencyclopedic; I'm not certain that I count myself amongst their number any longer, but it should be noted that there are those who are familiar with CLS and, indeed, believe it to miliate in favor of our keeping the article but nevertheless support deletion because they do not believe that the community writ large approve, generally, of the use of lists—to be sure, I am not one of the latter. Joe 05:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. We have "Lists of Jews" and other things, why lists or Tango Singers are bad? Lots of people like Tango and these singers are notable to them. What if somebody is researching on Tango music? I can thing of about at least 10 reasons why this list should be kept. Let us not forget that non-notability is sometimes on the eye of the beholder, I'm a Tango-ignorant and know at least 10-15 percent of this list. As the previous voter said, "real" non-notable people should be removed ("real", in this case, should be defined as non-notable within the Tango world), but that's it. Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, they could come to the "Feesten" in Gent-Belgium , Baudelo Park. Start next Saturday.--Pan Gerwazy 23:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Sebastian Kessel. Red links are also quite useful as an inspirations for the new articles abakharev 21:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Listcruft, this is possibly endless. What merits inclusion? Do you sing it in the shower and get added? What about a "List of people who whistle the 1812 overture while walking the dog" I am sure that is equally as encyclopedic and useful. List of fruits, used as an example in a keep vote above is well defined (the criteria for a fruit is definate) and limited. Keep ridiculous things like this as catagories for the selected few who are notable enough to warrant a full article. ViridaeTalk 00:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Tango is a popular form of music in the Spanish-speaking world. A tango singer is as definable as a pop singer or an opera singer or a rock singer, or any other type of vocalist that you can think of. Let's not crumble in the face of a trick task, which would be defining "tango singer". Also, we need to come to terms with the fact that lists can and will exist peacefully on Wikipedia. See WP:CLS. Lists are good. People like them. People learn from them. They are accepted. And this is about as legit a list as any other that exists on Wikipedia. Here is a series of axioms for people who like logic:
  1. This list is of a useful and notable subject
  2. This list can be more than a category (with annotation and explanations)
  3. Any list fulfilling these two requirements should be included

Conclusion: Keep the list. AdamBiswanger1 00:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Taken from WP:LISTS. Change it to "List of notable tango singers" and I would be happy to support its inclusion in wikipedia. The same satandards would apply to me supporting the inclusion of any similar lists such as "List of rock singers". ViridaeTalk 02:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about we write in the first sentence that inclusions must be notable? Something along these lines: "This is a list of notable singers whose main musical genre is tango, or who can be said to be at one time identified as a "tango singer" in sincerity." AdamBiswanger1 02:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but can verification be provided that all the names in that list are notable? ViridaeTalk 02:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunetly not, but usually in these situations the best thing to do is keep the number of red links down, and if too many arise and it looks like a sea of red, then we can talk to someone from WikiProject:Tango to find out which ones are the junk names. AdamBiswanger1 02:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The membership criteria is essentially "they deserve an article". There's a lot of red links but that is basically because this entire subject seems to have been completely forgotten about. Unfortunately, the upshot of "they deserve an article" is that the real notability concerns are decided by WP:MUSIC, but it's inappropriate either to copy and paste that entire definition of notability or to give a link into Wikipedia space. As a compromise what I've done is moved the list to "List of notable tango singers" and put in a scary hidden comment (you'll only see it in edit mode) that basically says "put in a referenced assertion of notability, or your entry will be removed from the list". In this kind of list that's the best that can be done - that doesn't mean it's a write-off. It certainly seems to pass the criteria on WP:CLS which are the ones that really matter here. In fact (and as a person who hangs out at WP:FLC a lot I have some experience in this) this must already be one of Wikipedia's best referenced lists! TheGrappler 05:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per TBC. Cleanup. I'm convinced that you guys can clean this up and make it a decent list, I just hope that you do so. Unfortunatly, sometimes it takes an AFD to get things like this to a decent state.pschemp | talk 01:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As was stated above 3 or 4 times, musicians are not necessarily singers. AdamBiswanger1 01:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Sebastian Kessel --San Marcos 03:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; there is a reason we use lists at Wiki. syphonbyte 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unmaintainable list, insufficient evidence of notability for current entries. Closing admin should take votestacking into account and discount spurious keeps that Tobias marshalled. Delete ++Lar: t/c 17:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid that this is not simply a vote, and all concerns of the "delete" voters have been soundly addressed, if not defeated by myself and others. The questions that face this list are the same as any other on Wikipedia AdamBiswanger1 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct! It is NOT simply a vote, and therefore Tobias's votestacking and the folk who turned up as a result of it, needs to be discounted. You haven't addressed my concerns to my satisfaction, far from it. Correct again, the questions that face this list are the same that face others, but this particular list and its creators, fail to address them successfully. This list would be marginally notable and marginally encyclopedic, even if thoroughly sourced, which it is not. (most lists are not, I comment delete on most lists, but not all) Your argumentatively replying to every comment is not going to work, I don't think. You also might want to check your assumptions about users as well. ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't wish to offend anyone, and I'm sorry if you object to my watchlisting this page. The fact is that no matter what, if I suspect that someone has submitted an uninformed opinion, I am going to very civilly and maturely challenge it. That's my right- in fact I consider it my duty. If I wasn't so weary from writing out my rationale so many times, I'd be happy to tell you again. I realize that I'm half-obsessing on this AfD, but do you have any specific concerns that you would like me to address so that we can call this process a consensus and not an instance of votestacking? AdamBiswanger1 17:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Go mark (with a reply that the comment is from a votestacked person) all the comments that are from people Tobias notified, that would address one of my concerns, and help the closing admin out a lot (that admin can then evaluate if the comment is just a flippant driveby or a comment that adds to the discussion in a significant way and should be counted toward consensus). The other concern really boils down to this, why is this list on a very obscure topic encyclopedic? Lists of random things are not. Why wouldn't a category do the trick instead? Easier to maintain and a better approach. I only support lists when a clear case is made that the list transcends what a category can do. (for example this one: List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_political_system which adds a lot of information beyond a mere list, it's really an article in disguise) Further, almost every person on this tango singer list is redlinked, meaning that their notability is not even known, much less established satisfactorily (I don't consider the cited sources as verifiable enough to confer notability, sorry) This list, on further reflection, smacks of OR in that the list composers are deciding who is notable and who isn't. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC) PS I take no offense at your watchlisting an AfD, I do that too! My issue is that you shouldn't repeat the same points to try to rebut.[reply]
            • Honestly I don't think that the closing admin needs any help, because at the moment it seems to be quite on the side of "keep". That was a long comment with many points, so I'll just state a few unrelated sentences.
              1. Tango is not obscure in Latin America.
              2. Redlinks allow for the creation of other articles
              3. An expert in Tango music can decide which names are too obscure. Or we could just use google.
            • Now as far as your votestacking allegations go, I see a slight bit happening with Tobias alerting fellow editors, but I see no problem with alerting all contributors to the page, which is what I did. Hence the raison d'etre of {{adw|pagename}}. Oh and one more thing. I am very consciously making the same points over and over because, well, they're true. Unless they are addressed by the other party to my satisfaction, I'm not going to stop my line of attack. AdamBiswanger1 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • My comment was placed because Tobias alerted me. So what? Does it count any less? Are my opinions less important because I didn't have the page in my watchlist and I only found out by an alert user? Tobias was just letting people that potentially cared about the article that they should express their opinions. Mine must have been good enough for two other editors to cite it for their own votes. Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • My worst fears about this AfD are coming true. Everyone who voted "keep" will now have to explain how and why they came here. Adam alerted me, I had no idea he was in favour of or against deletion reading his warning. I just feel passionate about this page because when I had finished my Pyotr Leshchenko article, I was glad to find this list, because I knew that putting him in the tango musician category would be too controversial for some Argentine tango purists (=an ambiguous expression, I know). On the active end, no, I did NOT invite anyone here, even though there may be a few people here who already wrote on my talk page (and definitely NOT about tango). Pure coincidence. I did not want to vote on the other AfD, but as more people there switched to here when the outcome became doubtful, I decided to have a second look there and Mikka convinced me. --Pan Gerwazy 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • No one accused Adam of votestacking. His polite request was fine. Tobias's request to come and defend, was however not. That's the whole point of refraining from internal spamming. Had Tobias not spammed people with a request to come and "defend", no one would be questioning the keep votes at all. pschemp | talk 23:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • From what I can see, Tobias didn't seem to "spam," he notified users that ought to be notified about this. It doesn't look like many of them came, anyhow. (I was not one of those users, by the way.) syphonbyte 00:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think the policy is he should not have used the word "defendernos", except on the Argentina project page. However, we all know that such notifications are usually only sent to people who the notifier knows will vote his way. Of course it is only a survey I am now talking about, but have a look at [5] where a user managed to get seven oppose votes in one night against a revert of a name change he did while he was in a period banning him from amongst other things, renames of articles. Of course he did not tell anyone he contacted to vote "oppose" but do you really think he contacted anyone he did not know for sure would vote "oppose" (and on a subject like that one, it is rather easy to know)? And as for what happened here, assyphonbyte said, the Argentinians are conspicuous by their absence. --Pan Gerwazy 17:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Update: I have meanwhile advertised this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tango_%28dance%29. I think what I say there, is non-committed enough. As for the Deir Yasin controversy, someone has intervened and it does not look like Wikipedia will make the news as a Deir Yassin Denial site. Yet. I also think I know how Alex Bakharev got here. There was a minor scuffle at Chechnya over the External References there. After I reverted a Russian's POV renaming of Alex's names for the groups of references he created, I got a funny remark on my talk page. Alex is an administrator by the way, and I suppose he followed my talk page to see if other remarks would be made after the revert and his invitation to me to further rename the groups. [6] --Pan Gerwazy 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This discussion may have gotten a little too agresive, but the article has improved and seems to be a legitimate list of singers with real qualifications. This list could be improved with creation of articles that address the subjects mentioned. However, that is not a reason for deletion, this list can be expanded and can become a solid article. Yanksox 17:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete List criteria is too vague for my liking, but more worringly, there may be copyright problems here, as the majority of the article is copying the information from two lists found on other websites, which I don't believe we should do. If a singer appears on the list, mention it in their article and cite it, sure, but copying the lists in their entirety to wikipedia? I don't think so. Regards, MartinRe 17:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I highly doubt that copying a list could consitute copyright violation, especially considering they are both in alphabetical order, and similarities exist by virute of the fact that they are both 'lists of tango singers'!. Also, I doubt that one can copyright a list. AdamBiswanger1 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a list of facts, maybe not, but if it is a subjective list compiled by someone, then yes, I believe it is copyrighted. (being original and requiring work to create) For a comparasion, see the article The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time, I think that Rolling Stone would not appreciate if wikipedia created an article for notable guitarists that just happened to contain everyone on their list. (see discussion on they talk page of that article for similar reasoning) Regards, MartinRe 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So basically: you are damned if you use a notable source and you are damned if you do not. I see by the way that Pschemp and Lar have come here. Ragib?--Pan Gerwazy 19:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I forgot. If one of these websites you mean is Tobias's site, I have no doubt that when he returns from his new block, he will state that he is prepared to put the list into the public domain, if that is the problem. Plus: names of singers can be appended to this list as articles about them get written - and some of these articles have already been wtitten and the names appended - so where is the copyright then? --Pan Gerwazy 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, you can chill about the copyrights. A list is copyright but the fact that somebody exists on a list is not. That's one of the reasons that our "list of missing encyclopedia articles" contains a bunch of encyclopedia indexes mixed together. Some of the individual indexes would be copyright, but the collective one is not so. Those lists may be reconstructable from the data, but what is presented is a new list that isn't a simple reproduction of any of the others. The Turkish and Russian tango singers on the list are a guarantee of that. If you don't think "notable" is a strong enough inclusion criteria then where would you set Wikipedia's article inclusion guidelines? All of the articles clearly meet the demands of WP:MUSIC for their work in this field. Please view the page in edit mode where this necessity is reiterated to editors. It would be a violation of WP:SELF to inform readers that "in this context, notable" means that WP:MUSIC is fulfilled", and that is such a long document there's absolutely no point summarizing it. But seriously, isn't the fact that a reliable source has classified them or identified them as a notable tango singer enough? I suspect you'd probably drop in horror at List of notable brain tumor patients which is actually a featured list! Additionally, as the summaries get filled in, ultimately there'll be no need to assert notability from the fact that they are in the list... or rather there will be, because that list is just an index to a series of articles, and precisely those articles from this index will appear as the references for those individuals, but it maybe won't be so obvious as using the flat "appears on this list" template. Besides, what if I renamed those source list references to "this person has a biography on todotango.com" and "This person has had recordings of their singing published (Source: their appearance in the tango.info database)"? Since tango.info only has one url to access the singers' database, that's the only one that would be cited anyway... I hope you see the ridiculousness of the situation? I know Tobias isn't the most popular editor, and yes, it wasn't his greatest ever idea to go messaging, but he certainly didn't contact me. I am here - and I put all that work into this article - because I was surprised (in fact, at turns, outraged) at this nomination, and believe it goes firmly against the guidelines at WP:CLS. I imagine Tobias was absolutely furious. Being unpopular is one thing, then having an AFD brought against a pretty solid article (although in the state it was in at the time it was nominated, I can understand the decision to bring to AFD... but would rather that the nominator had reviewed WP:CLS thoroughly since that was what was implicitly invoked, and would be genuinely surprised if the nominator had not then chosen to send this to cleanup) must have felt like getting spat on. That's probably why he has got so defensive and engaged in methods that are now ticking other people off. TheGrappler 08:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "A list is copyright but the fact that somebody exists on a list is not", that I would agree with, as per my original comment. But there is a big difference between mentioning in a specific article that the subject is on a list, and having an article which lists everyone on that list. The latter is reproducing the list, in my view, whereas the former is not. The list of missing encyclopedia articles is a little different, as it is a list of facts, but a list of notable singers is a subjective list and as such is covered differently. With regards to your ridiculous situation, the fact that the bulk of the article comes from just one or two references (and uses the entirety - not a sample - of those references) only increases my copyright concern. If the goal of this list is to have an article for each one (and remember WP:MUSIC is a guideline, it is possible for a singer to "pass" WP:MUSIC and still be deleted in an afd), then it would appear to be covered by a category and possibly this list would be more appropiate as To-do items in project music. Regards, MartinRe 10:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment Also, if one of those lists comes from a wikipedian's own web site, then even if it was PD'd, I would have concerns about an editor creating articles which use his own web site as the primary reference, as there could be difficulties with OR, as it would be a list of notable singers - where notable is defined by one of the wikipedians editing the article. Regards, MartinRe 13:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again: damned if you do, damned if you do not. You know that if we combine your objection and the one of the nominator, every single list on Wikipedia has to go?--Pan Gerwazy 17:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking the character of other editors is not the proper manner to show why an article should remain up. We should all show each other respect since this is a discussion and our goal here is to examine the notability, verifiability of this aritcle, not to attack our colleagues. There is some objectional behavior going on over here, and it needs to cease. Yanksox 12:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, indeed. I retract my contention about an anti-Tobias atmosphere and kaboom! they are here. I have just written that the Argentinians are conspicuous by their absence (they still are, in fact) and yes, someone arrives on the scene accusing the opposers of being racists. Of course, calling "tango" a "very obscure topic" (and i quote VERBATIM) does not help at all.--Pan Gerwazy 00:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP. Furthermore, it could be fleshed out a bit. There seems to be precedent for pages like this. It's a bit irresponsible to put this page up for deletion based on a claim like, "it's not clear at all what merits membership to this list," when the *title* of the article is List of *Tango* singers. Tango, as in the music. If this were a page about singer-songwriters or blues musicians or Rock guitarists, I wonder if it would be up for deletion? Yeah, Tobias has been prolific and quite enthusiastic about Tango but just because the guy made a bunch of pages, it's like we're going to nit-pick every single one, like we're looking at chads in Florida? --Antelope In Search Of Truth 03:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per AdamBiswanger1 Patcat88 04:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These last two users obviously did not know that they were to say whether they were invited. However, I checked and I cannot see the word "tango" on their talk pages, so they do not seem to have been invited by Tobias Conradi. --Pan Gerwazy 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create a List of notable tango singers - there is merit in this list since it has annotations and references. However, there is no criteria for inclusion so it is open-ended. I think it should be deleted then the notable information can be extracted to the new list. BlueValour 21:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See: The first paragraph of the list, which closes the open end. AdamBiswanger1 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So much red ink makes me feel queasy! Despite the first paragraph there is no notability statements/references for most of the people. If an AfD is not going to provoke a cleanup a Keep certainly won't. I still believe a fresh start with some sharp notability criteria is needed. BlueValour 21:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I myself am a big fan of red links because they provoke expansion, and regarding possible non-notable links, most of them come from a website with a similar list and are cited as such, and I believe this has been put at a to-do list at WikiProject:Tango AdamBiswanger1 21:37, 17 July 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 20:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Cavanagh

I'm not sure where I stand on this article, so I'm bringing it here to generate some discussion. On one hand, he holds a Guinness World Record, but on the other hand it's one of the many, many Guinness records that aren't "normal". This isn't the world's tallest man or oldest living person, it's a person who collects a lot of credit cards. There's verifiability there, but is this a notable accomplishment? Metros232 01:42, 12 July 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 of the discussion was speedy delete CSD G4 - "thou shalt not suffer a blatant repost to live". No salting though, creator has been advised to write something at Comixpedia instead. Kimchi.sg 15:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Infamous (webcomic)

This article was previous deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Infamous, the reasons for deletion remain the same, but as only 3 people voted at that last one, more input here would be nice. This is a non notable webcomic, found here hosted on Comic Genesis, a free webhost like geocities and Tripod. It is not mentioned on Comic Genesis' Alexa report. Googling the phrase doesn't return much either, using various different search strings I still can't find a single decent external source reporting on the subject of the article. - Hahnchen 01:45, 12 July 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. Mailer Diablo 13:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider (comic)

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outsider (comic). As only a few people participated in the previous dicussion, new comments would still be welcomed. But nothing has changed since the original nomination. It's Alexa ranking of the host site has improved to 380,000 but I don't think the entire Well of Souls site is notable let alone this webcomic. The only source of information is the website itself. Professional reviews or critical commentary? I find none. - Hahnchen 01:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Not a G4 candidate because it wasn't re-created by the same editor. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it does not have to be recreated by the same editor to be deletable under G4. I think the AfD should play out since it has been six months since the last AfD and the content is very different. Before it was just two short paragraphs. -- Kjkolb 03:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep greatly improved article versus first time, alexa numbers arguably establish notability within the webcomic context, not unencyclopedic. Arker 07:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Notability within the webcomic context" means Alexa rankings like 1,457 (Penny Arcade), 7,708 (Megatokyo), or 11,340 (8-Bit Theater). 380,000 is nothing like notable. — Haeleth Talk 13:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regular delete no assertion of notability, and they didn't even link to their own site! Not CSD G4 candidate - content is substantially different. Kimchi.sg 13:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment I have undeleted the previous version into the history of the current article to give AfD reviewers the chance to compare them. The article for this comic on Comixpedia is based on the Wikipedia version deleted in the first AfD. You'll find it at Comixpedia:Outsider. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment please analyze this article carefully before condeming it, and don't jump to conclusions. Hahnch writes: " Professional reviews or critical commentary? I find none." Well Hanchen, I can't find them in way too many articles too, and nobody seems to take it in a bad way. You could improve the article and critize it if you like. Kimchi.sg writes "they didn't even link to their own site!" and this is simply wrong, there is a proper link to the site inside of the box. How Kimchi could overlook it? Perhaps he needs to read the article with more care (or needs new glasses? :). Abe Dashiell writes that the article "is based on the Wikipedia version deleted in the first AfD" well this is amazing, because I compared the two and I don't find them alike at all. The subject is the same but that's it. As for the statement: "But nothing has changed since the original nomination." I completly disagree, and must tell you that that the first nomination was alltoo soon after creation and as such didn't had the time to develope (improve) properly. Since then the article has been improved by a enormous extent. Well, looking at the history of the article you will find that I spent a lot of time improving it, and I would certainly not have done it, if I didn't think that it is a worthy subject. No, I am not the author, but I found and read the comic exactly because I found a good article in Wikipedia and quite sincerly I think that is one of the notions of Wikipedia: Good articles = check the subject out. If you delete it Wikipedia is the looser, and noone else. Flamarande 19:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Well, those articles without external sources fails WP:V and/or WP:RS. Unless Abe has turned into a great fat liar for this AFD only, I'm going to go with what he says. When I say "nothing has changed since the original nomination", I mean that the subject is still non notable. So you found out about the webcomic because you saw the Wikipedia article? - Hahnchen 00:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't knew that it was a crime, so I will take the 5th. Flamarande 14:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I merely meant that this version which was the last version of the article before it was sent to AfD the first time, is virtually identical to Comixpedia:Outsider, the current version on Comixpedia. Previously this was unavailable, but I undeleted it into the article's history to give reviewers of this nomination more information. It is not an endorsement for either keeping or removing the artlcle. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 09:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it has two chapters if you count the prologue. And all the background material doesn't count at all, right? Flamarande 14:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can see that noone is atacking the quality of the article itself, so I hope that we can all agree that the article is good enough. What we appear to disagree is if the subject the (the webcomic itself) is "worthy" enough to have an article in Wikipedia. Well, I think that the author made a genuine (very rare) effort to create a quite "logical and believable" universe (it never stops being sci-fi of course). Unlike way too may Sci-Fi universes and other webcomics, the author created a really detailed background for his setting, look in here: [7], and "you" must agree that the storyline is quite advanced (way too many others are overly simplistic and present the old Good/Evil Hollywood kitsh: Evil is stupid, Good is smart - like in Star Wars: the Empire was completly incompetent, beginning with Palpatine himself :). The art is very good, alltough clearly not brilliant, while the art of the overwhelming majoriy of other webcomics are simply bad, but really really bad. If all these things don't make this particular webcomic "worthy" enough, I must ask you all: Which webcomic is worthy then? Only those who appear in magazines and are thereby "notorious"? Isn't that a bit of circular reasoning? So it doesn't appear in books and magazines specialized in webcomics? Well, against that there is no argument - I can only wonder about the quality of such magazines. If this was a book or a game (computer or otherwise) instead of a webcomic this proposal would not even take place. I will end with this: read first the comic from the beginning at [8] to the end, for Chris'sake, compare it with other webcomics, and only then cast your vote. Flamarande 14:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute. You find the subject unworthy (whatever) because it hasn't noticed and reviewed by other ppl? Godless: The Church of Liberalism is a good subject and Outsider (comic) isn't? I agree that the first is a good article but soo is the second article. I surely agree with you that the second hasn't been reviewed by other websites, magazines (whatever). But the article does not fail in any of the flaws you present. It isn't biased, it is easily verifiable (simply go to the site) and I challenge you to show me any original research whatsoever. It is in the same level (ok, clearly not soo good) as the article Blacksad and how about Quo Vadis (novel)? You claim that without reviews and other sources we are somehow destined to fall in all these traps. Well some of us (a few) aren't that dumb and incompetent, and please go to Crisis of the Roman Republic; thousand of sources available and the whole article really stinks of original research. By that, I mean that the users have written their own personal conclusions. That's clearly original research. I challenge you to show me something similar in this article. If you want, I can easily add the background link "[9]" to the sources. I really didn't know that external notice was something absolutly necessary for an article. Could you please provide me with the proper wikipedia policy? Flamarande 16:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, yes, I can provide you (again) with the three official wikipedia content-guiding policies. They are WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Note that WP:V says "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Second, this is really not the place to solve your problems with other articles. You can do that by editing those articles, discussing them on their talk pages, and/or even nominating them for deletion. -- Dragonfiend 16:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have done some research into how notable this comic is. Most of the online reviews of Outsider appeared in 2001-2002, and are unfortunately no longer accessible. The Outsider was nominated in 2002 for Best Science Fiction Webcomic by the Cartoonist's Choice Awards website ([10]) (the site was down few hours ago and the nomination can be confirmed in Internat Archive if it happens again). Also, we should note the history and the trends: there were few upates in 2005, which caused the comic rank to plummet down. I can't figure out if Alexa can give me exact details of the rank few years back, but a rough estimate based on the graph suggest it was around 100,000. Also, if you look at the current trend, it seems the fans are flocking back as new pages have been released over the past few weeks. The reach, rank and daily views are increasing at about 50% per three months, so in about a year if this keeps up this comic will be as popular as the 'top dogs' mentioned earlier.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Thanks for coming up with some research and proper reasoning, I'm sure it'll help others. I'd just like to offer some of my own thoughts on the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. The bottom line is, I don't think these are notable awards (I haven't nominated winners for deletion, but have done for nominees which didn't win). The thing is, there are just so many categories and nominees, from some afds on Wikipedia, I'm not even sure if the webcomic crowd respect this award. For example, I just took 2 random redlinks on the WCCA article and googled them, I chose "Four Toon Tellers" and "The Tenth Life of Pishio" because I thought they'd be unique names. A google search shows around 70 and 60 unique links for them respectively. Of course, I've not actually looked into these 2 comics, but it's just preliminery stuff. - Hahnchen 00:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Note that the WP:WEB guideline suggests a webcomic may be notable if it "has won a well known and independent award." We could debate whether the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards are "well known" (I don't think they are) but there doesn't seem to be any debate over the fact that this webcomic has never won. -- Dragonfiend 16:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Xihr 00:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also, I masturbated into a sock last night then threw the sock at the wall. Jerkcity 00:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dragonfiend, etc. Nifboy 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty decent comic, but unfortunately has not yet reached a level of notabilty acceptable for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability (web content). --Satori Son 06:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Comic is a WCCA nominee. Furthermore, the nom's rant fails to assert factual reasons for deletion. The nom has been told that Alexa is a poor indicator repeatedly and is not an official or unofficial criteria on Wikipedia. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If I don't provide Alexa figures in the nom, someone else sure is going to anyway. I'm going to continue posting Alexa numbers up. You may not like them, they're just circumstantial evidence, Alexa's a slightly better indicator than some keep votes I see. - Hahnchen 23:29, 16 July 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 13:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joining Hands Free Church

