< July 16 July 18 >
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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 14:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer virus hoaxes[edit]

Unencyclopedic. Too many redlinks. (The article was created in January 2004, but still most links are red links) TPA5 21:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted through PROD; debate here moot. Xoloz 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:modern[edit]

This was nominated for AfD incorrectly. Fixing this, I did not nominate. -- H·G (words/works) 23:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spammy corporate article with no notability Antares33712 23:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Agreed, this does not belong here. -- H·G (words/works) 00:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still the article is unencyclopedic. Delete 216.141.226.190 04:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment if those were removed, then we would still have to vote. I just want to ensure crap like this doesn't reappear Antares33712 14:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The correct procedure for this is to nominate for AfD only when a prod or speedy delete tag is removed. If the article is worth a prod, chances are it'll fail to survive an AfD; nominating for both doesn't add any insurance that deletion will occur, nor should it. -- H·G (words/works) 17:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — FireFox 12:10, 22 July '06

Pogoaddiction[edit]

This was nominated for AfD incorrectly. Fixing this; I did not nominate. -- H·G (words/works) 00:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable website, spammy article, but was told I can't speedy on the grounds of obvious spam, so I put this on vote. Call it, neologism, call it spam, call it advertisement, call it whatever, lets vote this gone. Antares33712 23:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — FireFox 12:10, 22 July '06

Erin O'Brien (novelist)[edit]

Non-notable Cleveland-area writer and blogger, fails WP:BIO. Her main claim to fame seems to be that her brother John O'Brien authored Leaving Las Vegas. She had a novel Harvey & Eck, put out by a small Canadian indie press, which currently ranks somewhere in the 500,000 range on Amazon. Those doing a Googletest, please note she is not one of the many actors named "Erin O'Brien", or the musician named "Erin O'Brien". --LeflymanTalk 19:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/??

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

The result was redirect and semiprotect - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Designer vagina[edit]

Neologism. Article refers to more extensive labiaplasty article which is apparently basically the same thing. Page is also being endlessly vandalised by children. I@n ≡ talk 06:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — FireFox 12:17, 22 July '06

