Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 3 December 5 >

Purge server cache










































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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 00:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Kaoru Amane

[edit]
Kaoru Amane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kaoru Amane is a fictional character in Japanese television drama, A Song to the Sun (Taiyou no Uta). Kaoru Amane, in this drama, is a girl who was diagnosed with a genetic disorder called Xeroderma Pigmentosum (XP). This means that she could only go out when sunsets.

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






























































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

The result was delete. -- Steel 18:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Shoes

[edit]
Blue Shoes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a badly written page for a song (not a single) on one album by one artist. Not notable enough. Philip Stevens 13:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. Anthony Rupert 05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd be leery of any rationale implying that a relatively new act has notability comparable to the musical act that sold more records, tapes, and CDs than any other in recorded history. B.Wind 05:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as rewritten under Java Classloader —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 21:26Z

JAR hell

[edit]
JAR hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prodded twice, once due to context and the other due to being a non-notable, somewhat unencyclopedic and unreferenced. Crufty. MER-C 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article has been completely rewritten (and retitled) by Petri Krohn since the debate started. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. In theory this material could be merged to some other article. We are however still missing such basic Java articles as Java class and classloader. --Petri Krohn 04:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PP.S. I did some more editing: I wikilinked the some ten instances of Classloader and Class loader in Wikipedia, and redirected them to JAR hell. I know that JAR hell is not the same as a class loader, but it is a feature of class loaders. If JAR hell did not deserve its own article, it could be integrated to Classloader. (Or the present article could be expanded and renamed "Classloader".) -- Petri Krohn 04:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PPP.S. We also have an article on DLL hell. --Petri Krohn 05:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ...and Extension conflict --Petri Krohn 00:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"dll hell" 258,00 hits. "jar hell" 945 hits. I think this shoul be deleted, but DLL hell I think might be popular enough for it's own article. Mrjeff 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to List of English cricket clubs in lieu of deletion —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 21:33Z

Brockley CC

[edit]
Brockley CC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-noteable cricket team. A Google search for "Brockley CC" provides 60 results minus wikimirrors. A Google search for "Brockley Cricket Club" shows 100 minus wikimirrors. According to the article, they play in "Division 2 of the Marshall Hatchick Two Counties league." Not quite enough for inclusion. Consequentially 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Brockley CC are included in the Brockley, Suffolk article and a link to the cricket club's web site is provided there. The rest of this article is merely a regurgitation of the club's statistics. This information is hardly encyclopedic and anyone interested can simply refer to the club's web site. Although I was happy to wikify this page into listcruft, I believe that it would be better to expand upon the Brockley, Suffolk article. I therefore vote to delete it. Dingopup 13:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move and Redirect to Alexander Litvinenko poisoning. Nishkid64 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Litvinenko assassination

[edit]
Alexander Litvinenko assassination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fork of Alexander Litvinenko. An article about Litvinenko's death would be reasonable, but should not be called "assassination" based on what has currently been proved. (It certainly seems likely to be accurate, but that's not good enough. Trovatore 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. Currently, it' useless. --Attilios 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a fork, but a split of a long and groving article. See Anna Politkovskaya and Anna Politkovskaya assassination. --Petri Krohn 01:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would Alexander Litvinenko poisoning be OK? -- Petri Krohn 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Death of Alexander Litvinenko will not do, as there may be other victims, including Mario Scaramella. --Petri Krohn 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well-sourced and certainly importannt. If there is a disagreement about the title, then it can be moved but that's certainly no ground for deletion. TSO1D 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: It is by no means clear if Litvinenko was assassinated yet, but it's clear he was poisoned. Once the UK Police investigation is complete, perhaps it could be changed again, but for now Alexander Litvinenko poisoning is fine. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that move. TSO1D 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the rename/move too. --Ineffable3000 01:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved -- Petri Krohn 01:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move to the Wikipedia: namespace. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBrowse

[edit]

non notable softwares.--Xpwne 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiturfing

[edit]

non notable --Xpwne 01:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, on account that the nominator has put a wikiproject - WikiBrowse, specifically - on the AfD block, and this and that constitutes their sole contributions to Wikipedia. --Dennisthe2 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Renata 05:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Graham

[edit]
Ricky Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. None of the listed labels seem particularly notable, fails WP:MUSIC. —Swpb talk contribs 02:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete Renata 05:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Kimbly

[edit]
Silent Kimbly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article makes no assertions to the comic's notability beyond being popular on Livejournal. As such, it fails WP:WEB. There're about 800 google hits for "Silent Kimbly" webcomic, none of which would suggest notability that isn't contained in the article. Unless someone can provide further notability, delete. Brad Beattie (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by ReyBrujo. MER-C 03:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wire sculpture

[edit]
Wire sculpture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Violates WP:NOT and is also a copyvio, although the author claims to be the person who originally wrote the text. Danny Lilithborne 02:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welding helmet

[edit]
Welding helmet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable type of helmet. Salad Days 02:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 18:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in the rust belt

[edit]
List of cities in the rust belt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Pointless list of declining cities. The list doesn't include half of the rust belt cites, and the article would be huge if they were all included. It could hypothetically be merged to Rust Belt, but it really should be deleted outright. BarryBonds100 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmagnetic Levitation

[edit]
Plasmagnetic Levitation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Purported phenomenon seems to be made up by one company (HoverTech) which seems to produce little more than vaporware/pseudoscience and has no notable refrences outside of said company and no existence in the scientific literature. Deglr6328 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullycide

[edit]

an original essay about a nonnotable neologism from one book.`'mikkanarxi 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Odd. I get 9,570 google hits using your link, MER-C. Can you double check your google results? Anyone else see different results? AubreyEllenShomo 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hovertech

[edit]
Hovertech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable "company" which seems to produce little more than vaporware, pseudoscience and digg posts. If things like blacklightpower dont have pages this definitely shouldn't either. Deglr6328 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncle G. is commended for saving another entry from deletion. Keep up the good work. El_C 12:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off-line

[edit]
Off-line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Already transwikied. De-prodded with comment "article can be expanded beyond dicdef." Can it? (No opinion yet, let's see what folks can come up with) Pan Dan 03:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Renata 05:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of redheads

[edit]
List of redheads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Someone better have a good explanation to why this has existed for over 2 years on Wikipedia. Why are we listing people by hair colour? What about a list of people with black hair which would encompass pretty much everyone of african and asian descent? There seem to be quite a few useless people lists on Wikipedia, but this one is probably shouting out the loudest to be deleted. - hahnchen 03:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - While it looks like this is going to be deleted, I thought I would mention that while "living" redheads may not be as useful a list (though I wonder about that), a list of historical figures who had red hair would be. As would be the fictional characters. (When one writes a paper on the methodologies of authors in describing the "how" of character design, for example.) So if possible, I'd like to suggest that the list be split to List of fictional redheads and List of historical figures with red hair, and (if consensus suggests deletion) delete the rest. - jc37 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it may be useful to know about famous or historical people who dyed their hair red - along with the reasons why (such as Lucille Ball's, fame for it) - In looking over this discussion, I think that that would be what should be jettisoned. Especially since eventually it could list anyone, since these days, anyone can dye their hair. COnsider the title for such a page: List of people noted for red hair, who actually dyed it red. (Though I suppose there may be a way to shorten the title?) And also, since I think nearly everyone who would be on that list would be from at least as recent as the 20th century. So by default the two lists I suggested should be about "natural" redheads. As for the reason for separate lists from Red hair, is because it's a natural "split", due to length. It's just being done proactively. - jc37 14:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a list of redheads is useful in the slightest, no matter how it's chopped up. - hahnchen 18:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply Red hair is hardly a significant trait. I am not sure that any list where the primary criteria for inclusion is a random body trait is all that encyclopedic. Perhaps a SHORT subsection in the article titled Red hair is appropriate, but none of these makes the minimum requirements for a stand alone article. --Jayron32 21:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've been already discussing on CfD the likelyhood that all characteristics of fictional characters (such as wealthy, lame, etc) should be lists, rather than categories. - jc37 14:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Delete Notable people with red hair on wikipedia isn't rare, it's just too common that's why the information becomes indiscriminate. If they were rare, then we should actually keep this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.2.59 (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to On-line and off-line. Renata 05:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online

[edit]
Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Already transwikied. De-prodded with comment "article can be expanded beyond dicdef." Can it? (No opinion yet, let's see what folks can come up with) Pan Dan 03:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Pan Dan et al. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Chick Bowen 00:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Weather Almanac 2001

[edit]
International Weather Almanac 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Group nomination of this page and its 2003 and 2005 equivalents. All three were created in May by PC3700DDR (talk · contribs) who has since been inactive. They remain sub-stubs with little or no content. There may eventually be some value in creating such articles (though I frankly doubt it) but since no one has made any significant edits in any of them over their six-month life here, it seems that they are bound to remain very low-quality stubs. I would have proded all of them, except one already was and the prod was removed by the creator (with no explanation of course). Pascal.Tesson 03:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete Renata 06:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Snap DS

[edit]
Pokemon Snap DS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

If this game was by some reliable source to be currently in development, it would certainly be worth of an article. But as it stands, the only proof of this game's existence is a blurry picture that may be a hoax. See Talk:Pokemon Snap DS. Coffee 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Renata 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CatLinc

[edit]
CatLinc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A trademark of a company named SP Controls. [2] Not a very notable technology; only [3] 12000 hits or so on Google, and most of those are in online catalogs. Mikeblas 16:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Renata 05:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper Joe

[edit]
Sniper Joe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, unsourced, unsourceable. This is pure trivia about an exceedingly minor enemy (not even a character) appearing in a series of games, and it's sourced to direct observation of the games.

I prodded this, but it was apparently deprodded because I didn't put my prod reason in the edit summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got yer counter-proof right here, baby! Page 86 Japanese guidebook called Rockman & Rockman X Great Encyclopedia(JP ISBN4-06-259006-9). Inside, it has information about a great multitude of enemies from both games...including...the Sniper Joes! What do you have to say about that, Black Man? ~ Joseph Collins (U)(T)(C) 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability, article quality. Just because something isn't good now doesn't mean it can't be cleaned up. Sharkface217 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is notable, where is it noted outside of primary sources or fansites? "Unsourceable" and "trivial" aren't problems that can be fixed with cleanup. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as, despite the fact that the Joe series are a minon enemy(..."exceedingly"? No, that would be one-shot enemies like Pierobots or Cutting Wheels.) in all of the games(and I do mean all of them. In the Classic series, in any case.), there are a great deal of them. An article about one single Joe isn't enough to bother with...but one large article about all the different types of Joes seems interesting. Now, on the other hand, the interest may be limited to only those who have played the games or plan to play the games, but still. You'd be surprised how many Rockman/Mega Man fans there are on Wikipedia.
  • On an unrelated note...yes. I deleted your previous "prod". Thank you for linking your nomination for deletion to an actual discussion forum, Black. I will try to find someone who has a copy of Rockman Perfect Memories or that Rockman and Rockman X guide for proof if that's all you require.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as blatant copyvio/self-promotion. - Mgm|(talk) 13:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Speegle

[edit]
Darren Speegle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to fail WP:BIO. James084 20:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 03:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G12, and so tagged. blatant copyvio. Ohconfucius 07:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Honey —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 21:40Z

Finland honey

[edit]

Also Philippines honey

Article is unverified and from what I can see unverifiable. I did find one source that verifies the fact that honey is produced in Finland, but nothing that shows this is in anyway an important industry in Finland. It isn't a "branded" item like "Belgian Chocolate" and I fail to see the significance of it such that it supports an article. Delete.--Isotope23 15:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding Philippines honey to this AfD because it is essentially the same propostion. The article contains much that should be at Honey and doesn't show any importance for the Philippine honey industry or the honey as a "brand". Compare to the creator's other article Pitcairn Island honey which, while unsourced, is verifiable as type of honey "branded" as being from that region.--Isotope23 15:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Networlding

[edit]
Networlding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article seems to be concerned mostly about promoting a book by a University Prof. Non-notable--Edchilvers 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 03:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- Deville (Talk) 16:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Commander Vinyáyá

