< December 29 December 31 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache








































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

The result was speedy deleted as an empty list. I will be bold and redirect the title to Education in the United States however as it does look like a reasonable term. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schools in the U.S[edit]

Schools in the U.S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I thin a list of Schools iin the US is to long for inclusion in an encyclopedia and that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Natl1 22:30, 30 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 Um, speedy keep. This guy appeared on the cover of Time trying to be the Democratic candidate for president of the United States. He's plenty notable outside the US. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Dean[edit]

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

Not known outside U.S. Not known by over 10% of world population

User: IgmarusM 00:32 AM UTC

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
































































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

The result was Speedy deleted (and redirected to Ahmad Kamal Faridi). BanyanTree 22:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AHMAD KAMAL FARIDI ( hardstone )[edit]

AHMAD KAMAL FARIDI ( hardstone ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article seems to be copied from a site somewhere. The article makes no sense. This is also a second article based on this same page see here. --SkyWalker 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't worry. You made a right choice. Well the both tags be there. Iam sure this article will be deleted fast. :)--SkyWalker 20:58, 30 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, non-admin closure per WP:SNOW, only one "delete" !vote, and no citation of policy from the nominator. Yuser31415 05:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of MMORPGs[edit]

Comparison of MMORPGs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Every MMORPG have different jobs, graphics, quests, that is cannot be compared. KaiFei 15:39, 30 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 - hoax; article is not even faintly plausible (per deletion process) as it is admitted on all sides to be a fictional biography. Metamagician3000 02:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Weathermen (American)[edit]

The Weathermen (American) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
This article has been speedied once then reposted. It was tagged for speedy once again on the grounds that it does not assert notability. It does ("sold 300 jillion [sic] albums worldwide, generated hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars of concert revenues" for example) so I prod tagged it with the following concern
Nonexistent "band". No confirmation of any of the albums, band members, producers, etc, on allmusic or elsewhere. This is a hoax from start to finish
The author has contested the prod with the following comment on my talkpage:

While this page has been deleted before, it is NOT a hoax. This is a comedy trio from Chicago's Second City. The page in question is the back story of the characters created by the three. There is verifiable proof/evidence the group exists toward the bottom labeled "The Weathermen Tapes". It is a direct link to a few of the groups comedy clips. They also have a Myspace account at www.myspace.com/the_weathermen I assure you it is not a hoax and it is not fake. I hope this straightens things out. Having to repost is a bitch

I remain unconvinced. None of these alleged "created characters" seem to be verifiable, unless I'm looking in all the wrong places. The link is to a youtube site. If it is indeed a fictional creation à la Spinal Tap then the article does not appear to state this anywhere at all. Hence this AfD nomination. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:13, 30 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 17:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Lands[edit]

Chaos Lands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Minor webgame. Alexa rank of about 1.2 million. The article's only two cited references are of the submit-a-game variety, with little content in them anyway. Google brings up no reliable sources. Not verifiable, doesn't meet WP:WEB. Wafulz 21:41, 24 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, Quarl (talk) 00:17, 30 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. ---J.S (T/C) 20:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euminl Er[edit]

Euminl Er (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet notibility guidelines of WP:BIO-Nv8200p talk 00:54, 30 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. ---J.S (T/C) 20:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Crites[edit]

Albert Crites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC yet I believe speedy deletion is inappropriate because deletion may be controversial. Nick—Contact/Contribs 01:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page. Albert is an amazing composer and pianist from Barrie Ontario and even at his young age he is becoming more and more known around his area. I have actually played with him and personally know his talent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.226.175.59 (talk • contribs).
Delete The fact that I have a friend (or know someone) who is great at <insert something> doesn't mean they are "notable". Perhaps when he is more well known. Chris M. 04:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - SNOW. Metamagician3000 11:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs associated with towns in the United Kingdom[edit]

List of songs associated with towns in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is listcruft, and possibly original research. It's unsourced, with absolutely no references cited to back this up, and no reasons are given why the songs are associated with these towns. It could also be considered fancruft too. I nominate this for deletion unless someone can find an argument to keep it. SunStar Nettalk 01:36, 30 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 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 15:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciara Brady[edit]

Ciara Brady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NBC.com is currently doing an online poll to name a character on the show. The poll is on-going, and no name has been chosen yet. While there is a possibility that Ciara Brady may be the chosen name, there is also a possibility it could be Rori Joy or Cassidy Addison. There is no need to create a Wikipedia page for Ciara Brady, Rori Brady or Cassidy Brady until the final name is chosen. D'Amico 02:03, 30 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 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciara Alice Brady[edit]

Ciara Alice Brady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NBC.com is currently doing an online poll to name a character on the show. The poll is on-going, and no name has been chosen yet. While there is a possibility that Ciara Brady may be the chosen name, there is also a possibility it could be Rori Joy or Cassidy Addison. There is no need to create a Wikipedia page for Ciara Brady, Rori Brady or Cassidy Brady until the final name is chosen. D'Amico 02:03, 30 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. ---J.S (T/C) 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olen Steinhauer[edit]

Olen Steinhauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. This page appears to be self-promotion of a non-notable person.--Bryson 21:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BK says Publisher's Weekly and Library Journal are trivial reviews, and don't count for establishing notability of books. However, if you look him up on Amazon, he does have other reviews.. but OTOH, his best seller has an Amazon rank of 366,080, you can buy used copies for three bucks. Not exactly Tom Clancy territory. BTW, a book is a product, articles solely put up to promote a book or author are spam, spam isn't restricted to corporations. No problem putting him back in later if he establishes more notability, that's happened before. Neither Amazon nor the WP article mention which "five awards" his novel was nominated for. Tubezone 04:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point about Publisher's Weekly and Library Journal, thanks for that. I disagree with you that an article about a published author constitutes spam, though. I'm still for keeping it.Shawn in Montreal 05:24, 28 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, Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't agree with Bwithh about the Fulbright award: per guidelines "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." --Kevin Murray 08:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fulbright award is unlikely to be encyclopedically notable, and it is not at all clear that it was awarded for his work as an author. His website simply describes it as a Fulbright grant for a year abroad[3]. This means it was probably a Fulbright student or scholar grant for study abroad of which there are 1,200+ US citizen awardees every year[4]. There are thousands and thousands of "awards" and "prizes" and "scholarships" and "fellowships" and contest honours etc. which are not encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 09:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keepThought the Fulbright alone does not make someone notable--it might have been to a graduate student who did no further work-- the Fulbright along with contributions in one's field does serve as a criterion of notability. I would not be surprised if we tracked them that more than half were in WP already or obviously ought to be. There are not thousands of awards of such prominence. Cf. Fulbright awardDGG 09:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (Talk) 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lynn[edit]

Alex Lynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:NN. Subject's biggest claim to fame seems to be the title of Miss 2004 Beijing China Hawaiian Tropic International. (Also under "Awards" is "2006 Asian Beauty Calendar" - so I guess she won that calendar?) Mostly, this looks like a promo for her website. TruthGal 00:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question as I am still relatively new to this process: Do I need to actually say Delete or is that assumed (as I nominated the entry for deletion)? TruthGal 21:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you nominated the article for deletion and explained why, then that is sufficient. Of course though, you can contribute to the subsequent debate by providing additional insight. This process is not meant to be a vote, but rather a discussion with the purpose of reaching a consensus. TSO1D 01:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TruthGal 06:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might I ask... notable for what? Article says she's a "popular Asian model," but not popular enough to have been in any mainstream magazine (Vogue, Elle) or notable adult magazine (Playboy, Perfect 10). Best I can tell, she's one of those gals who walks around in skimpy outfits at import car shows. Two other "import car models" of her ilk were just removed from Wikipedia for non-notability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lianne_Lin and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flo_Jalin
Comment to above (anonymouse) poster. While I'm not 'voting' on this afd, I'd like to point out that your definition of 'mainstream' publications only seems to include major English publications popular in the US and possibly the UK. Given that this is an Asian model who has supposedly (though not verifiably) won some international/Asian awards it is possible she is notable in Asia (where, you know, half the world's population is located) without having appeared in notable American publications. --The Way 08:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article doesn't claim that the subject has appeared in a single magazine in all of Asia - so, you know, maybe you shouldn't assume that. TruthGal 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 01:39, 30 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. Let me know if any content needs to be retrieved for GFDL. ---J.S (T/C) 20:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford Street, Crewe[edit]

Bedford Street, Crewe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This street is not particularly notable, and it has few links, as has been noted, and no verified sources. Some discussion on the talk page suggested merging this entry with that of Crewe, which I have now done. I propose it is now deleted.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As the nominator and the person who merged this entry with the Crewe entry, I have now unmerged it. Consequently, this entry may be deleted without any need to preseve the page history. I consider this street to be not noteworthy, nor in need of being mentoned in the Crewe entry until some verified citations are made as to its claim to be notable.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Since when can a bunch of pot-heads get up enough energy to form a gang? err... oh, never mind :P. ---J.S (T/C) 20:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Toka Clique[edit]