Delete — this article appears to be an advertisement for a particular congregation and a vanity article. It failed a 30 May 2006 prod which also cited its nature as an ad. The prod was removed and replaced with text copied from http://www.ourfellowship.org/statement.html which create a WP:COPYVIO problem. A Google search turns up no other "Joining Hands" group besides this one congregation, contrary to the claims of the main editor. The article basically has only one editor, whose user name, User:Revjsp is strikingly similar to the name of the congregation's pastor, Jack S. Porcello; thus the vanity concern. Finally, and this is off topic, one page on the external web site, http://www.ourfellowship.org/aboutof.html, has a paragraph basically lifted without attribution from Free church. Joining Hands Free Church Rochester NY is a redirect page associated with this article and should also be deleted. JonHarder 02:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: largest paragraph of the first section was copied from the Free church article. Aside from that, I see nothing new of note. JonHarder 17:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see how I missed that, thanks. --Lakerdonald 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --PresN 18:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. It is nice to see a church with its entire website released under a creative commons license, but I see nothing on that website to make me believe that this is a notable church. It can't even claim originality for being this free, as the about us page says that is an outreach of another ministry. GRBerry 00:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity. JChap (Talk) 01:42, 13 July 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 13:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Gonterman

This article has been deleted before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Gonterman. I had actually thought this article was vanity when the first sentence said that he was "infamous for the quality of his work". But it's not. Although I didn't know about the previous nomination when I made this one, my reasons are similar, in that "only thing that he appears to be notable for is being a loser on the Internet". We have links to his deviantart account, his fan fiction and his freehost webcomics. I really think that this famed talentless internet hack fails both notability and verifiability criterias at Wikipedia. - Hahnchen 02:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I can't say I'd be heartbroken if the article is deleted, but I made it (didn't know there was one before) because Gonterman does appear to be notable on the Internet. He has a large Portal of Evil forum dedicated to him and a Google search for Gonterman also returns some 13,700 hits. He is mentioned on numerous forums and newsgroups, as well. I would, however, support merging him into Internet phenomenon since I think he at least qualifies for that. Xuanwu 22:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I at least tried to establish notability via the third party publication of one of his comics. Another popular story about him is that he influenced the Sonic the Hedgehog comicbook by launching a number of severe rants and sending hate mail to the comicbook's authors. However, I couldn't find any verification of said tale. If true, it would make him notable. Does anyone know where verification of the story might be found? Xuanwu 22:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go so far as to say "perpetual failure" - he's just one of the (unfortunately large) number of members of the fandom who have a much higher opinion of their own creative talents than most other people do, and is rather more vocal about it than others. Not in the same league of notoriety as, say, Dennis "Quozl" Falk or Bart "Nekobe" Bervoets, neither of whom (thankfully) have articles here. Tevildo 09:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's also not a "perpetual failure" as his art studio does actually make money and all indications seem to say he's actually grown up considerably since his early days on the web. He's even been known to go on the POE forum and talk with those who don't like him. For whatever reason, he's simply gained more noteriety in several large fandoms (Sailor Moon and Sonic, specifically) than most fanfic and fanart creators ever do. Given the size and longevity of the reaction to him (the POE forum is still active and I've found many forum posts about him that are recent), he doesn't seem to be a simple "flash in the pan" notorious figure, but a person almost being used as a textbook/historical example today. That's the best argument for notability I can think of. Whether that's good enough to keep his own article, I don't know. One reason I made it was to see what the consensus might be. I also found an email about the Gonterman writing to Ken Penders [11], but it hardly counts as a reliable source, unfortunately.
Can we have a consensus on whether he qualifies as an Internet phenomena? He's been talked about on the web consistently for 5+ years, which is certainly longer than many of the things listed there (such as eon8, Chuck Norris, or the Numa Numa Dance). A mention there may be all he's worth. Xuanwu 18:35, 14 July 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 13:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teachings of Robert Kiyosaki

Blatant advertisement, and Kiyosaki already has a separate entry fbb_fan 02:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For a rewrite, I would suggest instead adding to Robert Kiyosaki (which also has POV problems at the moment). Hard to see why a separate page is needed. fbb_fan 02:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ad as written; no reason why it should exist in parallel to Robert Kiyosaki. No opinion on whether the latter should be kept. Martinp 02:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Robert Kiyosaki. Non-encyclopedic advertising as it stands.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I moved most of this stuff out of the main Kiyosaki article. I agree it is pretty crap. The biggest advantage I see in it now is it stops people filling the main article up with this stuff (particularly Sloth Monkey, who wrote most of what's seen here). I think Kiyosaki is a famous (or perhaps infamous) enough figure to justify this page existing if it's made more neutral, but I have no great hopes of that happening. If you do delete it, please dont cut and paste it back into the main Kiyosaki article, I already condensed most of the information into a blurb there. TastyCakes 05:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I sort of see your point, but the best way to deal with it is to police the Kiyosaki page, and if Sloth Monkey or anyone else adds advertising, deal with it appropriately. Wikipedia doesn't tolerate advertising - it's not "OK" to just move it and give the page a new name. fbb_fan 12:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like advertorial, and most of it is generic get-rich-like-me motivational messages. Just zis Guy you know? 12:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this ad. Travislangley 20:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the surplus of links at the bottom feels like an ad and this is not a necessary article. Fbb_fan's advice on dealing with it is on point, and you can use the "unbalancing the article argument" as needed. I've read most of his books lately, and the article basically got the teachings right. Just having that much material in the article on him is unbalancing. I don't know how much of this is original to him, but certainly not all of it. For example, Warren Buffet believes that concentrating ones investments is, if you know what you are doing, a good idea, and he has been a successful investor longer than Kiyosaki has. GRBerry 01:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am outraged! I cannot believe that this article would be attacked by so much misconception and arbitration! Well thank goodness Wikipedia isn't a democracy; they do things based on policy and what is right. So let's review the policies and the purported violations of such:

- WP:ADS - This article is NOT an advertisement! If a person exists and they are known to be teaching certain things to people (such as the case with Robert Kiyosaki), then it is NOT an ADVERTISEMENT to simply TELL people about what this person is teaching in an article they are choosing to read because they want to know about what he is teaching. It is the sharing of factual information. Factual? Yes. It is a FACT that Robert Kiyosaki teaches these things. This article does NOT claim that what Kiyosaki teaches is fact. It simply states what he believes!!

- WP:NPOV - As stated before, this is factual information. It is a fact that Robert Kiyosaki believes and teaches these things. It is NOT claimed in this article that any of the things which he believes or teaches are factual themselves. He may very well believe things which are wrong and he may very well give bad advice. THAT is up to the reader to decide for themselves. And nowhere in this article does it imply whether or not you should believe the things that Kiyosaki teaches. It simply states WHAT he teaches; not the validity of such. As a matter of fact, Kiyosaki is constantly QUOTED in this article, so as to retain an exact reiteration of what he teaches. Telling people EXACTLY WHAT HE SAYS, and only that, is by no means inserting any sort of opinion other than Kiyosaki's.

- WP:RS - Reliable sources? Are you kidding me?! How could anyone claim that the sources are not cited? All throughout the article is says exactly where information come from. It ALL comes DIRECTLY from Robert Kiyosaki! It is a reiteration of the things he teaches. That is the entire point of this article; for someone who wants to read about what Kiyosaki teaches and be aware of what he says, this accomplishes exactly that; by quoting him and summarizing exactly what HE HIMSELF says. The source? Robert Kiyosaki! The specific sources? Yes that is listed as well. You see all over the article things like "(Kiyosaki, Cashflow The E-Game)" or "–Robert Kiyosaki 2002 Retire Young, Retire Rich".

I wrote this article almost entirely by myself. I did so by personally going through Kiyosaki's material (audiobooks, computer games, etc.) and summarizing/quoting exactly what he teaches. I have spent an enormous amount of time on this article; many, many days. And I feel I have contributed greatly to Wikipedia in doing so. I have produced something which is difficult (if not impossible) to find anywhere, much less previously on Wikipedia; I have made a very thorough documentation encompassing as much as possible of (while still summarizing) what Robert Kiyosaki teaches. Now anyone can simply visit Wikipedia if they want to have a good understanding of what Kiyosaki teaches people and his (HIS, not my) opinions on things. That is the purpose of this article; it accomplished it well; and in writing it, I have complied with Wikipedia's guidelines.

This article should NOT be deleted.

--sloth_monkey 21:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd suggest merging to the author, but all verifiable content is already there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (So I can't spell — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Excuse me? "All veriable content is already there"? Well first of all "veriable" isn't a word. Secondly, I cannot believe the lack of support shown here for having a complete, thorough account of the subject at hand. If someone were to want to learn about what Robert Kiyosaki believes and teaches to his students, this explains exactly that; and it does it well. A short concise summary of this, as seen on the main article on Robert Kiyosaki, does what it's supposed to: it provides a quick summary. It does not however provide anywhere near the amount of information shown here; obviously. To say that this article should be replaced by a short summary, is to degrade the very idea of Wikipedia. Wikipedia provides a wealth of information. It does not simply cover each given subject with a short summary with little to no elaboration or explanation. --sloth_monkey 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I urge the closing admin to remember the following (taken from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion): "Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not." See also: [12]

I point this out for obvious reasons. Many people in this discussion are voting to have this article deleted. I believe they are presenting this notion based on faulty reasoning and an incomplete picture of the facts. Please review the article for what it is (Teachings of Robert Kiyosaki). I believe it to be in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines, as well as a very good, elaborative source of information on this topic. Reducing it to a mere summary would not nearly do it justice. And deleting the article entirely is absurd. --sloth_monkey 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see WP:AFD. The first point worth noting is:
The debate is not a vote
You have voted "Keep" twice now; please stop trying to stuff the ballot box. Also, see the section on AfD etiquette. A spelling flame is not good form, and isn't too likely to sway people to your side. fbb_fan 01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my lack of etiquette. I am rather upset that all of my work may be for nothing and is apparently very underappretiated. I apologize if that disgruntled attitude shows through to my words. Also in writing "Keep" more than once, I was not trying to bombard this discussions with votes; I was simply making my stance crystal clear. And I believe it was I who pointed out that this is not a voting ballot and Wikipedia is not a democracy. --sloth_monkey 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to point out a possibility here. There are those who view this article to be little more than an "advertisement" for the man Robert Kiyosaki and his various money making endeavors, such as his "educational" material or motivational speaking. I would say that this belief stems from the opinion that Robert Kiyosaki is not to be taken seriously. If this were an article on Harvard University, the support for an elaborate explanative article on the subject would be much higher, simply because people respect the university as an established source of education; you wouldn’t see an objection to such an elaboration as seen here in this article. The point is that it is merely a subjective opinion that this subject (the “education” provided by Kiyosaki) does not deserve to be elaborated on, whereas another source of education would. It would be unfair and unequal treatment to arbitrarily decide that Kiyosaki is not a good source of information/education and therefore does not deserve to have his teachings explained in an article here.

Please consider that while some may view this article to be overly elaborate, it does still simply provide a summary of the different subjects which Kiyosaki teaches. It is still just a summary; but a more useful one than the concise summary provided on the main Kiyosaki article (his bio). I believe all of the information presented here is needed in order to provide a more complete understanding of what Kiyosaki teaches and his meaning in what he says, so as to not misrepresent his work with inadequate information. I have made use of direct quotes from Kiyosaki in order to deliver the most NPOV representation of his work possible. Also, as stated before, I have certainly cited my sources throughout the article.

Considering all of this, the only reason I could see someone would say to have this article deleted is because of mere preference, in that they do not think what Kiyosaki has to say is worth listening to. Well I say it is up to the reader to decide this. Not the people here. --sloth_monkey 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Additionally, I would like to add that for the sake of balance, there is a section on criticism and contraversy regarding the teachings of Robert Kiyosaki. This article is on Kiyosaki's main bio (Robert Kiyosaki). Presented here in this article (Teachings of Robert Kiyosaki) is simply the advice/information as he gives it. No opinion on whether or not it is good advice/information is given here in this article. --sloth_monkey 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the closing admin decides that there are too many external links in this article and that it should be considered a mild form of spam, then by all means delete/modify the links. I don't care about them really. But consider that they were put there with the intention of being helpful and giving people additional material to review on other web sites; not for any reason related to spamming/promoting. --sloth_monkey 21:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for pointing out a possible reason for delete votes. After reconsideration, and although the 45 page critique is better written and probably more accurate than his books, merging objective descriptions of his teachings into the article about him is probably the best way to go. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It doesnt sound like a Ad, I would be really pissed off since what im selling is avaible for free on wikipedia, and it sounds like stuff is here isnt being sold, what is there to buy, where is the catch or the product in the article?Patcat88 04:41, 17 July 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 13:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patosai

Left Suspected hoax tag 5 days ago - no responses. No external references to phrase. No sources in the article. No wiki links to the page Ucanlookitup 02:12, 12 July 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 13:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Sawyer

Fails music notability. Fails business notability. FireballRecordsLLC.COM is not a registered domain. Deblasi Management is listed as office administrative services supplier at MANTA. [13] an has no other relevant hits. Zero hits for "BlackMOON Entertainment Group". Since I'm striking out, I'm wondering if this is a hoax. Mikeblas 02:19, 12 July 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 and as such, keep. I have now ducked, covered and turtled.  RasputinAXP  c 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beesley

I'm sick of this article being trolled. It's full of lies and nonsense. My justification for making a third nomination is that my circumstances have changed significantly since the last AfDs - I have resigned from the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. Given that this was previously kept on the grounds I was on that Board, there is no longer any reason for this page to be kept. This has already been deleted on the French and German Wikipedias. Angela. 02:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - my reason for deletion is not the trolling. The reason is that I've resgined from the Wikimedia Board, so there's no longer any reason to keep it. A lot of people are stating "vandalism isn't a reason for deletion" - well, no... but I never claimed it was. I do not meet WP:BIO. Other wiki hosting company founders do not have bios - Sam Odio (BluWiki), David Weekly (PeanutButterWiki), Adina Levin and Edward Vielmetti (Socialtext), Joe Kraus (JotSpot), Ludovic Dubost (XWiki) etc, so I do not see the existence of Wikia as justification for this to be kept. Angela. 06:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I closed the AfD early, but have re-opened it per objections on my talk page, which nullifies the basis for early closure - that there are no dissenting opinions. Kimchi.sg 11:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Who is this Angela person I keep hearing about? Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn apparently ;) --Pilotguy (roger that) 02:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alphachimp talk 02:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, dear, I'm worried about your resignation not being enough for the people that believe you're encyclopedic... Something like "she was member of the BoT, but later resigned" =(. Since I think you're not encyclopedic (sorry =)) and keeping this article do harm someone indeed (you), I would delete it. I think she's not notable, she agrees, and doesn't like the effects of being mentioned in WP ("Why are popular people popular? - Because they appear on TV. - Why do they appear on TV? - Because they are popular!"). WP couldn't have an article on me just because every wikipedian would like the idea. I'm not popular, and certainly wouldn't like to be mentioned here. So I understand Angela. We don't pretend to be a tabloid, but an encyclopedia, so let's keep on focus. People do have private lifes. --euyyn 02:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my belief that in relatively borderline cases we should respect subjects' wishes if they don't want to have an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete within-wikipedia relevance isn't the same as real-life-relevance, the latter being the rule by wich we measure and discuss entries. So what's good for the goose should be for the gander. Just say no to self-referentially (think of wikicommunity vanity), specially that the subject of the article itself isn't particualrly excited abut having the entry. -- Drini 03:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She does a marvellous job for the project but her notability is marginal and she has requested its deletion. Capitalistroadster 03:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 03:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect against re-creation for a year. Better able to judge if there is anything encyclopedic FloNight talk 03:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Angela. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect against re-creation for a while. Not really very notable (no offense intended). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notability outside of mostly background self-referential wikipedia activities. Ansell 04:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Very nice picture though. ~ trialsanderrors 04:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 05:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Generally speaking I'm wary of requests by biographical-article subjects to have their own pages removed, although in this case the notable bits could probably be moved elsewhere and the main article turned into a protected redirect. --Alan Au 07:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on comment Content about Angela is already present in Wikipedia articles. I know because I've been doing anticipatory delinking of her name as I remove a banned user's edits from the same articles. FloNight talk 07:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Euthanize per nom or redirect to Wikia. The only person who at Wikipedia is notable enough is Jimbo, in my opinion. Other than creating Wikia, she hasn't done anything notable outside the Wikipedia community. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 08:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subjects of biographical articles don't get to have them removed simply because they are "sick of them". For the reasons that I gave in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (2nd nomination), which explicitly are not based upon the argument that this person is on a board of a foundation, despite what Angela writes in the nomination above, and which are unaffected by Angela's change of circumstance, Keep. Uncle G 11:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-referential, non-notable. -- GWO
  • Keep. While I'm disheartened that she's being trolled based on the article or her status, we can't be having articles based on the desires of the subjects. It appears she'd meet basic WP:BIO requirements, and I believe that we have articles on the other founation members as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are only articles on three of the other Board members, but my point in the nomination is that I've resigned, so that's irrelevant. Angela. 12:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What an argument! Do we delete articles about politicians once they're out of office? All that matters is that you attained this position once; whether you currently still hold it makes no difference to the notability of the article. Margana 20:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-referential, troll magnet. The Slough connection is a sure sign of non-notability, even if she has escaped Down Under ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - co-founder of a notable company, interviewed heavily for a major national newspaper, presenter at two conferences important in their fields, and thus meets WP:BIO. I understand the desire to respect another Wikipedian's privacy, but the fact that we like her and that she doesn't like being written about (for the second point, see Daniel Brandt) should have nothing to do with our judgment as to whether she is notable. Captainktainer * Talk 12:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Uncle G and Captainktainer. With due respect to Ms. Beesley's desire for privacy, she is the co-founder and VP of a notable company and has had sufficient third-party media coverage. Powers 13:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's Wikipedia that's had media coverage, not me. I just happened to be talking about it. The same goes for the conferences I've spoken at - I was there because people want to know about Wikipedia, not because they especially want to listen to me. Angela. 13:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge - any useful (no offense!) info can be added to the currently very stubby Wikia article. I think we should respect anybody's wishes not to feature.Yomangani 13:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete selfreferential --Astrokey44 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a tricky case, and could be an important precedent. I hope you don't mind if I break the flow of the AfD to respond in some more detail. Let's pretend for a moment that this project was completely unreleated to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, because I don't think that should have any influence one way or another.

    Angela is borderline notable like many people associated with Wikipedia. Take the people associated with the German chapter and the German Wikipedia, some of whom (e.g. Kurt Jansson) have toured national media, spoken at important conferences, or accepted important awards on behalf of the Foundation many times. Or take Danny Wool, Brion Vibber, Tim Starling, all of whom are doing critical work for the Foundation on a full-time salary (Brion in particular has also spoken about this work at many occasions, including a speech at Google which is available on Google Video). None of them has, or should have, an article. This is because Wikipedia is essentially a media magnet: it's such a buzzword that it's very easy to be interviewed, invited to conferences about it, etc. When does a person associated with Wikimedia become notable then? I would argue that the moment their personal role in the project becomes the center of media reports, and not just once, but on a regular basis, we need to re-evaluate our assessment.

    Wikimedia alone would make it a borderline case. Certainly, she's historically been a very important asset for the Foundation, and being on the Board is in some ways a highly distinguished position. However, the judgment of her significance is one that should be independently established. Wikia makes the situation somewhat more complicated. Angela is the co-founder, and the company has received $4 million venture capital. It would not exist without her, and already hosts several notable wikis, including Uncyclopedia and Memory Alpha (over 1,500 wikis overall). She is not the CEO of the company; however, she does play a critical management role. Angela has made the point in the past that it's not yet clear whether the company is successful. Financially speaking, that is certainly true.

    Looking at other articles in the same space, such as Wetpaint or PeanutButterWiki, we don't have articles about their CEO or key personnel, though arguably, Wikia is larger and already more successful. I would say that Wikia makes Angela notable enough that it's not a closed and shut case, i.e. her notability should at the very least be re-evaluated a year from now.