[edit]
Wing Commander Vinyáyá (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete. Article is largely cruft in my opinion as I don't believe Vinyáyá is a large enough character in the Artemis Fowl canon to warrant her own character. I think she was mentioned once in one book and appeared for one scene in another, with little effect on the plot. The article is at most a paragraph and, pending any major and sudden developments in a later work, probably couldn't be expanded. CyberGhostface 21:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree due to her status as head of Section 8, seeing as that organization was the base for much of the 5th book. The article would indeed be short--not much more beyond supposition truly could be incorporated except for trivial things about her person, the fact that she's somewhat close to Holly, etc--but it does have expansion possiblity due to both possible future books and the movies. CrashCart9 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 03:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Artemis Fowl, really nn character. SkierRMH,06:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted (A7). Martinp23 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MAVIA

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

The result was delete all Renata 06:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEXL FM Tower

[edit]
WBOC Television Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pinnacle Towers Tower Huntsville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cumulus Broadcasting Tower Oelwein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Agape Church Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WWSI Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Josie Park Broadcasting Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WIIQ TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KRXL Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chico Operating Tower Red Bluff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
High Vision TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KOOL Radio Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (View AfD)

As logical followup of successful batch deletion of unremarkable masts, I'm nominating a whole bunch of US radio and TV towers that are no more than that 306 meters tall. Towers below 400m are relatively common in the USA, and none of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. None of these articles have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 04:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Umm, noo...not a good analogy. Whereas high schools have tons of presence and notoriety in their communities, radio towers are generally considered eyesores. Are articles about monopoles and electrical wires next? 'Delete Allon Fambrizzi 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Renata 06:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GBC LP DBA Tower

[edit]
Pinnacle Towers Tower La Feria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
South Carolina Educational TV tower Sumter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grant Radio Tower Carrolton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KPXE Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Apparently undistinguished and dismantled radio and TV towers whcih do not appear noteable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. None of these articles have any substantial additional information. Ohconfucius 03:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A card game created yesterday? An obvious speedy delete candidate. JIP | Talk 06:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flagstaffian Cuddletouch

[edit]
Flagstaffian Cuddletouch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable card game. Prodded per WP:NFT but the prod was disputed. Shadowlynk 04:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overjoyed Productions

[edit]
Overjoyed Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Minor (VERY minor) "film production company based in Wayne, Michigan". Student films, shorts entered in local and minor film fests. Prod tag added, but removed without comment, followed by some grasping-at-straws edits intended to pump up notability. Calton | Talk 04:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Renata 06:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KTMO Tower

[edit]
WKMX FM Tower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
KXEO Radio Tower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nebraska Education Tower Merriman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Saga Communications Tower Woodward (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WMDT TV Tower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
KWIX/KRES Radio Tower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WOOF Tower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
KLJC Tower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Cumulus Broadcasting Tower Dolton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Signal Media Tower Little Rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

As further cleanup following of successful batch deletion of unremarkable masts, I'm nominating this batch of US radio and TV towers that are no more than that 317 meters tall. Towers below 400m are relatively common in the USA, and none of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. All are stubs, and none have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercurial Insights

[edit]
Mercurial Insights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Appears to be a non-notable entity per WP:CORP. The article formerly was longer and read like an ad, but has now been pared back to a stub. But in either case, no evidence of notability. Herostratus 04:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 2007 and 2009: Keep; 2012 and 2014: Redirect in lieu of deletion (until there's real information about them). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 21:43Z

2014 Twenty20 World Championship, 2007 Twenty20 World Championship, 2009 Twenty20 World Championship and 2012 Twenty20 World Championship

[edit]
2014 Twenty20 World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
2007 Twenty20 World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
2009 Twenty20 World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
2012 Twenty20 World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

WP:NOT a crystal ball. No information except that it will be held in Bangadesh. But no sources, press coverage or anything else is provided to suggest why a sporting event planned 8 years hence should have its own article now. World-level events such as the Olympics can get away with this, but based on the article as it now stands, there's nothing to suggest why this one should. Considered PROD'ing but I'm willing to give this the benefit of the doubt. Additional: please note that I only nominated the 2014 article; the 2007, 2009 and 2012 articles were added to the AFD by others. My vote regarding these 3 articles is listed below. 23skidoo 04:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments were made before the addition of 2007 Twenty20 World Championship, 2009 Twenty20 World Championship and 2012 Twenty20 World Championship to this discussion, and applies only to 2014 Twenty20 World Championship. —Swpb talk contribs 21:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth considering for AfD: 2007 Twenty20 World Championship, 2009 Twenty20 World Championship and 2012 Twenty20 World Championship —Swpb talk contribs 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no objection to the 2007 article since it's almost 2007. I'll have to check the 2009 and 2012 articles to see if the have anything substantial. 23skidoo 13:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 21:52Z

Fairmont Preparatory Academy

[edit]
Fairmont Preparatory Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prior decision to delete was overturned at DRV and is now back for reconsideration. An intermediate userficiation did not result in changes to the article, so is back as the original. Procedural-listing-no-opinion-from-me. ~ trialsanderrors 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The three or so facts on the article are sourced, however, the school does not appear to pass the primary notability criterion, as I cannot find evidence of multiple, independent, non-trivial published works specifically about the school, as opposed to briefly featuring it. Googling turns up mostly directory entries and league tables, and of course we can't synthesize from those. No recommendation yet. Chris cheese whine 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete A brief search through the Gale and Proquest peridocial databases yields about 13 newspaper mentions. All seem to be about individual students rather than the school itself. There are two articles (in local paper, the Orange County Register) about stellar performance in nationwide high school science comeptitions. There were a couple articles about students who did some humanitarian projects, again from local paper. LA Times has an article profiling a student who "Easily Jumps Language Barrier, Keeps Going; With an awesome 5.1 grade-point average, Oanh Nguyen has earned a spot at USC's medical school" I don't know if this confers notability. I'm leaning towards no becuase none of the articles had the school as a subject, thus failing WP:SCHOOL Copysan 06:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As to the 5.1 GPA, accepted wisdom would suggest that it would still be honour-by-association. Chris cheese whine 06:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    5.1 GPA is hardly an honor. I had over a 5.1 (just take a couple APs and Honors), yet I didn't have any articles written about me. In any case, GPA is a relative measurement, based on how hard a schools' teachers grade. (See Grade_inflation) We should not be basing a school's notability off of a single person (or even multiple people) with a high GPA. I'd even hold off on basing school notability on average standardized test score (ie SATs). (However, if a school was identified as a high performing school and parents adamantly try to get their kids into it, like what happened in some San Francisco schools this past year, then I'd say that is notable) Copysan 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, honour-by-association. As in, "the kid did something good, therefore the school is good". Converse of guilt-by-association. :) Chris cheese whine 11:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a notability critera... The closest is probaby "The school has notable alumni or staff" (WP:SCHOOL), but the student is not notable. Copysan 13:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, but we just don't do notability-by-association. Ever. So it's not something that would confer any sort of notability on the school itself. Chris cheese whine 13:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So were in agreement? Copysan 13:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a stub in progress, it's fully cited, have to keep it Mets 08:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have to keep it, according to what? Not being funny, just curious. Chris cheese whine 08:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete us utterly non-notable. Stammer 11:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep First the article, then the process: The school has been recognized by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program the highest honor granted to a school in the United States. We seem to have consensus at both WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLS3 that selcetion for a national honor by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program is an extremely strong claim of notability. The article will still benefit from expansion but it seems that some are too intent on destroying articles to allow that. This AfD seems to be yet another extremely bad faith nomination made just hours after the school survived a DRV, showing that there was a broad consensus among Wikipedians that the previous AfD process was contaminated by bias. Without allowing any opportunity to improve the article after the end of the DRV, this AfD seems to be further proof that there is no intention to improve Wikipedia, but a concerted effort to impose a narrow deletionist view in the face of an overwhelming consensus to the contrary. Couldn't you have waited a few more hours -- maybe even a few days -- before you started your attacks again? Alansohn 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You (continue to) wrongly assume that a claim to notability automatically implies notability. It does not. Yes, Fairmont has a claim to notability -- being a Blue Ribbon school -- indicating that non-trivial outside coverage is possible. However, actual notability is shown by actually finding such coverage, which we can use to write a good Wikipedia article. Yet the only non-trivial outside source that anybody has found in the 10 days of the first AFD and the DRV is the 255-word write-up in (the local edition of) the LA Times. This is not enough to build a Wikipedia article on. You say this article will "benefit from expansion," but you provide no evidence that this can be done. Pan Dan 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fwiw, Alansohn, the renomination was standard procedure since the call to restore at DRV was just a slight majority. On "can't impove", the article was userfied in your userspace during the DRV, so neither of your claims are anywhere near factual, and I would recommend you re-read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Consider this a formal warning. ~ trialsanderrors 07:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasoning provided in the first AfD and Deletion Review. Eusebeus 21:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Alansohn's well-reasoned remarks. Highfructosecornsyrup 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:School. TSO1D 02:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notability is strongly demonstrated within this article and also very well referenced through multiple non-trivial sources. Strongly disagree with attempts to dismiss the notability of Blue Ribbon schools, not to mention those which offer the International Baccalaureate program. Yamaguchi先生 02:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Yamaguchi and per WP:SCHOOLS. bbx 02:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Alansohn makes a very hard to deny argument.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yamaguchi, Alansohn, etc. --Myles Long 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and previous AfD. I fail to see the "very hard to deny" argument by Alansohn: do you mean the old argument for many (school) AfD's that the article will somehow improve in the future, although no one really says how it will improve and what sources will be used to do that? The Blue Ribbon is not giving any notability, as indicated by the lack of press coverage and in-depth articles the award has generated, and the International Baccalaureate program is even worse in that regard (the schools pay to become one: not really an award, isn't it?). This school is not notable, and those wanting to keep it have had more than enough time to demonstrate the oppposite, but have failed to do so.Fram 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is still notable as an International Baccalaureate school, part of the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, and for being the largest and oldest non-sectarian private school in the area. Wikipedia has no shortage of those who are in denial, but this is not a valid reason for deletion, the article clearly and concisely demonstrates notability and meets all relevant inclusion policies. Silensor 07:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Fram and my response to User:Alansohn. Despite >10 days and many searches by diligent Wikipedians, there appear not to be multiple non-trivial outside sources we could use to write a good Wikipedia article about this school. Pan Dan 13:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this school is notable enough and meets our proposed school inclusion guidelines too Yuckfoo 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The LA Times did a write-up of the openning, plus won national awards and recognition. Notable enough. --Oakshade 01:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 21:56Z

Lois Herr

[edit]
Lois Herr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

delete as non-notable failed political candidate. no other political offices held. Took only 39% in first and only run for office. Montco 04:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of idioms in the English language

[edit]
List of idioms in the English language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of idioms in the English language (full) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of idioms in the English language (R) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of idioms in the English language (S) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of idioms in the English language (T) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of idioms in the English language (U) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of idioms in the English language (W) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of idioms in the English language (X) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of idioms in the English language (Y) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of idioms in the English language (Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This afd found that there is strong consensus that lists of idioms violate WP:WINAD. Additional concerns are that they are unsourced, and that there are problems sourcing them and that they contain original research. The only defence put up was the non-argument that these lists are useful. Also nominated are the lists of idioms for the letters R through Z inclusive (V was never created) and the page to which all the lists were transcluded. These were recently copied to Wiktionary. MER-C 04:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Again, I will say this - idioms are encyclopedic material. These lists should not be deleted. Almost all the information in these articles CAN be sourced. --- RockMFR 05:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you refute my argument with an Afd discussion in which I also voted keep? I disagree with the precedent that was set. Precedent is not always correct, especially if there is not strong consensus. --- RockMFR 06:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Renata 06:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Wilkinson

[edit]
Dean Wilkinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:Vanity - article created by User:Dean Wilkinson. - Saikokira 05:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Brown (2nd nomination)