Uptown Toka Clique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Would normally nominate for speedy deletion as a non-notable gang, but the article mentions some "notable" events, so decided it would be best to send through AFD. There aren't any links to reliable sources regarding the gangs actions and the only links google returns are links to Wikipedia and forks. Bobblehead 02:37, 30 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. ---J.S (T/C) 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return on information security investment[edit]

Return on information security investment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Yet another nn tech neologism. I count 251 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 03:01, 30 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... and doubly so since it looks like a copyvio. ---J.S (T/C) 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory asset management[edit]

Regulatory asset management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unsourced original research. Appears to be a non-notable buzzword phrase to boot, with 314 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 03:05, 30 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. ---J.S (T/C) 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Colour Meaning Symbolism Guide[edit]

Rose Colour Meaning Symbolism Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unsourced essay about the meaning of rose colors. Basic information about this sort of stuff is already found at language of flowers. Highly recommend sending to BJAODN. --- RockMFR 03:12, 30 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 per CSD A7, no assertion of notability. --Coredesat 05:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgar Comics[edit]

Vulgar Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable webcomic. Salad Days 03:07, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Menstruation and the origins of culture[edit]

Menstruation and the origins of culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable theory. Authors of the page are Martinklopstock, Chris d knight, and at least one person editing from a dynamic IP address. Authors have resisted efforts to merge this information into other articles [10], and have also repeatedly deleted tagging of the article as POV [11] [12].

I believe the topic of the article is not sufficiently notable to have its own article. The lack of notability also means no one has taken the theory seriously enough to criticize it, resulting in a very unbalanced presentation of the theory. I have looked into doing research on each aspect of the theory and citing sources presenting opposing viewpoints, but am afraid applying such citations to this novel theory in a piecemeal way would be OR. Lyrl Talk Contribs 03:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If "this discourse is highly contested", that means people are talking about the theory. If they are it's notable whether you or I think it's right or not. We have articles on many heavily contested theories. I'm concerned that squeamishness about the topic (especially by editors who have never experienced the phenomenon personally and might think it should be "not talked about" or "isn't important" because they don't experience it) might influence the AfD. --Charlene 23:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any examples of someone contesting this particular theory? Bwithh was, I believe, talking in general about this entire "class" of theories, not this one in particular. The lack of such examples is my primary reason for wanting to delete/merge the article. The fact that no one has taken it seriously enough to criticise it means it is impossible to present the theory in a NPOV way - creating our own criticism would be (I believe) OR. Lyrl Talk Contribs 15:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What we as editors think about the theory is completely irrelevant. Anything we would add to the article would be WP:OR. The only relevant comments are the ones about the existence of reliable sources. ~ trialsanderrors 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could add (for example) a referenced source to a book from Frans de Waal noting food sharing between mates and the children of one's mate in two primate species, plus sharing food throughout the community in two additional primate species, in addition to humans. This could be added to the "Reproductive burdens of human females" section and would help make that section NPOV. I don't think this by itself would be OR. My fear is that doing this kind of thing point-by-point throughout the entire article would in aggregate be OR, since none of the sourced material would directly refer to this theory. Lyrl Talk C 01:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment about ORLyrl need not worry about OR, because locating opinions and putting them in the appropriate place in the article is not OR--if it were, how could any WP article get written? Giving and explaining his own judgement about the relative value of these opinions, or analyzing the details of their arguments, that would be OR. DGG 05:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science) ~ trialsanderrors 03:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is kept on that basis, it needs a major rewrite for NPOV - and in that case, why not cut down and merge into Culture and menstruation? I'm not yet convinced that the book/theory has had sufficient influence to give it so much weight for its own article. Bwithh 03:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, however concerns about neutrality should not lead to the deletion of an article. The reason given for the deletion was that the topic was not sufficiently notable. Other considerations can be addressed later. TSO1D 03:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I take back the merge suggestion. The target page needs a lot of work, and I think a merge is not suitable at this time... Bwithh 03:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't think so either. The article about menstruation and culture mainly discusses the treatment of this process in various societies, whereas this article is a theory that links the origins of culture to menstruation. TSO1D 04:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A key reason for my support deletion is concern about whether this particular theory from this particular group of academics crosses the notability threshold. The cultural significance of menstruation is not a obscure or new topic by anthropology standards. Bwithh
I don't know if I would be this skeptical about the number of citations. I mean for the humanities or human sciences such as anthropology you will find a much smaller number of articles than for scientific fields, and considering how obscure this topic is, I don't think that 40 cites is that low. TSO1D 04:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well anthropology may be a modest field in size (but certainly not as small as I dunno, Anglo-Saxon, Norse & Celtic studies, say), but within that field, the question of the origins/construction of culture/society in relation to understanding human drives and functions (such as menstruation) is the central theme Bwithh 04:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But look at the impact factor for anthropology journals: http://www.in-cites.com/research/2005/november_7_2005-1.html. Even the 3 citations for one of the papers is above the average, and 40 citations is certainly more than the average, even for something like Nature or Science and that says a lot. So I actually think the number of citations should be taken as proof of the importance of the papers on this topic rather than the opposite. TSO1D 04:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Average isn't a very good measure as it might be the result of a long tail rather than less cites even among top contributions. Sadly ISI doesn't have a record on the book, only counts so I can't tell where the cites come from. ~ trialsanderrors 06:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but how is this original research? It is based on a published theory. TSO1D 04:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may also be worthy of a paragraph in concealed ovulation, as its explanation of why concealed ovulation was a successful evolutionary feature is a central part of this theory. Presentation in that article alongside other theories also better lends itself to NPOV than a stand-alone article does. Lyrl Talk Contribs 15:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the general criteria, this article does not at all meet #4-8. The first three criteria it might meet, but I think unlikely:
  • #1 "generally accepted scientific knowledge" - I'm not familiar enough with the relevant field to tell for sure. But from my familiarity with fertility and the menstrual cycle, their theory seems biologically implausible. From Bwithh's reaction, above, I would tend to think that people more familiar with this field also do not find it to have been "generally accepted".
  • #2 is kind of vague, requiring "a number" of peer-reviewed papers, but I can only find two possibilities in the article's reference list ("The human symbolic revolution: A Darwinian account" in Cambridge Archaeological Journal, and "The woman with the zebra's penis. Gender, mutability and performance" in Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.) All their other publications appear to not be peer-reviewed. I don't believe two papers qualifies as "a number".
  • #3 - supported by major scientific institutions. There is one issue of an online journal published by the New College of California supposedly related to this theory, though most of the articles actually appear to have only tangentially related topics. I have not previously heard of the New College of California, and don't believe it is a major scientific institution.
In the theories criteria, this article does not at all meet #1 or #3-5.
  • As for #2 ("widely cited in its research area relative to other publications in the same area"), the debate above is not one I feel qualified to participate in. I'm not convinced, however, that possibly meeting this one criterion means it has sufficient notability to be its own article.
Lyrl Talk Contribs 16:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I followed up on the New College of California link, and did a little reading. The college does not appear to be a substantial institution, though it does appear to have some form of accreditation. WMMartin 21:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existence on Wikipedia; that is, they are to determine whether it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship. XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept. Many of the comments above fall, I believe, into this category. The article is clearly NOT original research (it is published); the information contained in this article is heavily referenced; there is reference to the theory in other publications (e.g. Watts, I. 2005. ‘Time, too, grows on the Moon’: Some evidence for Knight’s theory of a human universal. In W. James & D. Mills (eds), The Qualities of Time: Anthropological Approaches. New York: Berg, pp. 95-118.); and the style is capable of being made more neutral. On this basis, I propose to remove the deletion tag and engage with the content of this article, instead of threatening deletion.86.132.127.124 18:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The originator of the theory published a book. Later, years after the book, he and his two partners seem to have published two peer-reviewed papers, amoung other (non-peer reviewed) publications. No one other than these three people seems to have worked on the theory.
Others have commented that the book publisher (Yale University Press) is highly regarded. Not being familiar with them, does that mean that all 3,000 books in print from YUP are notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article?
My main concern is that it is not possible to present this theory as a stand-alone article in an NPOV way, because there is no criticism of it. If someone could find a critique of this theory, or explain to me that piecemealing together other people's comments that contradict specific bits of this theory into a critique is somehow not OR#SYNTHESIS, then I would happily withdraw my nomination. ] Talk C 13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, there's the question of "the facts". I'm here "assuming good faith", because I don't have access to the offline references cited in the article, but I'm quite prepared to take the existence of suitable academic references to this theory on trust. I'm sure that the theory has been written up in a paper in an academic journal, and cited in a few other papers. Are the references there ? Yes, I trust you when you say they are. As I noted earlier, it seems to me to be a poorly reasoned and logically weak theory, but that's because I'm from the hard sciences, and we don't expect the same kind of rigorous thinking in the softer disciplines. A similarly presented theory in physics or chemistry would not be treated seriously, but that isn't the point here. There are plenty of other articles about weakly reasoned theories in Wikipedia, ( Freudianism and astrology, for example ), but we keep them.
So, that the theory exists is true, and its logical quality is of no relevance. So why are we having this discussion ? Because we also need to establish a couple of other things: notability, and absence of conflict of interest. In this case it seems to me that the two things are closely inter-linked.
A notable theory is one that is widely discussed and cited in its field. Now, Chris Knight's theory is certainly discussed, but what worries me is the people who are discussing it. In particular, the two main people who have worked on this theory other than Knight were both PhD students of his, who would have had a clear vested interest in supporting their supervisor's work. The other people who seem to mention Knight and this theory are very often linked to something called the "Radical Anthropology Group" ( http://www.radicalanthropologygroup.org/class_lecturers.htm ), which seems to be largely run by Chris Knight himself, or share its fairly overt political stance. So whilst the theory may be, in some sense, "notable", it seems to be notable only in a kind of "walled garden" in which people are mostly talking to themselves. You can now see why I think there's a kind of conflict of interest going on: much of the google-hittage about this article ( once we ignore the mirrors of Wikipedia ) seems to have some kind of personal connection to the theory's originator. If you check my contributions to Wikipedia you'll see that I spend a lot of time looking at deletion debates: one thing that we see a lot is people putting in articles about themselves to somehow try to make themselves seem more significant, for a whole variety of reasons. As it stands, this article gives me that feeling: it gives the impression of trying to "big up" a particular theory, which is why I think it should go, at least for the moment. What would make me change my mind is this: a couple of good solid references to academic articles taking this theory seriously, not written by people close to Knight and his colleagues. Ideally, they should link this theory into broader currents in anthropological thinking, and show why this theory is different from, and should be taken more seriously than, any of the dozens of other theories that emerge from the minds of academics every day. If this theory is notable, it will be widely debated, not simply taken on board by its originator's students. So far, despite the efforts of Lyrl, I already forgot and others, it hasn't been shown clearly enough that this is the case.
I hope this is of some help. Feel free to contact me anytime. WMMartin 22:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
commment Despite the much greater detail and obvious subject knowledge, this is at heart similar to the statement above that menstruation isn't worth much coverage in WP.