    Given that it's a borderline case where reasonable people can argue either way, I would say that the subject's opinion should be the decisive criterion. I believe we've already done this in a couple of recent cases. I've actually seen the same argument made for Daniel Brandt, but there I think the notability (NameBase founder, Google Watch founder, very prominent WP critic, activist) is much more clearly established. But, we need to be careful not to give Angela preferential treatment because she is a Wikimedian, and the "troll magnet" argument shouldn't weigh too strongly either. Whatever precedent we establish here needs to be applied consistently to other articles. As noted above, I vote for delete and re-evaluate in one year right now, with the rationale: "borderline case, subject requests it to be deleted." I might be convinced to change my vote to "keep", though.--Eloquence* 14:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Let's pretend for a moment that this project was completely unreleated to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, because I don't think that should have any influence one way or another. — I already did, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (2nd nomination). As I pointed out there, without giving the Wikimedia Foundation any special consideration and applying our WP:BIO criteria just as one would apply them to anyone else Tim Shell does not satisfy the criteria (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell) and Angela Beesley does. I strongly suggest that we apply the "no special consideration" principle to your idea that "the subject's opinion should be the decisive criterion". Subjects should base their arguments on our policies and guidelines the same as all other editors. Uncle G 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I mean is that one of our policies should be: If the subject of a borderline biography does not want an article about themselves in Wikipedia, we should respect that. What is or isn't borderline is up to be interpreted by the community.--Eloquence* 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that it then hinges on the definition of "borderline" notability -- is Seth borderline? Is Angela? Is Brandt? I must admit that the Wikia argument weighs rather strongly in favor of keeping the bio, though it remains true that Wikia's financial viability is not yet proven.--Eloquence* 22:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I cannot for the life me see how Daniel Brandt is less borderline than Angela Beesley, and he doesn't want his article here either. Powers 18:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seth Finkelstein (AfD discussion) doesn't want an encyclopaedia article about himself, either, for the same "sick of it" reasons as Angela gives. The same applies there as here. Subjects do not, and should not, have any special say-so over the existence of articles about them, either when they want them to exist or when they want them not to exist. Uncle G 19:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Correction: I don't want a *Wikipedia* article. That's NOT synonymous with "*encyclopia* article". And I believe the latter way of phrasing it frames my objection in an extremely misleading way. If at all possible, I'd rather opt-out of being a target of trolls, flamers, and vandals. This seems to me to be an eminently reasonable position. To describe it as a *general* not wanting "an encyclopedia article" makes me sound like some sort of Thomas Pynchon style recluse, which will strike many people as very unreasonable. Normal encyclopedias do not allow anyone in the world to use them as attack platforms. That matters. -- Seth Finkelstein 16:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • But they should have the same rights as anybody else to nominate an article for deletion (whether it is about them or not) and, since they are the authority in the case of their own bio, their opinion has to carry some weight (unless we accuse them of WP:OR). Saying that, anybody nominating any other article for deletion on the grounds that they are sick of it probably wouldn't get as much support for a delete as Angela has here. Yomangani 23:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per nom. Dionyseus 15:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was surprised when I saw the article in the first place that she met notability requirements to start with. That is the reason behind my vote, and not because it's been getting vandalised or because she's asked for it. -- Francs2000 15:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom plus lack of Ghits and please protect against recreation. Please don't delete the picure though.--John Lake 15:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll even take her off of www.wikipedia-watch.org/hive2.html if you delete. Then I can hope that she will reciprocate by nominating my bio for deletion. The deletion of Angela's bio could be a significant precedent, and one that is important to the future of Wikipedia. If you don't delete, I don't think Wikipedia has a future. -Daniel Brandt 66.142.90.22 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rebecca 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any (current or former) member of the Wikimedia Board - the authority that controls one of the most-visited websites - is notable, and her role in Wikia just adds to that. "I'm sick of this article being trolled" is not a valid reason to delete and shows that Angela is just trying to delete this for personal reasons, not objective encyclopedic ones. But if such a veto is not granted to Daniel Brandt and everyone of similarly limited notability, it shouldn't be granted to Angela either. Margana 17:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 1ne 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The inaccurate information and nonsense can and should be removed. Trolling can be dealt with as with any other article. Her role was significant and notable. Mexcellent 18:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - While "I'm sick of this article being trolled" isn't a valid reason, she fails WP:NN. She may be notable to wikipedia, but notability is determined based on the world at large, not WP. --PresN 18:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special favors. - Xed 18:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extremely NN! never heard of her! Is there anyone here rouge enough to just delete it already? - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you've never heard of her doesn't mean she isn't notable. Also, if you don't know who she is, you aren't paying enough attention... 1ne 20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the point in speedy deleting it anyway? Some fool would just undelete it. Adam Bishop 18:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gerard Foley, Angela says the article is not correct. Why do you want to use it? --FloNight talk 23:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using it, just saving a copy of it. I have this all explained at Help:TransWiki Parts of it might be usful later on.Gerard Foley 23:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: around 600 "Adult models" are more notable than co-founder of major company. That's Wikipedia for you. - Xed 23:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable outside the wikipedia community. ViridaeTalk 00:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What Angela has done does not force herself into the public limelight. She is entitled to her privacy. If she wants it deleted, it should be deleted. This would not apply to say a politician who does force themselves into the public limelight. We are not writing a encyclopedia over night. If Angela is really notable enough for an article it can be written much later. For now it should be deleted. We should respect the privacy of people and not just use the notable criteria, unless people lose some of their privacy by moving into the public lime light. Angela has not done that. --Bduke 00:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see why such an article violates BIO, and she certainly seems notable to me (as for the resignation, once a hero...). Quality complaints are just that; there is a long and hallowed history of cleaning up articles or tagging them, rather than wastefully deleting them. And as for the French and German wikipedias? My parents always said that just because someone else does something doesn't make it right for you to do. --maru (talk) contribs 00:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I respect Angela's desire to protect her reputation, there are better solutions than deletion. Get the facts right, keep it short and appropriate, and semi-protect it. If there really is no cabal, it's clear that she is notable for serving at Wikimedia, as a cofounder of Wikia, and merits an article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (2nd nomination) we should not discriminate against wikimedia notables past or present Yuckfoo 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have established a standard practice (Daniel Brandt, Seth Finkelstein, and others) that we should listen to the subjects arguments no more than we would if the argument was made in the mouth of another. If we wish to change that practice, we should do so in a general policy/guideline discussion, which might be a good idea - if someone is truly of encyclopedic importance, it will be possible to write a good article on them after they are dead, and we are never going to have articles on everything we intend to cover - but the change ought to be to tighten the standards for all living people, not just those who ask for their page to be deleted. Her argument is that the article attracts vandals - that was the exact same argument made by Seth at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein, where we didn't listen to him because he met WP:BIO. The only arguments for deletion above are this and being non-notable. She meets WP:BIO at least as strongly as Seth does. Because we can't filter out Wikipedia in searching for her, parsing search results is challenging, but there are enough results that show her as a public speaker that she is notable. Less notable than Jimbo? Yes, but still notable. The best solution under current policies is for a few people to watchlist her page for vigorous policing under WP:BLP. GRBerry 01:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at the article cold, I'm not seeing a shred of notability outside of Wikipedia. Could someone explain to me exactly what aspects of WP:BIO she fulfills? --Calton | Talk 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Erik on wikien-l. Angela is more notable than a lot of other people who have articles. No free passes for (ex-) board members. --Gmaxwell 01:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Having articles on the current board members makes some degree of sense, but now she has resigned the exception ends and she is back in the not-meeting-WP:BIO category. --bainer (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry if this is proving a troll magnet, but the appropriate action is to clean it up and protect or semi-protect it if necessary. Angela has certainly had a notable role in the creation of Wikipedia/Wikimedia/Wikia and merits an article, but above all, the reason for keeping this is that we would rightly be seen by the press and Wikipedia pundits as a bunch of hypocrites if we were observed to be according special privileges to seasoned Wikipedians in being able to have their articles deleted. "There is no cabal" indeed. -- Arwel (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Angela is an important person in the history of the Wikimedia foundation and deserves an article, if only for historical reasons. -- MasonM 04:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I think Angela is notable enough for an article, if only just barely. Everyking 04:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, at this point in voting the discussion, the tally is 31 delete, 20 keep. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. bbx 04:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree with the idea a resignation makes one less notable. Angela does easily meet WP:BIO's requirements for multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage, so there's no "nn" arguement to be made here. But obviously we have failed with this biography, which I think is a shame. We're unable to protect from trolling junk. I think this deletion sets a sad, but unavoidable precedent. If this is deleted, we must now honor all similiar requests by the "notable but not famous". Also, if we make this permanently fully protected as deleted (or redirected), we certainly have no justification for denying at least permanent semi-protection to any other living biography with problems. To those who say we should just fix clean the article up, I say, we had our chance and we blew it. --Rob 04:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Rob, I'm really sad to hear you say this, it sounds almost as if you've given up on the whole concept of Wikipedia. Are you arguing that we semi-protect every biography of a living person that has ever been vandalized? Silensor 04:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because she meets and exceeds the notability guidelines established by WP:BIO. The whole "0 hits in New York Times" thing up above is absurd, that is hardly a requirement for inclusion. Silensor 04:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never suggested it is "a requirement for inclusion." I said it was the criterion I was personally using in deciding how to vote. I was performing due diligence to make sure I was not misjudging the degree of fame Angela has outside Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GRBerry and consistent with the idea that one's resiging from a position does not lessen the notability that may entail from his/her having held the position, to which I subscribe for many reasons, most of which have been properly addressed supra. Joe 05:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If James B. Howell gets an article based on the fact that he was a senator for Iowa from 1870 to 1871, this article doesn't seem all that unusual. Bryan 06:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Not notable enough. DarthVader 06:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, I don't think notability is an issue, but requesting a page about yourself be deleted? Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Remember Ashida Kim? --Merovingian (T, C, @) 06:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn outside of wikipediaworld. --woggly 06:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Wikipediaworld" has become notable in its own right, so IMO things that are solely notable within Wikipediaworld can no longer be automatically dismissed as non-notable outside it. Bryan 07:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a lot of people who want bios in Wikipedia don't get them because they aren't notable, yet, some people who are notable don't seem to want their bios here either - what a big puzzle. Congratulations for showing some humility. =) Anyway, I think we have established by now that "I don't want an article" is not an excuse, "I've resigned from this high post" isn't either (Beethoven isn't making much music these days, is he?) and "troll magnet" is merely a contributing circumstance in the deletion case of a problematic entry. So, um, sorry, you've left a mark in the history. What's done is done. We can do little about it but record it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd keep a scary proportion of relatively long-deceased people so long as their articles were very well-sourced (long-forgotten local bigwigs of no national importance and little lasting legacy are A-OK by me). I guess at least it's conceivable that a local history buff could find such articles worthwhile; and even if they are rarely edited that'd be fine since there'd be relatively little fresh source information to draw on anyway. Even if nobody looked at it for 5 years, it may turn out to be just the obscure person that the next reader was looking for, and to find a well-referenced article on the subject could be extremely useful to them. On the other hand, when faced with a modern person (and at the back of my mind the fact they don't want to be listed lingers) I set the bar far higher. The absurdly poor state of this article, the poor referencing etc. is, in theory, a matter for cleanup not AFD. But still part of me thinks: what's the point of cleaning this article up? What information, or useful way of seeing information, will be saved by doing so? Miss Beesley has played a part, if we wish to aggrandize ourselves, in shaping the history of the internet, but only as a cog in the bigger machine of the Foundation and the online communities she has interacted with. This article will never explain, nor should it attempt to, the way that cog turned, the gears it meshed with, the times things ran smoothly, and the times more oil should have been applied... that would all fall short of WP:V and WP:NOR (at least until some biographies get published, but heck, I doubt that'll happen any time soon, and no, a blog does not count as a "serial biography"). Without that, though, I'm afraid there's really nothing left to be said. That was precisely what her role in "notable" history has been. We can have her date of birth (ooh, is that a reference I can see for it? Ummm... no) and place of birth (aha, a reference! oops, my mistake) and even find out which university she went to (so long as you'll believe anything you'll see uncited in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit"). Oh yes, and she has the sort of picture that drive anon IPs to leave unwholesome messages on her talk page; but so long as we don't go down the de: route and scrap fair use images entirely, they can always check out a certain J. Wales's former employees instead. In summary, what would be lost from leaving an unlinked "Angela Beesley", heck, even an "A. Beesley", in the articles where she's relevant? I can't see any "notable information loss". And deleting articles like this is a surefire way to boost our average factual accuracy. And indeed, to get back closer to the "anyone can edit" philosophy (which Angela would espouse, I am sure), so long as the back end of that was an "and also anyone can nominate non-notable living people biographies for deletion". TheGrappler 09:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Angela is a public figure who deserves an article. Firstly, "I'm sick of this article being trolled. It's full of lies and nonsense" is not a good enough reason to delete an article, it is reason to fix and watch an article. Secondly, I don't think the person whom the article is about should ever request AfD themselves, it is a request of special treatment. Under NPOV thinking we should never grant such requests to friends (and non-friends) of Wikipedia. --Oldak Quill 10:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That wasn't the reason I gave for deleting it. My resignation from the Board is the reason to delete it. Angela. 11:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • An article should exist while you're on the board but should be deleted when you leave it? This isn't the way Wikipedia works. I understand the problem for you, not wanting to be exposed like this, but isn't this what you signed up to when you entered the board? You are also still involved with Wikia (I think?) which makes you a public figure. I'm sorry, but I don't think we should grant favours like this. --Oldak Quill 12:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, Angela. Do you feel that notability decays over time? I'd always assumed the opposite. If it decays, could you generalize this into a broader rule about when we should delete historical figures that have gone out of fashion? Thanks, William Pietri 02:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't see where Angela meets WP:BIO - all notability is tied to being associated with the foundation work. Robin Miller and Jeff Bates of Slashdot don't seem to rate articles so I can't see where the keep arguments are coming from. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Peta 11:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for starters, article has 500 links into it, hence it must be notable! --mervyn 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, this kind of misinformation [15], makes clear that the article is hyped. There are ~100 links, of which ~10 from main space (rest is user, talk, wikipedia namespaces). Of the main space links, several are lists and disambig pages. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, unintentional error by me, not meant as hype - but I am still a keep. --mervyn 09:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although CONTRA nom. It is irrelevant whether someone herself wants the article to be deleted, stronger, that is more a reason to keep it, because articles should be judged on the merits, not preferences. HAving sai that, the merits are listed in WP:BIO, and she is clearly not notable enough in the real world to warrant an article at wikipedia. Being part or having been part of wikipedia by itself is NOT sufficient reason to have an article, they should be treated in the same way as we would do with other articles. My conclusion, delete as NN. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Books results:
    • 1850 pages on Wikipedia
    • 40 pages on "Jimmy Wales"
    • 25 pages on "Wikimedia Foundation"
    • 20 pages on "Larry Sanger"
    • 1 pages on "Magnus Manske"
    • "Angela Beesley" did not match any documents Haukur 13:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per UncleG and GRBerry. She gets interviewed and quoted by journalists, and ZDNet calls her a prominent personality. That somebody doesn't want an article isn't relevant, and article deletion is not an an appropriate response to vandalism. --William Pietri 13:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep with all due respect to Angela's wishes, the precedent is that no one can request their bios to be deleted (the Brandt rule), nor is vandalism of the article relevant to deletion. In my opinion she just barely passes WP:BIO. --eivindt@c 15:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ah, this is a tough one. Do I go with the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") or the Brass Rule ("Do unto others as they do unto you")? My sense of humor inclines me to joke that WP:SENSE implies that all people even marginally involved in Wikipedia administration should have a personal biography page, in order to set an example to the world of how well the process works. But appealing as that is in theory, the cold reality is that privilege will always trump process. So that's a mug's game. We're all better off going with compassion here, the quality of mercy is not strain'd. So I vote "delete", in hopes of strengthening the principle of respect for the wishes of a living person. -- Seth Finkelstein 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Stanfordandson 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This biography is about the co-founder of Wikia, Inc., notability here is not marginal. [[User:Yamaguchi�...��"�|Yamaguchi�...��"�]] 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is a very dangerous precedent to go blanking and truncating the history of Talk:Angela_Beesley. Kimchi.sg (who nominated him/herself on his/her own RfA) displayed very poor judgement in doing so and I think that corrective action should be taken.
  • 10:27, 12 July 2006 Kimchi.sg (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Angela Beesley" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (3rd nomination))
    • The early close was wrong, especially in retrospect, but don't get on Kimchi's case on it, they're one of the good ones - I approached him/her about it on the talk page and s/he reverted the close almost immediately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially considering that s/he is hiding behind a fake wikibreak. And that afer attempting to close the AfD early! -- 67.121.144.77 17:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per PresN. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some seem quite insistant on keeping unsourced information in this article. Even birth dates must be sourced to reliable sources (not blogs). In regards to this AFD the subject is quite borderline on the inclusion guidelines, and I usually defer to the wise judgement of dbpsmith et al.. RN 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only thing that absolutely must be sourced is negative, potentially libelous information. Otherwise you could delete about 80% of Wikipedia's content. If some information is not negative or otherwise particularly dubious, you should first add a "citation needed" tag and wait at least a week; if no one provides sources then, you can remove it. Margana 18:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep...I concur with the likelihood of notability around Wikia, and believe a lot of notability remains from her association with Wikimedia. I disagree with the premise that resignation does not reduce one's notability. For a living person, part of one's notability is their potential for future action. Thus, being in an ongoing association with an organization ties you to that organization's notability. Removing that link causes you to evaluate their past actions (and possibly their impact on the future success of the organization) and determine notability on that basis. This is one of the reasons that many above feel Wikia is a basis for notability...it is notable in and of itself, and Angela is (at this point) intrinsically linked to its future success / failure.--MikeJ9919 18:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with all due respect to Angela, while she has done great work, she's not so notable that we'd need to keep an article about her against her own wishes, especially if it's leading to trolling, vandalism, or harassment. We'd have to keep it, regardless of what she wanted, if she were J. K. Rowling or The Duchess of Cornwall; since she's just Angela Beesley — delete. AnnH ♫ 18:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have a comment both in the history of this AFD and the last AFD which basically state my point. Also as per User:Dpbsmith. RN 19:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: In the case of reasonably borderline notability, the subject's opinion should be given greater weight, perhaps as the decisive criterion. Ombudsman 19:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Some of the "keeps" seem to be suggesting that since Wikipedia treated Brandt and Finkelstein like dirt, we have an obligation to be consistent and also treat Beesley like dirt. This is not very good logic. Talleyho 21:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, it is excellent logic. Why should we treat people differently depending on whether or not we like them? GreenReaper 19:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, again per my comments in previous AfDs of this article. If there are factual problems, fix them. Alternately, a redirect to Wikipedia or whatever would be okay too. JYolkowski // talk 22:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete with User:Angela. Kitia 22:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Her notability outside the narrow circles of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is questionable, so deletion would make sense; on the other hand, given the antics of the likes of Daniel Brandt, it might not be good for us to set any sort of precedents regarding deletion of articles because the subject wants it. Certainly, if we did this on request of a Wiki[p|m]edia "insider" but refused for others, that could be seen as favoritism. Thus, I'm a bit conflicted here. *Dan T.* 22:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sorry, but 'frequent trolling' isn't a good reason for deletion. --InShaneee 22:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Naconkantari 23:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, board member or no, she does not meet my standards of notability. Getting some news mentions is much different than being notable enough for an encyclopedia article, which will be around indefinitely. I don't think she would have ever had an article if she had a similar level of notability but had not been involved with Wikipedia. -- Kjkolb 23:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Articles that are susceptible to vandalism should not necessarily be deleted. Soupysales 01:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if susceptibility to vandalism is a criteria for deletion most content that is worth the most at WP must be deleted. Notability: Well, how about deleting this article? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 02:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant in the history of Wikipedia and wikis; as above, potential vandalism is not grounds for deletion. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 05:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a Vice President of the Wiki Foundation and an important historical figure related to Wikipedia, Angela is just as notable as any other Wikipedia entry. If you delete her entry, you might as well delete Jimmy Wales too, as well as everyone else associated with Wikipedia. And if important Wikipedia folks can decide to get their articles deleted, what is stopping anyone else? Next, you'll be hearing from actors and politicians who want THEIR articles deleted because of trolling (Mr. T's listing is constantly being vandalized but he hasn't asked thatit be removed), or because they "retired from acting/politics" and "aren't important anymore". I see no reason why she can't debate the factual assertions on her listing, but outright deletion is absurd. TheQuandry 07:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not Vice President of the Wiki Foundation and never was (there's no such organsation, and if you meant Wikimedia I wasn't VP of that either), so if you're voting "keep" on that basis, you need to revise your vote. Angela. 12:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain: I voted "Keep" on two previous occasions and have strongly anti-deletionist principles. In favour of the "Keep" position, I am concerned about the precedent of allowing an article to be deleted at the request of its subject - if someone who considers herself not to be "notable" can make such a request, what is there to prevent persons who are unquestionably notable from making similar requests? What about persons who were once well known, but have since faded from the limelight? Against that, I have to note that Angela is someone I personally like and respect, and I don't feel good about thwarting her repeated requests for the deletion of what is, after all, an infringement on her privacy. This is one of the few issues on which I can't decide where I should stand, so I'll abstain. David Cannon 09:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability does not have an expiration date, and frankly the WP:AFD process should be all the more scrupulous when the subject of an article requests deletion. I can appreciate Angela's stated concerns, but she was notable when the article was written, and remains notable now. -- Adrian~enwiki (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is this in the list of Australia-related deletions. As far as I can see she is british? Ted BJ 13:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Because she currently lives in Australia. -- Francs2000 13:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Str1977 (smile back) 15:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (and for anyone else of comparable and normal obscurity, that would speedy per A7). Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 100 years from now, people would like to know more about her as one of the poineers of wiki-movement. The page requires a lot of fresh inputs. --Bhadani 17:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adam Bishop 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears notable because of her "closeness" to Wikipedia(ns). In perspective, she is not. (Liberatore, 2006). 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable IMO. —Nightstallion (?) 21:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I understand it, Angela is unhappy with "lies and nonsense" which she says have been inserted into (previous versions of?) her wikibio. OTH, since she appears to have been a leading Wikipedian for many years who was involved in various key decisions (or non-decisions), it seems that many users agree that there is a legitimate need to keep some basic factual information about her available somewhere in this website. :As I understand it, Angela's motivation for the AfD nom is that reverting bad edits to this article has grown too wearisome for the Wikipedia community--- yet permanently protecting it in a minimalist state which provides only the most basic factual information would be seen as an admission that the traditional description of Wikipedia as an "on-line encyclopedia which anyone can edit" cannot be sustained.
I happen to believe that the WP community must indeed muster the courage to publically admit that indeed, which anyone can edit is inconsistent with the goal of building a reliable encyclopedia, and that this policy needs to be rescinded. Be this as it may, I see a third alternative:
  • create a new namespace for write protected pages offering essential items like a mission statement, privacy statement, basic information about the principals of WikiMedia and the operation of Wikipedia
  • put a page giving essential information about Angela and her service on the Board in this new namespace,
  • delete the unprotected wikibio
By the way: I realize that Angela is not leaving WP, just resigning from the Board, but I'd like to see a policy or even a guideline on "graceful exits". That is, it seems that sooner or later, most contributors, even formerly very active contributors, do decide to leave WP. In such cases, there is reason to keep their user pages around for a year or more, but it might be well to protect their user page(s) on request in a designated area, for example in a case where the former contributor has left as the result of some acrimonious dispute with vandals. Or create a WikiProject whose members agree to let a bot add to their watchlist the user pages of departed Wikipedians and these users would then monitor for and revert any vandalism (former users could request the bot to sign them up for this service). No doubt there are other possibilities. ---CH 21:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Angela's participation within the Foundation is already recorded, on the Foundation's wiki. foundation:meetings gives a record of board meetings (several include transcripts) so her contribution is recorded, and foundation:resolutions preserves her voting record. She also has her user pages, User:Angela, m:User:Angela and so forth. There are plenty of sources of information for people interested in her contribution to Wikimedia, the question is whether she belongs in the encyclopaedia aswell as in the project space, and I think that she doesn't. --bainer (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my clarification at the top of this page. I think it should be deleted because I don't meet WP:BIO since resigning from the Board, not because of the vandalism. Angela. 06:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did see your comment above and I did take note. Perhaps I should have added that I certainly would not support keeping around any lies or misinformation about you! If the article is deleted, perhaps it can be replaced by a simple redirect to a wikimedia.org page describing your former role on the board? I never did find the pages mentioned by Thebainer on my own so IMHO a redirect might be a good compromise which would also help future searchers.---CH 03:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the real notable articles on WP. The WF can't roll over anytime someone whines about something. Some bravery is needed to avoid be a joke --MishaMisha 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm confused at the suggestion that deleting the article will set a precedent for the deletion of articles based upon the subject's wishes. First, Articles for Deletion is not precedent based. A precedent that I'm actually concerned about is people resigning or declining leadership positions in Wikipedia and the Foundation because they have had, or are worried about, their privacy being invaded. Also, while human decency, in my opinion, requires us to consider an article's impact on the subject, another very good reason for deleting the article has been given, lack of notability. Finally, having an encyclopedia article on a person, when he or she never would have had one if he or she had not been involved with Wikipedia and Wikimedia is more damaging to Wikipedia's credibility than deleting an article for humanitarian reasons, which we do not even have to resort to in this case because of the lack of notability. Far too much weight is placed on certain subjects on Wikipedia, like Pokemon, Star Wars, the free software movement and Wikipedia itself. -- Kjkolb 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I completely agree with you that precedent does not apply; however, you'd never know that from the numerous school AfDs. People will cite and rely on precedent even though it is inapplicable. Agent 86 16:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra Super Duper Anderson Cooper Strong Keep Never surrender to irony! --Perceive 05:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Angela's nom -- Tawker 05:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - part of WP history, even if she has resigned. Resigning from other places wouldn't make your biography insignificant, so this shouldn't apply here either. (JROBBO 12:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Resignation from office[16], the subject saying "I'm not notable"[17], trolling by Andrew Morrow [18], etc... NONE of these are valid reasons for outright deletion of an article. I've seen biographies of people registering less than 50 hits on get kept... people who, despite not becoming household names, had accomplished something important in their respective lifetimes (unlike the rest of us with our mind-numbing 9-to-5 McJobs). If we can keep stubs about, for example, former death row inmates (famous for getting the chair, no sources available for the crime committed)... but I digress. Keep, or merge failing that. -- Jul. 15, '06 [14:03] <freak|talk>
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 16:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Person doesnt want a bio here, respect her wishes. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seriously, she's notable. Wikia is notable. Please stop this renomination madness already, it just sets a bad precedent. The article survived two VFDs, isn't it enough? (Wait, didn't realize that Angela herself nominated it, but still, my vote stands.) - Sikon 17:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I explained above, I thought the resignation would change the outcome of the vote. Obviously, renominating when nothing has changed is a bad idea, but in the previous listings, my Board position was practically the only reason given for keeping, and even then there was no consensus that it should be kept. Angela. 17:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really see how your resignation changes anything; Wikipedia isn't just for articles about people, places, and things that are currently notable, but also for those of historical interest because of past notability. If you were notable last year (I'm not sure if you actually were, to the extent that is required for a main-space WP article) you're still notable now by WP standards regardless of subsequent changes of status. *Dan T.* 17:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To have the article deleted *was* a reason for resignation? --MishaMisha 02:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject is notable as a co-founder of one of the highest traffic and most famous sites on the Internet and is therefore of encyclopedic interest. Her current "resigned" status with a particular facet of the organisation doesn't affect her notability at all. Wyss 19:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The bickering over what a "founder of Wikipedia" means has been well documented. Angela you have been a driving, active and highly visible force in the development of Wikipedia and you'll long be remembered and cited for it. Wyss 22:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing over what "founder" means. I am stating quite honestly that I am not a founder of Wikipedia. I hadn't even heard of Wikipedia until 2003. Since it was founded in 2001, you really need to check your facts before commenting on this AfD. Angela. 06:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does sound to me as though you're arguing what founder means but whether or not you agree with the tag founder has no sway on the documented historical fact of your significant public and managerial role in the development of Wikipedia during its early years. Moreover, I must again point out that there is a well-described pre-existing public debate about who might be a "founder" of Wikipedia. Lastly, I would also appreciate it if you would please try to avoid sarcasm and personal attacks here, thanks. Wyss 14:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of things that are just important now. In a hundred years, people are going to wonder about this "wiki" thing and want to know the key players behind it. As this interview notes:

I've been a volunteer editor at the English Wikipedia since February 2003. I was made an 'administrator' on the English Wikipedia in June 2003 and a 'bureaucrat' when that role was first invented in February 2004. I was amongst the first people to be made a 'steward', in April 2004. In June 2004, I was elected to the board of the Wikimedia Foundation by the community. I was re-elected, for a two year term, in July 2005.