[edit]
Melissa Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable candidate. Ran three times for Congress and lost each time. She has nothing else to confer notability upon her. She's just an eye doctor. This is a tough one for me since I have contributed to the article myself. But honestly, she probably isn't going to run again much less get elected. So it makes sense to nix the article. Montco 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Judging from the last AFD, her notability was established by the publication 120 medical articles. Do those articles meet the Professor test? Copysan 05:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply She's run some consultancy called the "Center for Value-Based Medicine" for some years. Writing papers I am sure is part and parcel of the endeavor. However, it gets 100 or so google hits and her book [4] barely cracks the Amazon top 250,000. I can't verify the number of works that have been published and whether or not they are in mainstream journals. Personally, I doubt she would have cut it without the recent political activity and that is losing its relevance as time goes on. Montco 06:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This already survived an AFD where many people gave their opinion. Nothing has changed since then. Allon Fambrizzi 06:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
    • Comment Actually that's the problem, nothing has changed. Some of the keep votes were predicated on further evidence being provided of her notability in the medical field by User:DialUp. Its been a year and nothing has really been forthcoming. Montco 06:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would consider someone who was competitive in a Congressional race quite notable. Jarfingle 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete She was the party nominee only twice; the first time she lost in the primary. She may have written articles and books, but there is nothing in the article about them. Unless someone improves the article to show notability through her research work... --Brianyoumans 07:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete she lost the election three times and is no longer politically active, thus she is completly unnotable--Juju 11:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Her claim to notability is her list of medical articles, don't pick delete without even addressing that bit. Her political aspirations were discussed before, now this needs to be discussed instead. -Mgm|(talk) 13:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If she should be kept as a notable author of articles, doesn't the article need to assert that notability? Her non-political career is barely mentioned in the article, and her writings not at all. Fan-1967 15:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. Membership in the American Congress is much more powerful than governmental offices in those countries, and individual candidates here are much more widely publicized (i.e. more money is spent promoting them), whereas many newer democracies elect candidates via lists prepared by their party. Allon Fambrizzi 05:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • Strong Keep - per Allon Fambrizzi, TestPilot 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A major-party nominee for Congress is notable. If she's retired from politics, that means only that no one will be reading the article to get information on which to vote. It might well be of interest to someone interested in the history of the elections for the seat. Therefore, her alleged retirement doesn't entail nonnotability. JamesMLane t c 12:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A defeated major party candidate for national office is notable, even if only nominated once. Its not as if we had hundreds of major parties. There will be 471 or 2 of them every two years, WP can manage that. Being one of the 500 or so most important people to lose an election is notability enough. DGG 05:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO she passes our notability guidelines.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Burghard

[edit]
Duane Burghard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Failed political candidate, took only 36% of the vote in his only run. Non-notable small business owner otherwise. Montco 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Control

[edit]
Beaver Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

personal opinion + non-notable PeregrineAY 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unobtainium

[edit]
Unobtainium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unverified, fictional dictionary definition. There are two references that the term was used by the U.S. military as a euphamism for titanium. If true, that information could be added to the titanium article. The rest of this article is unverifiable, and also violates WP:NOT in that wikipedia is not a dictionary definition. Jayron32 06:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nisio Isin

[edit]
Nisio Isin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unverifiable as far as I can tell. All ISBN lead to no known results in Worldcat and Library of Congress. Only about 300 Ghits for the pen name and as far as I can tell most of the best hits are Japanese Wiki (unusable for verifiability). Next to no results in English anywhere on the web. ju66l3r 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Did you try searching for his Kanji name, seeing as he is Japanese and all? I got 105,000 hits on google, and I found a few of his books on world cat, under a different English spelling of his name(Japanese doesn't have the 'si' sound, so they instead use the 'shi' sound on that site).SuperDT 08:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And I'm supposed to be able to verify sources written in Kanji how again? And then you used a name that no longer has the palindromic effect claimed by the article to be so important to the author's transliteration to find books on Worldcat (which still doesn't explain why the ISBN's don't line up with any of the other books)? The two books that you do find under the new non-pen name aren't referenced anywhere in the article (making them further suspect). And finally, one of those two books is written in korean according to your Worldcat search. None of that helps verifiability. ju66l3r 13:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While English sources are preferred, there's no rules against sources in languages other than English especially for subjects in a specific language area. - Mgm|(talk) 13:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Where are those sources? No source for the award recognition. No source for the near WP:BLP-violating claim that he's a college dropout. No ISBNs that link to books anywhere that I can find. No titles for some alternate romanization of his name in the article. ju66l3r 13:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All ISBN lead to known results in Webcat plus.MMTD 13:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SuperDT. Appears to have been a simple transliteration problem. Clearly verifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 13:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The standard romanization of his name is "Nishio Ishin". His English version pen name is "NISIO ISIN". It is point symmetric and palindromic. MMTD 14:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Scogdv 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but should be checked by those with the ability to verify facts in Japanese, and unverifiable claims removed; while ju66l3r is incorrect to believe that this needs deleting, he is correct to be concerned about WP:BLP.
    For example, I believe that the article is incorrect to state that the Mephisto award is an annual event, given that -- unless I'm misreading something -- it would seem that over 30 Mephistos have been awarded since 1996. If other parts of the article are equally unreliable, considerable cleanup may be required. Perhaps an {{expert}} tag would be appropriate once this AfD has been cleared up. — Haeleth Talk 22:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Clicking on the .jp Amazon link from the ISBN page is a relatively easy way to verify that the books exist. Neier 23:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is verified. Speedy keep if the original submitter presents no further problems. I feel that the nominator's reasoning is flawed. Neither the Library of Congress nor OCLC member institutions regularly catalog manga or light novels that are published in Japanese. (LOC is very backloged and there's no demand for such records. OCLC's Japanese members are usually academic libraries whose focus is not manga.) If we search the National Diet Library's catalog for the author's name in the native language (西尾 維新), it pulls bibliographic entries for works listed on the pages, no problem. We can verify that the Mephisto-Award exists and that Nishio Isin was the recipient of one per this column "Nyūsuna Hondana" on a Japanese news portal. Additional article fact checking is better done outside of the AFD process. --Kunzite 03:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing to speedy keep. Notability: He's currently ranked #2 on the Daily Yomiuri's best selling new fiction list. Down from #1 last week. [5]. Here's an independant biography which also says that he did not graduate from Ritsumei U. [6]. --Kunzite 04:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in lieu of deletion —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 22:02Z

Spiderbaby (Yeah-Yeah-Yeah)

[edit]
Spiderbaby (Yeah-Yeah-Yeah) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There are a number of these contested Prods about White Zombie album tracks, but I'm deliberately not mass-listing them to avoid a trainwreck. Simply put, this one was not released as a single and appears not to have achieved anything noteworthy, apart from having samples from specific films BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ya know, i'm sure people can add information to it anytime they want so it live up to your expectations...that's what this site is for, right? Which probably won't happen if you delete the page entirely.

I'm aware that people can add information whenever they want, but the point is that there doesn't seem to be much out there which can be said about it. If there's information which establishes notability and which is added, I'm all for keeping the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in lieu of deletion —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 22:00Z

I Am Legend (song)

[edit]
I Am Legend (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There are a number of these contested Prods about White Zombie album tracks, but in the interests of avoiding train wrecks and considering each on its merits, I'll list them individually. This particular track was not released as a single, although it was covered for a tribute album and apparently is slightly different from the band's traditional sound, which sounds as though it may be pushing notability but not there yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...You're not helping the expansion of the page by deleting it ya know.

AfDs run for five days, which should be enough to establish notability or lack thereof. The article was created on October 20, so it's not like there hasn't been time to expand it. If there's information which can establish the notability of the song, I would suggest that contributing it here or in the article itself is a good policy. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in lieu of deletion —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 22:03Z

Soul-Crusher (song)

[edit]
Soul-Crusher (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There are a number of contested Prods of White Zombie album tracks, but in order to ensure that each is considered on its merits, I'm listing them individually. This particular track was not released as a single, but contains lyrical references to various films, as well as a spoken-word section delivered by Iggy Pop. All of that seems to be gaining on notability, but probably not there yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that notability you keep talking about not seeing might just get there...unless ofcoarse you delete the page.

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

The result was Speedily deleted a7 by User:Cholmes75. NawlinWiki 15:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fnugg

[edit]
Fnugg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable band; previous speedy removed without comment by author (a band member); I'm willing to bet a prod would meet the same fate. Brianyoumans 07:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Lebensborn —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 22:07Z

Nazi Breeding Camps

[edit]
Nazi Breeding Camps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No explicit citations; only external link is dead; I gather that it is seriously questioned whether such camps ever existed (as against merely eugenics-based matchmaking). It is possible that there is article potential here, such as about whether they existed, but the current article has been sitting for some time as a probably misleading stub going nowhere. Jmabel | Talk 07:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep/Rewrite The article needs proper sourcing and rewriting, but the topic is immensely relevant for an understanding of Nazi Germany. I will see what I can do to find some references, beside Wikipedia-irrelevant personal memories of a conversation with an old lady who was directly involved. As far as I remember, the matching took physically place at specific "institutions". Stammer 11:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realise the topic is controversial and I may be affected by personal recollections. This source may give an idea of what was going on. While the existence of the Lebensborn program is undisputed, the unresolved issue is whether such matchings were actually encouraged and to some extent organised, as my lady told me. There are claims that they were, but apparently the rumours, that were widespread even before WW2, could not be substantiated by historians (1). Stammer 12:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be diverging views on this topic (see e.g. this page , and the references therein), as well as distinctions between "the encourgagement of non-marital pregnancies between Aryan youths" (like the lady I met and her SS mate) and more brutal variants. Anyways, at this stage it's probably better to Merge/Redirect into Lebensborn. Stammer 09:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

. *Delete, I don't see any good reason for inclusion of this article here on Wikipedia. Needs sources, which is unlikely to find. Sounds like a made up hoax. Terence Ong 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, at least until Stammer has had a chance to do some research. I also knew a woman who was involved in this (very much against her will - they chained her to a bed for over a year); although her recollections were also Wikipedia-irrelevant, my memory of them leads me to believe that this is neither a hoax nor a non-notable topic. --Charlene 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Renata 06:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlecity

[edit]
Battlecity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A downloadable game that is unreferenced; fails WP:SOFTWARE. Prod removed by an anonymous user without comment. Marasmusine 07:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete Renata 06:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puntambekar

[edit]
Puntambekar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Proposed deletion tag removed with the comment "Well, Puntambekars are one of the only families to live on four continents, notably North America and Europe." by User:Storms991 who created the article. If that's the best argument, I'd say delete. Mereda 07:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik A. Williams

[edit]
Erik A. Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Deprodded. This is an article for an actor that has been an extra or really minor role for a few films and is now in a few low budget films whose only presence is their own websites. Also, he was on the Tyra Banks Show. There's no evident way this person could meet WP:BIO. The article lacks sources, as well. Kchase T 08:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was - Result Speedy Delete under Speedy deletion general criteria #7 Gnangarra 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perth Tram Company

[edit]
Perth Tram Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Because the article is not encyclopaedic, and it reads like an advertisment DonkeyKong the mathematician (in training) 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted as reposted material of a speculative nature. (aeropagitica) 22:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 307

[edit]

Episode is certainly not titled "Episode 307", article is blatant speculation, article goes against Lost guidelines (agreed upon via consensus) to only have verifiable information from ABC (Note: This article has previously been deleted several times as: Not in Portland and Not in Portland (Lost) (Which went through AfD)) - Speedy delete as recreation. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in lieu of deletion until the album is released. So far we only have "it probably exists because a lot of people think it exists". —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 22:23Z

One (Rihanna album)

[edit]
One (Rihanna album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, only reference is a blog entry. Also nominating By Yo' Side, per WP:N as well, singles from unreleased albums can't be notable yet. Deprodded so sending here. Tubezone 09:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Holden

[edit]
Christopher Holden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nominating this former game show contestant for deletion as not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert K S (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. Renata 06:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web 2.1

[edit]
Web 2.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable Sleepyhead 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 22:09Z

Open Ebooks Directory

[edit]
Open Ebooks Directory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable commercial website. This article caught my attention when I noticed User:212.12.29.1 spamming many articles with links to e-library.net and sometimes, this article (under "See also"). The article was created by User:Artdhtml. User:Artdhtml self-identifies as Alexei Kouznetsov[7]. A whois[8] reveals that the site belongs to him. His website also says that he is associated with the site ("programming and support")[9]. Alexa rankings: 294,826 (e-library.net) and (943,974) e-library.us. Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 10:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How the site becomes notable? This seems to be a WP:COI case. utcursch | talk 10:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, redirects go to WP:RFD. Note that this is a perfectly fine and correctly tagged {{R from alternate language}}. Kusma (討論) 11:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

汉宣帝

[edit]
汉宣帝 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nonsensical and unused redirect Quk 10:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long Horse

[edit]
Long Horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable, blog-driven hoax SWAdair 10:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I came to Wikipedia searching for information about the creation of the hoax and found this article quite relevant in that search. Krbrowning 14:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep but needs vast improvement and proper sources. There isn't much online other than a lot of speculation, so it will need some printed sources. David L Rattigan 10:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I know nothing of Wikipedia protocols or procedure, nor do I care but I have seen a long horse.--Special:Contributions/71.230.123.79