I think judgments based on personal impressions about what theories are important are irrelevant. On the other hand, I think judgements based on discussions such as you've just given are OR. It is not our role to give our impressions of whether a topic is important, nor is it our role to evaluate the true scientific significance. It is our role to judge whether the evidence supplied about notability is sufficient. Numbers help--and 40 cites for a book in the social sciences in ISI is way above the average. Just check some other books. There is a certain tendency in these debates to be particularly strict aboutthe more recondite academic topics, or about topics that seem unusual. These sort of topics is what an encyclopedia is for--especially WP. DGG 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: I think you may have posted this comment in the wrong place, but if it is directed at me, here is a response:
(1) I'm certainly not saying that "menstruation isn't worth much coverage in WP". A careful reading of my comments will reveal that I don't use the word once, and, so far as I can tell, haven't referenced it implicitly - I've tried to keep to the topic of this debate, which is a theory about possible cultural phenomena arising from or related to menstruation, and not about menstruation per se.
(2) I agree that my personal impression of the theory is irrelevant, and explicitly say so ( "its logical quality is of no relevance" ). I have in the past participated in many deletion debates in which I have supported retention of an article despite poor logical content. I believe I understand the general principles applicable in this and other cases.
(3) So far as I can tell, I haven't done any OR in making my posting, I've simply stated my opinion. I have been careful to "own" my comments by using phrases like "I think" and "my feeling".
(4) I've tried to express clearly why I feel it would be better to delete this article, at least for now. To repeat and paraphrase a bit: my worry is that when I try to find evidence of a broad discussion of this theory I always end up with the same small circle of people. I believe a notable theory is one that is broadly debated or understood in its discipline, and at present I see no evidence to support this contention. I explicitly state what I feel would help ( "a couple of good solid references to academic articles taking this theory seriously, not written by people close to Knight and his colleagues" ). The problem is that despite the efforts of several people to improve this article over the past few months, there is still no evidence that this is anything more than an idea circulating among a small group, and that's why I think it's on balance not suitable for inclusion here.
I hope this is clear and helpful. If not, please get in touch with me. Please note, though, that I shall be online only intermittently for the next few days, so my responses may be a little slow. WMMartin 14:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we can all agree it could use inline citations. Quadzilla99 07:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ---J.S (T/C) 20:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Samek[edit]

Jesse Samek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review on the grounds that having an Air Force camp named after him is an assertion of notability. It is now here to discuss whether this claim can be sourced or whether other reasons exist why this article is not a memorial. This is a procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per --Duke of Duchess Street below. --Wildnox(talk) 03:40, 31 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Gilbert (game designer)[edit]

Dave Gilbert (game designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A prior AfD keep closure and its follow-up have been overturned at deletion review after the first closer brought in new information which on review turned out to be from a single source. The decision at DRV was to give this another round at AfD to allow full consideration of the new source. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andre (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of these criteria are in fact simply special cases of the general primary criterion of multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources. A person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.
In short we're looking for enough published documentation to support a real biography. There is no depth in the biographical coverage of those articles.
Looking at WP:BIO again though, I can see a case for the Gamasutra and Reuters' pieces counting as multiple reviews of an author's work (I had remembered a requirement that the author have multiple published works that had been reviewed, but either it's changed or I was confused. It does seem lame to me that someone writing one published/reviewed book results in two WP articles (one about the book and another about the author)). I'll back off on "strong delete" to just normal delete. I'll confess to still being in reaction mode over the against-consensus "keep" closing of this article's first AfD. 67.117.130.181 17:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to my point above: the inventor/creator of a notable work is essentially indistinguishable from the work itself. Just as we have articles on musicians who are primarily known only for having created a notable song, or entries for videogame companies that are effectively unknown aside from their notable games--I don't see any difference here. As for bias or an individual's desire (or lack thereof) in being listed, again, that's a discussion regarding overall policy that really has nothing to do with this specific case. Tarinth 17:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the inventor/creator of a notable work is essentially indistinguishable from the work itself, then we should not have separate articles about the work and the creator. I'd be ok with inserting a biographical paragraph about Dave Gilbert into the article about his computer game. It just boggles my mind that one Reuters article is supposed to generate two Wikipedia articles (and therefore two separate sets of extlinks generating pagerank: ka-ching!). I don't know how you get this concept of indistinguishability though. If someone seriously told me I was indistinguishable from my works, I'd be pretty annoyed.
Yes, the same thing happens all the time with musician articles and I don't like that either. We have ridiculously weak coverage of the Wilhelmshaven mutiny, a genuinely important historical topic, while we fill the encylopedia with music-industry marketing junk. I usually just roll my eyes and keep quiet by now. As mentioned above, I made an exception for this afd because of the bad closure of the first one. 67.117.130.181 17:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I can't think of many worse arguments in favor of deleting an article you don't like than "other important articles aren't good enough yet." Tarinth 18:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That part only says we're spending our time on the wrong things. Why we should not have so much marketing is explained at WP:NOT, WP:COI, the Brad Patrick letter I linked to, and elsewhere. Any article topic whose notability results from somebody's marketing efforts (whether on-wiki or off) and whose inclusion in Wikipedia is likely to result in someone selling more of some product (video game, music CD's, or whatever) should be assessed with rigor and skepticism and held to a high standard. Wikipedia is not a shopping guide. 67.117.130.181 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that we're spending time on the wrong things. This AfD, for one. Tarinth 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, what about this article from an adventure gaming website that I included in the links part of the page? The interview focuses more on Gilbert and his choice to enter the field than his projects. http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,699/ JN322 03:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good one, and should probably be referenced in the article. Tarinth 14:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I referenced it, but I'm not very good at this sort of thing, so someone else may want to revamp it. I also added references for his AGS awards. But if they're unnecessary, someone please feel free to delete/edit or whatever you do. JN322 15:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ---J.S (T/C) 20:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Dumas[edit]

Harry Dumas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn minor league hockey referee whose contract was not renewed, was deprodded only because of a relative being notable by the author, still nn Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 03:57, 30 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 A7 by Pilotguy. Tevildo 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsidian Reign[edit]