That seems to me to be sufficient evidence that Angela has played a key part in the foundation and direction of what is now the biggest encyclopedia in the world, even discounting her Wikia work (which may prove to be even more significant over time - we'll see). GreenReaper 19:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, seams to satisfy WP:BIO, as 'The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field'. Robmods 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia has systemic bias. It is our job to counter this bias.--Jiang 00:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Instantnood 00:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject does not meet WP:BIO (not in a senior enough position nor responsible for technical innovations). Editing content on Wikimedia servers is not enough. Obiter dicta: Although I support deletion, I reject some of the arguments advanced. I do not agree that resigning from the Wikimedia boards makes a difference: if current board members are notable then ex-members are just as notable. Nor do I agree that the subject's opinions on whether they should have an article is relevant. When I nominated my own article for deletion, I was careful to say that it was because I thought I did not meet notability guidelines, rather than that I was offended by its presence. David | Talk 00:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We should get permission from people before we write articles on them! Just kidding, but seriously, she really isn't notable outside of wikisociety. Jimmy Wales, for example, was on Time 100, interviewed on NPR and CNN, and is generally famous as hell. Angela has none of that. There's also precedence here: Brian Peppers is only known within internet humor sites, and virtually nowhere else, so his article was deleted. (Not that I'm comparing Angela to Brian Peppers.) (Yes, I'm aware of the e-mail from Peppers's family, too.) Likewise, Angela Beesley only affects Wiki, which makes her notability questionable. -- this is messedrocker (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Barely notable, but notable FancyPants 03:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree that Angela is notable by WP:BIO standards, though not overwhelmingly so. The article is now semi-protected, brief and factual. There is nothing about the current article to justify deletion. I appreciate Angela's concerns, but any article on this encyclopedia is subject to vandalism and incorrect edits. By that argument we could delete every article. All we can do is keep articles as factual and vandalism-free as possible. Casey Abell 04:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably agree with anyone who complains that far too many bios of not truly notable persons are kept following AfD discussions. I would even agree that those who say that Angela is notable mostly only at Wikipedia (but she is very notable for users of this website!--- which just happens to be one of the most used websites in the world). And I think those who fear an invasion of privacy of major Wikipedia figures who might prefer more anonymity have a point. Certainly I would not support a gratitious invasion of privacy at this or any other website. But I sense that many of the voters for deletion in this particular AfD would vote differently if it were anyone but Angela who was asking, and setting a precedent for some kind of double standard seems like a bad idea. Above I tried to suggest some compromises between outright deletion and keeping the article as an unprotected wikibio. One of my simplest suggestions would be to replace the bio with a redirect to a wikimedia.org page describing Angela's service on the Board and simply permanently protecting this redirect. Wouldn't a permament redirect be less obtrusive than a permanent notice warning against attempts to recreate an article called Angela Beesley? ---CH 04:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: so she's notable because she co-founded some web page (Wikia) and because of her involvement in WP and its derived foundation. Well, IMO that doesn't give notability for anyone in the real world, where people still watch news on TV instead of in Wikinews. But OK, some people believe she's notable, she's awesome, etc., so let's have an article about her. I don't care about having the article. But, what can we put in that article? I doubt there can ever be a non-stub article about her. Her birthdate, nationality, birthplace, living place, her boyfriend, or even her photo have nothing to do with what (suposedly) makes her notable: they're tabloid info, not encyclopedic info. And still with that info, the article isn't but a stub. I don't mind having an article about her. It's just we have not an article, and I cannot think of a way for it to become an article. That's what happens with non-notable people, IMO. That's why I consider she isn't notable enough. And the fact our wannabe-article acts like a tabloid, not only being non-encyclopedic, but doing damage, is why I decided to participate in this debate. I could add that Angela's opinion doesn't move me anymore than any other's opinion about their own article, since I know about her only because of her WP article. (I've already voted delete) --euyyn 04:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.. -- ADNghiem501 05:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep previous AfD arguments have me satisfied that she does indeed satisfy BIO criteria. The trolling is a non-issue from a notability standpoint. We don't delete, say, Pat Robertson due to the incessant trolling it recieves. --tjstrf 08:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe distinctions should be made between major public figures and people who are of minor notability. A head of a broadcasting network is not in a comparable situation to an ordinary person. -- Seth Finkelstein 19:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. A distinction is already made between notable and non-notable individuals. That distinction is whether or not they get articles at all. "Minorly notable" is still notable. Vandalism occurence is not a determining factor in deletion arguments, unless the page itself was created solely as a vandalism/trolling page. This isn't.
Angela's argument is also based on the idea that a subject ceases to deserve an article once they stop holding the office that made them notable. Wouldn't this also apply to former United States Congressmen? For example, Robert D. Carey, Republican representative from the state of Wyoming in the early 1920's, no longer holds office, and his only claim to notability was that office. Further, he's dead, meaning his current influence is effectively null. Yes, I recognize there is a difference in the notability holding a governorship gives you vs. being on a board at a company, but if formerly held offices don't count as notability criteria, then Angela is actually more notable than Robert Carey at this point in time. If we are to be a timeless repository of knowledge, then formerly held offices should be weighed on the same scale as currently held offices. --tjstrf 20:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Jorge Luis Borges "These ambiguities, redundancies and deficiencies remind us of those which doctor Franz Kuhn attributes to a certain Chinese encyclopaedia entitled 'Celestial Empire of benevolent Knowledge'. In its remote pages it is written that the animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j)innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like flies.". So if people can be divided into notable and non-notable, they can also be divided into majorly notable and minorly notable, as well as living and dead, with the living minor notable respected in a wish to opt-out. There should be a balance between being a timeless repository of knowledge, and a present repository of trollery -- Seth Finkelstein 20:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is almost starting to become some sort of inverse vanity page argument. And in my opinion, the conclusions are the same: the wishes of the subject of an article as to its existance or nonexistance do not over-rule the policy and notability criteria. If I want to have an article about myself, but I am not notable, no amount of me protesting will get it included. If I don't want to have an article about me, but am notable, the same thing applies. The trolling is regretable, but until we develop the software to read the minds of editors and determine whether they are acting in good faith or not, it is a necessary evil for the continued existance of the Wikipedia project as a whole. Perhaps our most relevant rule here, however, is WP:OWN. Which is an official policy, I might add. You don't own articles which are about you any more than you do those you wrote. An opt-out system would violate this rule. Also, I think we have a slight conflict of interests here. --tjstrf 21:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, I've lost track of what's being disputed factually, versus what's being recommended as a wise course of action. Are we agreed or disagreed that a reasonable categorization distinction can be made involving degrees of notability, and interests of living people? That is, are you arguing this material cannot be taken into account for some significant reason? Or that even though it's possible, it should not matter - which can't be justified self-referentially, because that's exactly the point of dispute here? Remember, Wikipedia:No_binding_decisions is also official policy. A reasonable opt-out is merely a recognition that sometimes "do no harm" is the best policy. By the way, there's something deeply scary if not wanting to be trolled disqualifies me from participating in a policy-related discussion as to whether or not people should have to endure being trolled. -- Seth Finkelstein 22:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An argument could be made that there is a difference between those who are majorly notable vs. those who are minorly notable or notable only within a small field. You can obviously group people into whether they like the idea of having a WP article about them or not as well. The disagreement is over whether it matters, or more precisely, whether in a project such as Wikipedia the subject of an article has (or should have) any more say than any other editor as to what happens with that article. In my mind, I look at this AfD, and I read the reasons why it is being proposed for deletion. Judging from the reasons given, I come to the conclusion that the nominator and deletion voters do not provide enough support for deletion, given the passing of two previous AfD noms, meeting the notability criteria, etc.
I would re-evaluate my vote in light of a policy or guideline change, but at this time, I do not believe that the name of the nominator for an article's deletion has any bearing on whether it should be deleted, as that would violate WP:OWN as well as the common sense principle of impartiality. Unless your name is Jimbo the human supermajority (and I say that with no animosity towards him, as I recognize the need for "divine intervention" occasionally), you have the same vote and obligation to go along with consensus as everyone else does. "Do no harm" is not violated by the existance of this article, just by the trolls, which can be easily rectified. In fact, given the current semi-protection and the multiple people (including myself) who have doubtless watchlisted the page as a result of this debate, your concerns about vandalism will probably no longer be an issue no matter what the decision of this debate is.
On the conflict of interests, I did not intend to imply you shouldn't participate, clearly you are just as entitled to do so as I. I was merely suggesting caution, and that you might wish to objectively think over what your answer would be to this AfD if it weren't for your own article. No offense intended, and I realize I may have been slightly hypocritical to point this out, for which I apologize. --tjstrf 23:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, and similar apology tendered for any harshness on my part. If you read above where I made my actual vote, I outlined my ethical reasoning. My position is of course affected by my experiences, but the outcome is logically self-consistent - all living people of minor notability who want to opt-out should have their wishes respected. If it takes finally affecting someone "inside" the circles of power, to spark enough debate which results in some positive change, well, it wouldn't be the first time that a problem had to hit an insider before it was addressed, whereas outsiders were blown-off. Of course, *only* addressing it for the insider would be the worst of all worlds. But I'd rather this all lead to some rethinking of what I view as a bad policy, rather than having that bad policy continue on.
There's a difference between wanting to micromanage one's biography, and not wanting to have to patrol and clean up after mudslinging. Wikipedia:Interpret_all_rules should support a distinction between these two types of objections. Telling people not to be control-freaks is worlds apart from telling them they have been chosen to be part of a grand experiment in having trolling, defamation, libel, lying, smears, and vandalism, directed at them, but it's settled policy that they can't decline. -- Seth Finkelstein 03:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest what you should do is write a policy proposal in which you outline all of your arguments. If your policy passed, it would solve this entire issue in one fell swoop, while even if it were turned down, so long as it had a decent minority who supported it, it could be left as an essay. Essays may not be policy but the popular ones do carry a good bit of weight, especially on the less by-the-book processes such as deletion review. Also, you may be able to find an ally in the form of User:Herostratus's WP:NOT EVIL proposal/essay. This is an issue that needs to be decisively addressed eventually, and now would be as good a time as any. It would be much better to have this addressed by consensus rather than Divine intervention--tjstrf 04:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I hate to say it and this is not Angela's doing (I would hope and do assume) but lots of these delete votes smack to me of folks, aware of it or not, who are mushing up to a member of Wikia who has a perceived, pervasive influence (true or not, resigned from WP or not). People are afraid to say so openly is all, for fear of falling out of favour, getting banned or whatever. Anyway Wikipedia is one of the highest traffic sites on the Internet and she's part of the story, which is already historic (one way or another) and that's encyclopedic. Wyss 22:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's out of any sort of fear so much as respect. Rather ironically, the fact that she is a notable individual (especially one involved with wikis), the very reason she should be included in the first place, results in people respecting her. This respect makes people give credence to her opinions, which in turn makes them vote with her in her claim to not be notable. It's almost a paradox, a situation in which your accomplishments allow you to claim that those accomplishments are unimportant. However, what I was refering to by conflict of interests is the fact that, according to the mailing list, User:Seth Finkelstein also has an article, Seth Finkelstein, which he wants removed due to trolling. --tjstrf 22:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, where there there is one conflict of interest, there might be two, or three or... Wyss 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I call it "experience" :-), see above -- Seth Finkelstein 22:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe she passes WP:BIO, based on various interviews (multiple independent published sources), and I don't think notability is a concern anyway: info about the subject is potentially verifiable, and some is verified, that's good enough for me. And notability can only increase with time, as far as I'm concerned, never decrease, even if I did care about it: the number of new media references to her, for instance, will decrease, but the number of old ones will never fall. Sorry, Angela. -- Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I missed the earlier nominations, but she is just not notable. BrokenSegue 00:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G, Captainktainer and Powers. You dont have a "right" to delete youself on wikipedia. Patcat88 04:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the best next thing would be Angela taking an important decision based on this article not being deleted, so the article could say it, and doing so, self-reference not merely WP, but itself! "blablabla because of this article not being deleted from Wikipedia." References could be added pointing to the AfD discussions. At least, that would be encyclopedic, being related to the cause of her "notability": WP. That is, it wouldn't be trivia. BTW, anybody knows what's the name of her pet? And anybody heard about WP:NOR? If in some years she becomes notable enough for someone to do a research about her (for, say, writing her bio), he would find the same info we've found about her, in the same places we've found it. And then, we could make a serious encyclopedic, third source, article about her. Don't fear for that info to be lost because of deleting our article. WP is not a log. --euyyn 07:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable outside the wikipedia community. Feedyourfeet 11:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikia. Also agree with Starblind on borderline cases. GChriss 15:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Feedyourfeet. -- Hoary 15:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BIO seems to be satisfied. --Myles Long 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, totally unnotable to anyone who is not involved in Wiki. This is a Wikicruft article ;). NoSeptember 19:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect to wikia. +sj + 20:25, 17 July 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 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2009-10 NBA season

WP:NOT a crystal ball, this is a little too far in the future (no definite dates yet, for example). BoojiBoy 02:43, 12 July 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. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 09:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iconic character (D&D)

Duplicates earlier Dungeons & Dragons iconic characters article. CNichols 02:45, 12 July 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 also note suspeceted sockpuppetry used to "vote" keep. I also noted that a few known and notable inclusionists also wanted to delete it and can't see how the quality of the "keeps" could possibly cause a non consensus. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Tench

The article was created to promote an as-yet-unaired television program on Australian television, and Wikipedia is being used inappropriately as part of a "viral marketing" campaign. Whoby 03:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 03:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No description of the notability of this advertising campaign or the subject of the advertising.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cnwb 06:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article may have relevance after a successful season of the show, but it definitely doesn't now. Don't Spam Wikipedia! Ansell 06:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- not yet. I also removed the broken link in the article to what I suspect was / is the official website. - Longhair 07:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It -- it's a TV show. And it's coming soon. No doubt it looks bleak now, but it will fill as the show comes to air. Wikipedia is informing the public about what they know. What exactlty is the problem? Everything starts with viral marketing. Just remove the quotes and write 'David Tench is a character on an upcoming TV show, promoted via viral marketing. More news as it comes to hand.' And isn't this supposed to be a discussion? You can't just nominate without reason. - TV Watcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.20.218 (talk • contribs)
    • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It does not speculate on things. This marketing campaign is also not independently verifiable, by definition. When it becomes famous it may be verifiable, and when it is famous it won't be speculation. Ansell 08:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Dionyseus 09:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all upcoming shows and their will-be-one-day stars. Just zis Guy you know? 12:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a TV show. It is coming soon. crystal ball takes this into consideration with clause 1. The advertisements appearing on TV are verifiable and the article should reflect that, not the whole lot deleted. The show is going to come on air soon [19] (search for David Tench on page). What does deleting it now achieve? Just make sure we keep the marketing hype out of it. Yay unto the Chicken 13:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After seeing the quotes on TV I wanted to find out more info and Wikipedia was the first place I looked. I don't think this is a marketing thing any more than having a page about a well known tv show is marketing. --202.7.183.131 13:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article entirely based on a marketing campaign with no tv show is not comparable to a show which has been running for two years that has plots and characters and spin-offs to report about. Wikipedia is for compiling reports on these things. Ansell 23:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If, after airing, it becomes notable (read: NOT immediately after its first airing & has a reasonable audience), perhaps the article can be recreated. Srose (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball. Recreation if/when this show actaully airs is perfectly acceptible.--Isotope23 14:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. I submitted the page for deletion, so my vote for delete probably speaks for itself. For the admin who reviews this, a couple of thoughts ... 1. on the David Tench discussion page someone has already noted that " ... the shows producers or Network Ten are clearly using wikipedia as a means of promotio ... if they continue reverting the content to marketroid speak I think this page needs locking or deletion .." and 2. two of the Keep votes on this page contain identical text ... "It is a TV show. It is coming soon." and "it's a TV show. And it's coming soon." ... given one of them is anonymously logged, it's not unreasonable to suggest that both keep votes come from the same source. The show, if and when it airs, should be recorded by Wikipedia, but under it's correct program title, and not under the banner of the network's pre-broadcast marketing. (Whoby 15:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
1. I am not the same person: Hang on... So because I re-iterate a comment someone made before, I'm suddenly the same person now? For the admin who decides this, please assume good faith and disregard Whoby's statement that everyone who wants this article kept is the same person (the same way I assume that everyone who raises Crystal Ball is not a Whoby sock-puppet). For the record, I do not work for Channel 10 or any associated media group. I simply came here to see if Wikipedia knew anything more about "David Tench" than I did.
2. This is not Crystal Balling: The reality is that David Tench IS an upcoming TV show. This is a verified fact. The show is coming soon (within the next month or so if the information we have to go by is correct). The article on Thank God You're Here started as nothing more than a stub [20] 5 days before the show premiered (which was the same time information was known about what it would be) and certainly not "2 years after it had plots and characters". As I also said before Wikipedia is not a crystal ball takes this into consideration quite clearly in its opening line where it states All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.. This event is verifiable and the subject matter (a TV show) would be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article had it already aired.
3. People are coming here for this information: It is clear that people are coming to Wikipedia to find more information about this show. What's better, nothing or a stub which clearly states "this is an upcoming TV show which Andrew Denton is behind"? If you delete the article now, it will be re-created in a few short months with the information about the marketing campaign likely mentioned under an appropriate sub-heading. Deleting the article now achieves nothing other than disappointing those who come here looking for what little further information there currently is. Yes, let's keep the marketing copy out of it (like we do many other Wikipedia articles). Yes, let's keep it to what we can verify. But no, let's not delete it simply to have it re-created a few days later when more information comes out. And if at such time a new name for the tv show becomes known, it is a simple matter to move the page to the correct title at that time. Yay unto the Chicken 00:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question: is David Tench a TV show or a person in a TV show? As I have said, when and if the show materialises it will get its due, but Wikipedia explicitly says it should not be used as a marketing or advertising service. This isn't a question of what you want, or what I want, it's very, very simple: Wikipedia has rules, and the David Tench entry seems in clear breach of them. IF the character of David Tench becomes noteworthy AFTER the show launches, then he (like the show) will get his due. The issue here is that Channel Ten are trying to use Wikipedia as part of their pre-launch viral marketing campaign. They've said as much in Australian newspapers. If people are curious about the ads, they can Google them. That's what Google is for. (Whoby 02:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
"Is David Tench a TV show or a person in a TV show?". David Tench is "[a] character [who] will be bringing a talk show to Channel Ten later in the year" [21]. Whether the show is named after that character is yet to be known. If and when enough information about the character and the TV show warrant a separate article on both, then that will occur in due course. For now, a single article which refers to both is sufficient.
"Wikipedia explicitly says it should not be used as a marketing or advertising service". In what way does the current article advertise or market the program? Its current revision [22] states the known facts, discusses the marketing campaign and has example quotes from that campaign. As per Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia's "rules" state "Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style". IMHO, the article currently meets that requirement. Wikipedia is allowed to talk about marketing campaigns (Pepsi Challenge).
"IF the character of David Tench becomes noteworthy AFTER the show launches, then he (like the show) will get his due". My argument is that the expected event is of sufficient interest that an article is warranted now. We know it is about an upcoming Television show. We know the event is going to happen. We have no reason to believe otherwise or assume this is a hoax. Such television shows (like upcoming films) are notable articles. No, I don't like that Channel 10 are trying to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool. However, like many other pages on Wikipedia whom people choose to abuse, it is up to the rest of us to ensure that non-biased, verifiable information is present and that all links to non-verified "fan-sites" or "presumed official sites" are removed, along with speculation. We should not delete the whole article simply because Channel 10 has chosen to abuse it. Yay unto the Chicken 03:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree to the previous post. Someone please rebutt. Also note that a new commercial has come out stating that David Tench is a character on the show. I'd like to understand how people who have not seen the commercials (i.e. do not live in Australia) are fully informed to vote? - 60.241.20.218 04:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could Whoby please source his/her statement that Channel Ten ARE using Wikipedia as marketing. obviously if this is true it changes the debate. Caecilius 15:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --PresN 18:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many people are interested in the quotes on TV. This is one sources where people can make a list of the quotes and read them. The TV is reportedly going to start in the next few weeks. Might as well keep the site. No reason to get rid of it. 144.137.14.43 00:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And when the show launches, it will duly get an entry under its title. And if the character of David Tench is interesting or noteworthy, he might get one too. The issue here is that the TV channel is using Wikipedia as part of a viral marketing campaign before it has launched - something which is expressly forbidden. The page, as it is, should be deleted. (Whoby 00:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
      • o Using Wikipedia how exactly? By it publishing examples of quotes? Fine. Comment them out. The quotes are just one section. But the whole article is not a marketing gimmick. - 60.241.20.218 07:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far, there has been one mention of this in the Sydney Daily Telegraph television column. The intro states "Ten is still hoping that details of its new show from Andrew Denton's production company Zapruder's Other Films will fly under the radar at least for a while yet. But more bits and pieces are leaking out about the show which, for fun, let's call David Tench At Ten, Tench being the host of the show." There is very little hard information available about the show with a source speculating that the host will be different with speculation that Tench may be animated ala Max Headroom. The short article concludes "The show will be recorded Thursdays at Fox Studios and an August start is tipped." For now, the article should be deleted with no bias against recreation once we have more information about it. Delete.Capitalistroadster 02:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Modify (or even better, comment out for future use) -- delete (or <!-- comment out just in case they may be used in a subheading after the show is popular) the quotes that apparently make this entry a marketing gimmick. Leave the introduction and what is known (what was said in the Daily Telegraph). Then stub it.  : 60.241.20.218 04:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i agree with the idea of stubbing it rather than deleting it only to recreate it later. it is still an article of obvious interest - i myself went here after seeing the ads; there is no problem describing a marketing campaign unbiasedly (which is another discussion altogether); and i feel wikipedia has no problem being an evolving organism that is to have a "David Tench" page for the show and person before details of the show with a probably different name and therefore article, to be filled in later, have surfaced. Caecilius 15:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page. Seems silly to remove it. The page has content and people visited. Smilyandrew 06:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 07:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obvious interest in the show. What is the point in removing it and creating it a few weeks later? Pcpp 08:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that then there will be something to put in the article. Currently the article lacks references. It goes directly against the primary verifiability policy that wikipedia needs to keep an image as an accurate resource. Ansell 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Henry Bigg 1986 09:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why?? Ansell 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I didn't know what David Tench was, but I searched here and found it first hit, this is what wikipedia is about, information about everything. - ScipioII 13:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is about putting together verifiable information about things. The article can be nothing more than a series of speculations until the show comes out, in this name or another. Ansell 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep' This page will just come back when the show airs anyway, with infromation about the viral marketing. People will only come to this page after they've seen the ads, this wont help the viral marketing. I know I came here to find out about David Tench. Ted BJ 13:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia does not seem to be able to find verifiable references for this show. Go to a blog or search engine if you want to find out about speculation. Ansell 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I came to wikipedia to find out more about the show and so have other people. Someone is going to recreate the article later when the show airs. Other future television programs are allowed to have their own article then why not this one? Erica Wellance 00:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the show screens the article could have some content, instead of being full of uncited weasel words. Ansell 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As far as I can see, as long as the article stays neutural, it's not providing advertising for Channel Ten. There have been new ads-I only manged to see the end of one, but it does appear that David Tench is going to host/star in a show. This article is not doing anyone any harm, and as long as it doesn't turn into a list of speculations, it seems fine for Wikipedia. --Gunny01 05:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article as it has been all along has been uncited speculation. Citing a "Chaser" article and putting up a screenshot of one of the advertisements are not enough to keep an article within the core policies of wikipedia, notably, the verifiability policy and the no original research policy. Ansell 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feldmann Wrestling Federation

nn, not a single hit on google Burgwerworldz 03:21, 12 July 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 14:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sound of jewellery as an aphrodisiac

Original research; prodded and prod2'd as such, article author removed prod tags w/o explanation. NawlinWiki 03:21, 12 July 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 14:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tencube

nonnotable company, likely this article is vanity - listed at prod but tag removed Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 03:21, 12 July 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 14:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Chadwick

Non-notable child actress, only one role —C.Fred (talk) 03:28, 12 July 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 of the discussion was keep. If an article contains no information, it doesn't have to be deleted (losing whatever little we had), it just needs expansion. AfD is not a replacement for {{expand}}. Kimchi.sg 13:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnard Hughes

The article contains absolutely no information. In its current state, where all it says is that he was an actor, it would indicate that Barnard Hughes is not noteworthy enough to be listed on the notable deaths page. Evan Carlstrom 03:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It hasn't been expanded yet, but it will. He's a tony-award winner and an emmy-award winner. I don't know enough about him (other than face recognition and the fact that he played the old guy on Blossom) to expand the article without relying on obits and IMDB, but I think it'll expand in the upcoming days, the way a lot of thin articles do in the wake of the subject's death. Wencer 03:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definite keep - the article will definitely be expanded; it is a shame it hasn't been done as of yet because he was a seminal actor on stage, film and TV. I am updating it right now!!Ciociabasia 04:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep. He is ABSOLUTELY notable and was a major character actor with many movie credits in the 1970's. This really borders on a bad faith nomination. mikemoto 11:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep and Expand His acting credibility is enough that it should expand very rapidly. I'm surprised it hasn't already. One thing I did note that I was going to add myself was the original list of his movies did not include Doc Hollywood (1991) or Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit, both of which were supporting roles, but very crucial roles. → --AthosMR 12:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely; an acclaimed and very prolific actor. --Disappointedkid 12:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep, per the comments above. Actors who are less prolific are certainly considered notable, so why wouldn't Hughes be? Spicy 13:04, 12 July 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 14:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Phi, Cornell Chapter

Issues with non-notability, original research, importance, point of view... this is one of many chapters of a fraternity with its own article at Sigma Phi. —mercuryboardtalk 03:46, 12 July 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of weapons in Halo 2

Gamecruft and game-guide in extremis. This article is unverified: there's no source for any of this information in this article, other than the implicit primary source. Additionally, this article is unverifiable: there's little to no independent commentary on these weapons, outside of how-to guides.

There's constant how-to advice; a couple examples:

  • "Human weapons, however, are more effective than plasma-based weaponry against skin and flesh, making them more useful when shields are down, and ideal against the Flood."
  • "As with other weapons, the sniper rifle is most effective when used for head shots, which kill targets in one hit."
  • "Similarly to other human weapons, turrets are best used in bursts rather than prolonged periods of fire."
  • "The Battle Rifle is largerly considered the better of the two, but if fired with accurate aiming and precise timing, the Carbine can technically kill faster than the battle rifle can."
  • The entirety of List of weapons in Halo 2#Balance, complete with color-coded table highlighting the merits and weaknesses of each weapon

Simply editing out this advice would leave nothing but paraphrased descriptions of the history of the weapons, and Wikipedia is not the place to abridge the source material from the manual.