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. —Angr 13:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Novotný

[edit]
Pavel Novotný (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

looks good, but won no price and doesnt do something new (WP:PORN BIO). A redirect to the footballer should be established or that footballer article should be moved here... Furthermore Wikipedia should not be a link farm to obscene/profane contents... Especially Wikipedia should not present such content itself... Homer Landskirty 11:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep per WP:PORN BIO #7, there are several films on that page named after him (or at least one of his aliases, Jan Dvorak). Also, Wikipedia is not censored which I brought up on your talk page after I reverted idiotic censorship to cover up his crotch with ivy leaves.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Is "The Back Room" another alias or what? And it was "vine leafs"! Idiotic? Dont insult little helpless mentally special people! As so often the people who scream "censorship"/"discrimination" show the most censorship and discrimination in their own behaviour... I just want to uphold the Wikipedia regulations in concordance with US/Florida law. --Homer Landskirty 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Jan Dvorak is one of his alternate names, of which several films are listed under that name. And there are no Wikipedia regulations that are in accordance with US/Florida law. The picture will probably be all that'll be deleted, as a free alternative should be found. There is nothing at all wrong with the article for notability reasons to get it deleted and the footballer's article moved in its place. For WP:PORN BIO criteria, I give this and this as examples that he passes #7.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 11:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So u want an article "Jan Dvorak" or what? Do we agree, that there is no movie named "Pavel Novotny"? --Homer Landskirty 11:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Sigh... I feel so bad about the reactions on my deletion request now, so that I would like to withdraw it again (even though "Jan Dvorak" is just an obsoleted alias name, which does not reflect "Pavel Novotny" appropriately, so that theoretically my request was well founded -- just my mental condition does not allow me to proceed further). --Homer Landskirty 12:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 22:12Z

Amanda Swafford

[edit]
Amanda Swafford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable losing contestant on a reality television show.Mikeblas 12:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio's Pizza

[edit]
Antonio's Pizza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable regional pizza chain. Mikeblas 12:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Beekeeping. Even if it's not a term used in the industry, may be a useful search term —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 22:15Z

Beekeeping helmet

[edit]
Beekeeping helmet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Incorrect name for what I believe is called a hood. Material is already covered more thouroughly in beekeeper article. Currently nothing more than a dic def. Creator of this article nominated Welding helmet for deletion. Mgm|(talk) 12:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

ABBYY PDF Transformer

[edit]
ABBYY PDF Transformer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Advertising for a product - delete. Bigtop 23:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to List of Gundam SEED characters —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 22:27Z

Aisha (Gundam SEED)

[edit]
Aisha_(Gundam_SEED) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aisha (Gundam SEED) A highly in-universe article about a fictional character.

  • Google returns only 880 results, when also searched for ‘Gundam Seed’ to avoid false hits.
  • Character is not important enough to be given a surname.
  • Does not assert notability, appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as the character is minor.

The character is also written about on Cosmic Era list of characters with more than enough information. As such, I vote to delete, or at least redirect.Edward321 05:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, move to Amanda and Rachel Pace per naming manual of style. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda & Rachel Pace

[edit]
Amanda_&_Rachel_Pace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

STRONG delete: They are way too young to be considered remotely notable as per Wikipedia standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrgh (talk • contribs) 01:26, 4 December 2006

  • Comment Not necessarily. These two and the Shores kids are young children, who may (I haven't seen their work) actually do some performing. The Huebners are babies, and cannot credibly be labeled as actors. Fan-1967 16:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axway

[edit]
Axway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable corporation, does not meet WP:CORP (no printed media sources, no stock market index information), it looks like WP:AUTO and it almost sounds like WP:SPAM dockingmantalk 16:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nominator. -- dockingmantalk 16:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biljana Plavšić

[edit]
Biljana Plavšić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has very few sources, is of a contentious nature and disputed neutrality. Delete per WP:BLP. Localzuk(talk) 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so super sure anymore. Perhaps a delete and fresh start might be good, but wouldn't anyone who is POV pushing now find the article immediately again when it's re-created? Some kind of cleanup action would be nice, I think. --Lijnema 15:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't realise any of it had worked... The tool I use to list things for AFD seems to have went crazy and messes things up. Anyway... My reason for listing this wasn't that the subject matter is non-notable, rather that deleting it and starting again would be a better chance of improving the article than trying to fight the pov warriors that would appear. Localzuk(talk) 20:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to List of Gundam SEED characters —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 22:29Z

Captain Todaka

[edit]
Captain_Todaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Captain Todaka A highly in-universe article about a fictional character.

  • Google returns only 760 results.
  • Character is not important enough to be given a full name.
  • Does not assert notability, appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as the character is minor.

The character is also written about on Cosmic Era list of characters with more than enough information. As such, I vote to delete, or at least redirect.Edward321 05:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Ducharne (AfD subpage)

[edit]
Dominique Ducharne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article name misspelled, should have been Dominique Ducharme Big_iron 13:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the "Proposed deletion" deletion route would have been more appropriate. --Big_iron 14:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Doughnuts (Radio)

[edit]
Duncan_Doughnuts_(Radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is the fourth time someone has tried to dlete this but Duncan Doughnuts (Radio) works on the same radio show as Tim Shaw ,who has an article, and therefore should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford Prefect 2 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 1 December 2006

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

The result was delete but I will create a redirect as there are still relevent incoming links. W.marsh 00:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Jackson (B&B)

[edit]
Harry_Jackson_(B&B) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

STRONG delete: H. Jackson has been on the BB for THREE months in a very minor RECURRING role! That is NOT notable enough for a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrgh (talk • contribs) 01:07, 4 December 2006

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaia and Kendall Huebner

[edit]
Kaia_and_Kendall_Huebner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

STRONG delete: They are way to young to be considered notable as per Wikipedia standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrgh (talk • contribs)

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

The result was speedy, because the band was created in school less than a week ago. (Radiant) 16:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Riordan and the Band

[edit]
Kevin Riordan and the Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacKenzie Mauzy

[edit]
MacKenzie_Mauzy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

STRONG Delete: Mauzy is not notable enough to have a page. Only been on BB for FIVE months in a SUPPORTING role & she's not even 20 years old! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrgh (talk • contribs) 00:34, 4 December 2006

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merja Taponen

[edit]
Merja Taponen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable. Article was deleted in fi-wiki. Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Council leaders of districts whos population of 15,517 are not generally considered notable. WIkipedia is not a soapbox for candidates standing in forthcoming elections. Ohconfucius 08:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • She is running in the national paliamentary election, not a local one. The size of parliamentary districts in Finland is irrelevant. --Oakshade 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • National parliamentary election, yes, so what? I fail to see how on earth this could be notable here if it's not notable on fi-WP. I mean, do you want to have an article on every person that ever ran for parliament, in any country, ever? Sheesh... --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 08:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely in synch with Neofelis here. No frigging point at all. There would be more candidates in national elections than we have rambot created articles on US counties by a very large margin, maybe even orders of magnitude larger. Think about it. Just under 200 odd countries. Say upwards of 100 seats in each national parliament (easily). Maybe 5-6 candidates contesting each seat on average. That would put us over 100 000 candidates to write an article on per election cycle. How many election cycles are there historically in each country? The mind genuinely boggles!!! -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 11:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in Finnish Wikipedia over 77% of the voters thought that this politician is so non-notable that she doesn't deserve own article, that should already tell something. Totally unknown politician in her own country. ,,n 13:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also-rans simply aren't notable. Now get out there and win an election for the Gipper. SkierRMH,09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Renata 06:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music For Sport (AfD subpage)

[edit]
Music For Sport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like an advertisement, apparently by a founder of the company. Mumby 15:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange juice cd trick

[edit]

This is possibly original research, and as such, Wikipedia is not an advice guide. SunStar Net 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Some hybrid of WP:NOR WP:HOAX, maybe a bit of WP:NONSENSE for good measure. Creator proudly states that all his edits get reverted, and he's been banned once before for Colbert-elephant vandalism, so I'm having trouble coming up with WP:FAITH that this page should be kept except in the case of substantial WP:RS citation. Added later: having read further, the content is a load of factual errors, weasel-words to avoid having to support anything as being actually "correct", etc etc. DMacks 00:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QuickSilver (project)

[edit]
QuickSilver (project) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A non-notable academic project. Despite the claim of a large number of papers about this topic, I don't see how this in development software passes WP:NOT#CBALL Salad Days 04:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. Despite papers going back fairly far, QuickSilver appears relatively new--all reports of it are in conference proceedings and technical reports. My keep would be stronger if it was in a peer-reviewed publication. Due to the fact that there are papers on the topic & you can download it, I don't really see how WP:NOT#CBALL can apply. The article describes QuickSilver as it exists now. --Karnesky 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be the start of something significant and is notable. --Buridan 17:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Buridan The Fox Man of Fire 20:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator's own argument admits that "there are a large number of papers aboutthe project" and wishes us to delete it on his unsourced claim that "it never got off the ground". Now that comment is a pretense of OR, and being used in a negative maqnner at that. DGG 05:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SEO Services & Search Engine Optimization Company

[edit]
SEO Services & Search Engine Optimization Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Details about how a page must look like to rank well are always speculation and vary from SE to SE. See the Search Engine Optimization article for details. roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 00:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sato (Gundam character)

[edit]
Sato_(Gundam_character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sato (Gundam character) A highly in-universe article about a fictional character.

  • Character is not important enough to be given a full name.
  • Does not assert notability, appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as the character is minor.

The character is also written about on Cosmic Era list of characters with more than enough information. As such, I vote to delete, or at least redirect.Edward321 05:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The royal family book series

[edit]
The royal family book series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
View single debate

Totally non-notable. I would say it's probably a hoax, except that the other page started by this editor explains that Main Hall was written by a sixth-grader, so it could be for real, just not published outside of his sixth-grade class. Quuxplusone 07:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I want to add the above article, the only other contribution by author Jeremy926 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to this AfD. Deprodded by author. Tubezone 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - Let's see here. A sixth-grader (i.e., probably an 11-year-old) writes a series of books and wins a prize for the best book by a kid in his grade in his town. He is excited, and he or his family decide that he should write about the books on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, being the newest of newbies here, he is not familiar with our notability and deletion guidelines, so the new page gets prod'ed and then listed here on AfD the day it is created. Since the page is going to wind up being deleted, perhaps speedily so, this is bound to be disappointing to a younger person proud of his accomplishment. I would urge that we at least try to do it without saying there's "no evidence the books exist" or accusing the new editor of "vandalism" (it's not always apparent to a newcomer why "prod" tags can be deleted but AfD tags mustn't be). I recognize that the younger editors are subject to the same rules and guidelines and notability criteria as the rest of us, and this page shouldn't be kept, but there has to be a more humane way of dealing with this type of situation. Newyorkbrad 18:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First thing, I don't see anything that's been said here that's particularly cruel, second, there's plenty of other places where this can be posted, WP is hardly the only web site on the internet, third, it's going to be deleted anyway, what's the diff if it's done now or later, fourth, if you allow exceptions for 11 year old kids, every hoaxster is going to suddenly become 11 years old and make a façade of being a little kid being cruelly persecuted by the heartless cabal, fifth, if one is going to take up creative writing, one might as well get the fear of rejection thing out of the way early, and last, is this the longest run-on sentence you've seen today, or what? Tubezone 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like to criticize my fellow editors' writing styles, run-on or otherwise, so I'll just say that if that sentence had appeared in The Royal Family Book Series, it wouldn't have won first prize. :) Substantively, I was by no means opposing deletion, just suggesting a gentler explanation to a new and enthusiastic editor. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 00:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor & Preston Shores

[edit]
Trevor_&_Preston_Shores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Strong delete: These 2 are not notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. I believe they are about 5 years old. R.J. Forrester is about 3 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrgh (talk • contribs) 01:30, 4 December 2006

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Merge and delete is not really an option, as we need to preserve the contributer history if we do that. Merging can still be done, just turn this into a redirect. W.marsh 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Law Calcutta University

[edit]
Department of Law Calcutta University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable department of a university. No evidence that it meets WP:CORP. But some universities worldwide do have separate articles for specific faculties or departments, like Harvard Law School, so I've brought this to AfD for debate.