Obsidian Reign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Neutral Drew30319 04:15, 30 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. —Centrx→talk • 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death Before Dishonor (ROH)[edit]

Death Before Dishonor (ROH) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fancruft. Results of shows promoted by an indepdendent wrestling company are not inherently notable, no assertion of notability One Night In Hackney 04:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Crowning a Champion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Final Battle (ROH) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Generation Next (wrestling show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Glory by Honor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ROH: Honor Invades Boston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Milestone Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Night of Appreciation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ROH Hell Freezes Over (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ring of Honor Anniversary Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road to the Title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Round Robin Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Survival of the Fittest (wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Era of Honor Begins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment These are not pay per views though, these are just shows taped for DVD with no overall notability. One Night In Hackney 10:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comparing these to other articles is a strawman argument. It does not make these any more notable, and if the other articles aren't notable they may well be deleted as well. Clash of the Champions were live TV specials, Showdown at Shea was a huge stadium show in the days before PPV attended by over 35,000 people, how many people attended the Ring of Honor shows? Having checked through the Wiki pro wrestling project, several ECW shows (including ones released on home video) have been deleted, so there is a clear precedent. If you believe the articles to be notable, please improve them. One Night In Hackney 23:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Era of Honor Begins was not a live recording at all, if you insist it is please provide verification from a reliable source. Ring of Honor currently airing on TWC makes the promotion more notable, it does not make the results of shows more notable. One Night In Hackney 10:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ring of Honor on TV.com Govvy 11:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see the episode guide [25]. That is nothing more than a list of Ring of Honor live shows, those are not TV episodes. One Night In Hackney 12:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment TV.com is every show that has been on TWC channel. They have been televised in the US. Not sure what channel know.
  • Comment Untrue. The last episode on TV.com is dated November 4 [26]. As of the last website update at the end of November, TWC had just aired When Hell Freezes Over from Januray 14 [27]. From memory, only approximately 12 hour long episodes of Ring of Honor TV were ever shown in America and they were not shown live. One Night In Hackney 02:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ROH did have a Philadelphia area TV show in 2002, called High Impact TV. However it was never shown live, and was an hour long show. The debut show DVD release is approximately 3 hours long, and factoring in intermissions and suchlike, it's reasonable to say the whole show would have lasted somewhere in the vicinity of 4 hours. A TV station would not give a brand new independent promotion running their first show 4 hours of live coverage on a Saturday night. If Govvy can prove otherwise, please do so. One Night In Hackney 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really help his case of keeping it though. The local indy fed in my area has a TV show too, local TV shows are not notable (especially it wasn't live and only last briefly). TJ Spyke 04:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Emory[edit]

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

The result was Delete until after Beta testing (when it becomes more notable). Cbrown1023 00:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMusicGuide[edit]

WikiMusicGuide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A site still in beta testing. I tagged the article with ((Unreferenced)) and ((Notability)) rather than adding it to AfD to see if it indeed might be notable, but I don't see the article going anywhere. The references are links to blog-like sources that don't seem to fit WP:RS, and the primary contributers are User:Ericgo and User:Ric168, who seem to have a conflict of interest. ShadowHalo 05:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References and reference are two words with different meanings. The former plural and the latter singular. One reference though came from a blog source, but not "references" as there is only one from blog source. And that we accept that particular reference be removed. Ericgo 03:47, 31 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. Cbrown1023 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shows-inside-a-show in Codename: Kids Next Door[edit]

Shows-inside-a-show in Codename: Kids Next Door (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article is listcruft and uncyclopedic. In fact, this article has only two "shows-inside-a-show" listed. Squirepants101 05:02, 30 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 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 15:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArnoldSpeaks.com[edit]

ArnoldSpeaks.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Speedy deletion under db-web contested. Article makes no claim to notability, fails WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:WEB. Should be deleted. RWR8189 05:07, 30 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 to Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN 8[edit]

ESPN 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A fictional television channel used in the movie Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story Non-notable; any information worth keeping can go in the Dodgeball or ESPN articles. ‣tregoweth (talk) 05:20, 30 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 A7. - Mailer Diablo 08:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Hard Flash[edit]

Cold Hard Flash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No assertion of notability made. No mention in reliable sources. Article fails WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:WEB. Should be deleted. RWR8189 05:36, 30 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, bad faith nom. MER-C 06:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hu Jintao[edit]

Hu Jintao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A nonimportant and relatively unknown weak leader that is unarticle worthy. User:Siii112 5:39 AM UTC

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Projected Reality[edit]

Projected Reality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a non-notable neologism or protologism invented by a graduate student one year ago with no evidence of wider usage. Prod removed by anonymous IP. Delete Aagtbdfoua 05:47, 30 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 -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Float (CSS Attribute)[edit]

Float (CSS Attribute) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage guide, or collection of source material, so it is probably also not a programming reference. --Takeel 05:48, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Position (CSS Attribute)[edit]

Position (CSS Attribute) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage guide, or collection of source material, so it is probably also not a programming reference. --Takeel 05:52, 30 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. Possible bad-faith nom from user who has created several dubious afd noms today (actually user: Siii112, not user: Sii112). bad faith nom earlier today (user:Siii112). Grutness...wha? 10:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kwai Chi[edit]

Kwai Chi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Known only because of Youtube video's. The movies he stars in are relatively unknown User:Sii112 5:53 AM UTC

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

The result was DELETE. -Docg 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BSTJ papers[edit]

BSTJ papers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

An unencyclopedic list of information available elsewhere, per WP:NOT#DIR Alison Chaiken 06:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, I think it highly likely that they are all indexed in the standard engineering indexes, which are available in major libraries. I think Jory's index is a much better way of handling this, and the list should be whittled down a good deal and kept. I think that including highlights from a journal is a good use of WP, but I am not sure whether they should simply go at the bottom of the article on the journal. DGG 09:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reply to DGG - Yes, the papers are all available via an engineering index, but that index itself must be physically accessed in order to discover any information. I have only found that index available at the UC Berkeley Engineering Library, but again, one must actually visit the library and locate the printed index for it to be of any use. No online index of any form exists, other than that which I have begun. Anyway, I have decided to go ahead and create my own website for the directory, as mentioned previously.—Jory (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Engineering Index is available online as Compendex. They are also probably in Inspec, also available on line. Of course it takes being a member of a university which has paid the five-digit amount for access. And thus good free lists like this are indeed very useful.DGG 07:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just you try complaining to the folks at GS. (ironic smile). DGG 07:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 01:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Headley[edit]

Chase Headley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Minor league baseball player. Speedy deletion overturned at Deletion Review, now listed here for full consideration. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what do these stories say? Well, "surpassed Todd Helton for most walks in a single-season in Tennessee baseball history."; "Top prospect in Padres organization"; "former college standout at the University of Tennessee"; "He's a poster child for being a baseball player"... AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, sports variations on the ol' crystal ball, that by-golly he's going to be somebody someday, from specialist websites. Pretty thin beer to base an article on. --Calton | Talk 23:55, 30 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, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, I don't know anything about playing in the minor leagues, if someone says it's not notable, I can't argue with them. But I do know about multiple independent published works. He's got them. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Article was deleted by the sysop Mailer diablo (talk • contribs • count) CSD A7. Navou talk 08:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Prossies[edit]

The Prossies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I can not verify this, and I do not seem to be able to establish notability. Speedy deletion was contested, we shall discuss it here. Navou talk 07:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC) The Prossies[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion, though I recommend taking the discussion to the article's talk page and considering the move suggestions made below. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Speiden[edit]

Jack Speiden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Deleted under proposed deletion and recreated, so I'm sending it over here RedRollerskate 17:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor composition and weak sourcing are not grounds for deletion. Let's fix the problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs)
If you feel that strongly about it, consider this a friendly invitation to join WikiProject Wikify. We can use your help to fix this article (and thousands of others). RedRollerskate 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support this with a redirect from his name --Kevin Murray 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The g-hit criteria will always be problematic for obscure but notable historic figues. We want WP to grow beyond the scope of a high school history text, but how can we if we just include articles about recognized people. Notability is not the same as general recognition. --Kevin Murray 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also "John G. Speiden, a southern Arizona rancher, drew 15114 votes in a no-contest ... his rather colorless, older opponent, John G. Speiden, 79651 to 51140. ..."[30] and [31] which lists the candidate as "John G. (Jack) Speiden" so it's the same guy. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is he still notable if he lost both times? (Not trying to start a fight, just curious.) RedRollerskate 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's easy to confuse notability with prominence. Notable is not a very high standard, just worthy of "notice." I think that the guidelines purposely avoided words like famous, important and prominent and chose "notable" as a lower threshold. --Kevin Murray 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 07:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage[edit]

Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I am creating the discussion page on behalf of nominator Nkras. His given reason for placing the notice is "POV fork." DanB†DanD 07:04, 30 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 half-speedy delete The JPStalk to me 19:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bulBS[edit]

The_bulBS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Don't want to be a wet blanket, but is this band really notable? There are a few references, but I think we have to be particularly demanding for bands since there are so many hundreds and thousands of them! Anjouli 07:15, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J-Walk Blog[edit]

J-Walk Blog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Blog makes no assertion of notability. It fails every criterion of WP:WEB. No reliable sources are given, and is unverifiable. Should be deleted. RWR8189 07:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a web directory. In the first 40 Google hits I didn't see any newspaper articles. The article fails WP:WEB in that it doesn't seem the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, it doesn't seem to have won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization, and the content doesn't seem to be distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.--RWR8189 08:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're not serious? Even a quick Google shows otherwise. Is this in good faith or personal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anjouli (talk • contribs) 12:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I don't know what I'm doing wrong, I put "J-Walk" into Google, and I can't find any of the sources you are talking about. I refine it to "J-Walk blog" and I'm looking at 4 hits.--RWR8189 12:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I get "1 - 4 of about 273,000"... huh? Tubezone 14:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the hits appear to be within their domain - Google only shows two results per domain. The 272,996 missing hits are all hidden by this process. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:05, 31 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. Cbrown1023 00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helgoland Radio Tower[edit]

Helgoland Radio Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Completely unremarkable mast. Contested prod. MER-C 07:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is some centralised discussion on the subject (albeit from about 18 months ago) at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts. Oldelpaso 15:12, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Buckaroo[edit]

Cat Buckaroo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Article should be deleted. RWR8189 08:10, 30 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 (merger completed by User:Meshach). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of aspect ratios[edit]

List of aspect ratios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Redundant; wholesale replication of material from aspect ratio (image). Most likely stems from original editor's discontent with his reverted edits; see aspect ratio (image) history for further reference. In any case, it's a redundant article, as the primary topic has a more or less identical list (sans what was reverted). Girolamo Savonarola 09:01, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal grinding wheel[edit]

Universal grinding wheel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable comedy performing/writing group. Notability not asserted or referenced. Few ghits; most for something else entirely. By its own admission they rarely use the name now anyway. Akihabara 09:03, 30 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. Jaranda wat's sup 00:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghouls Gone Wild[edit]

Ghouls Gone Wild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is short zombie/music film made by low notability rock band The International Playboys. As well as being the stars of the film, The International Playboys are also listed as the 'distributors'. Despite the claim of an 'international premiere' in Kabul, I have been unable to find any evidence that this film has ever graced the silver screen. It is listed on IMDB, [32], but this is not a cast-iron indicator of notability.

The article itself is unsourced (and probably unsourceable), and reads like a first-hand account. Nydas(Talk) 10:05, 30 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; in five days, given it was a procedural nomination, there has been no reason given to delete, and several good ones to keep the article. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Harding[edit]

Matt Harding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Came across a few editors who tried to reopen the first and second nominations. Procedural listing, no opinion. MER-C 11:06, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista RTM Software Compatibility List[edit]

Windows Vista RTM Software Compatibility List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of software that works in Windows Vista, which is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is about. Such a list could contain tens of thousands of items. Aside from that, this list was started from a verbatim copy of a similar list on another wiki-style site. -/- Warren 10:57, 30 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. Jaranda wat's sup 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish kingdoms[edit]

Kurdish kingdoms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I am concerned with the inclusion criteria (or a lack of it).

Also see (all three below and this list was created by same user):

Some of the linked articles are about fictional work (book) such as Mardi, or about an extinct food such as Manna.

--Cat out 11:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Poorly written (no prose) article with terrible inaccuracies and totally unverified:

To sum up: This is a terrible, completely uncyclopedic article.--Yannismarou 15:32, 30 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 A7 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The A.S.S.[edit]

The A.S.S. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable - no Google hits for American South Shore -wikipedia. Searching A.S.S. -wikipedia reveals a different group with same initials called Asylum Street Spankers. Also, rampant crystal ballism: to quote from article itself "emerging group"; "scheduled to release their debut album sometime near June 2007"; "official website is under construction and will be available soon before February 2007". Emeraude 11:28, 30 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. Jaranda wat's sup 00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nukontrast[edit]

Nukontrast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable "online flash magazine". It has been mentioned in "printed publications such as Incepem or Omagiu", but both are also very small self-published zines. Ayatollah's hashish 11:32, 30 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. No sources are in the article barring one website. Reliable sources are the foundation of an article or even a merge and there aren't any in this article, exactly as the delete recomendations suggest. as always, I'll happily restore a deleted article into userspace if someone wants to work on making it up to the inclusion standard. - brenneman 02:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Zaphiropoulos[edit]

Dimitrios Zaphiropoulos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

Delete - non-notable leader of minor Greek political party. Google produces virtually no hits if you exclude Wikipedia and its more obvious mirrors - see here. Nothing verifiable to say about this person who has never held office and who isn't deemed worthy of mention by the media, judging by what's on the internet. --SandyDancer 12:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about Greece here - internet use is as prevalent there as it would be anywhere, I'd imagine. Greece is not a third world country, pal! My point is that there are lots of English language Greek newspapers etc throughout the world and in Greece itself and the net doesn't produce a single article from any of them mentioning this guy - I think that says something about his notability, personally. And it certainly means we can't very easily improve the article with reliable sources - because there aren't any. --SandyDancer 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never insinuated that Greek was a developing country, I am perfectly aware of it's status in the international community. No need to be hostile towards me. I am simply saying that we can't hold individuals who are not English speakers to the same exact standards given to native English speakers. Someone who may be notable in Greece isn't exactly likely to get proper attention in major English publications like the Washington Post, New York Times or The Economist, for example. Now, I do recognize that there are English papers in Greece and a source from those would be nice though I'd be perfectly receptive to a few sources written in Greek, though we should require more than one or two when using sources written in other languages. If you'll notice, I did not vote for keeping the article and actually am leaning towards a delete as nothing is provided in Greek either. My point was simply that a google search is NOT a valid reason for deletion, even when dealing with topics that are English in origin. This is standard policy. Google may be used as a secondary reason for deletion, but not as a primary reason. If valid sources can be provided separate from Google then we should keep the article, if not then we should delete it. --The Way 21:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not intend to be hostile. Apologies. I agree with what you say, more or less, and sorry if I came across as aggressive. --SandyDancer 01:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability in Greece hasn't been established, so I don't understand your comment. --SandyDancer 16:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DoDS seems to be saying that if he were American or English, he'd be considered notable. I'm not entirely certain that's true, but considering some of the minor American politicos who get articles, it is definitely an arguable point. Argyriou (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pilotguy. For future reference, you can replace speedy-delete tags if they're removed by the author. No need to push the article through AFD. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sort[edit]

Eric Sort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Speedy Delete: This article is complete nonsense. It says "similar to throwing a pile of papers in the air and them picking them all up and hoping that they are in order". I nominated it for Speedy Deletion, but an anonymous IP address removed the notice, so I Proposed it for Deletion. The article's creator removed the ProD. It is annoying when people force us to go through such bother. The creator has done three things on Wikipedia: created another article that was Speedily Deleted, uploaded an image that was Speedily Deleted, and created this nonsense article that should be Speedily Deleted. It boils down to vandalism. Hu 12:09, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chip on one's shoulder[edit]

Chip on one's shoulder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

has been moved to Wiktionary JianLi 12:11, 30 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 close after redirect and move had been fixed. --- RockMFR 18:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Paul's Grammar School[edit]

St Paul's Grammar School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

AfD nominated by Antony Mayrhofer. No reason specified, but he is the article's creator and there have been no other edits since its creation. Based on the article history, my opinion is Speedy G7 (Author requests deletion). Tevildo 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 12:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the page. I mistakenly created a page with a period after St and did not know that deleting it was a problem. I thought I listed the mistaken page (with the period) for deletion. The current page is fine. --Antony Mayrhofer 14:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Antony MayrhoferAntony Mayrhofer 14:28, 30 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 A7 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 16:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vinegar strokes[edit]

The vinegar strokes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I believe this band fails both WP:BAND and WP:BIO with 338 Google hits not concerning the band and no albums sold on amazon. This, however, doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria seeing as they do perform live and in pubs. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:03, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raid on Black Mesa East[edit]

Raid on Black Mesa East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

After several weeks, I believe that this article has amounted nothing more than to fancruft, original research, an in-universe plot, and - furthermore - too many unknowns. Being a HL2 player and contributor myself, I find this article to be an embarrassing attempt at defining a non-notable event. Therefore, since appropriate speedy deletes and PRODs have failed, it's time to bring this to the high court of deletion. WaltCip 14:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment - Checking over the history, there was a PROD that met the required date for deletion, until an anonymous IP removed it without an edit summary or a reason. This should therefore receive a speedy deletion and a snow.--WaltCip 22:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 00:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword[edit]

The Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This seems very much like a fan page and gives biased information , one sided information and irrelevant information. Most of the information on this page is wrong. NOT doom metal , NOT heavy metal. Who say's The Swords music is original? Who say's Nebula are stoner rock icons? This is not supposed to be an ad for video games. What gear they use is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huseregrav (talk • contribs) — Huseregrav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


It should be worth noting that the above unsigned poster has a been editing the same articles as Huseregrav. I call sock puppet on that. The Kinslayer 12:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in the current version the reference to the tour(s) is gone, which is one of the important criteria for WP:BAND. The other main criteria (albums on major labels) appears to be there. (and a vote to keep this semi-protected until the heat of this discussion is past - based on the 'history'). SkierRMH,00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 16:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Shepherd Community Church Scarborough[edit]

Good Shepherd Community Church Scarborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Page was deleted following debate on 20 Dec 2006. It has now been recreated exactly as before by an editor who took part in the debate in favour of keeping the article. Presumably, what applied then still applies and this article should be deleted again. The original debate is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Shepherd Community Church Scarborough Emeraude 14:36, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Alamia[edit]

Salvatore Alamia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable county district judge. WP:BIO states that local politicians are not automatically notable; this surely is relevant to other local officials as well. State trial-level judges are generally not notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles under WP:BIO unless they have received extensive press coverage. Emeraude 15:00, 30 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. Cbrown1023 02:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Liberal Education[edit]

Structured Liberal Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A non-notable, three course sequence at Stanford University. No point in merging to the Stanford article, as is not a directory or course catalog. Only references are associated with the university and therefore not independent of the subject. Delete Aagtbdfoua 15:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Forgot to add - prod removed by IP account with no comments. - Aagtbdfoua 15:04, 30 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 G1. The article made no sense at all to me for anything to be salvagable. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randytec[edit]

Randytec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A piece of absolute nonsense about Randytec created by Randytec - user's only contribution so let's be thankful for that. I can't belive this has been here over a month. Emeraude 15:08, 30 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 G4 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 16:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes of Ivalice[edit]

Heroes of Ivalice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable, fails WP:WEB. Also re-creation of an already deleted article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heroes of Ivalice. For similar discussions, see the arguments put forth for the deletion of True World Simulator, WorldPower, SuperPower Classic, Superpower Classic (again), Qpawn, and, finally, the page of the genre they all belong to: Geo-political web-based simulator. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:17, 30 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. Cbrown1023 02:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nation-simulation game[edit]

Nation-simulation game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Primarily Wikipedia:Original research. Information in it duplicates the information found in Government simulation, and the now deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geo-political web-based simulator. A number of actual nationsims have also been deleted through AfD. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and more to go: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Government Simulation (2 nomination) `'mikka 19:25, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AOL Senate Sim[edit]

AOL Senate Sim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Constitutes Wikipedia:Original research, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. For similar discussions, see the arguments put forth for the deletion of True World Simulator, WorldPower, SuperPower Classic, Superpower Classic (again), Qpawn, and, finally, the page of the genre they all belonged to: Geo-political web-based simulator (although this one rather belongs to Government simulation, which I am about to nominate). Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:42, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piccadilly Records (shop)[edit]

Piccadilly Records (shop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article about a shop in Manchester. There is nothing particularly notable about this shop, and I say that as a regular customer. It has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works, the closest it gets is mentions in shopping guides for the city. Oldelpaso 15:40, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

)project-open([edit]

)project-open( (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

CRM software with totally no mention of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE. Initial article written by the founder of the software's company, thus a conflict of interest. [35] Reasoning on the talk page is invalid and assumes that inclusion is an indicator of notability. Flyingtoaster1337 15:48, 30 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. Cbrown1023 02:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Government simulation[edit]

Government simulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Government Simulation (2 nomination) `'mikka 19:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although nominated once before, that AfD hardly addressed the issues of what's wrong with this article. While it may be so that "this article serves as an excellent guide to a subject matter that is a vibrant community on the internet" or "the history of govsims is an intriguing one", the article on vibrant internet community Yay Hooray was deleted, and so would an article on the intriguing story on how my parents met be. Basically, it constitutes Wikipedia:Original research and fails Wikipedia:Notability. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a somewhat more slippery concept than verifiability. In any case, I don't know how it is notable, just like I don't know if it is verifiable. That's why I put the ((fact)) tags all over the article; to prompt people to supply the citations which will allow me to verify. I suspect that if they do that, they will also show that it is notable. Or not. But I'm willing to be patient and see what happens. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happy to contribute some more information on this subject once the AfD is complete. The most immediate example of the category that comes to mind is the relatively-famous Balance of Power (computer game) (famous at least to those of us who might consider ourselves gaming historians) which defined the early history of this genre. I have no doubt that it's possible to come up with quite a bit more. Tarinth 19:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article uses the term "international relations simulations" http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0027%28198706%2931%3A2%3C333%3AAEOT%22O%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5&size=LARGE

IGN called "Balance of Power" a "Cold War simulation" http://pc.ign.com/articles/090/090970p1.html

I know I'm using this one particular game a bunch, because it is probably one of the earliest (and most notable) within the genre, but I don't think it will be hard to expand it with further examples once the article is given an opportunity to grow. Here's another more recent example that has gotten a number of reviews: "Democracy", a political simulation: http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/2005/12/democracy-review.html

Question: Is there a burden to prove the article's name or the article's content is in reliable sources? Mikeliveshere 13:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merged article on all online gaming. List as a genre. Refuse individual sites right to advertise to prevent page becoming farcical.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 02:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blended learning[edit]

Blended learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Looks like original research -- and right now, lots of content hereis clearly original research and spam. I don't see how this article can be salvageable given the nature of the subject. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The problem with an article like this is that there's a possiblity that the article represents one particular POV, while those gs-hits are about all sorts of different topics. It's possible that all the gs-hits are talking about something similar to what this article talks about, too, which is why I won't vote delete. Hopefully someone who knows something about the sbuject will give this article a thorough going-over, or at least comment here. Argyriou (talk) 07:05, 27 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ===David Grant (radio presenter)===#REDIRECT david grant (broadcaster[reply]

David Grant (radio presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject of article does meet notability guidelines of WP:BIO and fails WP:V. -Nv8200p talk 16:15, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nerd pride day[edit]

Nerd pride day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

(One of the most politely contested PRODs I've run across) This appears to be a made-up celebration that's been observed exactly once. I don't believe this has the sort of notability looked for in a Wikipedia article. Joyous!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 00:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Turner (musician)[edit]

Mike Turner (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject does not meet notability requirements of WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 16:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of the other members (this being a former) of Our Lady Peace have pages. don't see any reason why this guy shouldn't. He was in a band of some note.--Tainter 18:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mike Turner formed Our Lady Peace. He was a vital member of the band during the height of their popularity (in Canada, their home country, anyway). To this day, a lot of fans follow Mike's musical career and consider him an influencial, though former, member of one of Canada's biggest rock bands.--Nikki4982 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable memeber of notable band. -Freekee 04:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mike Turner was the founding member and original guitarist of Our Lady Peace, one of Canada's biggest rock bands of the 90's. Not only has he been a musician of some considerable popularity in the past, but he continues to make music today. --Axtech 04:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Turner is certainly worthy of an article, and is one of the co-founders of OLP. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 04:45, 31 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. merge is not possible to an unexisting article Cbrown1023 01:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accept 360°[edit]

Accept 360° (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Originally speedied [36], article was recreated. Not quite as spammy as the original, but still an unsourced (other than the company's own website) advertisment for the product, no evidence of notability given. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Still no assertions of notability. I might be more lenient if the creator had done anything besides create this article, create Requirements Management that links to it, and then spam links to these two articles in various other articles. - Aagtbdfoua 16:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, author did not create Requirements Management, but is adding links to this in other articles. It's not clear whether this is truly notable software or subtle spam, but I suspect the latter. I'll follow-up. - Aagtbdfoua 16:52, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodox[edit]

Rodox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:V. Not sure if they meet WP:MUSIC. If so, barely. -Nv8200p talk 16:45, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ingy döt Net[edit]

Ingy döt Net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. This article was previously speedied as non-notable, but has reappeared. There are dozens of other programmers with many more CPAN modules, many of whom also speak at conferences regularly, but don't merit Wikipedia articles themselves; neither of the other two authors of YAML seem to need articles either. Also redirects at Ingy dot net, Ingy dot Net. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:55, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CastlevaniaRL[edit]