There is relevant precedent in other AFDs, such as those for two similar articles for the Resident Evil series, a list of weapons in Cave Story, and a list of Pokémon attacks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even though I am an avid Halo 2 player, this doesn't belong here - it works better on the Halo strategy wiki, which has more and better information than this anyway. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Quite a few links directing to this article, so it may be more important than you think (this includes a lot of redirect pages, which should be deleted as well should the consensus here be delete). Also note that there is an article on weapons in the first Halo game: List of weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved The nominator may want to put this list up for deletion as well. —EdGl 04:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Part of the reason for all the links, I would imagine, is that this was a merge target for a whole bunch of stubs with similar gamecruft/gameguide problems. As for the other list, I'd really rather keep these AFDs separate whenever possible so that issues with each article can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is nothing wrong with including this information. It's well presented and there is nothing here that should offend wikipedia users. - Richardcavell 04:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how this addresses my argument above. I didn't claim that the presentation was problematic, or that the content was offensive; rather, I claimed that this article doesn't fit into Wikipedia's mission, as it is largely an abridgement of source material and a instructional guide, both of which fail WP:NOT, and that it is not and cannot be sourced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I happen to disagree with some of WP:NOT, as it is my prerogative to do so. I don't see a difference between the inclusion of individual weapons from Halo and the inclusion of individual kangaroo species, or individual Supreme Court judges. A user may have a need for information on any of these, and regard all of them as noteworthy. - Richardcavell 05:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it is your right to disagree with WP:NOT, you should take that debate to the WP:NOT talk page. It so happens that AfD debates should be centered on whether or not the article meets the current policies and this one does not. Pascal.Tesson 05:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - While difficult to source certainly, I would say that the weapons of Halo 2 are much more important to the game than Master Chief, the plot, and certainly any other character. I've removed the charts, which were certainly OR. I have removed/altered the sections of text you labeled as how-to advice, which some of them most certainly were. While there are probably other content issues and weasel words, these don't constitute deletion. While I am in favor of deleting cruft (I've been doing some of the work on Proto's list), such as RuneScape holiday items and articles for every single CS map, I think that a single (hopefully sourced in the future) article describing the most important (imho) aspect of a popular game can be non-cruft. Wickethewok 05:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can this possibly be sourced, though?
      As for rewriting this article, is there a single sentence in this article that isn't advice on playing Halo 2 or abridged from the game's manual? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incidentally, all you removed was the "Balance" section, which was particularly bad, but the article is still studded with game-guide-style advice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • With a limited amount of searching, I was able to find a review from IGN mentioning some of the info presented in the article. While there is certainly much unsourced material, I do believe it is possible to cite portions of it, though I don't know how much. I do believe that there are indeed sentences that don't fit the bill of a how-to guide. Stuff like (paraphrasing here) "unlike other covenant weapons, the carbine needs to be re-loaded" or the "magnum is a semi-automatic pistol that can be dual-wieldable" seems acceptable to me. Certainly a lot of stuff claiming "the magnum is most effective when used with the plasma pistol" or whatever needs to be removed, but I think if that stuff is removed, there is still an article there. Wickethewok 05:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is "The carbine needs to be reloaded" not instructing people how to play the game? Eating an orange isn't any more acceptable per WP:NOT for being phrased "The peel needs to be removed" instead of "You need to remove the peel" or "It is a good idea to remove the peel." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, the article for Orange says "The fruit is commonly peeled...". So how about if the example carbine sentence said "The carbine is reloaded" or something more elegant. My phrasing was poor in the previous carbine example where I used the word "need". Clearly not every sentence discussing an action performed by a human is a "how-to" or instruction. Wickethewok 05:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Orange has content other than that brief mention of how one eats it. This article, other than abridgement of the game's manual, does not. It's a matter of degree. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Tomorrow, I'm going experiment and try remove all the stuff that can be construed as how-to and see whats left. I'd of course like to hear your opinion when I finish that (I'll drop a message here). Also, for hilarity's sake, check out the article before I greatly reduced it a month or so ago: here. Now that was bad. Wickethewok 06:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as gamecruft. Not of encyclopedic value and does not meet WP:NOT. Pascal.Tesson 05:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Nifboy 06:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or completely overhaul. The list itself may be somewhat useful to keep the main article clean, but most of it (all of the strategy stuff) violates WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and so forth. Perhaps deleting it and the Halo 1 equivalent, and then covering them both (in a far more brief manner) in one article like The Legend of Zelda series songs is in order. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Crufty, but harmless. I suppose someone interested in looking up information on fictional weapons might be interested, Halo 2 is widespread enough to be notable, and I don't see a problem with this article as long as it's NPOV (original research and advice removed). As I see it, the biggest downside is that it might be a chore to maintain as all the would-be experts re-submit POV comments. --Alan Au 07:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I've reconsidered; individual fictional weapons might be notable, but the list probably isn't. This also sets a bad precedent; what happens when other editors want to create articles about the weapons in every game? --Alan Au 18:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete It's a game-guide. Dionyseus 09:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if extremely pruned, I'm as opposed to gamecruft as anyone else, I even listed for deletion practically wikipedia's entire orbiter game guide, but this article has a significant potential to exist as a collection of verifiable, non original research data. I'd think of it as analagous to a list of minor Star Wars droids or List of recurring robot characters in Futurama--every member of the list has verifiable data documenting its contribution, however minor, to the larger plot of a major, notable work, and knowledge of the individual members adds to an understanding of the greater work. The weapons of an FPS are surely as critical to it as the characters of a film like star wars, and being able to see what sort of weapon the "needler" is will help me understand halo in the same way knowing who 4-LOM or IG-88 refers to will help me understand star wars. We shouldn't be giving out gameplay tips, but a collated description of the weapons, referenced to sources like game guides and reviews, and limited to that content, is useful and not a mere indiscriminate collection of information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a game-guide. In ten years, this will be about as relevant as an in depth discussion of every Jet Set Willy level is now. -- GWO
  • Delete. People who are interested in this kind of information should be looking for it on GameFAQs. — Haeleth Talk 13:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see is hurting anyone--Anselm 14:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, its rare that articles hurt anyone (except for that one time Michigan State Capitol jumped me in an alley), so could you perhaps discuss your reasoning as it relates to some of the above arguments? Wickethewok 14:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay,I remember reading when first joined here that if one could not only include basic information about poker, but also make a poker-game guide there was no problem with it, I see the same situation here. Still if it seems too much of a guide then making a renovation should be enough, or even merging it with another halo page, but I think that deleting it is excesive--Anselm 14:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd personally argue that the examples of "advice" which you're citing are less hints than extended descriptions. For example, "the sniper rifle is most effective when used for head shots, which kill targets in one hit" seems like a very reasonable way to summarize a sniper weapon in general. More generally, though, this article is indeed a little bit gamecrufty, but is well within reasonable limits, particularly for a game as popular as Halo 2. (If the same was written for Pathways Into Darkness, though, this would be a strong "delete".) Zetawoof(ζ) 15:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This weapon is Dual Weildable and is more effective when you have a Plasma Pistol Magnum combo or 2 magnums.. Not good. Most of the ideas and claims in the article sound sane, but nothing is referenced at all. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliment. I wrote that article from the ground-up, merging crufty articles such as Light arrow into relevant prose. I think all of our item articles should be similar to this. -Randall Brackett 15:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's far more concise (all Zelda series games being in one article), and only has solid information about the items rather than seld-researched strategies and such. The lack of references isn't good, though :/ -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is your opinion, but note that my comments above were not directed at people who chose delete for your reasons. I am directing this comment towards those who chose to delete unless there was a major rewrite, merge, or just wanted the content edited. Also, I think its important to note that there is a difference between having some content that would be in a game guide (such as basic character descriptions, etc), and actually being a game guide. Wickethewok 22:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is different from merge, you have to pick one. If you pick merge, the article will just become a redirect to the article that it gets merged into. Also, which article do you want to merge this one with? Recury 21:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an interesting article and as per SevereTireDamage FullSmash26 13:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're dramatically overestimating the number of articles nominated for deletion on Wikipedia, and underestimating the size of Wikipedia. Excluding speedy deletions, about 100-200 articles are nominated for deletion daily. This is a drop in the bucket , given the total size of wikipedia. I would guess that when I'm regularly active, I participate in around 3-8 afds daily. I also generally choose to only vote in discussions which are not foregone conclusions, or on which I have long-standing views on. I concentrate my efforts in arguing cases which are tightly fought. I'm deletionist, but that certainly does not mean I want to delete everything as you suggest - it just means I favour higher general standards of inclusion. I vote for keep perhaps 1 time out of 15 - but that's because most of the afd nominations are good ones. Examples of very recent (i.e. in the last week or 10 days or so) afds, where I have not only voted keep, but actually been one of the main arguers for keep have been Twink (gay slang), Gosh Numbers, Female sex tourism and Zsanett Égerházi. In the first case, I was an early keep voter who identified the nomination as likely to be bad faith. In the last three (with the caveat that two are still active), I believe I was instrumental in swaying debates (that were originally majority delete) towards keep or no consensus through researching evidence. Deletionism does not mean we want to delete everything. Bwithh 13:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FullSmash26, Almost two thousand articles are created each day, and Wikipedia reached 1 million articles on March of this year. [24] Each day over a thousand articles are deleted, and this is necessary to keep the encyclopedia clean and serious. Imagine what a joke Wikipedia would be if every MySpace Musician were allowed to have an article. Wikipedia is currently at least three times larger than any paper encyclopedia, and we must ensure its integrity remains intact. Deletion Policy Dionyseus 14:09, 16 July 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. Mailer Diablo 14:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MLB.com

Unencyclopedic; just a short sentence about it in the MLB article would suffice. —EdGl 04:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I am about to expand this article somewhat; this is a noteworthy topic, and it doesn't need much to be a decent stub. I hope others will revisit their votes after my revisions. Mangojuicetalk 04:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, done with my revisions for now. I'm sure there's a lot more that could be said here, but this is a major, major website and well worth including; hopefully the article has enough of a structure that future expansion is possible. Mangojuicetalk 05:17, 12 July 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 14:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of weapons in Perfect Dark

Gamecruft and game-guide. This article is unverified and unverifiable, there's no source for any of this information in this article, other than the implicit primary source, and the weapons of Perfect Dark are not widely discussed outside of how-to guides. Additionally, a great deal of this article is itself a how-to guide: the merits and flaws of various weapons are constantly touted.

Relevant precedent in other AFDs: two weapon lists for the Resident Evil series, a list of weapons in Cave Story, and a list of Pokémon attacks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:30, 12 July 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 14:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asser Harb

A hoax. The article claims that the 28 years old Asser Harb is Egypt's State Solicitor. The article was created by User:Captor (contribs)who joined wikipedia just to edit this article and its images and was later expanded by User:AsserHarb. In the article's talk the author first claims that Asser Harb is the Attorney General of Egypt then he admits he isn't saying that "Asser Harb is a notable person in Egypt for another reason, namely his outstanding international legal practice in the major investor-state complicated cases which involve a very controversial legal and political issues". He claims that there are several google hits for Asser Harb in Arabic. He also admits that he is both User:AsserHarb and User:Captor. However, the current attorney General in Egypt is Judge Abd al Mageed Mahmoud. The link at the end of the article -in Arabic- says that Harb is a lawyer in a bank "آسر حرب المحامي ببنك مصر الدولي". Furthermore, Google search for "Asser Harb" retrieved 3 results, 2 of which are wikipedia and the third is for user Asser Harb in a matchmaking site. Interestingly, google search for "آسر حرب" (Arabic for Asser Harb) also retrieved 3 results, one of which is a post in a forum, the second is an old redirect page in Arabic Wikipedia to the deleted page آسر حرب (Asser Harb)and the third is user talk in Arabic wikipedia for User:AsserHarb. History of the page (also in Arabic) reveals a sysop in the Arabic wikipedia saying that the article the user created about Asser Harb is unverifiable, has no sources and doesn't coincide with wikipedia criteria. The article was later deleted.--Wedian 04:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If Wikipedia adopted a Limbo namespace, this article could be moved to Limbo during the discussion on deletion. Moving an article to Limbo would remove it from the article namespace and prevent search engines from delivering suspicious content while the community decides whether to keep or delete it. For more information, see the discussion on establishing the Limbo namespace. Fg2 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete You are not in a position to call a page for deletion on the basis you have mentioned, It is Asser Harb who represented Egypt in so many international arbitration cases, probably you do not know him because you are not a specialist.--Captor 23:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cribcage 23:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As i mentioned above, Use:Captor is User:AsserHarb. User TocToc has 8 contributions in Wikipedia, 2 of which were testing and self reverting in article Nabila Ebeid. The other 6 are all related to article Asser Harb including uploading his image [25],categorizing the article in category prominent juriists then self reverting and this Afd. His very first contibution in Wikipedia was in Talk:Asser Harb saying :"Thank you for your clarification. The page has been fixed and I guess it is now quite useful for the audience of Wikipedia"[26]. User 82.201.207.248 (contributions) has joined Wikipedia today just to remove the hoax tag from the article and to participate in this Afd. He also tried to vandalize this page thrice [27] , [28] and [29]by removing the delete votes. Interestingly, both signed thiis Afd "DO NOT Delete and congrats"!!. Are we having 4 sock puppets here? --Wedian 02:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All,

I reviewed the history of the article and the pages of Xaosflux and Wedian and I found out that both of them are not legal professionals and thus they should not and could not be aware of the validity of the content of the article. As an Egyptian legal professional, I ensure that it is undisputed that Asser harb is a well known and a distinct State Solicitor in Egypt and thus I confirm that all the content of the article is true and NOT a hoax. Please proceed to save the article from deletion.

Ahmed Hassan


It seems that Wedian is not a legal professional. She can not defferentiate between the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. In Egypt, the Title Attorney General is misused before the name of the Public Prosecutor, however, the title Solicitor General is used before the name of the President of the State Lawsuits Authority, another judicial institution that is in charge of representing Egypt before national and international courts.

Indeed, Asser Harb was a bank lawyer one day ( and the article itself says this), but he is currently Egypt's State Solicitor, i.e. he is currently a member within the Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority. He is also well known as an eminent international legal practitioner on behalf of Egypt in complex international arbitrations.

As a legal professional working in Egypt, I ensure that although all the comments of Wedian can possibly be true, however I confirm at the same time that all the content of the article Asser Harb is true and valuable to the legal wikipedians.

Wedian is not a legal practitioner but a pharmacist, who should not and could not judge a legal article like Asser Harb.

BY THE WAY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL) IS NOT A JUGE BUT AN ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE IN CRIMINAL CASES. TAKE CARE USER BEFORE MISLEADING THE OTHER WIKIPEDIANS TO MIS UNDERSTAND THE CONTENT OF A VALUABLE ARTICLE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.201.207.248 (Talk) (talk • contribs) 23:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • KEEP Following the history of the article in that way does not lead necessarily to the deletion of the article. It seems that Wedian improperly confounds between two different Egyptian Judicial institutions, the Public Prosecution النيابة العامة in one hand and the State Lawsuits Authority هيئة قضايا الدولة in the other hand. The members of the aforementioned two judicial institutions are not judges but counsel for the state. Google hits can not possibly be a criterion to evaluate the credibility of the article, since most of the members of judicial institutions in Egypt and other countries are not popularly known, however they are just famous and well known among the legal practitioners. I worked closely to Honorable Asser Harb and he is really an exceptional legal faculty that should be recorded by Wikipedia. It is not the author's fault to have non-legal wikipedians unware of the famous legal practitioners in Egypt, but it is the fault of Wedian who is obviously legally ignorant.--Save Data 13:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand you claim to you are a legal practitioner. I assume you understand Arabic. I encourage you to look here to see who the president of the Egyptian lawsuits authority is, who btw is 67 years old. You can also read about the 13 vice presidents here and the 26 members here. No Asser Harb in any of these lists, right? Please, review the law governing the Egyptian lawsuits authority here. The 28 years old Asser Harb can't even be a judge or councel (moustashar). At best, he is an ordinary lawyer.--Wedian 17:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Save Data appears to be a single purpose account. Pascal.Tesson 13:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dear Wedian, I purden you for your misunderstanding because you are not a specialist. The website Arab Decision that you have cited do not comprise all of the members of the Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority. Moreover all the names included therein are not updated. For instance the current President of the Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority is not H.E. Counselor Hossam Adel Azim as you have just contended, but he is H.E. Counselor Milad Sidhom and you are invited to read the content of this link [30]. Furthermore, you have to know that the word "counsel" does not mean مستشار in Arabic but means نائب and مستشار in English is "Counselor". The State Counsel or نائب الدولة in Arabic is normally so much younger than the State Counselor or مستشار الدولة and thus Honorable Asser harb, who is Egypt's State Counsel, should be so much younger than H.E. the President of the State Lawsuits Authority, who should be, in accordance to the governing law of the Authority, the oldest Vice President in the Authority. As regards the number of members in the Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority, it is not 28 as mentioned in the Arab Decision website but more than 2000. Moreover, youy have to know that Asser Harb was appointed as State Counsel within the Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority by virtue of the Presedential Decree No. 133/2003 and you can easily get a copy from the Formal Gazzette الجريدة الرسمية . Also, you can simply know more about Honorable Asser Harb from the Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority at the 10th floor, Mogamaa Building, Tahrir Square, Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority, Department of Foreign Disputes. You will learn that although he is one of the youngest members of the authority, he is currently recognised for his extensive international legal practice on behalf of the Arab Republic of Egypt. Because you set out an in depth research, you have to complete it to the end. Go on and I am sure you will not delete the article but you eill try to enhance it. My last advice to you is that you have to take care you are currently insulting a judicial member within the Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority, the act that constituites a crime in accordance with the Egyptian penal law, which you can possibly be accused of ( even in Mansoura). Best Regards --Save Data 20:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I would consider these last threats as a very serious offense toward WP:CIVIL if they were not so laughable. Look if you have documented evidence of what you're saying then it should be easy to actually provide that evidence. Please stop wasting everyone's time with your lectures and give us hard facts. Pascal.Tesson 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am not in a position to file evidence against anyone here, but I am just talking from a legal point of view in accordance with the applicable Egyptian law. It does not matter with me personally to have the article kept or deleted. I am just drawing the attention to a fact that is well-furnished. To provide a hard fact ( as you have just requested) ; I simply invite anyone who can understand Arabic to review Article 6 bis of the law governing the Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority here and he will learn that I am right. As regards filing evidence, it can possibly be filed under the Egyptian applicable law which you do not know anything about but I do.--Save Data 22:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is my last comment. I'm not engaging anymore into this. The author of the article tried to convince the readers that Asser Harb is the chief state solicitor. User:AsserHarb (contribs) and User:196.205.176.54( contribs) - another single purpose accountwho only adds Asser Harb related content- have created Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority and the Egypt section in Attorney General with the sole name of Asser Harb in both articles. But, if you are certifying that Asser Harb is one of the councels in the Egyptian lawsuits authority, then he certainly fails WP:BIO. This actually ends it -at least for me-. No offense intended, but the article Asser Harb lists no special achievments except for his job. I guess we have first to write articles about all the current and previous presidents, vice presidents, judges and councelors of all Egyptian_Judicial_System#Courts of the Egyptian_Judicial_System and then we can turn to counsels and prosecutors. How many articles would that be? If you are - as i assume- Asser Harb yourself or one of his friends, then please read WP:AB and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Instead , why not use your legal knowledge to help wikipedia by expanding articles like the Egyptian Judicial System, Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, Egyptian Civil Code or Abdel-Razzak Al-Sanhuri who wrote the first version of the Egyptian civil code. Another thing, User:Pascal.Tesson was asking you to provide evidence to verify your statements about Asser Harb and not evidence that i might be punished if i insult a judicial member. BTW, how serious are these threats? Should i be afraid and disappear from wikipedia before anybody discovers who really i am and make me really disappear? :)--Wedian 03:10, 15 July 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 of the nomination was speedy delete - unverifiable, neologism. --Merovingian {T C @} 09:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scranal

Probable hoax sexual practice. No relevant google hits. Even if it does exist it is unverifiable. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 04:44, 12 July 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 of the discussion was Speedy Delete. — xaosflux Talk 05:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sabretoothmarkjones

Nearly complete nonsense, but not quite. This is what we call a WP:HOAX. Delete, as soon as possible. Mangojuicetalk 04:51, 12 July 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 14:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska state soccer team

Google search on an "Alaskan state soccer team" along the lines discussed in the article turned up nothing, searches for names listed as team members similarly turned up nothing. If such a team exists, it is unlikely to have competed against Denmark or England, and couldn't have possibly played Tibet in Tibet, and Hotan isn't even in Tibet anyway. If this team does exist, it doesn't exist like this. RPIRED 05:02, 12 July 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 14:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

969 Hayes Street

No different from any other random really old house. Tried {{prod}} but creator removed the notice. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:54, 12 July 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 14:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandigicam

Article describes an online photography group whose only claim to fame is that they have a photo gallery on Flickr and some other site that I haven't heard of. Prod tag removed by author. Alphachimp talk 06:01, 12 July 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 14:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buildingbands

Non-notable website Phileas 06:41, 12 July 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 14:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Ubuntu

Google search for "Principality of Ubuntu" reveals zero results. Probably a hoax. Cnwb 06:46, 12 July 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. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 09:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of yoga schools

Seems to have become a list of links to external commercial yoga sites. Although there is a caveat that each entry should have at least an article on Wikipedia, not all do, and no one seems to be enforcing the rule. So, to me, there does not seem to be any attempt to show that the entries are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Would be better as a category, any school notable enough to warrant an article, could be placed into that category.

Comment. Lists and categories are not interchangeable. The following point from Wikipedia:Lists is worth noting:
Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of pages from it, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available.
Lists can also be used to indicate articles needing to be written, another limitation of categories. fbb_fan 20:01, 12 July 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. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 09:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abusaria

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewlia, I am going to list here a whole bunch of similar one line articles about Indian clan names. This may be a long list, we'll see... I'm leaving out those who have more info than just the one line. If I list some you feel should be kept because they have some special importance, please say so and give a reason, so that perhaps those can be excluded from the deletion. Fram 07:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC) This list is not complete, and many others could perhaps be added, but it will have to do for now. If I come across many others, I may start a new AfD then.[reply]