2022 FIFA World Cup[edit]

This article was originally prodded for deletion, but was objected to without any explanation by an anon. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; 16 years is way too far in advance for an article. Because of the unanimous deletion votes comments on 2026 FIFA World Cup, I propose a speedy deletion (or at least, close this debate quickly -- I don't think any user will object). Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - Apples, oranges. There is speculative info for 2014, but the bidding process has already began, at least unofficially, and because of the continental rotation system, it's narrowed down to a few number of candidates. 2018 is far in the future but there is already debate over whether this will be part of the continental rotation. There's no such substantial discussion for 2022 and beyond. Also, the "if you don't like it, don't read it" doesn't work for me. If Wikipedia is filled with trivial and/or speculative information, it devalues the whole project as an encyclopedia. So yeah, Delete. Ytny 08:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's just thick. You make an argument for keeping the article and use the same article to recommend deletion. Really clever eh fellah ? Palx 15:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indent is your friend. So is WP:CIV. Ytny 18:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, we should delete because it's speculative but we should keep because it's speculative. I understand. Apologies for any lack of civility. It gets frustrating reading things people post sometimes. I should get out more. Palx 08:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the above Comment Surely, there is no such SUBSTANTIAL discussion but THERE IS a discussion going on already. This aricle quotes such officials as the FFA President, for example, so you can't call it just a speculation if it comes from such a high-ranking official. And besides, there was a discussion to move the 2010 WC from South Africa to USA in case the South Arficans won't fix all problems on time, so you might as well delete "the 2010 FIFA World Cup" article until 2010. There is an alricle in Wikipedia called "the 2024 Summer Olympics", for example, and nobody has any problem with it whatsoever, so what's the problem with "the 2022 World Cup"? It clearly states that it "contains information about a future sporting event. It is likely to contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the event approaches and more information becomes available." Therefore, it doesn't devalue the project but gives the reader some insight about the future event, event which, unlike some national jump rope competition, billions of people around the world are obsessed with. So please, don't touch it but update as the time goes on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.160.35 (talk • contribs)
Comment You just made the case for keeping 2010 WC as opposed to 2022. There's enough happening for 2010 that FIFA has to make official announcements that it will stay in South Africa. As it is, the 2022 article is more about Australian soccer than the World Cup, and the opening sentence includes a "thinks" and two uses of "probably". There's no information about 2022 beyond "Wouldn't it be nice if..". What's wrong with waiting 4 more years until there's real information about it? Ytny 15:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional smart-ass question What is "speculative info"? JChap (talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there isn't which effectively means you are talking rubbish. please stay on topic if you are challenging. World Cup 2022 is in the future but it is also a fact. what part do you not understand ?Palx 15:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's actually might be an excellent suggestion - to make one page for all future World Cups starting from 2022 and beyond. I'd recommend to keep a separate page for the 2018 WC, though, as there is a lot of info already re: this event. Name this page simply "Future FIFA World Cups". There is enough info already available on 2022-2030 WCs to make one web page. There is even a site promoting WC 2030 in Uruguay (in Spanish, http://uruguay2030.tripod.com/), event that's still 24 years in future. Surely all this warrants the inclusion of all the available info to the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.160.35 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 July, 2006
Comment I think it's an idea worth cosidering, though the information that's in the 2022 probably belogs in the 2018 page under the Australian bid. Still, I disagree that the line between keeping 2018 and 2022 is thin; there's a huge dropoff in the amount of actual information. As it is, we only have the FFA represetative talking about if the 2018 Aussie bid fails assuming 2018 is still part of the continetal rotation. Too many variables and not enough definite facts or official statements, I think. And the 2030 page looks like more wishful thinking than an actual bid committee, though that might be because I can't read Spanish. Ytny 08:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing of it is, I seriously doubt that there are countries who will bid for 2022+ that will not bid for 2018. If any country is considering bidding for a future World Cup, logic would tell us that they would bid for the next opportunity (that is, 2018), rather than waiting four more years until 2022 or later (this is assuming the continental rotation will end after 2014). Do you see what I mean? Ian Manka Talk to me! 08:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is logic in that, but there always might be reasons to let one chance pass, for instance when there is another event already planned to be organised in that nation in that year (Olympics or a World Championship of another sport for instance), or maybe the nation wants to make a good first impression and first improves the infrastructure, stadiums etc... before submitting a bid. (Although I must admit the Australia case contradicts this.) Anyway, I wonder if this logic is really an important thing to consider: if an official source mentions a nation will be going for World Cup 2030, does it matter if we think they will probably also try for World Cups 2018, 2022 and 2026? --Pelotastalk 09:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see the logic too, but for the purpose of Wikipedia, I find it irrelevant. You're making an assumption about the intention of the candidate nations, however logical it may be, and you're asking Wikipedia to be a crystal ball. No one will come out and say, "We probably don't have a chance in 2018 but we're making a token bid in preparation for 2026" and you'd be dealing with speculation, not facts. Again, what happens in 2022 depends too heavily on events that haven't taken place yet i.e. the fate of the continental rotation, whether an European or a non-European nation gets 2018, etc. Really, is it too much to wait, oh I don't know, another six years before creating this article? :) Ytny 09:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I worded that wrong. I meant, even if it is just a token bid before a country really makes a go at it, the information will not change, unless their bidding strategy makes a complete turn-around. Therefore, if Country X is making a token bid for 2018, and going for real in 2022, then their bid info would be the same. They'll still use Stadium A in City B. Future articles aren't needed past 2018. Period. Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to annoy anyone, but I don't completely buy that. The information WILL change, surely a nation will show to the FIFA Committee that it has improved a lot since four years earlier. Ofcourse since we're indeed looking into the future the difference is not immediately visible now, but surely you have to consider more than just the stadiums! Also quoting you twice: Future articles aren't needed past 2018. Period' I can indeed agree that that is seriously worded wrong. What possible motivation could you have to determine that 2018 is the limit for useful information? The page 2022 Winter Olympics exists and if you look at the information on that page well, there's no reference and three of the four mentioned cities are also on the 2018 Winter Olympics page. However I still agree that a complete page on the 2022 FIFA World Cup is probably overdoing it, but I dont agree that the information should be neglected because it's further into the future than your 'allowed year' of 2018. --Pelotastalk 22:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't word anything right. Sue me. What I meant by Future articles aren't needed past 2018. Period, is that, as of 2006 (and perhaps a few years later), there is no need for any article about hosting until either (a) the shortlist is announced for 2014, and prospective candidates who were using 2018 as a warm-up for 2022 are not on the shortlist or (b) it has been announced that the continental will continue until 2018, in which case, all relevant information will be merged into the 2022 article. Hopefully I worded it okay this time. Ian Manka Talk to me! 09:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I have no more arguments I can think of right now that I haven't mentioned already. Looks like I'm also almost the only one thinking this way, am I so stubborn? Anyway I hope most people using the crystal ball argument are not just copying from the intro without thinking. --Pelotastalk 09:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyHD[edit]