Comment As another example from the category, I haven't nominated Department of Ship Technology at CUSAT because that does verifiably get national media coverage. Mereda 14:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my opinion Google search doesn't indicate notability: For Department of Law Calcutta University [11] first two results are from University's website and the rest are about Department of Law of other universities. Searching with quotes[12] gives six results. Again, for Department of Applied Physics, University of Calcutta[13], first two results are from University's own website. The rest are about Department of Applied Physics of other universities. utcursch | talk 05:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agent 86 makes a reasonable point about the law library, but I don't see independent evidence that Calcutta's is anything special - for example, the best in India is claimed to be at ILS Law College. And the Calcutta department of law doesn't feature in any Top-10 lists that I've seen. Nothing outstanding about these two Calcutta departments (or their libraries) is evident either from the latest NAAC accreditation report[14] even though the university as a whole gets a "five-star" top rating. Oh, if you want to know, Calcutta University has 58 departments. Mereda 08:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC),[reply]
  • Keep the article Merda is correct when he reffered to the NAAC. But why everyone is forgetting that a page in the Wikipedia is also something to boast about itself! Moreover, if unless and untill we make an effort to highlight the performance of the Department, not only the NAAC but its own students will also never come to know about its credentials. For almost last 100yrs the Department had given the society numerous emient legal hawks and I think now, when the University is really turning around from the typical mediocracy which once got associated with its image, we must put a thrust in this process by putting forwad its emient Departments.

My point is, if you squash an effort to make the department's presence over here, you yourselves who are advocating for systematic credentials, will thaw the Departments progress. Why can't we give our effort together and build this article with the datas collected from its current performance and hundred years of legal prescence?Smartsaha 01:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's see what we can do together. A lot of good work can be done to extend articles about higher education in India, without any conflict with Wiki policy on boasting and self-promotion. Start with looking at the Calcutta law alumni?? Or maybe we should continue a general discussion at the India project page. Mereda 08:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Kill Now

[edit]
No Kill Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NN website, speedy removed by creator (although the speedy probably was incorrect). Nokillnow.com gets 1290 g-hits and gives no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. The page also needs to be monitored for WP:BLP issues. In earlier forms, it was somewhat of an attack page. --BigDT 13:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 23:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casey dick

[edit]
Casey dick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Procedual nomination: this article was not suitable for speedy deletion, so I'm taking this to AfD to deal with the issue of notability. Original nomination was for {{db-bio}}, but the sheer number of Google hits and considerable third-party coverage suggest a great degree of notability than expected. Has been moved to Casey Dick. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 14:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was found on the talk page of the article and was moved here

end move

  • Keep Per WP:BIO: "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. Where one of the criteria is: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played...at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States." As such, he meets the criteria for notability which was established in the article. And it just says "played" not "first string". Nonetheless, he still was a starter for several games. --MECU≈talk 03:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone is willing to expand the article. м info 04:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and keep - even though he is a backup college quarterback, he still meets WP:BIO per Mecu. B.Wind 06:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is a backup indeed, but he has played many games and may even have a career in the NFL.Fortyniners9999 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep played on nationally televised game, just barely squeeks past my notability standard... if he doesnt make the NFL i'll probably aim for deletion then.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Renata 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Forbes

[edit]
Dennis Forbes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Incomplete nomination. Was prod'ed with rationale: "Non-notable blog writer who's mistaken WP for a link farm" and de-prodded with "Editor needs to learn how cites differ from a 'link farm'". Some other information can be seen in the page history, in particular regarding the {{autobiography}} tag. Tizio 14:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 23:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disc wobble

[edit]
Disc wobble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable copy-prevention implementation proposal. Article created by a spa. Only sources are self-published. yandman 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Copy protection. It exists, but isn't all that notable. Ohconfucius 06:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. "disk wobble" + "copy protection" yields exactly 12 Google hits; "disk wobble" has multiple meanings, resulting in a total of 652 Ghits. In the context of disk protection, "disk wobble" appears to be a neologism. B.Wind 06:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ohconfucius, google returns hits from .edu and journals, there's spme attention even though it's not on the market. -- Steve Hart 14:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable group of gamers, {{db-group}} and WP:BIO both refer. (aeropagitica) 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AADL GT

[edit]
AADL GT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Event of local interest only. PROD tag removed by article creator with no further comment. FreplySpang 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This in no way can be considered an "extremely minor" event, since for one thing, we have already prvoen that in the article by stating the number of people who have attended these tournaments, and second of all, we have many members who come from at least an hour or more drive from Ann Arbor, from places such as Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo, which are quite long drives for something such as a gaming tournament, so there has to be a fair amount of significance to draw them here all they way from where they live. Also, for someone who has such awards and accolades from Wikipedia, I find your scathing sarcasm disappointingly low. Tcoveney 16:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare this article to a bake sale then you should compare it to the first bake sale because that is what this is like. This event is seen and read about by many people and is therefore a significant contribution to Wikipedia.

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike pinto

[edit]
Mike pinto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested speedy; artist with one album and a claim to have been on a national tour. See article talk page. Doesn't seem notable enough to me, but bringing here for discussion. NawlinWiki 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. yandman 15:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keep working hard, kid, and you'll make it to Wikipedia. In the meantime, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Powers T 15:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nice music, like the guitar intro to "Tricky Nicky", of course subject is nowhere near meeting the standard of WP:BAND. Get a couple reviews/features, or better yet wait for your fans to write it. Darkspots 20:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just to point this out, i am not Mike Pinto, that is not in anyway my music, and i do not take any credit for it. I am just a huge fan of his music and was suprised to see he did not have a wikipedia page, so i took the liberty to make him one, as for reviews, i posted some on the discussion page of the mike pinto, and below

There are numerous reviews at this link: Cdbaby.com reviews Here are just a few examples:

5 stars Reviewer: Sammy Snead / Rasta Roots Radio The first time I heard Mike Pinto’s solo Acoustic album, I was immediately intrigued by the passion and soul pouring from each song. This seven song demo cd is extremely authentic, pure and quietly epic. It was the top music investment to date in the 21st century, until now with Mike Pinto's debut album “Little District”. Produced in the heart of Philly with legendary hometown artist/producer Tim Sonnefeld from the band Townhall, this cd instantly raises the bar for any musician attempting to drop a flawless cd from start to finish. Mike shines with his remarkable story-telling songs such as "Bills Song" "Chilean Lover" and his instant classic "Tricky Nicky". This is the rare reggae/rock/latin/ska/dub release that's both gripping and touching. We all owe him a great amount of gratitude for giving the new music world hope.

5 Stars Reviewer: Mike from KY I am an avid collector of Reggae/Island/Party/Feel Good music. I own over 1000 CD's and Mike Pinto is one of the Best artist in Music today and one of the best CD's I own. He will definitely cross over to the mainstream audience once his music is discovered.Mike Pinto is making the best music available anywhere. If you haven't heard of his music you are really missing out on some of the most intelligent feel good music that is available. Don't hesitate and buy music from Mike Pinto and support creative music at its finest. Mainstream bands don't even hold a candle to him. Listen to it and you will become addicted to some really fantastic music with awesome feel good reggae vibes with a twist.One of the best song writers in the industry today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riptorfire (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 December 2006

  • Quality does not equal notability. Mike from KY wrote: "He will definitely cross over to the mainstream audience once his music is discovered." If that's such a certainty, then you can write an article on him when that happens. Until then, he's not notable. Powers T 13:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Riptorfire, these CDBaby.com reviews don't meet the broad standard of what a "published work" is. What we're looking for here is something that meets the standards discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Same deal with the national tour. If you can show how the tour was reported by multiple reliable sources, that could work, but a quick google search says no dice on that. Did the single chart, as Powers asked? If you can show us that the single charted, that could provide a keep for the article.
Just to note this one more time, a deletion finding here is no impediment to Pinto's eventual sucess or any sort of statement about his musical ability. People go to myspace.com to find new music to listen to, not wikipedia. The notability standards of Wikipedia are there to make the encyclopedia more useful for general readers, not to provide some sort of arbitrary stumbling block designed to impede the upward rise of bands. Darkspots 18:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see what you are saying, i think what i will do is copy all the coding, and maybe wait to see if Mike can hit a little more mainstream, because i reviewed the criteria, and while i do greatly enjoy his music, he really does not meet enough of the criteria. I believe it is ok to take this down, but maybe i can resurrect the article when Mike gets his name out there a little more, and meets Wikipedia's standards. Riptorfire

That's a good idea. You can keep the text in your User space if you like (for example, at User:Riptorfire/Mike Pinto. Powers T 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Some keep votes were explicitly "weak keep," others dependent on sources being provided, but none have been during the course of this AfD and I think it safe to say none will. Chick Bowen 03:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of collective nouns for people

[edit]
List of collective nouns for people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I freely acknowledge that collective nouns exist -- gaggle of geese, murder of crows, and all that. However, this particular list appears to be filled with nothing but spurious and/or joke collective nouns. For example, a group of actors is called a "cast"? Not hardly; only if they're all working on the same production as actors. A "faffing" of geeks? Come on. Please see also the recently-closed-as-delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collective nouns for objects and concepts. Powers T 15:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bald vulture

[edit]
Bald vulture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I have notability concerns about this band, but it isn't speedy deletable due to the assertation of tours with notable bands made. My main concern is the lack of sources (therefore failing WP:RS and WP:V) and the fact that the article stinks of WP:OR. Martinp23 15:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under G11 —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo Consulting

[edit]
Indigo Consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Advert for non-notable company created by user:Indigo01. -- RHaworth 16:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Renata 06:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Phillip Coleman

[edit]
Andre Phillip Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This was prodded about a week ago, but I'm uncomfortable just deleting it. There might be something salvageable here. Mackensen (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Canadian

[edit]
White Canadian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I believe this article's topic to be something that neither requires nor merits a Wikipedia article. I believe that the current low quality of the article (which seems to be not much more than a recitation of demographic statistics with the addition of a single paragraph of not-fully-relevant history) does not, as some might suggest, mean that the article should be improved. I believe, instead, that it demonstrates that a Wikipedia-quality article cannot be written on this topic. The poor article quality is, of course, just a symptom of the lack of encyclopedic nature of this topic. First, I believe that this article has been created to bolster a school of thought which believes that this identity exists. An article on that sort of racialized thinking might be valid, of course, but that's not the same thing as creating an article which should only exist if you buy into their belief system.

As an example of the sort of confused thinking that must have lead to the creation of this article, the "Ethnic group" infobox template has been used. However, this confounds the concept of a skin colour and an "ethnicity". Ethnicity, as reported by Statistics Canada (for example), includes most national identities that can be seriously considered. "Quebecois" (apologies for lack of accents) is included, as is "Canadian", "Irish", "Lebanese" and "Ethiopian". THOSE are ethnicities (or at least, they're worthy of Wikipedia articles, because they clearly encompass a set of people who understand themselves by the label. However, the set of people who understand their own ethnicity to be "White Canadian" is very different from the set of people described by the label.