End of nomination. Fram 08:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all into List of gotras. Eluchil404 09:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually Gotras are something very different. The absence of complete information and comprehensive treatment of such subject in wikipedia is a negative point. We should try to bridge the gap. Regards. --Bhadani 14:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow...I mean, merge per Eluchil404. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if this makes sense. AdamBiswanger1 13:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and add to List of gotras per Eluchil404.--Isotope23 14:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge; they seem no less notable than Scottish clans or Japanese clans. I would have no objection to the merger salvis datis into the main list of some of the smaller articles, without prejudice if someone wants to create a more extensive article on individual groups. Smerdis of Tlön 15:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unless I've misunderstood the meaning of clan, I think it's worth keeping them around as separate stubs, for expansion later. There are too many to merge, although I would prefer that to outright deletion. OneVeryBadMan 15:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as original research, since no sources are cited. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - we have articles on Scottish clans, Hasidic dynasties, etc, so Indian clans may be notable as well.--Nydas 18:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless any are too uninformative to constitute stubs. Pseudomonas 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote for now - Does anyone know how many people approximately are in these clans? As it is, right now they don't provide any information that could get them past speedy deletion as a non-notable group of people imo. Wickethewok 21:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least more than 10 million [34], spread over a very large area of the Indian subcontinent, area bigger than many countries of the world. Each one of the clan must be having its own mythology and history. I feel that each clan is like an exotic tribe. If these micro-stubs are allowed to grow, I am sure that over a period of time each shall have a reasonable content and information. We have many pages about villages having 10 or 12 households, and here we are dealing with clans, each with 1000s of households! --Bhadani 14:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those figures listed are from the 1960s - so you're probably looking at somewhere in the region of 50 million people. I would guess that about a third to a half of Punjabis are Jatts. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into annotated list for now, more informative and easier to maintain and read. No prejudice against later recreation as expanded articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge for now. Perhaps at a later date someone might recreate them as more than just stubs. Fabricationary 23:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as Eluchil404 suggested, or Delete all (except the three as noted above and below) for being original research and lacking enough content to believe them notable. Some clans/lineages are notable, some are not. My comment in the Jewlia AFD referenced the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paliam where we decided to keep because one member of the lineage was notable, and have since moved the article to be a start for that notable individual. These don't offer us enough material to test for notability.
    1. Andhak Claims rulership over a specific territory. This is enough basis for a research, and if shown true it is keepable on the AFD:Paliam precedent.
    2. Maitla has grown to 4 sentences in 4 sections, including a claim to a notable individual member. Probably would die as original research on its own, but at least it is stub quality.
    3. Pilania claims a notable individual member. GRBerry 01:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To expand, because they don't offer enough material to test for notability, and also don't offer enough content to be a decent stub, merging into a list is a good solution. When our (currently somewhat distracted) contributors to content on India have the time, they can work through the list to build out at least decent stubs for those where there is content to include. GRBerry 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as appropriate. These are real life non-arbitrary concepts which affect rather a lot of people. Think of it as family names or, to be more concrete, Scottish clans. Zocky | picture popups 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Smerdis. Plus, some work's gone into putting these up. As and when information about these is available to India-related editors, they'll put more information in. There was no doubt a time when Clan MacKinnon had a line or two in its article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete all per Dbpsmith; as for Zocky's Scottish clans analogy, does that mean that these are unverifiable, original research and copyvios, like most clan articles are ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: These stubs regarding Jat clans are one liner at present but likely to expand in future. Each clan contains in itself history. Some clans have been recorded and some have not been properly recorded. If a stub is kept on wikipedia with request to expand people tend to expand them. It has so happened with some clans but they became good article over a period. Deletion will not serve any purpose. Hence these may not be deleted. Keep them allburdak 13:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: I would strongly recommend that all the pages should be kept. To begin with a stub of few words is not a bad idea. We should respect the spirit of wiki, and allow other editors to contribute so that the stub may grow: Please see. The issue of Indian names and surnames have been discussed earlier a number of times, perhpas beginning with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awasthi. At that time, I had submitted: " Believe me, once deciphered, Indian surnames / family names / caste / jati, etc. have mythological, historical and sociological significance and the information so revealed work as a socio-historical DNA fingerprinting. After all, the recorded Indian civilization stretches back to 500+ BC and Indian mythology and epics are even older.
Any article about (Indian) surnames / family names have nothing to do with promoting one’s image or family name, or to do anything with genealogy. In the Indian subcontinent, people of different faiths, and diverse regions, may have the same family name / surname, for example, “Choudhary” is a surname / family name, which a muslim family may have in Dhaka, Bangla Desh and a Hindu family may have in Lucknow, India.
All said and done, I reiterate that the fact remains that Indian surnames/family names have historical and sociological significance and they function like socio-historical DNA fingerprints. Wikipedia and we, the Wikipedians should continue to contribute to enrich “the sum total of human knowledge”, of course, conforming to the Wikian philosophy and standard. And, so all bit of information is necessary, so that a seeker of knowledge should not return empty handed from wikipedia. Yes, sure, Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." I repeat the same again. Please allow the stub to grow. --Bhadani 13:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: Please don't do this. Agreed, these are one-liner articles at the moment. But, all of us Indian Wikipedians can assure you that these will be expanded over time. What's more these clans are not exclusive just to India. Many of them are shared by neighbouring countries such as Pakistan. Deleting the whole lot would be an irreparable loss. Again, I request everybody to keep these pages as they are. They will evolve in due course of time. Thank you.Rajatjghai 14:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All The idea of an encyclopedia is to have information it. Quite often, the information which appears useless to one individual, but may very well valuable to others. For someone to play god, sit in judgment, as to what is ‘valuable, important, useful’, may be fun; it could also be, one could suggest be bordering on arrogance.
Many of these names are Jat clan names. For researchers like me, they are useful, for as one gets deeper and deeper into the history of the people, it is of interest where they lived, how the names evolved, what their contributions to society were.
For the descendants of these clans, these give a family history. Many people turn now to Wikipedia as their first source of information. To delete these lists, is telling someone of this clan, ‘heh, you are not important enough, and let us erase you from our public records. That is a fate, slightly worse than death.
It is correct these are stubs today. The idea of a stub is that it serves as a catalyst, to encourage people to expand it. This approach is working. Expanding the stubs will take time. They will be expanded, as more and more people get involved.
I will strongly suggest that no names be deleted. People wishing to look for items to delete, may please take their focus efforts elsewhere. We should resist the temptation to play God. Ravi Chaudhary 12:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not play God and resent that implication (as I do the one of arrogance). The articles as they are could hardly be valuable to others, as they presented no information beyond what was already in e.g. List of Jat clans. They had no assertion of importance and were strictly speaking eligible for speedy deletion as an article about a group of people: Template:Db-bio. That would have been harsh though, and so I decided to start the discussion about these uninformative oneliners. The articles as presented do not "give a family hstory" (which is a category which falls clearly under WP:NOT anyway), and deleting them does not say "you are not important enough". The article has to make the case why its subject is important, not the other way around. If not being included is "a fate, slightly worse than death", then most of us are in the same position. As for the articles being stubs, intended to act as a catalyst: the Abusaria article was created in December 2005 and no more modified since February 2006. For me, it is impossible to know that anything more of encyclopedic value can and will be said about this family and others, and thus it is perfectly normal to nominate it for deletion, without playing God or having fun doing so. People wishing that these articles be kept should make a case about why they are important as per Wikipedia guidelines, not discuss the motivations of the nominator in a needlessly negative manner. Fram 13:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All. Many Indian-related articles have limited exposure online so it can be difficult for non-Indians (and Indians too!) to discern whether something is legitimate or not. Many of these gotras are used by vastly more people than other surnames listed on Wikipedia. I trust that the wiki process will eventually introduce more content into these articles. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: but other names aren't notable either, and every article that basically only says that "X is a surname found mostly there or there" should go. If the people who know more about these things claim that there is more to say (of encyclopedic value) about each and every of these family names / subclans / whatever you want to call them, I have no reason to doubt that, although the articles as they were gave no indication of that and hence were logical targets for deletion: so keeping them because encyclopedic contents (history, asserting importance, ...) will be added is fine by me, but keeping them because other family names are supposedly notable is a wrong reason, as that isn't true per WP:NOT. Fram 13:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident that they will be expanded. All wiki articles grow quickly in size. I do not have enough familiarity with these clans to expand on many of them, but I have enough to realise much more can be written on them. GizzaChat © 09:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to all discussion above I remain unconvinced that there is any reason to keeping these as separate articles at the present time. Merging to one list keeps all the content, and redirects to a list can be overwritten any time someone has the content for a decent stub. These lack the content to be a decent stub, with the possible exception of the three I called out above. If they don't properly belong in the list highlighted above, they may need to be in multiple lists. But the fact that I can't tell what would belong where is evidence that the current content is lacking adequate context - and the one thing a stub must have is adequate context for expansion. GRBerry 22:10, 17 July 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 14:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Festation

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Only album was self-released, no current label. No independent references. Nothing links to the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Stephen (talk • contribs) 08:16 UTC, 12 July 2006. Oh mercy! Sorry all. Mr Stephen 10:32, 12 July 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 15:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked (hacker)

Well, erm. Unencyclopaedic, unverified, unverifiable, vanity (given name of author, User:XxxWickedxxx), author's only contribution other than adding a link to it from the dab page, enough..? Telsa (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A hacker calling himself 'Wicked' successfully hacked www.grc.com (Gibson Research Corp.) on 4 May, 2001 and launched a series of six DoS. The website was down for 17 hours, and Gibson, a security expert (ironic?) reports that the attack reveals an enormous bug in Windows software, reporting this and various analyses to the FBI. The hacker was caught, but because he was only 13, his name was withheld and he was not subject to prosecution.
This is a notable event, I think. Take a look at Gibson's report. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 15:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did google before listing this, and I did find this page. I don't see any evidence that the hacker/cracker/whatever in that story has any connection to the subject of the article. "wicked" is like "anarchy" and "countzero" and (these days) "neo": all very common names online. I can't tell you how many I have met over the years. I don't think a story about a 13-year-old with a DDoS tool five years ago qualifies as a source for an article about an "infamous" "old school" hacker who is known for "compromising disreputable companies". Telsa (talk) 16:51, 12 July 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 15:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shnoop

WP:WEB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clappingsimon (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 of the discussion was speedy delete as nonsense. --Ezeu 08:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boodieologist

Nonsense, not a single Google hit for "Boodieologist". Prod removed by author. Delete --Huon 08:46, 12 July 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. Mailer Diablo 15:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iroijlaplap

Delete Low noteablity and very little useful information to form an article.Davidpdx 09:04, 12 July 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 - It may seem a difficult call, Metro is only weakly calling for keep, while Yuckfoo is a well-known extreme inclusionist.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Nessim

News anchor with no apparent claim to fame, and few good sources (see google test). But he the network he works for appears to be national in scope so I thought it was a good idea to bring it here for consensus. I still say delete, unless he can be shown to meet WP:BIO on his own merits. Eluchil404 09:16, 12 July 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. Mailer Diablo 15:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Lee

I admit that I am not well-versed in the manhua genre, but it still appears to me that the article asserts insufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 09:22, 12 July 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 16:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OffGamers

Was prodded by another user for failing WP:CORP and WP:N, and creator linkspammed other MMORPG-related articles. Deprodded anonymously without comment, so listing for AfD per procedure. Appears to be WP:SPAM for a business some of whose activities are dubious at best (selling CD keys). ~ Matticus78 09:23, 12 July 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 of the discussion was speedy delete (CSD A8) – Gurch 19:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allo' Expat

Non-notable commercial website Ideogram 10:22, 12 July 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 16:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian authors

Delete. POV (thousands are Christian - how are these twenty distinct?), indiscriminate, incompletable, arbitrary, unencyclopedic - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:40, 12 July 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 16:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fluke Networks

Article failing to assert notability for company. Company doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP (difficult to tell as article is so devoid of information). Was PRODded but PROD removed without comment so comes here.➨ ЯEDVERS 11:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No need to be so respectful. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and like to have it pointed out. I havn't checked out the parent company, but I think that they may pass on basis of being an industry standard in some areas and having a great number of press articles + engineering awards. That's all for another Afd as you say--Peripitus (Talk) 22:18, 15 July 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 16:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2026 FIFA World Cup

Nominating for AfD, since the article has been prodded before and the prod was contested. Concern: "I don't suspect we should be speculating this far in advance -- the article cited says: "Nicolas Maingot, an official at FIFA's media department, said FIFA has yet to decide on the sites, or even the continents, for the World Cups beyond 2014." Considering this statement, should this even be an article currently? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Ian Manka Talk to me! 07:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)" --Zoz (t) 11:32, 12 July 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 16:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Holland

I'm sorry that Ms. Holland lost her mother and sister in the tsunami, but that doesn't make her notable (nor does writing one article for Tatler, or being Richard Attenborough's granddaughter). Author removed speedy tag w/o explanation. NawlinWiki 12:04, 12 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scot Sherman

Possibly the longest vanity article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Having read all 40k or so of it, I found one tiny sliver of notability asserted at the bottom. So it comes here. Was tagged for speedy, but detagged by a brand new editor on one of his first edits as "too long to be speedy".➨ ЯEDVERS 12:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page nonimated by Redevrs. Henry Bigg 1986 12:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above count only has 5 edits, 2 of which are de-redlinking their userpages. Kevin_b_er 01:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: First and only edit from User:Acromagalin. --Stormie 05:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Although this was my first edit, I have been a member since May. Acromagalin 05:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The meat puppets are an actual band with CDs out. This user is not like you, who may have simply put a video on YouTube, but has established a fan base via the internet with several different types of media including music and video. Not only that, he had a radio show that spanded two years which also classifys him as a disc jockey if anything. Someone could use this source after browsing the archives of the show wanting to learn more about this person. Acromagalin 17:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Sorry that other people don't share your same opinion, but I believe this is an article that could serve a greater purpose. Acromagalin 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If everone did this, Wikipedia would just be another myspace. Do we really want this? 69.160.33.76 06:10, 14 July 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 16:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God Found

Self-published nonnotable book, not on Amazon, about 50 Ghits which basically are the author's site and his press releases which he's posted everywhere he can. This article appears to be part of his publicity campaign for the book. NawlinWiki 12:26, 12 July 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. Mailer Diablo 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JAIST

Promotional for private school in Japan (material taken off the school's website which is linked to page bottom.) KarenAnn 12:26, 12 July 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 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuhisa Hashimoto

Non notable person? I can find quite a few links to him, but only confirming that he works for this company and invented this cheat. Is inventing a cheat for a computer game sufficient to be notable? Ladybirdintheuk 12:38, 12 July 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 of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator, no deletion votes so far. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Dad, Poor Dad

Blatant advertising, and the book is already discussed in the page on Robert Kiyosaki. Delete and redirect. fbb_fan 12:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Given the response so far, I'm willing to withdraw the AfD, with the qualification that the article could use some cleanup to improve NPOV. fbb_fan 17:40, 12 July 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 all articles. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Radio Records

Fails WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC, 7 distinct Google hits, has made no lasting impact on the music industry Fram 12:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also up for delete are the related articles Hits105, Hum Radio, and Mystic Mitch. The host and two of his non notable webradio stations, made hardly any impact, no notable. Fram 13:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Mitch 16:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC) I thought this was a place to record history of what once did exist at one time, regardless of how popular the entity may have been. The articles for Hits105, Hum Radio and Mystic Mitch were here for quite awhile until Fram decided to put these in a delete list. DON'T take these out of the Wiki. They may have had little impact, but their history is still important.[reply]

why don't you just delete all of Wikipedia and get it over with —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.19.114.24 (talk • contribs) .

We're working on it. Powers 15:57, 14 July 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Canada Store and Restaurant Supplies

Sounds to me too much like an advertisment and Google doesn't show that this company is notable ("Trans Canada Store and Restaurant Supplies" doesn't get any hits, ""Trans Canada Store & Restaurant Supplies" gets 7 hits) Optimale Gu 12:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Powers 14:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps not well known in Salzberg, Berlin, or U.S.A., this is significant store in Canada, more importantly in Ontario. Optimale suggests that they do not appear on Google, but is that really a good measure of a company's notability? (And may I just say that upon typing "trans canada store supplies" in Google, I got no less than 68 hits, one of which even came from the Canadian National Defense department, which outlines how the company supplied them $31 000 worth of equipment) Ask any restaurant, grocery store, school, or convenience store in Northern or Central Ontario and you will discover not only how notable, but also how vital this company is. Further, the comment about it sounding like an advertisement is completely unfounded. The article is written with clear, concise, and obvious objectiveness. There is no reason to delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.15.53 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. This private company clearly does not meet any of the very specific criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (companies). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable subjects, not a comprehensive directory of every significant business venture in the world. --Satori Son 14:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not really sure how Anonymous up there got 68 Google hits. I got two, both of which were Wikipedia. --Icewolf34 14:28, 18 July 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 17:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spells of Everquest

Currently almost completely empty, and has been for months. Even if expanded beyond current emptiness, it quickly becomes unmaintainable due to the sheer number of spells in EQ. What few notable spells there might be can easily be covered in single sentences in the EverQuest article. Powers 12:54, 12 July 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 the awards cited actually confer notability is open to further discussion - not all awards do, and we're plainly not talking a Pulitzer or a Lindgren here (yet). Yanksox also says that this link checks out the claims, but in fact it doesn't - the link is dead for me right now, but I do note that the link is from strongattheheart.com - an article's subject cannot be used to source assertions of notability about themselves. Nonetheless, those arguing for delete do so weakly, and no real case has been presented against the awards' notability, so this particular discussion can only be said to have resulted in no consensus on the basis of lack of overwhelming weight of opinion or argument. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong at the Heart: How it feels to heal from sexual abuse

No vote procedural nomination. I deprodded this article because I feel it's substantial enough to warrant consensus before deletion. Prod rationale was "Non-notable book by author without article. 350 Google hits for "Strong at the Heart" "carolyn lehman" [36]; Amazon sales rank of 271,276." - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete per prod rationale. Ms Lehman _may_ be notable in her own right and deserve her own article; that being said, the Christopher Award mentioned in this article appears to be from a fairly minor religious institute [37] (no Wikipedia articles on the award or the institute, incidentally) rather than a recognized literary award, so I won't express a stronger opinion than that, but this particular book isn't - absent the usual verifiable evidence of notability, of course. Tevildo 13:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Tevildo. Seems interesting, but when it comes to modern books, sales and popularity takes up about 90% of my criteria. AdamBiswanger1 13:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per above. No more notable than 50,000 other books in your local Borders. Normally I'm an inclusionist but we don't need an article on all of them. =) Powers 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Hi. I'm the guy who put the article up, so hardly surprisingly, I think it should stay. The reason I think it's very important is that there are thousands of abused boys and girls (most now adults) who will welcome the access to important material as provided by the encyclopaedic resource of Wikipaedia. Because of the sex industry, searches for articles relating to child sexual abuse don't always through up suitable answers and Wikipaedia is always there on page 1 or 2. Tony Sandel
    • Comment. Tony, thanks for your contribution. The issue here is the notability of this particular book, not the subject of child abuse in general. As the article's author, it's your duty to provide verifiable (WP:V refers) sources of its notability - independent reviews, citations by other experts in the field, evidence of its use by respected therapists, etc. I'm not saying the article should be deleted merely because the book has a low sales rank; however, you'll have to provide some other reasons why it should be kept if its going to survive AfD. Tevildo 14:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep As the author of the book in question, perhaps I can offer some context for the discussion. Strong at the Heart was published last November on the young adult (YA) list of Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, a literary publisher. YA nonfiction is a small part of the market, but--as evidenced by Mr. Sandal's article--this book has developed an international crossover audience among adults (Japanese rights sold early, although that edition is not out yet). What makes the book unusual, groundbreaking actually, is that it is the first to bring readers face-to-face with real teens and adults who talk about their experiences with childhood sexual abuse and healing. Each person's story is illustrated with photographs, including a full face portrait; these are not anonymous or "composite" stories written by a clinician to prove a point, but rather real people sharing a wide range of personal experience. The mix of interviews reflects the demographics of child sexual abuse in North America, so readers get a picture of how abuse happens, who survivors are, and the wide range of choices people make in addressing this experience. Honors for Strong at the Heart include: Kentucky Bluegrass Award, 2007 Master List for grades 9-12; National Council for the Social Studies, and The Children's Book Council, 2006 Notable Trade Book for Young People; Skipping Stones Magazine, 2006 Honor Book; Bank Street College, Children's Book Committee, Teen List, one of twenty five recommended books for teens in 2006; New York Public Library, 2006 Books for the Teen Age. Carolyn Lehman (added by 70.132.15.149 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log))
  • keep Booklist, Horn Book, and Kirkus reviews are all notable reviewing agancies who think this book is notable. I personally think there are far too few resources for people who have lived through sexual abuse, and this is a particularly helpful one for teens and young adults in particular. It'd be nice if people could find out about it via Wiki. "Without sensationalizing, the first-person narratives each convey the particulars of an individual experience that will encourage readers' empathy." -- The Horn Book "Excellently balanced. Over and over, the interviewees each say how much it helped to hear that someone else shared their experiences - that they were not alone. One hopes that this book will be that voice for readers." -- Kirkus Reviews "Lehman's powerful collection...packs a strong emotional punch. The strength of this sensitive, evenhanded book comes from its increasing awareness about something teens may be silently suffering." -- Booklist G Schmidt (no such user. this was added by 70.231.236.169 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log)
    • Pretty much every nonfiction book has positive reviews on the back cover; that alone does not make it notable. Nor does a book being useful make it notable. Powers 21:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I looked around and did a google search on the whole title and found this list which checks out the claims except for the NYPL award[38]. This appears to be a notable book, and worthy of inclusion. Yanksox 23:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article appears to be more of an advert for a particular object (a book) than a discussion of the subject matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.133.111.117 (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. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Livewire (game)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing Malcoci

Unsourced article about a film which may or may not have been made or might or might not be planned to be made. The website linked to requires registration to view any of its possible content, so it's of no help. Google search provides a few unhelpful links. If it can't be verified to exist, the article needs to go Xyzzyplugh 13:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Variety magazine, Marketing Malcoci is slated to begin production in May, 2007. Starring: Macaulay Culkin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milkeor (talk • contribs) 14:03, 12 July 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 already transwiki'd. Mangojuicetalk 00:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surreptitious Machinations

This is the name of a plotline in the webcomic General Protection Fault. Previously I redirected this article to GPF, since I felt the details of the story were already sufficiently handled in the main article. However, my redirect was reverted by the author of the article with a demand that it go through AfD. So here we are. Though GPF is undoubtely a major webcomic, extensive plot summaries (and this one is very detailed) do not belong here, particularly when they're spun off into separate articles. It's a textbook example of WP:CRUFT. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Transwiki to Comixpedia. Great stuff but too much detail for WP. Even episodes of Star Trek don't get this much detail. Powers 14:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Comixpedia as per Powers. Very detailed article. Dionyseus 16:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we transwiki the full description and keep a vastly-narrowed description of the storyline? I am the original author as mentioned in the delete request. I understand the arguments for moving the full synopsis to Comixpedia [EDIT 22:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC): Comixpedia had a much-earlier, more basic description I had written. I have copied the current WP text there]. But this storyline should not go unignored in Wikipedia. GPF is arguably one of the most popular web comics of today, and Surreptitious Machinations was an all-consuming storyline within it. Just as a major episode of Smallville or Star Trek would get its own basic article, I believe there should be something of an independent article on WP for this storyline. --Kitch 22:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's more analogous to a major storyline from a comic book than from a TV show, I'd say. But even if it wasn't, take a look at The Best of Both Worlds (TNG episode), arguably the most important (two-part) episode of TNG. It includes an Overview, discussing the episode's role in the overall Star Trek saga, a relatively consise plot summary, and a criticism section. And it's still shorter than this article. =) It's possible this storyline might merit an article, but it needs to be more than just a detailed rehash of the plot; it needs context, and it needs references for that context. Powers 23:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a major plotline no doubt, but it dates back to 2002. No such synopses of later plotlines have been written, nor should they. No webcomic has its entire plot mapped out in such an exhaustive fashion. In fact, I suspect that's true of any work of fiction on Wikipedia, and that's the way it should be. It's not encyclopedic and should be on a fan site. It even goes beyond Cliff's Notes. We shouldn't even have scaled down versions of the plot spun off into separate articles either, since it makes maintaining consistency across them difficult. Perhaps a single plotline article would be fine, such as Storyline of Bob and George, but even that tends to be a cruft magnet. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 10:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A webcomic plotline. As per above. - Hahnchen 17:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wikipedia has articles on the plotlines of other series, so I don't see a reason to delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic cruft. -- Dragonfiend 04:20, 17 July 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 10:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Work spouse

Deprodded without explanation; transwikied to Wiktionary at wikt:Transwiki:Work spouse. TheProject 18:46, 29 June 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 15:50, 7 July 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, - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I think the question we need to develop is, is this a valid sociological concept, covered in literature and accepted by scholars. My guess is, no. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete verbose dictdef is still a dictdef. Already transwikied. Kimchi.sg 14:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Dionyseus 14:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem as I see it is that "Work wife" or "Work-wife" or "Workwife" or "Office wife" has in fact gotten a substantial amount of traction, but the phrase "Work spouse" has not. By trying to be gender-neutral, the writer has created a term that doesn't really exist. Incidentally Faith Baldwin—what? we don't have an article on her? we should—wrote a 1930 novel entitled "Office Wife," which became a movie. The imdb plot summary says "Larry Fellowes of Fellowes Publishing wants Kate to write her next book about the 'Office Wife'. The personal secretary/stenographer spends more time with the busy executive and makes more decisions than his wife ever well. This creates a bond between the secretary and boss that the wife can not hope to equal," so the phrase "office wife" is hardly new. See this Wordspy article for more evidence of its reality.
Mr. Smith is hereby awarded a round tuit for his perspicacious opinion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:45, 12 July 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 of the discussion was speedy delete CSD G4 - repost. Note that the 1st AfD closed with an outcome of userfy to User:Michelsauret. Kimchi.sg 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Sauret

Non-notable author. His only book on Amazon is "Breathing God" and has a sales rank of almost 3 million. "Breathing God" Sauret gets 24 Google hits. Only 297 Google results for his name, not much notability that I can find in the results. Metros232 13:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, was already deleted with wrong spelling: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel sauret. Fram 14:11, 12 July 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 17:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Renegades

Delete 2nd nom. 1st nom. Now that NEMHL was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeast Midget Hockey League, we should re-do this AfD for the sake of consistency. No other NEMHL teams have articles here. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:53, 12 July 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 17:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel deBelzier

no Google hits. Page was created by user:Marcel deBelzier Jr., at least unverifiable, possibly a hoax Travelbird 13:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep * He is quoted in the Book of Orphic Knowledge and other places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.176.10 (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. Mailer Diablo 17:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southeastern Kenpo Karate Ju-Jitsu Brotherhood Professor Bob Myers

not notable Jorge1000xl 13:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Append to nomination: South Eastern Kenpo Karate Ju-Jitsu Brotherhood Professor Bob Myers - same article, slightly different title. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:55, 12 July 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 17:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle Gene

Seems like a WP:NEO. Most of the search results I find are "lifestyle, genes..." as part of a list of factors in life. About 230 Google hits, only a couple that look like it's this term. Metros232 14:34, 12 July 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 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euronaivism

The word seems to have been made up by the author. A Google search for pages in English yields only 67 hits. All of those are either exact copies of the article (complete with merge proposal), or just a nonsensical, dead-end list of words with no independent meaning. Virtually every sentence and clause in the article starts speculatively with may or if, and it is merely called a possible caricature. At minimum, the lack of any other use on the internet means it is non-notable and non-verifiable. It's just not a real word used by anyone else. OneVeryBadMan 14:23, 12 July 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 of the discussion was delete, obviously. Friday (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Carter

I really hate bringing this to AfD, but after listing this item for speedy deletion twice, and Prodded once, with ALL tags removed by the author, by procedure I have no choice. Page is a complete vanity/bio page of a nn Teen. I would support either deletion or userfying to the author's user page. Can't we teach new users that removing deletion tags is considered vandalism and not good Wiki manners? Wildthing61476 14:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. And give this guy a stiff warning on his talk page about creation of vanity articles, removal of speedy delete tags, and inserting references to himself into other articles. ---Charles 14:52, 12 July 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 (Liberatore, 2006). 18:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reslab

Promotional for non-notable company whose website is given in very first sentence. KarenAnn 14:49, 12 July 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 20:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Kuhn