Prod contested. Product of uncertain notability. No evidence of passing WP:CORP.Luna Santin 05:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by junk? If the pages aren't related to the item discussed in the article in question I'd change to delete. -MrFizyx 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every Nation Campus Ministries[edit]

nn campus minustry group. --Pboyd04 00:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge with Apostasy. Mailer Diablo 10:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Christian[edit]

I don't think this is a very useful page. The term itself should be covered by a dicdef since the other sections on the page make assumptions about the "ex-christian" including trying to list reasons why they became ex-christian and the process they went through, which is clearly not the same for all ex-christians. --Pboyd04 00:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 14:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eythorne Baptist Church[edit]

Doesn't seem notable. ~300 ghits. --Pboyd04 00:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jews of Rhode Island[edit]

This page is a classic example of an article violating the No Original Research Policy. It's at least 5 or 6 pages long. Hell, it even lists its author. I prodded it, but my tag was removed. Alphachimp talk 00:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Errr...because it looks like it fails WP:NOR? --Bill (who is cool!) 00:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - because only the author can authorize release under the GFDL, not a previous publisher who does not hold the copyright on the material. If it wasn't the author who gave permission, it's still a copyvio. Ekajati 20:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom Michael 06:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as I noted above, "would that include permission to edit and mangle as time goes on?" That's one big concern. The second is that WP is not supposed to be a repository of source information - that is what WikiSource is for. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 10:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - because permission to publish does not typically make the publisher the author's agent. Permision to publish is usually a one-shot deal - to publish in a specific issue of a specific journal. Only the auhor can give permission to re-publish in a different venue. Ekajati 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyville (webcomic)[edit]

Are any My Little Pony fan fictions notable? At all? What about this LiveJournal hosted My Little Pony webcomic, found here. A google for ponyville spoosh gets a total of 30 google hits (spoosh being the author). The answer by the way, is no, not notable. - Hahnchen 00:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TRG Productions[edit]

This is a group of webcomics hosted on a website called Fireball20xl. Fireball20xl manages an Alexa rank of 50,000, so whereas you'd probably delete it if it were a regular website, you might consider it for a webcomic. Only, if you see the traffic data, as I've linked to, you'll see that 87% of these hits aren't to any webcomic at all, but to a sprite (2d images) resource at http://sprites.fireball20xl.com . The group of 5 webcomics by the same guy, "Alan Solivan" are found at http://trg.fireball20xl.com and pulls in 3% of the hits. Neither of these 5 comics are notable individually, and grouping them together makes no difference. Searching for "Alan Solivan" the author of every comic gets just over 100 hits, as there's not many, it's not hard to work through. You won't find a single professional review of his work, because it isn't notable. This guy falls into the same boat as David Gonterman, prolific? maybe. Notable? no. - Hahnchen 00:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Hair[edit]

A webcomic, here. No assertions of notability. Looking on Google will get you 30 links for the string "nice hair" mauchline (mauchline being the author). As the title is so generic, I couldn't just google the title. The alexa rank is 4 million. Popular? Notable? Decent Sources? - Hahnchen 00:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reptile Guard[edit]

Webcomic here. No Alexa data here. - Hahnchen 00:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect to Early Christianity. Mailer Diablo 14:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Century Christians[edit]

little or no info that is not already covered in Christians --Pboyd04 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm assuming GF on this article. It wasn't until this AfD that I went and added the EC link to the main Christianity article. It hadn't been there...??? — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 18:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the contributor was intentionally causing harm by creating the article ... that's not what I'm saying at all ... but when I read statements like "The First Century Christians were different from the Christians of today in many ways" without qualification, it sounds like the start of a POV fork ... just because someone creates a POV fork doesn't mean that they are acting in bad faith. BigDT 18:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 04:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The River Café (Brooklyn)[edit]

restaurant with no claim of notabily Delete Jaranda wat's sup 00:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dafna Arad[edit]

Non-notable singer. Was PRODed and deleted, but the author wanted it restored. The Google results don't look very promising, so delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can see no evidence that the ska band is in anyway notable.. but anyway, meets WP:BIO which is good enough for me -- Librarianofages 02:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as repost. Kimchi.sg 16:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Premodernist paradigm[edit]

Might be original research; more likely comes from the Postmodernism Generator, available at http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo. --OliverTraldi 00:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure non-knowledge. -- Librarianofages 02:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Kimchi.sg 07:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jd era, JD Era[edit]

fails WP:BIO, WP:NOR, and WP:MUSIC; probably written by the article's subject as a vanity article. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete by consensus. Kimchi.sg 07:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMC Studios[edit]