CastlevaniaRL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There are no assertions of notability, fails WP:SOFTWARE and WP:V. As much as I personally might enjoy pluming the occasional Rogue-like, there's no reason for this to have an article. Might deserve mention in the Rogue-like article. Lankybugger 16:55, 30 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 cut'n'paste copyvio. `'mikka 17:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan C. Bank[edit]

This is a vanity page, as the author Dakcat (talk · contribs) admits at Image:Rcb.jpg "(I had this photo taken of me. I own the copyright.)". Anyway, he's a "highly acclaimed" 25-year old film producer. Humps 17:12, 30 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. Cbrown1023 01:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Ground[edit]

Fair Ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 17:18, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Highest and Lowest Rated Audio Commentaries[edit]

The Highest and Lowest Rated Audio Commentaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Aren't lists like this copyrighted? That is what lead to the deletion of The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time. The JPStalk to me 17:27, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasu[edit]

Hasu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is a word definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore, the article is in the English namespace, but the word is Korean, and is not English slang, and is nearly never heard in accordance with the English language. Kevin (TALK) 18:05, 30 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. Cbrown1023 00:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Landing Elementary School[edit]

Willow Landing Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable school, and article lacks content. PKT 18:07, 30 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. Cbrown1023 02:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISketch[edit]

ISketch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There are no reliable sources for this game, so it fails WP:V. Amarkov blahedits 18:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is addressing the "notability" argument (as distinct from verifiablity). WP:WEB specifically mentions magazine articles as a criterion for inclusion. As to WP:V, enough content in the article (e.g. game rules) is properly sourced by the games' website itself; the proper action would be to find sources for the rest or clean up, not delete the article. — squell 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Baltz[edit]

Stephen Baltz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable crash survivor; a tragedy, but I don't think this boy became notable just by living a short while after the crash. Prod removed (see talk page.) Brianyoumans 18:31, 30 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. in this case what that actually means is "redirect" and if anyone cares enough they can find the information to merge from the histpry and do it themselves. - brenneman 02:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The South Park Mall[edit]

The South Park Mall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

Not notable, fails WP:FICT. Does a minor location in a television series need its own article? -- Selmo (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete waste of server spaceDroliver 19:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question - I don't know what a Merge consensus really means in an AfD. I assume it is the functional equivalent of a Keep, with the expectation that someone will pitch-in and merge the content. Can someone comment? Tarinth
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AeroFox[edit]

AeroFox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete Wikipedia is not the place to "promote my OPEN source software".[50] AlistairMcMillan 18:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query I'm confused as to what you mean by freshmeat. Could you clarify? Navou talk 23:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Freshmeat is a software directory for free software of varying and sundry sort. See also Sourceforge, which is similar, but geared more towards being a development collaboration environment. --Dennisthe2 23:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks, learn something new everyday.  :) Navou talk 23:58, 30 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. -Docg 21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Kriss[edit]

Eric Kriss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

del political vanity. `'mikka 18:44, 30 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. -Docg 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marleen Geelen[edit]

Marleen Geelen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Selfpromotion. Simeon87 18:45, 30 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. Cbrown1023 01:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Derderian[edit]

Jay Derderian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable 20-year-old composer-musician. Brianyoumans 18:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why this person, (Brianyoumans) is trying to get my page deleted. Apparently he has a penchant for getting, what he feels, are pages that are unworthy of wikipedia deleted and takes pride in it on his user page. There are several articles out there on musicians and their info and I feel that going to an article about an up-and-coming page musician deleted is a very petty thing to do.

~Maestro1286

There are millions of people who believe themselves to be "up-and-coming" musicians. We can't have articles on all of them. We document them when they actually have achieved notability. Fan-1967 00:46, 31 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. -Docg 21:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faktion[edit]

Faktion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I'm bringing this to AfD because this article has been speedied and recreated several times. This band claims a charted hit, but has no third-party coverage. No opinion. Sandstein 18:50, 30 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. -Docg 20:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Avila[edit]

Victor Avila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable photographer. Minimal relevant Ghits (minus multiple same-name hits related to basketball and an IMDB-listed crew member of the same name, among others) indicates some mentions of a commercial wedding/portrait photographer who did some teaching. The article was at one time inflated with hyperbole and unreferenced claims regarding "legendary" status as a Hollywood photographer and one-time associate of George Hurrell; these seemed to have been related to an attempt to glamorize a now-deleted article for his student and executor, contemporary photographer Seth Sabal (deletion debate here); they emanated from the same single-purpose (or near so) editors. The man existed, was a photographer, and engendered some respect among his peers, but no indication of exhibitions, multiple publications, reviews, etc., per WP:BIO. Robertissimo 19:03, 30 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. -Docg 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alien force[edit]

Alien force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I have not been able to find any supporting reverences. WP:V may be applicable here. Navou talk 19:20, 30 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. -Docg 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kouba[edit]

Peter Kouba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nominated for deletion (prod, converted to AfD) by AboutWeezer, with comment: "Notability". This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 19:45, 30 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 G4 by Joyous!. Tevildo 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neen[edit]

Neen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neen art.

This article is not an exact copy though. This one was previously tagged with PROD as "Spam / original research / neologism", endorsed, then the article creator removed the PROD without comment. This article still doesn't seem to have any good references on popularity and the article is, frankly, a mess of copy-pasted random quotes. It'd need a lot of work to get to proper quality, and doesn't really add anything that would now convince of the notability of the movement... wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to keep the Articles about them at the Wikipedia. I am not experienced, I just started my account today because I noticed that the Neen Article disappeared and I was using it for my University Thesis (I study Art in Italy) . Would you please explain me how to contest you decision to delete the articles?

All my best

Priscilla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priscillatea (talk • contribs) — Priscillatea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The result was DELETE. -Docg 02:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chickenology Encyclopedia[edit]

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

The result was DELETE. -Docg 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ervin Nemeth[edit]

Ervin Nemeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

del vanity of a good man. `'mikka 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:BIO. janejellyroll 23:35, 30 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. -Docg 02:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Nash (Countdown)[edit]

Graham Nash (Countdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

fails WP:BIO — Swpb talk contribs 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included. This argument fails straight away, since I can't name one single US college professor. I find fails WP:BIO to be a rather silly POV statement - who says it fails it?

There are 1.6 million articles on wikipedia and I tend to think one factual article with sources to back it up is not worth deleting. Let's not forget the player didn't just appear on the game show, he won 15 shows in a row and was champion and champion of champions of the show. I just don't see in what way this is not a genuine article. Mglovesfun 23:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Second citation: Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States.

This article seems to fit directly into this category. So it passes WP:BIO with flying colours. Mglovesfun 23:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I see in the category listing that he was a contestant in a British game show. Could it have hurt to say that in the article? 99% of the readers of Wikipedia won't know what Countdown is or where it's from. It isn't shown outside the UK as far as I know, and I'm guessing 2/3 of the UK population don't pay attention to TV game shows (well, if they're anything like Canadians, it would be more than that). This article needs to be rewritten so that it at least says who he is, where he is from, and how being a Countdown champion is notable. --Charlene 23:50, 30 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. -Docg 02:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Holden[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO — Swpb talk contribs 20:50, 30 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. -Docg 02:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Fell[edit]

Julian Fell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

fails WP:BIO — Swpb talk contribs 20:58, 30 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. -Docg 02:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wills[edit]

Chris Wills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

fails WP:BIO — Swpb talk contribs 20:58, 30 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. -Docg 02:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Wilson (Countdown)[edit]

Ben Wilson (Countdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

fails WP:BIO — Swpb talk contribs 20:58, 30 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. -Docg 02:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Income tax in Peru[edit]

Income tax in Peru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Very little content that can be merged into Peru, I don't think there is enough content to warrant a separate article for this. WillMak050389 21:04, 30 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. -Docg 00:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastgate Mall[edit]