Finally, I will head off the most obvious and useless argument - which has been used both in the article and on its talk page. In fact, the first sentence of the article is, I believe, nothing more than an attempt to justify the very existence of the article. Any article that must do that is on shaky ground.) The argument basically says that because StatsCan counts it, it must be a valid article. This is an irrelevant point, as StatsCan counts numerous things that are not worthy of articles - can you picture an article with the title "Single Family Dwellings in Kenora" ??? AshleyMorton 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Certainly not by me. I don't believe that I'm someone who can comment on those groups' existence within the milieu of the countries in question. However, I would certainly have the immediate reaction that the concept of "White American" certainly is much more present in the mass media of that country than the concept of "White Canadian" is in Canadian mass media, making "White American" more article-worthy than "White Canadian". AshleyMorton 17:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to Ashley Morton, I agree that the term confounds color and ethnicity. I primarily consider the term to imply the physical description of light-colored people which would not be an ethnicity, but my sources I used for citation said it meant European ancestry. In the sense that white is being used as a synonym for European ancestry, white is in fact an ethnicity. I consider the "single family dwelings in Kenora" to be a poor analogy. Surely, not everything should be an article on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia considers ethnic groups to be noteworthy. User:AshleyMorton claim "Canadian" is noteworthy enough to warrant an article, but aren't recent Chinese Canadians culturally or if I may ethnically different from European descent Canadians with a long history in Canada? If your definition Ashley Morton of ethnicity revolves around history and culture, European Canadians have a separate culture from other Canadian groups like Aboriginal Canadians.--Dark Tichondrias 10:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—"White Canadian" is only defined by StatsCan by what it is not: not a member of a category of visible minority, as defined by the Employment Equity Act.[15][16] StatsCan does not associate white with any ethnic origin.[17] The article's reference to Latin America comes from the assumptions made for one specific labour study, which don't belong here: they are being used by some editors to add an unjustified white European slant to this article. Furthermore, the categories are self-reported and may be written in, so the definitions of ethnic groups are loose, and not encyclopedically defined. Some of the material in this article regarding ethnic origins belongs in Demographics of Canada or ethnic groups of Canada, but there is no justification for or definition of "white Canadian", by skin colour. Associating StatsCan's category of "white" with any ethnic group is original research. —Michael Z. 2006-12-04 20:54 Z
  • Keep--In response to Mzajac, a defintion defined by exclusion is still a clear defintion. If a White Canadian is a Canadian who is not a visible minority and we know who Statistics Canada considers a "visible minority", then we know who is defined as a White Canadian. It is true that anybody of any ancestral background could fill in the White Canadian category on the Canadian Census, but this is true of most censuses. The US Census has clear racial definitions, but on census day people mark whatever box they feel like.--Dark Tichondrias 10:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a precedent for similar articles, such as Black Canadian, White American, White British, White Australian, African American, Asian American, Chinese American, Chinese Canadian, Asian Canadian, and Arab American. Either they — and all similar articles — should all stay, or they should all be deleted. There is no logical justifiation for singling out White Canadian for deletion. Spylab 11:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regardless of the eventual outcome, this argument doesn't hold. If an article were created called "White Newfoundlander", for instance, it would be even more tenuous than this one. How about "Iberian Canadian" (to lump together people from Portugal and Spain", or "North Asian Canadian" - my point is, simply because you can categorize a group of people and put them under a single label, does NOT mean that that categorization holds equal value to the encylopedia project as all other groups. "Chinese Canadian" - of course! That has to stay - it's a group with many elements of common history, identity, etc., etc., etc. Most relevantly, most members of the group see that as group to which they belong. I and many other white Canadians do not see "White Canadians" as a *group* to which we belong. Similarly, we clearly should not have an article for "Canadians who own umbrellas", because that group does not see itself as a group, and even though it has common elements (nationality, umbrella-owning-status). So, yes there IS logical justification for "singling out" White Canadian - it does not share the other common traits or historical identities that ethnic or cultural groups that have legitimate articles share. AshleyMorton 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic (which I don't think holds water), then White American, White British, White Australian, White people and any similar articles should be deleted as well. You have not explained why white Canadian should be singled out for deletion.Spylab 23:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, to be clear, I'm not using a categorization to disagree with the existence of white Canadian. I'm simply arguing that it, as a group, as an "identity", doesn't meet the sort of criteria to be in the same place as many of those other ones you list. I suspect that if I knew more about the circumstance, White Australian might also be something of which I'd support the deletion, but that's key - I don't know. I DO, on the other hand, know about the circumstances of fair-skinned people in Canada. I am one, and I know many. In short, they have nothing in common OTHER than their skin colour. At that point, it is either labelling for the sake of labelling (at which point my "umbrella" example is relevant) OR it is a strategy to foist this identity upon the world, as if it is an existent subject. That, I believe would be Wikipedia inventing the world, not Wikipedia describing the world. ...and that's not okay. AshleyMorton 23:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthering this point, if these other articles are equal in quality and inanity to White Canadian, they should be deleted. There's no onus to be "fair" and allow every insipid article to spawn a thousand copycats because it's slipped under the radar. --MattShepherd 21:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement "they have nothing in common OTHER than their skin colour" applies just as much to White American, White British, White Australian and white people. There is absolutely nothing that makes the situation of white Canadians any different. For example, even in the UK, where it can be argued that whites are the indigeonous population (instead of immigrants), there are differences between English, Scottish, Scots-Irish (in Northern Ireland), Welsh and Cornish cultures. There are even differences in culture within those groups (such as south and north England), different economic classes, different subcultures and other differences that lead to a non-homogoneous culture. Spylab 00:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's true. From a quick look at the respective articles, it appears that "white British" and "white Australian" are both defined by a census question about ethnicity, and the British article specifically addresses the cultural groups. In contrast, the Canadian census does not mention "white" at all in the question about ethnic origin, only in a separate question about visible minority status—race and colour are separate variables. Although we're trying to clean it up, some editors are conflate the two concepts based on orthogonally-opposed data variables, to paint their own picture of a white "Canadian race", completely insupportable by the data. —Michael Z. 2006-12-06 00:37 Z

Keep. The article is a mess, but several editors are working to clean it up. There is some verifiable statistical data that can be referenced. This is as legitimate a topic as the other [[Colour/Ethnicity - Nationality]] articles noted above. - Eron Talk 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know I'm repeating myself, but it is simply not the case that all "groups that can be labelled" are legitimate groups. You need to actually believe that THIS one is legitimate. Second, verifiable statistical data: As I've said, there are verifiable statistical data about many things - "homeowners in Moose Jaw" or "teenagers in Yellowknife". That doesn't mean they deserve articles. They need to be justified in their own right. AshleyMorton 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Black Canadian should also be deleted(along with White American etc...). You could not keep one and delete another. TestPilot 21:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course you can keep one and not the other. If one is an identifiable - well - identity, with common history, socialization, and a feeling of commonality, while the other one is a label and nothing but a label, then of course you can distinguish between them. That's like saying there needs to be an article on "Italians in Canada before 1400" because we could write an article on "aboriginal people in Canada before 1400" - Sure, it's equal, but the facts intervene and inform us that one doesn't exist. Of course, I'm not saying there are no white Canadians - I'm saying that you can't off-the-cuff generalize from one article of a certain type to another of the same type - you must actually consider the validity of each article seperately.AshleyMorton 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think the overwhelming majority ethnicity is an "ethnicity" that needs an article. The nature of the majority is that it's the default culture. Will the authors also diligently set about creating articles on "Flying Birds," "Walking Mammals" and "Two-Legged People"? --MattShepherd 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "White Canadian" is a meaningless label, of at best suspect POV status, which does not define a unified group that has any common history, culture or social context unique to the circumstance of being white. Accordingly, this article can never be anything more than a questionable POV fork of Demographics of Canada; there's nothing encyclopedic that could possibly be written about any sort of unified White Canadian culture that crosses ethnic boundaries. The comparison to Black Canadian is invalid; there is an objective and encyclopedic Black Canadian identity, history and social context that is shared across the various black ethnicities. Minority identities are encyclopedic, because they are bound together by circumstances unique to being a minority group; privileged majority groupings simply do not have that kind of commonality. Bearcat 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with previous statement. CJCurrie 01:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For all the differences that exist among the various black ethnicities, there is a common experience and history defined by the state of being black: slavery, racism, being on the losing end of white privilege, police harassment, racial profiling, Driving While Black. Caribana. George Elliott Clarke's Africadia. Michaëlle Jean. And on, and so forth. For all the variety within it, an objective culture does exist which can be and is labelled "Black Canadian", whereas "White Canadian" culture is a meaningless abstraction that doesn't objectively exist, and can only be created by cobbling together bits of demographic data that have no connection to each other, no shared experience, no applicability to any cultural terminologies used in the real world, and no remotely encyclopedic reason to be lumped together as a single group. Wikipedia's job is to reflect terms that are actually in use in the real world, to write about and reflect topics that other sources have already deemed encyclopedically significant. "Black Canadian" fits that criterion; "White Canadian" does not. European Canadian is a much better approach to this — while I'm still not sure there's that much that can be written about the topic, and would therefore still have to think very carefully about whether it was keepable as written, the title comes much closer to reflecting the distinctions that actually exist in Canadian culture as defined by the external sources that determine the encyclopedic value of a WP article. Bearcat 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term "White Canadian" is a neologism without widespread currency. - SimonP 01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favour of new European Canadian article per prevalence of the term (see Talk:White Canadian#FYI for Google hits, but these must be read in light of Bearcat's comments in the same section). Deet 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat and SimonP -- Jeff3000 16:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per cogent arguments provided by AshleyMorton, Bearcat and SimonP. In the census, people get counted as "White" if they do not identify themselves as members of a visible minority and do not identify themselves as aboriginal. At best a dictionary definition, better, just a census definition. Luigizanasi 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a "white Canadian," this article is just annoying and just seems to be an outlet for latent and not-so latent racists, or worse, colour-blind liberals who think that we're all colour-coded equally. Nothing useful can be accomplished here that can't be accomplished better at European Canadian.Bobanny 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Surely it is possible to vote in a deletion discussion without attacking those who are attempting in good faith to contribute to the article in question? I'm not sure that I enjoy being called either a racist, or worse than a racist. - Eron Talk 18:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for painting all the editors of the article with the same brush. The article itself has racist undertones in my opinion, regardless of the world view of its editors, which I find offensive and is why I think it should be deleted.Bobanny 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I personally share your concerns about the possible racist undertones, and I have been hopeful that they can be removed without deleting the article. The unwillingness of some editors to consider a non-racial approach has me reconsidering my keep vote. - Eron Talk 18:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. My first instict was to go with delete, but since White British and White American exist (and are not on AfD), deleting this would be inconsistent. Either delete them all or keep them all. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article, redirect and merge any relevant text into the demographics articles. I have refrained from voting so far, due to my initial involvement in removing related material from Canada and Canadian English. However, taking into account the response to attempts to clean up the article, I cannot help but think that it will be a continual source of problems, requiring constant monitoring and revision. The core details would be easier to maintain if they are "protected" by incorporation into the larger context of a Canadian demographics article. A stand-alone page about this specific topic is hard to justify given the lack of solid, verifiable information, and the potential for abuse. --Ckatzchatspy 20:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - A poor, racist, incorrect and inconsistent article on a nonexistent ethnic group. michael talk 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe arguments for deleting are essentially an attempt to suppress WP coverage of a political tendency. DGG 05:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree - the way it's presented, it looks like this is an actual group, rather than a "belief in a group". I'm happy to see (and contribute to) an article which discusses various colour- and race-based analyses of Canadian society. ...but that's different from simply presenting the article, at which point it looks like the only NPOV stance is that the group exists. AshleyMorton 16:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What is all this business? Many nations have articles about the white people living therein. This article seems to be a reasonable quality to me, and I do not agree with its deletion. Lofty 11:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

[edit]

It's a group of people in Canada. People of European ancestry. It is a relevant article related to Canada, and is not "low quality", it is similar content in all other "ethnic group" articles. If you delete this, why not delete "Chinese Canadian" or "French American"? You don't have much of a reason why you would like it deleted rather then critisizing its quality. But it shows accurate facts and percentages etc., and seems pretty fine to me. Don't see any reason for it to be deleted. Are you a racist ? A racist American could delete "African American" then. "Not relevant" what are you talking about, it is the majority ethnic group in Canada, how is that not relevant? I think maybe you are scared it is racist, or something like that, but either way your personal opinion does not matter 100% and you should focus on wether the article can benefit any reasercher, or wether it is relevant. It IS relevant. If they have an article on "African Canadians", who are around 4 % of the Canadian population I believe, why on earth can't there be an article for "White Canadians", the largest ethnic group in Canada? I fail to see an adequate reason for deletion, rather than some sort of personal grudge. RyanRP 03:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Michael Z., the point you just made would mean that all the ethnic group pages should be deleted, because that's basically what they all are. And the "Latin American not counted" part was always there, on the original version. Seriously, with your argument, that means we should delete EVERY ethnic group page for EVERY country on Wikipedia, because what you say is "wrong" with this article is what every ethnic group article is. Information about a certain group of ethnicity in a country, what percentages they are in population, and the like. 03:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And eron, if you say that, then lets have "African American", or "Indian British" deleted aswell. Seriously, "White", no matter what your personal opinion is, DOES exist. there are WHITE , PEOPLE. They are REAL they EXIST. every group of people "really exists" but white people"?? That certainly isn't true! This is obviously some sort of personal grudge RyanRP 03:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood what I was implying by my comment. I was not suggesting deletion of those pages; I was rather suggesting that if the concept of "White" is strong enough to support them, then there may be a case for a "White Canadians" article as well. That wasn't a vote to delete. - Eron Talk 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well I just added something to the page that should clear up everyones concerns. Check it out, definitions of White Canadian I added it, hopefully that fixes your problems ``` RYAN RP