Converting prod to AFD as previously deleted by prod and restored so doesn't qualify. Huon nominated it as "Non-notable, fails WP:WEB, no relevant Google hits". JLaTondre 00:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 01:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn Stafford[edit]

NN photographer. Also it looks like it's a vanity page, probably created by her boyfriend. Dionyseus 00:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, because the matter at hand is that the page still fails WP:NN. So, I vote for Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. --Bill (who is cool!) 00:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Tawker. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Awesome Movie[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Caesura(t) 00:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI When an actor has a planned movie credit, it is listed in IMDB as such (pre-production, planning, etc...) No entries are available under Ethan Hawke or Cary Elwes, both well-noted actors. If we trust imDB, can we safely declare this a hoax? 216.141.226.190 04:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful nightmare[edit]

Prod removed without explanation, I unknowingly added it a second time without checking the file history. Anyway, article does not assert meeting WP:WEB and the comic/site doesn't seem to meet it. --W.marsh 01:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aigaion[edit]

Fails WP:WEB DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As the author of the Aigaion page I would like to ask for a reconsideration. I intend to update the page in the (very) near future to give a better description of Aigaion. It will probably look something like the Wikindx page. If pages like these do not fit in the Wikipedia policy, deletion is fine with me.

With kind regards,

Wietse

Hi, We are working on the notability :) We have an ever increasing amount of users and downloads, and I see no reason why this should decrease anywhere soon.. What would be the required notability? What makes the change between aigaion an for example Wikindx? Wietseb 06:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that 's clear. By the way: Aigaion is nothing to replace bibtex and we are not reinventing it. Aigaion is a bibliography management system just like Endnote etc and has excellent bibtex im- and export facilities. I have been looking for a program that offers these facilities on the start of my promotion, but failed to find a convenient open-source bibliography management system. Mentioning Aigaion here seemed the right place for me to spread the word. Unfortunately I was wrong there. Kind regards, the Aigaion team, Wietseb.

ps. I have updated the Aigaion page to give you a better impression of Aigaon.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Mailer Diablo 14:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Metroid games[edit]

This was nominated for AfD incorrectly. Fixing this; I did not nominate. -- H·G (words/works) 05:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous game lists

All of these lists were created by User:Touth with the sole intent of simply adding more lists to Lists of video games and computer games. These lists are too small to deserve their own articles, and should either be deleted or merged into the articles for their respective series. -- LGagnon 01:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment User:LtPowers made a point on your talk page (12:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)) that might be relevant here. The goal is to gain consensus on the appropriate course treatment of articles, not to gang up on individual editors or anything of that sort. Please assume our good faith here, and we'll give you the same courtesy. -- H·G (words/works) 05:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since my name has been invoked... =) It should be noted that not everyone has assumed good faith with Touth in the past; he/she has been called a vandal for repeatedly inserting additions to the Lists of video games and computer games article and other behavior. In addition, LGagnon above assumes that the "lists were created... with the sole intent of ... adding more lists to Lists of video games and computer games." LGagnon doesn't know that for sure, although I agree it's a likely interpretation. I've tried to work with Touth on making sure his/her contributions to Wikipedia are appropriate (making these possibly superfluous lists is better than repeatedly adding non-list articles to a list of lists, which he/she did before). So I think Touth can be excused for feeling like LGagnon is out to destroy his/her work. Powers 11:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to note that I only accused Touth of vandalism when he clearly did it. He has blanked parts of the talk page to Lists of video games and computer games, and has often been unwilling to discuss his actions when there is controversy over them on the talk page, instead making edits that he has been asked not to make. And yes, I do know for sure that he was only creating lists to add them to that article; the "What links here" page for those articles link only to the lists article.
And I'd like to point out that editing Wikipedia is for the sake of Wikipedia, not some individual's personal reasons. If Touth wants lists of games he likes, he can put them on his user page. He does not need to fill up Wikipedia's mainspace with listcruft just for the fun of it. -- LGagnon 17:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete -- Longhair 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damir Prodanovic[edit]

WP:NN footballer - 0 ghits for Damir Prodanovic and Newcastle Jets DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive anime[edit]