Eastgate Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article was ((prod))'d, deleted, and is now undeleted by DavidLevinson (talk • contribs), who tells us "notability not a criteria for deletion, article is verifiable. Notability only criteria for article improvement". Per WP:5P, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Per WP:NOT#DIR, Wikipedia is not a directory - existence is not sufficient for inclusion. Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia relies on published information. Per WP:DP, notability is demonstrates by the existence of non-trivial independent reporting. Clearly notability is a requirement for inclusion per WP:5P, WP:NOT, and WP:NPOV. Google news contains no non-trivial reporting on Eastgate Mall, nor, apparently, does Google news archive. Factiva not checked. This is a procedural listing, no opinion here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((sofixit)). The article existed for fourteen months without references, adding a tag wasn't going to produce them. Five days is ample time, if the references exist. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was not given an unreferenced tag during that time, so it would have been very easy for it to slip by unnoticed. Five days is ample time if the sources are on Google, or somewhere else online. It is not if they're offline, since this would either mean finding in Tennessee willing to do so, or finding someone with access to an excellent library collection in the States (something of the equivalent of the National Library here in Australia). I do not have this access. So please don't pretend that sources don't exist - I've already pointed out that it's fairly likely that books on Chatanooga history would have information on the city's first mall - rather, it's just that you're not giving anyone time to actually get hold of those resources. Rebecca 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Using what sources? Guy (Help!) 17:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's far from obvious that these are in any sense non-trivial reports. More usefully, this mall may be mentioned in the Natural Resources Defense Council publication Solving Sprawl. Paint me cold and uncaring, but even if it is deleted, the article can be recreated if that book turns out to be the key to finding non-trivial reports. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, Angus, the NRDC also talks about it on a slideshow page called How Smart Growth Solves Sprawl. The introduction to that slideshow says it's based on that exact book you mentioned. I'm convinced more than ever that this is a keeper. Quack 688 13:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that an article based on the NRDC stuff would likely pass WP:V and WP:N, but this article isn't that. Truthbringer's refs don't do much either, because they're based on showing that the dead mall was notable, whereas the case seems to be that it wasn't, but the new non-mall incarnation is notable. An article on it could be much more than a directory entry. I haven't actually given an opinion here, one way or the other, but I think my opinion leans towards "weak keep if stubbed, and start over". Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arclight Records[edit]

Arclight Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable label — Swpb talk contribs 21:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry, I'm not finding WP guidelines for music labels. If you want to delete this, please explain why it doesn't meet notability. Guyanakoolaid 10:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - BanyanTree 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanBangladesh[edit]

UrbanBangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Reads like an advertisement, strongly favourable point of view, failure to establish notability through outside sources Random Passer-by 21:22, 30 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. -Docg 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Skies planes[edit]

Crimson Skies planes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is just one big copyvio from the manuals of the relevant games, and I don't think it's notable enough to deserve the stub that would be left if the copyrighted material (i.e. nearly everything) was removed yandman 21:25, 30 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. -Docg 01:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Century Plaza[edit]

Century Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article was speedily deleted per WP:CSD G11 and is now undeleted by DavidLevinson (talk • contribs), with the summary "not spam". CSD G11 covers "pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic", and not spam per se. No non-trivial reporting found on Google news or Google news archive. Factiva not checked. Prior deletion and undeletion not relevant, but subject may not meet encyclopedic standards of notability per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#DIR. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Promotional language" isn't a requirement for spam, and "maybe someday could be an article, hopefully" is a thin reed to hang a "keep" vote on. --Calton | Talk 00:05, 31 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. -Docg 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sinclair (footballer)[edit]

Richard Sinclair (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 01:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Oates[edit]

Stephen Oates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Comment Your argument with Richard Sinclair appears to be that the article should be kept based on the fact that he plays for Queen's Park. However this player plays for East Stirling - a club which pays players £10 per week! Keeping this article goes against the criteria set by WP:BIO which states that "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league". What's the point in having such criteria if people are not prepared to adhear to it? Forbsey 13:50, 31 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. — CharlotteWebb 11:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Nugent[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. -Docg 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilt_(Graffitilt)[edit]

Tilt_(Graffitilt) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

PROD tag removed with no explanation; possibly conflict of interest; no sources to show that Tilt is indeed world "renound" Marcus22 21:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Although I agree that this should be deleted, Wikipedia is not censored, and especially not merely because a subject is aesthetically offensive to some. We have a massive article on Saddam Hussein and another on Adolf Hitler, and both were far more offensive than mere graffiti. The question in AfD is whether something is notable (and that has nothing to do with taste) and whether the information in the article is verifiable and comes from reliable sources, not whether you or I like it or not. --Charlene 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well put, Charlene, well put. --Dennisthe2 02:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • .. yes, but I like the bit about the dog urinating on a tree too! So it still looks like a Delete to me Marcus22 18:12, 31 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. -Docg 01:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northgate Mall (Tullahoma)[edit]

Northgate Mall (Tullahoma) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. This, on the other hand, appears to eb a directory entry. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 30 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. -Docg 01:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South DeKalb Mall[edit]

South DeKalb Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. This, on the other hand, appears to be a directory entry. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Saying "maybe someday this could be an article, hopefully" is a thin reed to hang a "keep" vote on. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming good faith on Rebecca's part, it seems she's familiar with things about this shopping mall that might make it notable. I'm now qualifying my delete to "without prejudice to re-creation." If/when this article gets deleted, if you can make a new one that has some sources to support the notability you've found, then I don't think there's any problem with this article. Tarinth 14:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I don't have any information about the mall beyond what is here. I made the comment above simply on the content of the article. Rebecca 09:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per CSD G4. J Di talk 23:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thinker[edit]

The thinker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A copy of the page fabio moro, which we already discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabio moro. Aleph-4 22:18, 30 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. Cbrown1023 01:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TechArena[edit]

TechArena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod removed without comment. Prod reasoning: Been speedy deleted under G11 a week ago, although it was tagged as A7. The article still does not give reliable sources as for why this website is notable. Forum with 20,000 members, but no claim of notability so far. -- ReyBrujo 22:22, 30 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 G11 by Pilotguy. Tevildo 03:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gsdd[edit]

Gsdd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The Article does not assert the notability of the subject. --YbborT 22:26, 30 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 per author request. --Coredesat 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangos (band)[edit]

Mangos (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable band with no known releases and not signed to any sort of label. Most likely the page was created by a band member. Wildnox(talk) 22:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. "They are scheduled to play in the Aberdeen Grammar School Christmas Show in December. They are now possibly the biggest band to come out of Aberdeen for a long time." That really says it all. janejellyroll 23:37, 30 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 Tubezone 18:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reconquering World Tour[edit]

Reconquering World Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod removed by an anon who replaced it with the ludicrous and patently false claim: "Wikipedia has contact Mr. Jackson's team, and the plans for a new tour in 2007 have been confirmed for all of the locations below, but the dates and track listing are incorrect." Supposedly an upcoming Michael Jackson world tour, with rumored tour dates, and rumored set lists, but not a single source to verify a word of it. Totally Unverifiable, likely total hoax. -- Fan-1967 22:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to be bold and deleted the questionable comment, and I stuck a db-vandal tag on this, with no sources, it's such a blatant violation of WP:BLP that it needs to go bye-bye now. Tubezone 15:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. -Docg 20:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pawnee Avenue[edit]

Pawnee Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable short residential street of absolutely no consequence. Nlsanand 22:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Torontocruft. Does not assert notability. Does not even mention it's in Toronto except in the Stub listing. Probably 500 other streets named Pawnee in North America, half of which are more notable than this. --Charlene 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article stated the street is located in Willowdale, North York, Toronto. I think the location is pretty clear. --Smcafirst or Nick • Sign • Chit-Chat • I give at 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Drastically fails WP:N.--YbborT 02:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above. One can see the street on a map here [58] - quick check of Mapart Toronto 2005 directory has both sides of the street coloured for residential only. Fails WP:N Orderinchaos78 03:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Finch Avenue, as a former alignment. --NE2 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Old Finch Avenue's article is too long, how can we redirect it?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. -Docg 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shed[edit]

The Shed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is quite the hodge-podge article. No less than five different subjects in the same article, only one of which (the song by Rainbow) appears to be notable, but not so notable as to require its own article. So, what to do with the space? 1) Disambiguate, adding a note for Prophet Five from Alias. 2) Merge the song information to the Rainbow article and delete the rest. 3) Redirect somewhere, with my preference being to Prophet Five. 4) Some other solution. Otto4711 23:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal radio?? Northwest Melbourne?? The Shed Magazine is made by unemployed people from Northwest Melbourne and has a worldwide distribution. Where you think it has anything to do with aboriginals is as clueless as your reasons for wanting to delete it.

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Freud[edit]

Maximum Freud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neologism/Original research cooked up one Thomas Frey, part of building a walled garden of articles by Dr2tom (talk · contribs)} and Beeblebrox666 (talk · contribs) supporting Frey's ventures. These include (not nominations yet, just for informational purposes) The DaVinci Institute (and its redirect Davinci institute), Anthropometric Disaster Area, and, of course Thomas Frey. Only the very thinnest of references, all seemingly self-generated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs)

Anthropometric Disaster Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Adding Anthropometric Disaster Area to this AfD, as another related unnotable neologism. Even "Anthropometric Disaster" gets a whopping 9 ghits, all of which are in essays by Thomas Frey Tubezone 16:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 31 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. -Docg 01:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goosebumps (2007)[edit]

Goosebumps (2007) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

AfD nominated by Dleav with reason: "I nominated this page for deletion because there isn't concrete proof via links or news references that this will exist. There is also, no idea whether they will be making a new series or if they are simply replaying the original." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 00:14, 31 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.
More