Doesn't seem to be any more notable than the average college professor DJ Clayworth 15:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Seems more notable than the average college professor. Dionyseus 15:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Here's an article [40]. He's well known in his field. Teke 16:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But whilst he is a producer of source material on other subjects (that is used as a reference in several Wikipedia articles), there is little biographical source material about him, that can be used as the basis for this article. The article that you link to contains exactly one sentence about Markus Kuhn himself, for example. Uncle G 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Articles are not written in a day. Come on. And most of the biographies on the Wikipedia don't come from published biographies. Evertype
        • Speed of writing has nothing to do with it. I was talking about lack of source material. Any biographical articles here on Wikipedia that don't come from sources are in contravention of our (1) Wikipedia:Verifiability and (2) Wikipedia:No original research policies. Uncle G 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No way. Go and look at those pages. (1) Biographies of living people need special care because biographies containing unsourced material might negatively affect someone's life and could have legal consequences. Remove unsourced material about living persons immediately if it could be viewed as criticism,[1][2] and do not move it to the talk page. I don't see anything on his page that meets these criteria for deletion. (2) An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following: It introduces a theory or method of solution; It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms; It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source. I do not find anything on that page that meets these criteria. Evertype 17:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please read the whole of our policy pages. I don't see anything on his page that meets these criteria for deletion. — The criteria for deletion that are relevant here are verifiability and original research. If you do not see that an article for which no underlying source material exists is unverifiable, then you haven't yet grasped the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If you do not see that an article that presents a synthesis of facts, i.e. a biography, of a person without reference to any existing synthesis (or indeed, without any sources for the facts being synthesised) is original research, then you haven't yet grasped the Wikipedia:Original research policy. Please read them again. They are fundamental to what we do here. Uncle G 17:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not a newbie, Uncle G, and you've no credible complaint about anything in that article. I wish you no luck with your crusade. Best regards, Evertype 17:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've pointed out that there are no secondary sources on the subject matter. That is pretty much the most fundamental complaint that there is. That you ignore it does not make it go away. I've asked you to cite sources twice, now. If you can cite sources, you can address the complaint. But so far you have not cited any sources at all, and have repeatedly instead argued about something other than sources. Please cite sources. Citing sources is always the best argument. Uncle G 18:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Markus' contributions to standards and internationalization standards are quite notable. This article should be expanded, not deleted. The proposal for deletion seems rather mean-spirited. Evertype 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain what sources you think can be used to make this article verifiable and to expand it. Uncle G 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note that Wikipedia covers his contributions elsewhere, in articles such as EURion constellation. As I said, he is a producer of source material on other subjects that is used as reference material in the articles on those subjects. For an article about him, however, there has to be source material about him. Uncle G 16:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you suggest that he was NOT (born 1971 in Munich), that he is NOT is a German computer scientist, that he is NOT currently teaching and researching at the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, that he did NOT graduate from the University of Erlangen (Germany), Purdue University (Indiana, US), and the University of Cambridge (England), and that he is NOT a Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge? I am sure that similar statements are made in MOST of the biographical articles on the Wikipedia. The number of pages which link to that article shows that an article is needed and useful. Deleting it would just leave a whole lot of dead links. To what purpose? What specific information on this page do you consider particularly suspect? Evertype 17:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, your argument bears no relation to what I actually wrote, and does not answer what you were asked. The number of hyperlinks to this article is irrelevant. What is important here is sources. I ask again: What sources do you think can be used to verify the article as it stands, to expand the article, and (indeed!) to verify the statements that you make above? Please cite some sources of biographical information about this person. You have Teke has cited one that contains 1 sentence of information (which isn't even in this article, ironically), so far. Uncle G 17:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What source exactly do we need to prove that Markus was born in Munich in 1971? Where is the source proving that Jimbo Wales was born in Huntsville? This move for deletion is mean-spirited and pointless, and the deletion of this article for the weak theoretical argument you make will not make the Wikipedia any better. Evertype 17:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • We need a reliable source that states that, of course. The source for anything in Jimbo Wales should be cited by that article (and, indeed, if you read that article you will find that it cites sources and even has a citation link right next to the sentence that states where he was born). If you consider Wikipedia:Verifiability to be "weak" and "theoretical", then you have come to the wrong place. Verifiability is fundamental to Wikipedia. Uncle G 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...and that was about the third link down on a google search, right below his homepage and the wiki entry. An advanced search turns up 179,000 exact matches- many are this Kuhn. Uncle G, votes are opinions and policy to provide concensus. It is not necessary to argue with everyone who disagrees with you. Teke 17:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have made two errors in one paragraph. First: This is not a vote. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Second: Counting Google Web hits is not research. One has to actually read the pages that Google turns up. I actually did the same Google search before you did, and came across the same article. I've read quite a few of the results turned up by Google, and have yet to find one that is a potential source for this article. As I said before, there's a lot of source material written by Markus Kuhn. It's what the Google Web search turns up, and indeed is material that is used for other articles here. But there's no source material written about Markus Kuhn, for use as reference material for this article. There simply is no source material for a verifiable encyclopaedia article to be written. You can demonstrate me to be wrong by citing sources. Please do so. Uncle G 18:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • By vote I stated to provide opinions and policy towards concensus; which is what the Guide to deletion explains. I am not a newbie; your aggressiveness in arguing is not appreciated nor are the condescending tones you are taking. Please stop Wikilawyering, it will garner no support for your cause. Teke 22:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable. Please refer to Computer Security Engineering ISBN 0471389226. --Ragib 17:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? What does the book tell us about Markus Kuhn (as opposed to the subject of computer security engineering)? Uncle G 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The book goes on in great detail to talk about Kuhn's work in the field. (Not one liner remarks, rather sections on his work in breaking various secuirty measures in cryptographic chips. Thank you. --Ragib 07:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep his work on Soft Tempest alone merits a keep. — ciphergoth 18:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As pointed out above, I haven't been able to turn up any source material about the subject of this article (even though he is the author of source meterial on other subjects). A verifiable biographical encyclopaedia article about this person that is free from original research simply cannot be written. Unlike Mark Russinovich (AfD discussion), there simply isn't anything published about Markus Kuhn that isn't directly sourced from Markus Kuhn himself. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography.) The principles of Verifiability and No Original Research cannot be thrown out simply because we would like an article to be written about someone. Markus Kuhn is in the class of people who have produced citeable works but who themselves are unverifiable.

    I encourage any editor who thinks that Markus Kuhn should have a biography to go and write one. Get it published as a book, in a journal, or in a magazine, and then Wikipedia can have an article on him. But sans sources, which is the case as far as I have been able to find (and no editor arguing that this article be kept has actually found and cited any sources that are about Markus Kuhn), no article can be had. Delete. Uncle G 18:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. He may deserve an biography, yes, but so far it seems no one else has done it, and we're not to be the first to do so. Kimchi.sg 19:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a strange policy. Lots of people covered on Wikipedia don't have separate biographies, but are covered here because of their notable work. See eg Paul Crowley - we've assembled an article based on the verifiable information we can find. — ciphergoth 20:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Obviously notable, though I admit that the article doesn't make this clear. He is well known for several different achievements - indeed, I'd heard of him years ago, and given the extent of my knowledge about computer science, that's saying something. While it's true that there ought to be sources for the stuff in this article there is no need at all to wait until a published biography is written! It's completely within policy - indeed, it's basically the point of Wikipedia! - to collect and collate information from other sources. TheGrappler 20:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Evertype and Ciphergoth. I find Uncle G's concerns about verifiability thoroughly overstated. In cases like this, I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to use the subject's own resume's, webpages, etc. to work from. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per TheGrappler. I believe his notability is established by the work he has done, warranting inclusion. ViridaeTalk 00:06, 13 July 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 a cursory look through the individual characters' articles, their powers are well-documented, so I am declining to actually merge anything. If someone wants to do more careful work, let me know. Mangojuicetalk 19:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed Powers

Words like "just to give you a basic idea of the series" and other such what --HamedogTalk|@ 15:19, 12 July 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 18:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TNR Radio

It's been about 5 months since I can last recall AfD discussing this type of thing, so I'm asking again: is an individual Live365 stream notable and encyclopedic? No opinion from me - I'm looking for community input.➨ ЯEDVERS 15:29, 12 July 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 18:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hireworkers.com

WP:WEB Alexa rates this at over 1,200,000. Blatant advert for a non-notable website - feel free to Speedy Rklawton 15:34, 12 July 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 18:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric vehicle education

Fails WP:CORP, WP:WEB. Website has only 9,300 hits (total). Article is a blatant advertisement for a non-notable company. Rklawton 15:38, 12 July 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 per consensus and author's request. Haukur 21:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ECRA Group

The group appears to be a company that advises some Illinois school districts. Of the 289 Google results, the few that offer any insight at all are minutes from boards of education meetings. Article reads as an advertisement for the group.

ALSO NOMINATING I am also nominating Dr. Louis A. Gatta, the CEO of this group whose article reads as his resume.

Should this be deleted, to the closing admin, there's a few redirects and images uploaded by User:Gordon55M that relate to all this including ECRA and Louis Gatta. Metros232 16:10, 12 July 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 of the discussion was Speedy G4 by Gwernol. Tevildo 17:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landlords-insurance.com (2nd nomination)

Page recreated after deletion on first nomination. However, the creator re-created this page. Again, non-notable, fails WP:CORP. No sources, not verifiable (from first nomination). I say delete. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 16:15, 12 July 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 20:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy danger

Doesn't seem very notable and basically the entire aricle is a copyvio from here (after cliking on the "Bio" link). —Mets501 (talk) 12:52, 6 July 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, Mailer Diablo 16:13, 12 July 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 nothing to merge; redirect - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Maoism

Very short article lacking even a definition. As it stands this article should probably be a redirect, or deleted outright. jaco♫plane 15:31, 6 July 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, Mailer Diablo 16:14, 12 July 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 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spitting Blood

NN band, does not meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Album is being released by the DIY label, and have only played local clubs. If they become established they could be included Wildthing61476 17:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant touring, no actual album yet. --Joelmills 01:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Band and members are a significant part of the Exeter/South West underground scene, band is relevant to the scene and articles related to it. --Pete_Holloway 19.52, 7 July 2006 (BST)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:14, 12 July 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 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Trejo-Caballero

Claims to be president of the International Institute for Democracy. That is a real and notable organization [42], but its website doesn't list him as president, or anything else. The only web reference I found to him was of him being a senior at Ohio State in 2002. [43]. When you take out the IID hoax, what's left is a nonnotable bio even if true. NawlinWiki 18:12, 6 July 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, Mailer Diablo 16:15, 12 July 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 10:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Estill

This self-advert / autobiography has been nominated for speedy deletion once and prodded twice. In lieu of the second prod, which is not allowed, I am hereby taking it to AfD so we can have it deleted properly. The article asserts some notability, but I do not believe that its subject is notable enough to warrant an article, especially not one to which he himself is the only substantial contributor. Henning Makholm 20:18, 6 July 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, Mailer Diablo 16:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Stifle. Dionyseus 16:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I was going to vote delete, but I did a proquest search and found about half a dozen articles on him and his companies. I've distilled a few drops of encyclopedic essence from these articles and redrafted the entire article. He might pass WP:BIO#10. Most of the stuff that I could not immediately verify I have snipped. If it survives the AfD, or if there is interest, I can try looking for better sources. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to go Weak Delete, per Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes and the evidence of the purged SYNNEX effort. As the phrase goes, when you're notable enough, someone else will write the article. Not verbatim policy, but a good rule of thumb here I think. --DaveG12345 21:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's worth pointing out that Estill is also on the board of directors of Research In Motion. -- Mwalcoff 23:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tough case. As a member of the board of directors of a public company with shares or ADRs traded in the United States, the company is required to include a brief bio in their annual reporting. All of these are available online. He's been on the board for 9 years, so the basics of his business involvement are clearly available. These corporate reports should count as reliable sources due to the risk of shareholder lawsuit for knowing inclusion of false information. His blogs are self published material, so they aren't reliable sources for establishing notability, but they are reliable sources for expanding the article. It will be hard to have more than a stub unless the Canadian media chooses to do a bio. The Forbes Q&A recently added to the article is weak data on notability. He sits on the board of a number of other Canadian companies. I think it is a Weak Delete. As a blogger, it is hard to sort through for news media coverage, but I've tried searches with several limiting terms, and the best I've found is this site listing him as #19 in Canadian computer dealer newsmakers for 2005. That just isn't high enough for my thresholds. GRBerry 14:09, 13 July 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 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third generation Go-Go bands

Article has no context of what the third generation entails, if it's important, and it's an indiscriminate list. Attempts to get the page cleaned up have been unsuccesful, and people seem to be using it for advertising their own bands. Awiseman 20:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I created the article by spinning off the list from Go go because it was getting out of control. --Awiseman 20:59, 6 July 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, Mailer Diablo 16:16, 12 July 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 18:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of foods

Way too generic, and aims to duplicate a category. Dr Zak 16:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Isn't this what "Category:Foods" is for? Agent 86 20:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Categorizing foods is what the category is for. Monitoring changes to articles is what the watchlist is for. Find a food that needs coverage? Write an article/stub or try the Requested articles. From what I can tell, list attempts only to duplicate these functions. GassyGuy 21:18, 12 July 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 18:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prize Marlin

Prod removed by author (gee, surprise!). Non-notable sexual term, and does not belong on Wikipedia, perhaps Urban Dictionary Wildthing61476 16:47, 12 July 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 21:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roshana

Does not meet Wiki music notability criteria. Two hits on Google - one to emusic.com download page, and one to myspace.com site. One album released on indie label (2005). KarenAnn 16:47, 12 July 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 (Liberatore, 2006). 18:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter "Big Walt" Anderson

Prolific but non-notable author. Probable vanity article. -- RHaworth 16:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn, fails WP:BIO at least, for failing to have multiple non-trivial articles by uninvolved third parties. Article has no verification, and appears to be original research. I can't speak to the vanity potential, but will note that author Wikitpad has only five edits to his/her credit, all to this article. At least one book title was through a vanity press (Milk & Honey Publishing). Tychocat 18:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO and probably WP:ADS. --Satori Son 14:06, 18 July 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 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ToolBook Instructor

The article is an advertisement. It needs to be fixed, or deleted. Given the number of poor CMS articles the Wikipedia currently contains my guess is that it won't be fixed. goofyheadedpunk 17:11, 12 July 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 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ekklesia 360

This article has no content. It's another silly CMS, another poor CMS article. goofyheadedpunk 17:23, 12 July 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 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trio-Sanity

This is not the same article as was previously deleted in the former AfD. This article is abotu an upcoming game, which doing a Google searhc, search on IGN, GameFaqs and GameSpot turns up 0 results. This appears to be an elaborate hoax. Wildthing61476 17:28, 12 July 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 03:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tridion

Just another crappy CMS-related article. goofyheadedpunk 17:32, 12 July 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 (Liberatore, 2006). 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Web Department

Stubish, not noteworty and somewhat like an advert. Really, it's a lot like most of the other CMS articles, so I proprose to delete it unless someone can fish up some real content. goofyheadedpunk 17:38, 12 July 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 11:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stellent

This is not a note-worthy company. Unless someone can cook up some comment this article is just cruft. goofyheadedpunk 17:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. Another example of complete gibberish masquerading as English prose, too. Tevildo 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the company has apparently been nominated for a few small-business type awards, but then these things are a dime a dozen. If the subject is notable, its article has not made the case for this in the almost two years since the article was started. -- H·G (words/works) 19:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a Google search proves it clearly passes WP:CORP. Independent publisher APress has recently published a 500 page textbook on their technology. That satisfies criteria 1 for a noteworthy company. According to the enterprise content management page, Stellent is considered a leader in their industry by independent analysts Gartner and Forrester, and occurs frequently in their publications. That satisfies critera 2 of a noteworthy company. Only one criteria is needed to qualify, so by Wikipedia rules the page must stay. However, I fully agree that the page looks terrible and somebody needs to update it.--72.135.39.217 03:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although this particular article is relatively uninformative and badly written, the company deserves a place on Wikipedia. Their Content Management System is used in many coporate offices. Information on their philosophies and products should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.124.151.5 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: Recommendations of IP addresses are generally ignored, please sign in or get an account. Stifle (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be listed on major exchange NASDAQ. Stifle (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm the author of the aforementioned book published by APress. I'd be willing to expand on the company's wiki page if you keep it. Otherwise, somebody on their Yahoo user group for developers might be willing. Its got 2000 members, and 11,000 archived articles on Stellent's technology. I' m a little surprised that people would consider this not a note-worthy company.--Bex 01:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, to my mind, pushing an article up for deletion every so often is a bit like Wikipedia's Natural Selection. If the article is voted to be retained it will likely be improved more than it would have were a stub or cleanup tag put on it. If the article is voted to be deleted then we've just cleaned up a bit of cruft. The Wikipedia has a lot of stubs and useless articles in it and low traffic articles don't recieve much attention even with a stub tag, so it may well be worth it to delete that which we weren't keeping up. No offense, of course; just trying to shake things up in a constructive manner. goofyheadedpunk 05:34, 17 July 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Student Price Card

First nom. In the 3 months since this was on AFD, nothing has changed. It still reads like an ad. Wikipedia is not a directory, or an inidscriminate collection of information. Extremely strong delete Ardenn 17:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I've tried to do some cleanup on the article. I know it does need somemore though. -Royalguard11Talk 20:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep. The reasons given for deletion seem a wee bit hyperbolic, but the article is quite a mess, what with the large number of templates tacked on to this article, practically screaming out for attention. Nevertheless, the subject matter has some encyclopedic value. If people like Royalguard11 spend time on it, it seems to me that this is salvagable. If not, no great loss. Agent 86 20:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet the criteria for products and services in WP:CORP. Moreover, it had a major "overhaul" on July 12 (according to the history), but it still reads like an advertisement. --Skeezix1000 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up, especially bearing in mind that the cleanup contemplated by two of the people in the last AFD doesn't seem to be evident. Stifle (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Look, I wrote this page because the Student Price Card program is widely accepted in places throughout Canada and deserves to be acknowleaged. This is my first fully written article, so if it needs to go, it needs to go. Spyco 06:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to contact members from various Canadian city wikiprojects and see if they can help. We have made it cler that the SPC program is well known throughout Canada. I've been asked by many travellers what SPC stands for. Now that we know that most say keep, let's just expand on it, shall we? Spyco 09:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep I agree that this is a well known national program (thus notable) but that this article needs lots of work. Add clean up tag, don't delete. Quepasahombre 03:27, 17 July 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 of the discussion was speedy deleted, CSD-A1. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12:01

I'm not sure WHERE to list this as a CSD, so I thought I would bring it to AfD for clarification. What's next 5:25 which is 25 after 5 AM or 5 PM? Wildthing61476 18:16, 12 July 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Jewish_American_journalists

Unencyclopaedic, unnecessary, and of highly dubious accuracy throughout. Chiefly used as a tool for anti-Semitic posters to claim Jewish control of the media. Most importantly, this is simply a recreated version of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jews_in_the_media, which was deleted by a large consensus. Dbratton 18:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough notable people on the list, and it doesn't seem to be anti-semetic at all. Lorty 18:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, it's not the list itself that's anti-semitic, but rather the way that it's used elsewhere as some sort of proof that the American media is Jewish-controlled. This is an anti-semitic position, and is what I was referring to. Dbratton 18:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, there's a [Category:Jewish-American journalists] which I think suffices, and I'm always keen to delete list pages where a category does the same work. The only benefit of this list over a category is that we have citations to prove the Jewish heritage of each individual, and while I concede that this is a big benefit, there's no reason why these citations can't be made in the subjects' individual articles. -- H·G (words/works) 23:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List cruft. And a cat would do the job better anyway, if the job really need doing, which I;m not utterly sure of. Artw 00:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think that all lists and categories of people by nationality, ethnicity and religion should be deleted because there is no agreement on the criteria for including people in such groups. For example, if a person moved to another country as a young adult and has since spent half of his or her life in many other countries, some for a few months, some for several years and one for many years, which countries should be counted? For religions, if a person was brought up in a Christian household, but does not attend church, except for weddings, should he or she be counted as a Christian? Even if a person attends church frequently, he or she may not have converted to Christianity yet (from non-belief). Also, a person may attend church even when they don't believe, out of habit, family obligation or appearances. As for ethnicity, there is disagreement over whether it matters how much of a certain ethnicity a person is (this may not be scientifically accurate, another problem) and whether it only matters what the person considers himself or herself to be, or both. For example, a person who is only 25% Spanish, but grew up in Spain, may consider himself or herself only Spanish, even though he or she is 75% English and moved to England 20 years ago. It should be remembered that it is very likely that we will not have access to all of this information (whether a person truly believes in a religion, what ethnicity or ethnicities they consider themselves to be or even all of the countries a person has lived in, if they are not very notable or there are just no records, like for a person who went by a pseudonym or hid his or her past), let alone which factors should be used to make determinations. This makes such lists extremely unreliable. Also, since there are no exhaustive lists of people by ethnicity, nationality and religion from reliable sources that we can use as sole determinants for inclusion and no widely accepted criteria for determining who should be included in such groups, the lists are original research. Finally, whether a person fits into a group is almost always determined by a member or enthusiast of that group. This tends to lead to individuals thought of as admirable (like most celebrities) to be added to the list and those thought to be undesirable (like murderers) to be excluded when they should not be. Categories have the same problem, so I do not suggest them as an alternative, although they might be slightly less abusive than lists, since only people that have articles can be included in them and people who are knowledgeable about the person are more likely to see that he or she has been included in the group. My apologies for the long post. -- Kjkolb 01:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant to a category for a start. WP:LC applies. Stifle (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Isotope23. Kjkolb makes a good argument about the fluidity of this or any trait, but to me that is a solid reason this should remain a list. As a list, it can be more reliably policed for solid sourcing. This list hasn't changed since the last AfD.--Chaser T 06:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the person who took a completely unsourced list in May and sourced it under Wiki's NOR and V policies. Saddened to see that it has since become a battleground with certain oft-blocked editors insistin on adding inappropriate content. I do have problems with all the X-American lists overall. Maybe they should all be deleted. But as long as we list Puerto Rican, Irish-American and Catholic journalists, no reason not to list Jewish ones. Mad Jack 07:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's been sourced (and details or conflicts about the sources can be worked on the discussion page if better sources are needed) and it includes very notable journalist, of whom their religion is relevant matter. I don't see any element of anti-Semitism and even that can be taken care of with a prod for NPOV.Agne27 04:44, 17 July 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 - Looks like Fan-1967 made a good case of debunking the keeps, especially his comment regarding the allsorts who also got invited to this festival.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey (band)

Was tagged for CSD-A7, but it appears to have a sliver of assertion of notability under WP:BAND so it comes here. No opinion from me - I'm just clearing CAT:CSD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Sharing the stage with" can be an awfully vague term. Someone puts on a show with touring bands, and lets a local act or two open the show. Being an opening act before a notable band doesn't make you notable. Fan-1967 14:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply/Comment I never said it did, in fact many other Afd ive stated that i dont condone "reflected glory" that why i wanted it qualified to see if their presence was requested by these bands or how many people they played for etc. etc. because those facts (if significant enough) can push a band in to notability in my opinion. — (chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the time I've seen the phrase used for some marginal band, it has turned out to be something like that, where they appeared on the same stage at the same event, but not necessarily at the same time. But perhaps author can turn up something more. Fan-1967 15:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Appearing on a label that also features notable acts is an acceptable criterion under WP:MUSIC. Sharing an agent with notable acts is not. Neither is appearing in the same show or festival as notable acts. The Great Performers of Illinois series ([45]) includes folk dancers, square dancers, storytellers, school choirs and orchestras, and a drum circle. Not all are notable. Seriously, I wish this group all the best, but I see nothing to indicate that they have, at this stage in their career, achieved the notability to qualify. Fan-1967 18:14, 13 July 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. Mailer Diablo 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JetBlue Airways Flight 292

As I mentioned at this AfD, I am nominating this one now that that one has been deleted. Basically, I do not think that this incident was notable. The article itself says that "there was actually little real danger to the passengers or crew of Flight 292"; basically,. this was a non-event. No-one died, no-one was hurt, no-one will remember this (bar those involved) in a few years' time. It is a bad case of recentism, which is one of the chief flaws of Wikipedia. If it turns out that this radically changes design of aircraft or something, we can recreate. But for now, let us delete. Batmanand | Talk 18:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This was notable as not only were people around the US able to watch this live on cable nwes, but the people on board were able to watch the coverage too, which is the first time this has ever happened. And as to your comment of nobody will remember this, I know I will, so that's already one person. The last afd on this was an overwhelming majority, and I tend to agree with the sentiment of the first. --Lakerdonald 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've been in an aircraft that had a brake fire. It was only a flight from Bristol to Edinburgh, it wasn't on the TV, a few dozen people arrived home several hours later than we'd planned to. I'll remember that incident, but that doesn't make it notable. Neither is this one. Tevildo 22:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your incident wasn't covered on tv and viewed by millions. Further, media coverage continued because of the notability of this event well after it occurred. 72.197.29.42 13:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Perhaps not a _routine_ occurrence, but only notable because it was on TV. This sort of accident is not at all uncommon in aviation - are we to have articles on every baggage truck that bum ps into a 747, or every Piper Cub pilot that makes a bit of a bish of a landing and ends up with "Nosegear collapsed, engine shock-loaded"? I hope not... Tevildo 18:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tevildo. Kimchi.sg 19:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valuable, well written, well sourced information about an unusual event that was made even more unusual by the scope and immediacy of the media attention. This article has already been kept through one AfD and we should do the same again. Johntex\talk 20:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it was not an unusual event at all, just a televised one. There is no foreseeable consequence of this. If it is cited as the precedent in a major airline, or even media, change or event or what-have-you, then it can be recreated with a discussion that involves actual significance. Currently it is not a big deal. GassyGuy 21:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That may depend on the definition of unusal. I think runway closings for emergency landings happen less than once a month across all the commercial airports in the US. I will see if I can find a statistic on that. Johntex\talk 22:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that view is inconsistent with the fact that we have articles on many frequently occurring things, without a need for them to exceptional in any way. A prime example is high schools. Johntex\talk 22:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe that articles on high schools should be deleted. Also, some things can be notable even though they occur somewhat frequently. Near disasters, in my opinion, cannot be notable unless there is something extraordinary about them. I don't think that the media coverage was enough to cover notability for an encyclopedia article. A newspaper or magazine article, certainly, but not an encyclopedia article. -- Kjkolb 00:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Johntex. --Aude (talk contribs) 04:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, maybe merge. I voted to delete the AA 1740 article and so I might seem a bit inconsistent here, but there are three factors which tip me to the keep side this time. First, this is a much better article, with a detailed summary of the events and the investigation. Second, this article was considered interesting enough to go into the DYK box on the main page (and I know of no other incident where the passengers on the involved plane got to have an external view of their aircraft from onboard screens). Third, while AA 1740 is hardly the most serious incident to hit American Airlines, B6 232 is the most serious incident so far in JetBlue's history (which might suggest that a merge of some, but not all, the content might be a solution). I think the notability of such accidents are very dubious, but because of the article's quality, the DYK, and JetBlue history factor, I am going for inclusion on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP, this was a HIGHLY notable accident, especially in California, with millions playing close attention to it. It will very likely be looked up in the future as an example of how transportation, media, technology have evolved. Also, the simple fact that there was so much media coverage on this event warrants keeping the article; if there had been no coverage then deletion would be warranted. 72.197.29.42 13:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep since this a notable accient. Also if anyone is interested please vote keep on my other low death plane crash article since that article has the same weight as this one. Storm05 15:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A modern plane, why did this happen? - an accident doesn't need to be fatal to be notable (eg. Gimli Glider ) - in fact, this one is probaly more notable than the recent Russian runway slide-off which was fatal. Ace of Risk 15:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was interesting, and it is notable due to the skills of the pilots. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is notable because of the media coverage, and not due to anything else. 132.205.45.148 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ace of Risk and Hurricanehink; it was a pretty big event. -- RattleMan 22:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, primarily because the passengers saw it on the DirectTV screens. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Über-STRONG KEEP* It is notable for three reasons.