This seems to just be a list of anime that some group of people like. Granted, it's an excellent list of innovative, high-quality titles, and it would be a shame to lose it entirely, but it's ultimately opinionated criticism, and thus violates all of the central Wikipedia content policies - it is original research, non-verifiable, and has a non-neutral point of view. The article exists to keep down the size of the main article anime, where it's presented as if it were a recognized genre akin to "science fiction" or "romance", which it clearly isn't. Usage of the term "progressive anime" is inconsistent and uncommon at best - the majority of Google matches are copies of this Wikipedia article - and certainly doesn't map to anything that Japanese or non-Japanese viewers would consider to be a genre. inkling 01:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating progressive animation for the same reasons. inkling 19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we do that? — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 19:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes; see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion, under "How to list multiple related pages for deletion". inkling 03:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know you can list multiple, I questioned adding another article to the vote 3 days later, which I would think would invalidate any votes before that point in time, since there has been a drastic change in what is being voted on. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 10:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sante Fe Desert Dogs[edit]

no evidence of "Desert Dogs" or Pedro, NM Wizmo 01:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy A1. Roy A.A. 01:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Leg[edit]

Dictionary definition with no potential for expansion. Is this even a real expression? —Caesura(t) 01:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crapopolis[edit]

Delete as completely non-notable. There are 41 registered users and the most ever at one time is 9, in Nov 05. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Wikipedia has notability guidelines for websites that we often refer to in these discussions, WP:WEB. The nomination asserts that this site doesn't meet that set of guidelines, and I'm inclined to agree. -- H·G (words/works) 05:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Exchange[edit]

Delete as no nobility assurted; not even finished being built. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DSAMUN[edit]

Contested prod. Prod reason was "nn student group." Moving it here as a re-prod, no vote from me. Mangojuicetalk 01:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article.

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch[edit]

fails WP:NOT, specifically the bit about Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information; fancruft hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is good idea. I've located all of the minor experiment articles and tagged for merge. None of these articles are written paticularly well, they're all minor and they would be better organized in the main article itself. -Randall Brackett 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collin D'Cruz[edit]

WP:NN lounge lizard and WP:COPYVIO from here DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 02:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SORBS.US[edit]

This article turns up 619 google hits for sorbs.us, one google hit (the site itself) for "Sorry Ole Reverse Blocking Systems" the main header, was prodded and removed without comment Crazynas t 02:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 08:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Muhsin Khan[edit]

Delete. The subject is a translator. That is considerably less than an author. The article asserts no other notability.- CrazyRussian talk/email 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, only 595 unique Ghits for the man, and that's what ultimately counts when referring to Google. -- H·G (words/works) 05:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • only? 595 unique hits is quite good you can never get more than 700 or so on any search. You might want to reread WP:GT. -MrFizyx 17:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete discounting new users and anons. Jaranda wat's sup 22:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drayner[edit]

The article refers to the "dryaner" dialect spoken in New Jersey, apparently centralized in just one county. The article mentions alot of specific areas, streets, and groups of people, all unsourced, all of that put together makes it sound very unnotable to me. Additionally, none of the 290 unique Google hits seem to have anything to do with the article. I'd say it's a relatively unknown dialect, used by a few people, possibly even as an inside joke? Who knows, whatever it is, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. tmopkisn tlka 02:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd like to note that the last user's only contribution was to this page. Also, in response to your comment, if the only documentation of this dialect was in a local newspaper, it's still not notable enough for wikipedia. tmopkisn tlka 03:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the user has since added two more contributions, one of which was blanking my userpage. Honestly, it's really hard to build credibility when you go around doing things like that. tmopkisn tlka 07:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If verifiable sources can be provided for this term, then I expect most people will back keeping this article. Right now, though, the article doesn't provide any sort of sources that make it a verifiable term. -- H·G (words/works) 06:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And which of these thousands of local dialects have articles on wikipedia? tmopkisn tlka 04:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 10:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discover Intensive Phonics for Yourself[edit]

Self-promotional. Google hits: 247. Lack of references to 3rd party analysis on the Internet. Fails: Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Kowens 17:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedied --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoonjuice Records[edit]

Month-old British record label; not notable yet. NawlinWiki 02:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, actually seeing that the owner is a notable person with credits in IMDB and not some "twenty-something" I think I'm all that, maybe a merge and redirect with Rob Cohen is also appropriate. 216.141.226.190 04:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Following the links from the label's official page, it's apparent that the Rob Cohen on Wikipedia is not the same Rob Cohen involved with this label. I'll edit the article to reflect this. -- H·G (words/works) 07:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep as translated. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duong Trieu Vu[edit]