You know what people, you're bringing up some OK points, so therefore based on your theories, Black Canadian should be deleted aswell. RyanRP 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Black Canadian" actually exists in the real world as a term actually in use to define a cultural grouping. Whether you agree with the cultural value of that grouping is irrelevant; the term actually signifies a specific grouping recognized in verifiable sources as having a specific cultural context. "White Canadian" is not a term used in the real world to signify any specific or unique culture shared across multiple ethnicities. Bearcat 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - much of the disputed material is now in a new article, European Canadian. --Ckatzchatspy 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Girvin

[edit]
James Girvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Writer of the entry says that he is a respected political and humor writer on the campus of Boston College, however I fail to see how the subject passes WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. JRHorse 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Girvin WikiWebGeneral 05:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. — WikiWebGeneral (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I feel that any person should be entitled to a page as long as the page is useful to others who may find what that person does interesting and useful as long as these arent personal adds or jokes. Why does allowing James Girvin to have a page hurting anyone. You allow people who have done zero for society like Paris Hilton to have a page but you don't allow good people have one. — JDD1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC 14:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

That Paris Hilton has an article is not a reflection of her value to society. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are not based on whether a person is good, or whether it isn't "hurting anyone". There are blogs and free web hosts for singing the praises of someone. Wikipedia is not a free web host.--Dhartung | Talk 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the notability guidelines and I feel that this subject fits very nicely within the bounds of Wikipedia. I understand why Paris Hilton is here and I was just making a point much like the James Girvin Article. The article is not singing the praises its just giving information about a topic that a lot of people want to know about.JDD1985 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article completely unencyclopedic. In my mind, the jury's out as to whether the subject is any more deserving of a Wikipedia article than any of the 30 other James Girvins that were unearthed by Google search... but even if he were, this article would need to be scraped clean and started anew. Right now I remain unconvinced that a regular column on a college newspaper and a pair of blogs raises him to the bar of WP:BIO. B.Wind 06:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it and article reads more like an encyclopedia article. I think with these changes the article should be kept . JDD1985 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC) — JDD1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete, indication of a consensus to merge if anyone wants to pursue that. W.marsh 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Grove Fire Department

[edit]
Oak Grove Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested speedy. I appreciate the project is trying to improve the coverage of fire services in Wikipedia. However, going as far as introducing non notable local depts and listing individual staff seems, to me, to be going being what is encyclopaedic into what should be dedicated works Nuttah68 17:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Oak Grove Fire Department is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to the fire service around the world. As it is part of a global WikiProject this article should not be deleted. Recommend to keep article. Additionally, it is considered common courtesy to inform the author of an article when their article has been marked for deletion. This was not done by the requestor but I have now informed the author. --Drew30319 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am one of the primary editor/members of WikiProject Fire Service and although I tagged the article as a member of the Project, to be honest I see no value in it. I tagged it because I attempted to tag all fire service related articles, and plan to leave it to others to make them noteworthy. I have tagged a number of articles which I even plan to nominate for deletion or merger. They are tagged as a way to categorize them, not as a way to state their importance to the project. Maybe down the line I will create importance levels, but I have yet to do so. --Daysleeper47 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (sadly) per nom.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the article on the town it's in. Fire depts are inherently notable, but generally should be part of the community article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in a greatly shortened form into the articleOak Grove, Arkansas (population 376). Article: 1,603 words (exclusive of AfD text). I propose Edison's Rule: "The article on the fire department should not have more words than the population of the town it protects." (With the correlary,: "It may be considerable shorter.") With the very highest respect for all firemen. Edison 20:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All towns are notable regardless of their size - and as a municipal function, there's no reason to keep Fire departments of said communities. (And "Edison's Rule" sounds arbitrary and silly - Wikipedia is not paper, so why would we set limits on the length of any article??)Highfructosecornsyrup 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this department is certainly non-notable. I appreciate the goals of the WikiProject, but if this is the product I strongly urge reconsideration of how to go about meeting those goals within existing Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous information. --Dhartung | Talk 23:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:NOT Does not state "Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous information" but rather "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." There is an important distinction between the two and obviously it is a miscellaneous collection of information. They key distinction is indiscriminate and if you look through the list of how Wiki currently defines this you'll note that this does not apply to this article. It is not a: (1)List of FAQs, (2)Travel Guide, (3)Memorial, (4)Instruction Manual, (5)Internet Guide, (6)Textbook/annotated text, (7)Plot summary. Drew30319 22:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Pulaski County, Arkansas or another more appropriate locality article per WP:LOCAL, these locality articles could use some more content. JYolkowski // talk 00:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Edison. Every town has one, and nearly all are less notable than the town it protects. This town has a population of 376. Ohconfucius 08:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge highly edited parts into Pulaski County, Arkansas. Not notable by itself but of use to the county article. Dimitrii 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the author of this page. This page is NOT about the town "Oak Grove" with a population of 376. If the "editors" would do more research they would know this. The town they are referring to is in northern Arkansas. The Oak Grove Fire Department referenced in this article is located in central Arkansas, in Pulaski County. I believe this article is a fair and true representation of the Department as a whole, as I am a member of it. As for it's notewortyness, who is the judge of that. I beleve it is noteworthy to those who are affected by it, which is more than 4,000 (not 376). Also, it is a good information article for other small fire departments that may have some questions about how to structure themselves. On a free encyclopedia how can anyone suggest deletion of an article that is both founded in fact, and written neutrally? I believe this is an abuse of deletion abilities. If the creators of Wiki were so concerned about every article being of particular interest to everyone in the world it would stand to reason to accept all (rule-abiding) articles they could get. I certainly have no interest in an article about the Pickwick Lake Dam, however I venture to guess that those persons in that area do. Therefore I wouldn't suggest deletion of that article just because I do not have a personal interest in it. Please realize that this is not a print resource, and as such it's resources, while finite, are large enough to preclude this type of wanton disregard for smaller towns in not-so-popular states. I urge you to remove this deletion tag and keep this article. I have no problem editing it if that is required. However, please give the people of this Community their due, let this page stay. Thank you. Joe.
  • Delete since there is no mergeable content (sourced, interestingly encyclopedic?), and the fire department is non notable (as most fire departments are, no matter where they are located). Wikipedia is also WP:NOT a how-to guide, and the article has no WP:V sources to indicate the notability of the fire department. Fram 06:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to the author of the page--this is a village of 4000 people. No assertion that this fire company is notable in any particular way, & none of Joe's arguments provide any. DGG 05:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Renata 06:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disassociation-Association

[edit]
Disassociation-Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There is no indication that this is a notable drinking game. It is unsourced. The talk page says that it survived a previous AFD, but in fact it was a part of a mass nomination of non-notable drinking games in which individual renomination was recommended instead. Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deli nk (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Iota Pi

[edit]
Chi Iota Pi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article was prodded and deleted already but the deletion is contested at WP:DRV, so I'm sending this here to establish community consensus. No opinion from me. ~ trialsanderrors 19:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Renata 07:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Psychology of Walter Fisher's Narrative Paradigm

[edit]
The Psychology of Walter Fisher's Narrative Paradigm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prodded as original research and as an essay. There's not enough context for me to make heads or tails of it. -- Merope 19:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the style strongly suggests that it's a copyvio from someplace (the odd little "(5)" in the first sentence for example), but there's no context provided, no indication of what (if anything) the article is supposed to mean or be about. Might be original research, might be hoaxalicious, surely isn't worth saving. Xtifr tälk 21:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spurious original - reads like a B- essay. SkierRMH,09:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LyricWiki

[edit]
LyricWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable. created in April 2006. pr WP:WEB. Elwosmgh 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Solonoski

[edit]
Michael Solonoski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This skater is not notable according to the consensus criteria for figure skaters discussed here, or the more general category of athletes who have participated at "the highest level in mainly amateur sports" described in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Solonoski has never qualified to skate at the U.S. Figure Skating Championships, much less been chosen to represent the U.S. in international competition. I know he is a serious athlete and quite a pleasant skater to watch -- but he simply doesn't have the competitive credentials to justify a claim of notability in the sport. Dr.frog 20:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article was {{prod}}'d and {{prod-2}}'d but removed by low-contrib count anon IP with no comment. This is not in and of itself a good or bad thing, but just "noted for the record." — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Renata 07:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayumi Ando

[edit]
Mayumi_Ando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete: not significant even in the drastically shortened state.Daniel J. Leivick 03:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Just as a quick side note the article was originally a long "autobiography" but was shortened to its current state see history Daniel J. Leivick 20:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find information published by multiple non-trivial reliable sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability; this policy must be met before considering importance/notability. A biography in Playbill is a trivial source, as it is written by the subject of the biography and then submitted to the editors of Playbill. No Google hits for reviews, etc.; Internet Broadway Database only lists her performance in Rent.—Chidom talk  22:00, 6 December 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD A7, db-web / group, no proof nor assertion of importance or significance. Deizio talk 21:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse Music Board

[edit]
Pulse Music Board (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable webboard, fails WP:WEB, WP:RS. ElaragirlTalk|Count 20:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liburnian language

[edit]
Liburnian_language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The whole information about the so-called Liburnian language seems to me very unreliable if not fake. Such long existence of a relict Indo-European language in Europe would be a scientific sensation; however, this language actually "exists" only in Wikipedia and its clones. Isn't it strange, Dmitri Lytov 16:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Liburnian language" is original research & mistification, as Siberian language--Nikolay Kolpakov 18:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Liburnian has an entry over at Linguist List, and an ISO 639-3 code. The article certainly needs a rewrite, but even if it isn't a real language, it'd still be worth having an article that begins "Liburnian is a hoax Indo-European language fabricated by..." --Ptcamn 17:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and an entry in Trask's Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics: "Liburnian An extinct and sparsely recorded language spoken on the coast of Croatia in Roman times, probably related to Illyrian or to Venetic (opinions differ)." Seems pretty real to me. --Ptcamn 17:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This old language is only mentioned but not attested by any inscriptions, so that people can only guess about its origin. As far as I know, ancient authors wrote nothing about the origin of Liburnian people. --Dmitri Lytov 10:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is patent nonsense, certainly anything post-Roman in it. Delete it as soon as possible, it just brings the wikipedia into disrepute.

If anyone disagrees with me, let's look at the following quotation: "Among 23,700 noted words, ...". OK, let's see those 23,700 words, where are they - in what books, in which libraries, authenticated by which scholars?

Gsandi 14:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is encyclopedic. Problems over content are not solved by deletion. If we decide to delete this, it will be questionable whether anyone is allowed to create an article about the real Liburnian language without some tedious and problematic "resurrection" procedure here. (I would consent to any sort of deletion of this page only if the deletion deletes hoax content edits, but not the topic itself.) Maed 07:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'm glad to hear the opinion that the topic is encyclopedic. Can you then refer me to some resources so I can read about it for myself? I have not been very successful yet on my own (I'm usually pretty good at finding resources) and am doing my best to remain open minded. I will try to locate the references noted on the article's page. Regards, Keesiewonder 12:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC) / Amazon.com allows you to search within Wilkes' book mentioned on the article's page. Searching for Liburnian yields 35 hits, none of which appear to have anything to do with a Liburnian language. Please see [19]. With that, I vote delete since I will not be able to read the other 2 resources mentioned unless they are translated to English. Keesiewonder 10:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC) / Reconsider from a delete to a weak keep, focusing on input from Ptcamn and DGG. Keesiewonder 11:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There does seem to be a book discussing neo-Liburnic (details on Talk:Liburnian language) but one of the authors may be rather "non-mainstream". Tending towards 'delete' unless someone can stub it down to verifiable facts about the ancient language. --HJMG 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone has the specialist knowledge to present differing opinions from a NPOV. My second choice would be for someone to create a stubby article mentioning Trask - as quoted by Ptcamn above - and Glanville Price: "Liburnian . . . . If, which is uncertain, their Illyrian-type speech was sufficiently distinct to have constituted a separate language, the evidence of place-names from the area suggests that it was similar to Venetic." --HJMG 12:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Dewrad. It certainly is better, but I'm still concerned that this article may be speculation dressed up as knowledge. The article has too many un-cited, vague assertions like "It appears to have been...", "may well have been", "a number of linguists argue" and "probably very early in the Common era" while giving the impression that such theories are more or less established as facts. The title and overall approach to the topic may be inherently POV since apparently not everyone agrees it was a distinct language. The sources seem rather sparse. The Wilkes book only mentions names and the Untermann article is 16 pages long, but may not be all about Liburnian. --HJMG 16:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepSpecialized knowledge is not necessary. What is necessary is that a language with an iso code and multiple mentions in major reference work in the subject is notable. (this is an article about the Liburnian language, so it also does not require specialist knowledge to see that any doubts about a neo-Liburnian language is besides the point. If there's an article on it eventually then we can appropriately discuss neo--Liburnian DGG 05:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you DGG. I agree about the language having an ISO code. Good point. And, for "multiple mentions in major reference works," you must then consider two works, Trask and Price, adequate, even if all there is in each work is 1-2 sentences. I can agree with that ... Keesiewonder 11:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Renata 07:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call Me Crazy California Style