1. The skills of the jetBlue pilots. If it wasn't for their extensive training and calmness, 165 people could have died. 2. Flight 292 was jetBlue's first accident. 3.The first time in history that passengers could watch media coverage of their own damaged plane from their seats. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.154.216.115 (talk • contribs) 04:43, July 14, 2006 (UTC)

  • KEEP anybody who thinks this kind of stuff happens all the time is ignorant. It doesn't. This wasn't just an emergency landing. The take-off gear turned 180 degrees! That is not normal, and has casued fatal accidents! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatthat (talk • contribs) 06:23, July 14, 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This item is very remarkable simply for the fact that the passengers were watching the event live on board. This is a first and is extremely significant. This is a landmark moment in the information age - it has always been normal for people to be told as little as possible ("to avoid a panic") - and that is beginning to become impossible. This event parallels the effects of modern communications on 9/11's Flight 93. Who here thinks that if they had the chance, the airlines or law enforcement would have called passengers to warn them about what was happening on the other flights that day? The ways that we communicate and receive information are becoming too pervasive to censor in many situations. I'm willing to bet that the pilot downplayed the emergency as much as possible to the passengers, but they were able to see just for themselves what was really going on. Do not underestimate the importance of this incident or the phenomenon that it heralds. -- Ed
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY STRONG KEEP This is an important event in history, and there is no reason to delete it. THE AIRPLANE CAUGHT ON FIRE FOR PETE'S SAKE!
  • Keep There are several aspects of the incident that makes it unique and one that people will remember (per Ed's comments above) Agne27 04:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does Wikipedia keep a record of every evening-news robbery story or cop chase? No - yet those, too, may be watched by "millions of people." Is this incident so unique that it deserves a permanent listing? No. Similar events occur, if not frequently, at least on a regular basis; there was no real danger to passengers and crew at any point. I can see this meriting perhaps a paragraph on the JetBlue article, but a dedicated page is overkill for what was, in the end, a non-event. Ermar 00:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article is well written.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.--Chaser T 07:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers Theme Tune

This and the below articles are random non-notable Power Rangers cruft. This one was orphaned, the others were short and had barely any context to them. Ryulong 18:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above may pass WP:MUSIC, but the following are probably more deserving of a deletion:

Relisting as separate AfDs. Ryulong 01:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What an incredibly annoying theme tune. In fact, it was so annoying precisely because it was rather popular among horrible little children, who sang it very often and loudly; and since I am a person of refined taste and sensibilities, and with a delicate ear to boot, that was quite a horrific experience. Also, a tiny amount of research (on the main Power Rangers page) shows that a certain unutterable Cowell released this monstrosity upon the charts of at least one horror-struck country, where it peaked at a quite worrying number three in the singles chart. Don't laugh unless you had to live through it :-/ This does, at least, prove that nobody's musical ambitions lack all chance of success, which will be welcome news to those visitors to this hallowed page yet to climb even the peak of WP:MUSIC. Would that I were able to vote delete, and the very memory of this tune be exorcised from this earth, I would do so unreservedly. Yet Wikipedia sometimes has to be but the accurate reflection of the world's imperfections, and even I may be able to endure this one - so long as nobody gets this put on the front page, and I plead, never put a fair use sound clip in! Hence I must bequeath this most undeserving of pages the most grudging strong keep in AFD history, and hope that it never troubles me again. TheGrappler 20:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reulctant, but Strong Keep per TheGrappler. #3 in the charts passes WP:MUSIC. :( Tevildo 20:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was completely unaware that this single had even hit the charts anywhere, but it still has no links other than to this AfD. It is completely unknown to anyone who searches the Power Rangers article, and the article isn't even named correctly if it's supposed to be for a single. I only found this by going through Category:Power Rangers at random, at which I removed It may pass WP:MUSIC, but the other articles I listed are fairly crufty and short. Whatever information I found within them I transferred to to where they were linked (which was two places for V-Lancer, where there was another location that had much better information, and a single place for the DVD, which was only linked to the main PR article). I will change my own vote to Keep for the music single, with a dash of Move, but I still think that the short articles should be deleted. Ryulong 20:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I largely agree with Ryulong, with greater emphasis on Move for the single. As far as the orphan issue goes, I'm sure there are places (the main Power Rangers article, or Mighty Morphin article, or various lists) that are appropriate places to reference and link to the article once properly named. -- Supermorff 22:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have articles for other theme tunes though, and the theme tune may have more international impact than the single since that was heard wherever the show was broadcast. The single was a derivative of the theme tune and probably doesn't deserve either to be an article in its own right, or to be the focus of an article that deals with both the single and the theme tune. TheGrappler 23:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While there are articles on other theme songs, this article has specific information about the Single that Cowell put forth, not the "Go Go Power Rangers!" song. Ryulong 00:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant strong keep. It passes WP:MUSIC by hitting #3 on the charts (even though a lot of the songs weren't very good). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per charting above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Power Rangers was among the worst kids' shows ever, but this is still notable due to being a hit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 13 July 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of spoonerisms

Delete. Wikipedia articles are not lists of loosely associated topics such as quotations or aphorisms. Zargulon 18:31, 12 July 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory V. Nourse

A candidate in a local election in the United States. Was tagged for CSD-A7, but author (=candidate, I assume) placed hangon with the reason that all the other candidates have articles here. No opinion from me. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:36, 12 July 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 (merge already done) (Liberatore, 2006). 13:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stone (politician)

Duplication of another page, see Michael_P.W._Stone — Preceding unsigned comment added by M A Stone (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 (Liberatore, 2006). 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle shopping

Having found an entry for "Lifestyle Shopping: The Subject of Consumption (International Library of Sociology)" ~Rob Shields (Editor), published in 1992 (5 years before Dr Fou, who may also be the article's creator), I have listed this AfD, on the other hand maybe something else could be done with it. Definately needs editing, corroborating, if not deletion. --Richhoncho 18:43, 12 July 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Online Marketplace For Corporate Shipping

Spam. No pretense of being anything other than an ad. Fan-1967 18:47, 12 July 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Unity

Unreleased machinma fan film. No film news on creators' site since November 2005. Aborted listing earlier today for AfD, removed when another editor confused title with vintage Trek PC game. Google search on ("Star Trek: Unity" +machinima) brings up only 102 returns, 38 unique. TheRealFennShysa 18:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was the confused editor, and I agree that the fanfilm is nonnotable. NawlinWiki 19:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at the current level of development (non-action trailer), it is not notable (though I'd consider any ST: fanfilm of quality sufficient to be watched by more than the creators friends and family to be notable, this one just isn't there yet). Ace of Risk 15:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - will add the ext link to article, as aid to judgement
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Sango123. ➨ ЯEDVERS 14:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stelios kalogerakis

Previously brought here and consensus was to speedy delete. Article now back, but expanded with greater claims of notability. Thus the article is not the same as before and opinions of "Delete, CSD-G4" are incorrect and unwelcome. No opinion from me - I'm just clearing CAT:CSD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:50, 12 July 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 04:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell_Collegiate_Curling_Program

The club/group is non-notable and this was merely a vanity page for a small group (one of 887 clubs at Cornell University Jimbobl 18:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the content I already eliminated from the page (the part about their "Championship" Trivia team and their rivals), they are a small club at Cornell that has no purpose on being in wikipedia. Sorry I am a little new to editing on wikipedia and guidelines for deletion, so I edited it first and checked to see if it qualified to be deleted second. This was also in the article until today: "Several members of the team started going to trivia at the Chapter House in Ithaca, NY after practices using CCCP as their team name. The CCCP trivia team repeatedly achieved champion standing and gained many rivals. One of those rivals started taking the team name "CCCP sucks". " As I explained on the talk page, the Chapter House is a relatively small bar that hosts weekly sunday trivia with about 5-10 teams competing with no entry fee each week for a cash prize of $50, and is one of three bars that has weekly cash trivia nights in bars in [[Ithaca, NY]]. Also the repeatedly achieved championship status is unverified. I could see inclusion of the group name in a listing of Sports Clubs at Cornell, but not as an independent article. -Jimbobl 18:51, 12 July 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 20:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical living

Ethics is about kindness and doing the right thing; it is not about environment & energy. "Ethical living" has been made up by kooks. This leads to linguistic misinterpretation and discombobulation. --Patchouli 14:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep or merge to Sustainable living. Whether or not it has been "made up by kooks" isn't really relevant here; it's whether the concept exists and is popular enough to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. I could see merging it into the parent concept, though, but this seems to be a term used in the Guardian, for example. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep over 500,000 google hits for "ethical living" and all the ones i flipped through were related. Apparently people are using this term. Go figure. Recury 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And over 7,900,000 results for "you was."[46]--Patchouli 13:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If I remove all the POV content to this article, I'm left with: the. Not encyclopaedic, nor really ever capable of being. WilyD 20:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article needs work for NPOV, but concept exists and is notable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Term exists and is widely used. Needs work though. And if you can't see the link between environmental responsibility and doing the right thing, you're probably not smart enough to accuse other people of being kooks. -- GWO

*Delete It distorts the word ethics. It is loaded with destructive definitions and has no value whatsoever. It was coined by erratic people who wish to promote ignorance.--Patchouli 13:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You nominated so you don't get to "vote" again. I'll agree that it is a loaded term, but if people are actually using it and discussing it then it doesn't matter, it counts as a notable concept. You can't just delete something because you disagree with the concept's wording. Recury 13:10, 13 July 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 but it does need substantial cleanup. The discussion makes it clear that this is an experienced jazz bassist who has worked and toured with many other artists. You can buy his albums at Tower Records. For a jazz artist celebrity and commercial success is not a good measure, so we shouldn't expect to see him in the charts, though his download success in this month's emusic.com suggests some modest success. There are numerous arguments for deletion below because this is a vanity article, but this isn't compatible with Wikipedia policy. We don't delete such articles, we clean them up. I'm sure that the current editors will be only too happy to help us do that once they learn how Wikipedia works. I think BlueValour puts it best: "it needs someone to copyedit the crap out of it." --Tony Sidaway 00:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Patrick Moore

Courtesy blanking

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A3, all content external links. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese_on_the_Internet

Not encyclopedic. This is becoming a page of external link spam, and this is probably not fixable. Although it has several interesting links, the list can never become complete or authoritative. The list of Portuguese-language radio stations may be salvageable as a separate article Tono-bungay 19:10, 12 July 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 of the discussion was speedy delete CSD A1: short article that provides no context. Kimchi.sg 19:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Award statistics: Films receiving Best Picture without even a nomination for Best Screenplay

Pointless list. NawlinWiki 19:16, 12 July 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 Richardcavell 23:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Atlantic Petroleum

The article says "this small company..." so it fails WP:CORP --Richhoncho 19:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Small companies aren't notable by deletion precedent, which isn't a guideline (though it's still a good idea). In any case, the only news coverage I could find on their website appears to have been written by the company itself, [47], and I didn't see any other indication it met WP:CORP.--Chaser T 21:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Despite what the article says this is /not/ a small company. Their website says 'The North Atlantic refinery is now the second leading oil refinery (utilization) in Canada and gainfully employs just over 700 Newfoundlanders'. Significant employer and refineries are usually highly visible and significant in the community. BlueValour 22:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But what does this mean? A refinery is not the same as an oil company, many of which are vertically integrated. Look at the top oil refineries at List of oil refineries. There are two in the US owned by ExxonMobil, which is an oil company. Plus, why the parenthetical qualification, "utilization"? I still say delete, if for no other reason than the lack of independent sources that can be used to write an NPOV and verifiable article. Sorry.--Chaser T 04:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable private company that fails WP:CORP. --Satori Son 13:52, 18 July 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. Sango123 23:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digimaker .NET CMS

Fails WP:CORP. The article is poorly written with little hope of being improved. Just another crappy CMS article. goofyheadedpunk 19:51, 12 July 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. Sango123 23:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Fransocial

Nonnotable neologism, 41 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 19:53, 12 July 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. Sango123 23:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommonSpot

Fails WP:CORP. Just another crappy CMS article. goofyheadedpunk 19:55, 12 July 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. Sango123 23:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EPiX

Fails WP:CORP. It's an ad. goofyheadedpunk 19:59, 12 July 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. Sango123 23:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat yourself several times

I'm not sure, but according to Google and to the talk page this might be a hoax, it was created by FalseFlags - the accont has no edits except this article and linking it. I'm nominating also the RYST redirect. googl t 19:59, 12 July 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 of the discussion was Speedy Delete by Adam Bishop. Tevildo 22:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Gardiner

Not notable. Likely an article about the author. Will2k 20:34, 12 July 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 20:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animextreme

I am listing Animextreme as an article for deletion under Wikipedia's Deletion policy. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Please read: Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you disagree with my listing please do not take offense. You may still change the orginial page and you may comment here. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 July 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. Sango123 23:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzire

Prodded as business that doesn't meet WP:CORP. Deprodded and some very dubious Irish dance material added.

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

The result was delete. Sango123 23:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Strand (television show)

Article about a television pilot that hasn't been picked up yet. Not yet notable. BrownCow &#149; (how now?) 20:48, 12 July 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. Sango123 23:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuntmutt

The only encyclopedic content here is already present at the entry for One_One_Se7en. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just had another read, there's a vague assertion of notability. Just normal delete. -- Steel 23:45, 12 July 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. Sango123 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vision creative

I prodded this page initially, and the tag was removed (legitimately) by the author, with comments. I am therefore initiating an AFD in accordance with proceedure to start a debate on the subject. I submit that this is a non-notable company, and the article reads like advertising.Delete. Chrisd87 20:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created this as a project for my internship, i am an intern at this company and am trying to learn different aspects of programming, web development. i know this is not an involved process but i am starting from scratch here. i am trying to work on uploading pictures and things like that as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dannyhoren (talk • contribs) 22:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - I welcome you to make a page about something notable and make it look nice- encourage you even- but not about this. It's non-notable. --PresN 21:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have links to articles written on Vision Creative and their small business effect on lansing. i can supply you with those if you would like, this page is to be used as nothing more than a way for others to delve farther into what Vision Creative is/does.i always flirt with death 04:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here are some links to articles written on VC, Camron Gnass, and other issues related to this small business... http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060515/NEWS03/605150305 mayor.cityoflansingmi.com/it_initiative/SmBusStart-UpStories.pdf www.wilx.com/news/headlines/3199316.html http://www.cybermichigan.org/1_0/commnews/2004/commitnews_2004jun22.htm www.daytonadclub.org/Hermes2005program_final2.pdf i always flirt with death 03:06, 17 July 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. Sango123 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of British football club suffixes

This was originally prodded as "listcruft", then de-prodded and expanded with the following message on the talk page: I have added an introduction and many examples of each suffix. I hope this is enough to prevent this page from being deleted. Sorry, but I don't quite feel that this list has encyclopedic value. Punkmorten 20:51, 12 July 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 Eluchil404 00:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCIX

Delete as advertising and non-notable. -- A contested prod. Gay Cdn 20:47, 12 July 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 of the discussion was Speedy delete as hoax. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Bittinger

Speedy deletion has been removed by author twice. The reason I am not prodding this article is becuase I have seen, and marked for speedy delete, this article WORD FOR WORD under a different name. The article is patent nonsense (a 30+ year old man for someone born in 1991??), and the external links are to a Model Train site and an article about Keira Knightley. Wildthing61476 21:30, 12 July 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 and redirect. Duplicate articles can just be redirected, without need of an AFD. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New England Association of Schools & Colleges

This is a repeated article of New England Association of Schools and Colleges. CaliEd 21:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect True enough, but there's already a merge tag there. You don't need to bring this to AfD. It's a non-controversial merge.--Chaser T 22:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged I've merged the only thing I thought was worthwhile. There's a bunch of external links to commissions that are already written up in the main article and to member institutions, which is already a section on their website [49]. Request speedy redirect and closure.--Chaser T 22:22, 12 July 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. Sango123 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Nevinrali

A big hoax, player who does not exist at all. Google returns just two results, all from Wikipedia, and sincerely I don't remember of having ever heard of this guy playing for Fiorentina. By the way, some content in the article is inconsistent (Luca Toni did not play for Fiorentina in 2004/2005). Angelo 21:47, 12 July 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 per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Mohammed

Non-notable person, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC Xyzzyplugh 21:50, 12 July 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. Sango123 23:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Father Lebanon Day

Zero google hits on this. Non-notable, or non-existent Xyzzyplugh 22:17, 12 July 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. Sango123 23:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kowalysko

I may be wrong, but 53 hits on google does not justify notability. 11kowrom 23:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD was started not much more than ONE HOUR after the article appeared. I am abstaining from voting, but I'm wondering if the author's working on this and just not as fast as some other editors are. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter how slow he is. The word "Kowalysko" by itself only returns 146 Google hits, and I'm sure that not all of them are relevant to this guy. Slow writing does not excuse making non-encyclopedic articles. Delete - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 23:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google hits aren't official Wiki policy... THIS is. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't trying to bite anyone, and I'm sorry if it looked like I was. What I was doing was refuting your argument that the article may be up for deletion because of a slow-working editor. My point was that that point is irrelevant, because the subject is non-notable, which is why it's up for deletion. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 11:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I appreciate that, Che. I just don't like this phenomenon I've noticed of articles being tagged anywhere from one to five minutes after they're posted. I've certainly learned that if I want to put up an article, I should have it completely finished before I post it. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:16, 13 July 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. Sango123 23:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Points game

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school -- or a car -- one day. Deletion was proposed, but removed by the author, so here we are. Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:24, 12 July 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 10:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tromboniphone

Incomplete nomination - completing. No Vote. ViridaeTalk 23:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Tromboniphone? There are no references to this particular contraption anywhere, according to Google. Trombonophone (with an o instead of an i) has a few results, but none similar to this article. --SweetNeo85 21:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article was tagged for deletion a mere TWO MINUTES after its creation. I suggest that the nominator should have assumed the article was a work in progress, and that maybe tagging it wasn't the most courteous choice. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Granted. My apologies, I'm still getting used to wikietiquette. Now, be that as it may, this article has no sources listed and the image used appears to be an old edison cylinder phonograph--SweetNeo85 23:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the other hand, one should always cite sources. Articles that cite sources from the very first edit are very rarely even nominated for deletion, let alone actually deleted. (Articles that cite sources but that end up being deleted nonetheless are generally hoax articles that cite bogus sources.) Uncle G 12:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, It is a very unknown music system but the sound it produces is amazing. I do not own one myself, but a great uncle of mine owns one. I have not mis-spelt the name of this contraption as it is etched into my great uncle's tromboniphone. Next time that I am at my great uncle's house, I will take a photograph to submit with this article. --0luke0 Now (GMT).
    • You must cite sources so that editors and readers can verify the content of the article, especially in the case of an article that is about something obscure. Please cite sources so that editors can determine, independently of your say-so, that there is such a thing as a Tromboniphone. Currently, your article cites no sources at all, and there are no sources that editors can find themselves, and as such should be deleted for being unverifiable. Uncle G 12:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless references to independent, reliable sources that mention the tromboniphone are added.
Let me add my two cents why you should provide sources: In a hundred years, when both you and your great uncle will no longer be around to explain first-hand this musical instrument, how's anyone going to prove that this wasn't all made up and a blatant lie? Verifiability is vital. We cannot simply take your word for it that this instrument exists; other people must have written about it, before it gets an article, and where to find these records of other people about the musical instrument must also be listed in the article. Kimchi.sg 15:13, 13 July 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 11:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westchester Academy

The school attempted to delete it by deleting everything on the page, they must have not known that that does not work. They apparently don't want it to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AceKingQueenJack (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 of the nomination was Nomination withdrawn by nominator ViridaeTalk 03:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegrass Brewing Company

Although quite possibly done in good faith, I see no reason why theis company has any notability under WP:CORP. I am quite willing to be swayed on this matter though, I have a certain fondness for small breweries. :) ViridaeTalk 23:41, 12 July 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 20:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clemson vs. Virginia

Not sufficiently notable, Unsourced POV. Delete BlueValour 23:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete not notable schoolfootballteamcruft. ViridaeTalk 23:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as entirely WP:NN. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.Alphachimp talk 00:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an article about one game in '92 that does not merit inclusion. Even if it was about a rivalry (which are sometimes notable enough for us), the one between these two schools is nowhere nearly important enough. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 01:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (creator) Open your eyes. Do you guys know anything about college football? On the other hand, though I am an expert, I look at it in a higher light than you. College football is a very fun, entertaining, and engaging sport, and so are comebacks. A 28 point comeback is freaking out-of-the-world in amazingness. How many 28 point comebacks have you seen? After watching hundreds of college football games, I haven't seen any, proving the claim that a 28 point comeback is both rare and notable. This was the largest comeback in ACC history, which is notable since there have been 10,000+ ACC games played. Honestly, think logically, and please stop putting articles like this for deletion.--Summonmaster13 05:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Freaking out-of-the-world in college-football-cruftiness. -- GWO
  • Delete. I'm not fond of the term "cruft", but this is it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (creator) It's funny how those who voted to delete it, can't say one reason why.--Summonmaster13 04:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Not notable" is a perfectly good reason to delete. "Unsourced POV" is reason to delete unless sourced NPOV can be found. On the other hand, you have voted twice to Keep without giving a reason. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:50, 14 July 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 | rant-line 02:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xterm Pest Management

Founded this year, I don't see how this has any of the notability required by WP:CORP. Spam. ViridaeTalk 23:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I haven't finished writing the article and linking in the source documents. Plus I still need to get the stock information for the company. Xterm Pest Management is also one of the few frandchise pest control companies in the United States. I don't see a reason to delete this article until it can be reviewed after I finish writing and researching the article. Azselendor 00:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the process here, I'm new, but how do I state I want to keep the article? Because I do say it should be kept. And it's not spam. It's not advertising the company and it does serves a purpose. Azselendor 00:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Viridae suggested I repost this from our talk pages here. so I am :P Azselendor 01:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not because of the quality, it's because you think the company is too new to be notable. I disagree, I feel I'm not being giveb enough time to finish the article and provide all the information about the company in question, including information from consumer watchdog groups, the state of florida's department of agriculture, and indepdent publications
The above comment was the user's first edit. User has only 5 edits as I write. Kimchi.sg 15:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless and until the article gets cleaned up to explain why the company deserves an article per WP:CORP criteria. The sockpuppetry in this AfD does not bode well for the article either. Kimchi.sg 15:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What sock puppetry are you talking about? I plan to finish the article after this process resolves because, really, what point in there to finish the article if it'll be deleted? Azselendor 16:56, 13 July 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Eng

Delete NN and was blanked by creator. Anon deprodded.- CrazyRussian talk/email 23:51, 12 July 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. - brenneman {L} 14:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Empire Forums

Fails WP:WEB - Promo for not sufficiently notable website. Delete BlueValour 23:51, 12 July 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. - brenneman {L} 14:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royalgfx

Looks like a selfpromotion for a non notable webforum, page makes uninteresting claimes about number of posts and members, which says nothing about the site itself. Only 85 unique Google hits Gnorn 00:03, 13 July 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 - Wiktionary doesn't want our protologisms either. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snafucated

This article reads as a dictionary definition. 24fan24 00:10, 13 July 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. - brenneman {L} 13:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tennishockey

Non-notable. A Google search produces www.tennishockey.com (and very little else - mainly things in German) - a site which gives no history or notablity of the sport. This WP entry was likely created by the site owner. EuroSong talk 01:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just created the entry -- while I'm not the owner of the website, I do know him. It's a sport that a small group of people has played for many years, that has slowly spread to a few other parts of the world (Germany as you noted). A number of other former players will contribute to this entry -- the sport is still small, but enjoyed by a growing number of participants. Also, the site www.tennishockey.com is admittedly spare, but it does have detailed information if you browse through the site.

My apologies if the article was formatted poorly (or this comment is) -- I'm a newbie. --Voodoodoodoo 01:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hi.. welcome to Wikipedia :) Newbies are always welcome - it's great to see that you want to contribute, thank you. What I do suggest, though, is that you familiarise yourself with some of Wikipedia's policies before creating such articles. Have a look at WP:NN and WP:NOR. Can you find some reliable, published sources which not only mention Tennishockey as an established game, but give a full breakdown of the rules? Are there any official governing bodies of the sport? Any proper sports grounds, which consist of more than just "using two existing tennis courts"? Have a think about it :) EuroSong talk 01:19, 13 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_12&oldid=1234118869"