Listed at WP:PNT for over two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote from me. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The language of this article is unknown. --12.29.175.2 15:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese. Kusma (討論) 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google tells me he's a singer. Kimchi.sg 15:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, only the last paragraph is relevant to the analysis. The other stuff is mainly about his upbringing, how he is a good boy, a parent's dream, apparently he did the International Baccalaureate (so did I and I'm not a notable academic, heh), then he auditioned successfully for Paris by Night (which is an iconic music-video show which releases 5-6 new 3hr DVDs each year of their assortment of Vietnamese language performers of Vietnamese music/skits/dancing outside of Vietnam, and is very popular - my parents tried to borrow a new release at the library and they started off as #76 in the waiting list and finally got it after 9 months) - however it appears that he won the audition to become a guest artist and has not yet become one the regulars, who typically do three or four items on each recording. Work out if this is good enough for inclusion (I doubt it personally)- if so, I'll translate some day but not now. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've translated the paragraph which is the basis of his claim to notability. Please take a look. Also, I've been doing all these translations, without a dictionary. Should I change my vietnamese userbox to level 2?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indenting) This guy deserves an article, because he seems to satisfy WP:MUSIC criteria 9, "Has won or placed in a major music competition." In addition, I guess his songs may have been aired on at least one Vietnam national radio station too? And Blnguyen, that translation looks readable enough for you to promote your VN fluency userbox, IMO. Kimchi.sg 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it isn't a music competition. It's basically a music variety show, which is accompanied by short interviews resembling notable chat-shows. If he has become a regular performer who appears on each DVD show as a regular cast member, then it hasn't been claimed in the article. The songs wouldn't have gotten on National media in Vietnam as Paris by Night is a diaspora show which is hosted by Nguyen Cao Ky Duyen, the daughter of ex South-Vietnam Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was censored in Vietnam. It is very popular outside of Vietnam, so I wouldn't be surprised if the artists got regular airtime on 24hr Vietnamese stations in the United States - mainly in California, esp San Jose, Orange County, as well as Houston. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
OK, It's not stated in the actual article, but he is a regular cast member for at least a year now. I'd lean towards keeping it now, as I looked on the DVD cover of the last one that I was talking about, and this product has distribution offices in USA, AUS, Canada and France. This is also the largest Vietnamese music-show/troupe outside Vietnam ([citation needed]).Blnguyen | rant-line 02:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a copyvio of his official site, although if I translated and NPOV-ed it, it wouldn't be anymore.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think direct translation is enough to avoid copyright. If it is a direct copyover, it would need a lot of work to be keepable under copyright laws. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 12:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Paca Ifnord 14:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibnot[edit]

14 Google results. This article depicts what is probably just a local legend at most, it contains hyperbole, and it has no sources. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding. Our family has encountered these and have pics to post but do not know how. This is not a local ledgend but an animal that is exclusivly known as a Gibnot. Please advise how to add the picture to the artice start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.194.170 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment, worth mention that this paper refers to a gibnot as a "local bird." -- H·G (words/works) 05:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I noticed that, actually, or if not that then something else similar to it. However, there seem to be more links describing it as a rodent, and those that describe it as bird don't mention any specifics in regard to species or other common names. tmopkisn tlka 06:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conquerors of dominaria[edit]

Non-notable unreleased board game mod. Zero hits in Google. John Nagle 03:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 22:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Waldman[edit]

Seems to have been created by the subject. Userfy? Brad101 04:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the username credited with making the article in the first place could be his, but there's no real proof either way beyond the fact that both subject and user have "Matt" in their names. BigHaz 04:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Ulwick[edit]

Businessman of dubious notability. Was tagged as a candidate for speedy deletion, contested at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions#Anthony Ulwick, then tagged for proposed deletion, which was removed without moving the article here. So, now, listing for a proper deletion consideration. Stormie 04:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment but only 163 unique Google hits on him and 358 on Strategyn. The Amazon sales ranking for the book mentioned in the article is 14,359. -- H·G (words/works) 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No one said that voting had to be completetely unbiased =] tmopkisn tlka 05:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This book is ranked 5,168. This is actually really high; even 14,359 is pretty high. —Centrx→talk • 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wersi[edit]

Apparantly a fragment of a press release. Tom S. 04:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not speedy candidate due to time constraints, but still a copyvio. --DarkAudit 16:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of WWE Title Changes Per Show[edit]

Trivia. No reason this can't be included on all the individual show pages. No reason given for having all this information collected in one place nor an assertion of how that could possibly be useful, at the most it should be merged if this information isn't contained on the articles, if it already is it should be removed. Crossmr 04:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete CSD G7 - author's request. Kimchi.sg 16:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PinStack[edit]

Delete - Advertisement. Article was deprodded by author without explanation, so bringing it to AFD. Also, author has moved link to pinstack up the list at BlackBerry, which seems to reinforce to me that this is advertising since the author has no other edits. Brian G 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Are you saying that because i'm trying to replace the 'About Pinstack' page on our site by sending visitors to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinstack that i'm advertising? Plagiarized??? I own everything on pinstack i'm really confused now about this service.