[edit]
Call Me Crazy California Style (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Bedroom mixtape created by Brandon DiCamillo in 1996. Not close to WP:MUSIC nor encyclopedic as part of the CKY universe. Deizio talk 20:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus seems to be that the article needs improvement, not deletion. W.marsh 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece: Unlimited Adventure

[edit]
One Piece: Unlimited Adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Crystal ball gazing of the first degree. Lets recreate when the game has been released and there is something to write an article about Spartaz 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but it almost looks researched. If all it had was the name, I'd be more adamant. Niki Whimbrel 20:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a game from a well known series. It was also previously previewed by IGN [[20]]. I don't think crystalbalism applies here. Also there is no rule against creating enteries for unrleased games. --67.68.155.234 23:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its totally unsourced and full of speculations and tags for adding stuff when information is available. Also see crystal ball gazing that says
Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising.
There is no sourced content here - therefore its simply a placeholder and redundant. --Spartaz 06:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's not a good article at all, but I suspect most of the claims made in it can actually be sourced from previews etc., so it probably doesn't actually violate any inclusion policies.
    The Wikipedia approach to substandard articles is to improve them, not to delete them. Therefore, before this is considered for deletion, it should be cleaned up by removing non-encyclopedic content and claims that genuinely cannot be verified from the multiple sources provded. Only then will it be clear whether there is actually any content here or not. If there turns out not to be any, then deletion can be considered, but as I said, I suspect it will turn out that most of the claims are verifiable. — Haeleth Talk 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, showcased at E3 2006 and was confirmed in Sept. to be released accodring to IGN. Likely notable when released. -- Steve Hart 14:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Renata 07:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MilanIN

[edit]
MilanIN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Italian business networking website. Orphan, no references, no claim to notability; the website suggests less than 700 members. All google hits appear to be promotional or of the 'I am a member of MilanIN' type, with no sign of independent reports, hence the article fails WP:WEB. Contested prod. Mr Stephen 20:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin surveillance

[edit]

del nonverifiable. The author probably reading too much (or too few) spy novels. `'mikkanarxi 20:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography. (aeropagitica) 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Jones (actor)

[edit]
Ollie Jones (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not sufficently notable PatGallacher 20:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an attempt to re-create a previously deleted article Ollie Jones. PatGallacher 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. The defender's comment on the Talk page that "...he will be famous one day..." demonstrates explicit knowledge of the subjects' current lack of notability. Tagged as such. (aeropagitica) 21:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, but please add some sources to the article. W.marsh 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puk Kai

[edit]

del This is English language wikipedia, not a guide in chinese profanities. `'mikkanarxi 22:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please refer to the discussion page of the said article for prior deletion discussion. No consensus was reached.--Cmlau 17:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not-English expresion that has no prominence in English language. If it were borrowed into english use, such as gringo or schmuck, then it would be OK do talk about it. Mukadderat 18:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article has an entry on Cantonese WP. If you read the content of the existing English article, it shows that the term is a significant part of Hong Kong culture. Furthermore, there are a number of articles on English WP about subjects named by Cantonese terms. See Category:Cantonese terms. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have no knowledge or interest in the subject. I'm neither going to vote for keeping it, or going around nominating for deletion articles in the subject. Wikipedia would be a more informative and productive project if all editors did likewise. Dekkappai 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is a big part of Hong Kong Culture. Not only is it common to hear, but it is normally one of the first words of Cantonese someone learns it is so important. This article is not teaching Cantonese, it is discussing the culture around it. Culture is a valuable topic on wikipedia, and therefore it should be kept. See Category:Cantonese terms.HKChigger
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuffens

[edit]
Fuffens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Organization is a local club in Trollhättan on the high school level for teens interested in science Thuresson 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • commentI'd reccomend that the person who wrote it copy it into notepad if they want to keep it, as it is bound to be deleted.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both as complete flights of fantasy. Sandstein 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial Rugby Union World Championships

[edit]
Unofficial Rugby Union World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of winners of Unofficial Rugby Union World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not an expert on WP:OR, but I think these two related pages violate it. The concept of an Unofficial Rubgy Union World Championships is one that does not exist (or at least, is not shown to exist) outside these pages. any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. Well this certainly hasn't happened here. I like the concept and I like the Unofficial Football World Championships on which it is based, but I think it consists entirely of original research. --Robdurbar 13:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Taking a number of perfectly genuine historical games of Rugby Union Football and asigning them to a purely imaginary Championship, which did not exist whem the games were played (or now, for that matter) is a nonsense, as is the article, except insofar as the reports of game results are factual. I thought that I had put a {{speedy}} tag on this some time back, but it does not show in the edit history and I could be wrong.--Anthony.bradbury 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torstein Eckhoff

[edit]
  • Strong Delete - completely non-notable stub.

Failte 18:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. An orphan article, no comprehensible notability asserted. The Norwegian article is also sparse and hardly linked, so it would seem we're not overlooking Norwegian standards of notability. -- Shunpiker 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The state of an article is not a valid way to determine notability. The Norwegian article may just need cleanup. - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Agreed that the poor condition of an article does not, in and of itself, confer non-notability on its subject. But the quality of relevant articles are useful as circumstantial evidence of notability in the absence of other indicators. And unfortunately, there is such an absence. A well-written and well-linked article on the Norwegian site might suggest systemic bias is behind the poor quality and unclear arguments for notability of the English article. But the article on the Norwegian site is also in a problematic state, so the fact of its existence is little argument for keeping the English article. So we're left with an orphaned stub with no coherent claim to notability: Eckhoff was a professor, and he published "Rettskildelære". Which may or may not be a notable publication, but at this point we have to guess. If someone can develop the stub to the point where the claim to notability is clear, I'm happy to change my vote. Barring that, I don't see how delete (with no prejedudice against recreation) is controversial. Even stubs have to assert notability, and the bar should be higher for orphan stubs. -- Shunpiker 19:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Feel free to redirect this as appropriate. W.marsh 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kemal Shahin

[edit]
Kemal Shahin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The subject is not notable outside of Big Brother, and anything that would make him notable is not sourced. JDtalk 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete If anyone actually wants to do the transwiki (and thinks Wiktionary wants this) let me know and I will make the material available to you. W.marsh 20:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of profanities

[edit]

del yet another clone of deleted list of sexual slurs and other similar lists, an uncontrollable playground of anons. Wikipedia is not a slang guide. `'mikkanarxi 21:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Renata 07:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Radisson Hotels

[edit]
List of Radisson Hotels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Also nominating the following pages:

Wikipedia is not a directory or mere collections of external links. I see no encyclopedic value in listing every franchise of a business. Similar pages have been deleted recently with the same rationale. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Marriott hotels and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sheraton hotels. Khatru2 21:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish Gaelic profanity

[edit]

del wikipedia is not a dictionary, neither it is a guide to slang usage in foreign languages. `'mikkanarxi 21:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Gaelic profanity without consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonitis

[edit]
Bonitis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable and unsourced disease in Futurama. Fails WP:NN and WP:FICTION —The Great Llamamoo? 22:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 20:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

APS Polytechnic

[edit]
APS Polytechnic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The page seems to be a direct cut-and-paste from a letter. It is quite obscure and does not conform to Wikipedia's standards. Stevemarks 22:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of TruthbringerToronto's changes (i.e. I now know what the subject is about). Trebor 20:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 16:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etudism

[edit]
Etudism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

returns no English google hits. Prod was removed. Possible hoax, unless sources are established. —Swpb talk contribs 22:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, author requested deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grading in Democracy Courses

[edit]
Grading in Democracy Courses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This doesn't seem to be an encyclopedic article, but looks like original research. Among other things, it asks readers to sign inline if they agree with the text's proposal. Thue | talk 22:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so it is a work in progress. I have removed the signatures section and will address the other concerns directly. This is applied to a specific topic and not just made up in school one day, but a specific resource. Please continue with you contributions so that we can make this a reality. CompletelyNaked | talk

It still reads like a proposal, and not an article describing a subject. Thue | talk 22:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a petition site. This is not an encyclopedia article, and nothing in it could be converted into one without being totally rewritten. Not that it matters, but the proposal itself (getting an A for stuff like intending to make people's lives better and other vague stuff) is pretty silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was created by a fellow member of my class. It's not intended to put pressure on the professor - the professor asked us to come up with our own grading scheme. However, I think it was mistakenly placed on Wikipedia, which is not a free host. It has already been moved to another wiki host. Delete. --Alynna 23:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (obviously). Sure, this doesn't meet any speedy criteria, per se, but I'm with trials on this one- there isn't a snowball's chance in hell this will be kept, so why not just speedy it? -- Kicking222 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In hindsight from a discussion with a frequent editor, I realize that Wikipedia is not the correct place for this. All the content has been moved to a more appropriate site. My apologies. Please delete --CompletelyNaked 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the author's comment, G7 speedy delete.-- danntm T C 01:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth Hacks

[edit]
Google Earth Hacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article was prodded for verifiability and deleted already but the deletion is contested at WP:DRV, so I'm sending this here to establish community consensus. No opinion from me. ~ trialsanderrors 22:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to provide some information about the site:

  • References to the site from major news sources [22]
  • Statistics about the number of files on the site [23] and the number of members [24] (granted, those are on-site links, but I'm not sure how you could find accurate third-party references for those items)
  • A simple whois will verify the owner of the site and the date the URL was purchased [25]

I'm not sure what other information is needed.

Mickmel 13:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the moment, the article is nothing but raw statistics, which read a lot like "Hey, look how good we are!". I am unsurprised to see information in support of the site being posted by the same person that used the word we in the review. Apparently the site is owned and run by someone called "Mickey Mellen" (hmm...). In all fairness, User:MickMel has only edited the article once - to update the numbers. No recommendation yet. Chris cheese whine 18:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bibi Mubarika Yusufzay

[edit]
Bibi Mubarika Yusufzay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Procedural. Prodded, deleted, recreated with copyvio-looking text, nominated for CSD A7, which I declined. Concern was notability by association. I abstain. - crz crztalk 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayisheh Sultan Begum - crz crztalk 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do you delete all articles so quickly? it was gone within hours of posting. I know it wasnt very wiki written but that was the best I could do at the time and I assumed I would have a grace period of at least 24 hours to come and edit it. — Khana bibi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

She did move Babur's remain to kabul to baghe babur, could we at least mention that, I didnt save a copy of what aecis deleted so if any one has a copy please forward it to me. thanks(Khana bibi 02:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elmshurst Crescent

[edit]
Elmshurst Crescent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable - article is about a small residential street in a London suburb of no distinction or encyclopedic value. I assume the article was created by a resident who wanted their road listed on Wikipedia Saikokira 00:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 151 unique Ghits, vast majority were property or directory listings. Nothing remotely remarkable about this road from what I found. Ohconfucius 01:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems called for. I have added the tags and concerned editors can do the merge. W.marsh 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missile Frigate

[edit]
Missile Frigate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested PROD. Yanksox 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I reviewed parent page TradeWars 2002 and there are more pages about ships used in that game, it should be better to keep all of them as they are. Merging will lead to very long article. Tulkolahten 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tulkolahten 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think merging will destroy uniformity of the whole article. I would agree with moving to Missile Frigate (TradeWars 2002) per Copysan. Tulkolahten 11:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
corrected to link to category, not categorize this AfD. BCoates 11:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 06:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Kalafatidis

[edit]

Non-notable failed candidate for Quebec provincial assembly (1% of the vote in 2003). Googlesearch for his television and radio shows bring up only his personal website and Myspace page, which shows that the television show was on cable access; radio show was only 7 episodes on an AM station about to go defunct. Galteglise 00:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_December_4&oldid=1116878192"