As i was explaining earlier I notice a few sites link to wiki for their about page as its a limitless Encyclopedia. It seemed very cool to have the site defined here. However, the LAST thing I want to do is break rules or for Pinstack to be viewed as if are trying to advertise. We use google's adwords for that. With that said how many people do you think will be searching for the term PinStack? :S The point of adding it was for users who already know know of pinstack. Please if it MUST be removed please do so asap! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crackberry (talk • contribs) 10:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addicted Tour[edit]

Fancruft, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information. Doubley so for current event tour dates. Teke 04:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prosportsnation[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 keep. Mailer Diablo 15:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Dagenais[edit]

Listed for speedy deletion, but I don't think an article about a man who allegedly murdered two police officers has "no assertion of notability." I don't know our precedents on criminal articles very well, so whether he's notable or not I'll leave to others. No vote. -- SCZenz 04:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Thunder Power Rangers[edit]

This page is now redundant due to the separate articles for each of the characters briefly described within. Ryulong 04:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge with Mrs. Since that article already contains a reference to this phenomenon, I'm just going to redirect. People are, of course, free to add or remove or spin around whilst singing anything related to this article. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. degree[edit]

unencyclopaedic fancruft neologism, possibly protologism. Stanfordandson 05:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of "fancruft" here gave us all a nice little chuckle, but you should probably think about what motivated you to say it, and why you were such a silly sausage. Not only is the word "fancruft" scientifically proven to be offensive 95% of the time, but it's not even remotely applicable here. As a wise man once said, "Dude! WTF?" fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's not much to be said about it. It's just a slang term. -- Whpq 18:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 10:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clefting Prevalence in Different Cultures[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate colletion of information. The article is a collection of statistics relating to incidence of cleft at a technical level with minimal discussion on the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that's assuming that everything outside of those "few paragraphs" is useless or unnecessary. It's a very good article, and to remove any information would be, well, removing information. AdamBiswanger1 15:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested removing verbiage, not information! The article is quite short, and I think it could be converted into a couple of paragraphs and a table or two without losing any information at all. bikeable (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I really don't think that it has so much verbiage, and much of it is references which would be cumbersome to merge over. AdamBiswanger1 15:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as per bikeable -- Whpq

In our advance towards a larger and more comprehensive encyclopedia, what can we hope becomes of the Clefting article? We can hope that each section expands, ideally to the point where it requires its own article. That has happened already, so why retard the advance of this article because there is too much information? Can anyone actually look through the article and say in truth that what is being purged in the merger is "verbiage"? AdamBiswanger1 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. IMHO, what is being purged is useless statistics. I see a bunch of statistics about cleft palate without any context about what the statistics mean. Of course, that would require summarising other authors' articles about cleft palate and how the statistics can be interpreted. Also, the clefting article is another matter entirely, very properly split out because it is a separate subject (linguistics v. anatomy). —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article, and put on your thinking cap and try to understand, you can make out the underlying theory. Some sentences are clear as day, though. "African Americans have a lower prevalence rate of CL +/- P when compared to Caucasians." Is there some clarification that could be done here? certainly. But what is needed is more content to show the said underlying theory. AdamBiswanger1 23:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as non-notable, unverifiable crystal ball statements and possible hoax.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

APE SH!T[edit]

Seems non-notable. The website didn't help, and if anything it clashes with the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy. Crystallina 05:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didier the viral rabbit[edit]

This article keeps getting vandalized by User:Rory Carrol and was up for a 1st AfD in a vandalized state. The AfD was withdrawn after reverting, but the actual content seems pretty non-notable to me. A rabbit that appeared in a viral marketing campaign for Microsoft?!? ~ trialsanderrors 05:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom -- Whpq 18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kelly[edit]

This is not an appropriate encyclopedia entry--it is devoted to a minor and insignificant television character, apparently mostly to advertise the little-known actress who plays her, and secondarily to advertise the television show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quentinmatsys (talk • contribs) 10 July 2006

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, 71.192.168.140 05:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeborn (intended movie)[edit]

This is a film proposal. Jonathan F 05:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I don't mind actually. Delete per nom. R.E. Freak 06:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the correct standard and if it is, will be supported by sources (with the minor caveat that the source/s need to be sufficiently reputable to be credible, and must show significant notability in the world beyond its own fan base). Agreed this would then be the appropriate basis for forming a view. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taj, An Object Oriented Operating System[edit]

Insignificant toy operating system that no one except its author uses. Also most of the text (written in unencyclopedic style) is taken verbatim from author's website [8] with unknown copyright status. Delete. jni 06:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd even toss in WP:V to make the complete package. :-p Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )

Its of good use.It gives an insight of Object Oriented Operating System.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 orphaned talk page. Kimchi.sg 06:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kay hill[edit]

This is obvious spam. The only word herein is "EX", and it is written on the talk page. I don't think there is an article for this, nor is this of any importance at all. There is no article, explaining the red link, but there is a talk page. Michael 06:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerpulse[edit]

Was prodded, deprodded, and improperly reprodded with the concern: fantasy games on a forum are completely non-notable. This article is simply for promotion of a forum, that likes to promote itself by spamming. Delete per original prod. Kimchi.sg 06:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The forum is also notable for the sharing of videos of football, with it recieving over 300,000 hits for videos during the world cup and such file sharing is also big in the news making it a notable forum. Finally if BigSoccer is worthy of a wikipedia article as claimed by an above poster who wants to delete SP's article, then why is SP not, it's the second biggest soccer forum compared to BS and is grower at a faster rate than BS has been for some time.

The forum is notable in various ways then, and is listed as within the 60 most popular soccer site on Alexa (outranking 90% of Official English Premier League Clubs Official Sites in terms of traffic), and within Alexa's top 11,000 over the past few weeks average, it's a major site that deserves a wikipedia article and if you let the article be finished then you will see it's notability and stop being so aggressive and making misinformed comments .

Also I notice some of you are BS members, I believe that ruins your supposed neutrality and thus shouldn't be making a move to delete this article, as it's clearly biased. Ajp100688 22:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response - For what it's worth, I am not an active BigSoccer member (I stopped posting a couple of years ago). And I never said BS was worthy of a Wiki article, but rather, that I was surprised that there isn't one. Big difference.
I don't know if a message board even warrants an article and I won't be starting a BS article any time soon, but I can see a case being made for BS. Not so much for its size, but its influence and access to people and information that other sites of the type usually don't have.
But I'm not going to write it because there just isn't enough third-party information out there. And whatever information is available will make it read like to this article; the introduction reads just like a press release, even if that wasn't the intent (and btw, "outranking 90% of Official English Premier League Clubs Official Sites in terms of traffic" isn't all that special when you put the number into perspective and is pure PR-speak).
Out of curiosity, how do you know which editors are BigSoccer members? Ytny 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I had a forum spammed with soccerpulse links, don't talk to me about evidence. And why should illegally sharing videos make a forum notable? Why should being a BS member matter? If one were an admin or moderator a case could certainly be made for them being biased. But I have no connection to BS other than going there for information. I don't see how this would make someone biased. Revolutionfan 03:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Well the original "rod" by you says "article that only promotes itself by spamming" - not exactly a fact is it?, just your opinion, and i believe that you do not realise the scale of football videos and compilation that is available from the site, it certainly has affected the way that fans view football. Not only are the videos only accessed by the 50000 members of the forum, but videos made available by members are uploaded to websites such as youtube, metacafe, etc. where it is being made available for a very large audience. Thevmail 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Response' Finding out if someone is a BS member is pretty easy, just use their forum search to find the members username, as it'd be pretty uncommon for two different people to be using that username on different sites, it's likely to be the same person.

As for the information Alexa is a verifiable third party source that everyone recognises as being unbiased and useful, it backs up any statements made on the article in every way. If you wish for the article to come across as more neutral then it can be subject to a rewrite, thats not what Im arguing, what I'm arguing is it's right to exist, especially in the light of it's connections to Adidas and the English FA.

The outranking of official websites is very impressive I feel as they have an established brand name and userbase and should attract high rates of traffic and for an independent and largely unknown to the world website to be drawing traffic greater than them is a great achievement.

As for Revolutionfan, your bias shows through by just how agressive you are, firstly as for your accusation that your forum was spammed by SP, you should have reported it to the SP admins and they'd have dealt with it, they are hugely against spamming and as I have said have had forums closed for continued nonsense, secondly it depends what you consider spamming, if one of your members posted a link to sp saying come here and see such and such video, and it was a long standing memeber that was just generally trying to help someone, thats far from spamming, it's just linking.

Whatever spamming issue you had, and indeed if it was spam, it has nothing to do with SP as a site, as I've said many times it persues a hardline anti-spam stance. And the sharing of videos is not illegal, no one is making any money off the videos, none of them have been ripped from copyrighted sources such as DVDs (the forum even has a note saying any ripped DVDs posted will result in a ban for the user) and the actual content is not subject to licensing regarding it's distibution, only it's broadcast on TV stations.

Essentially I have given many good reasons why this site is NOTABLE and why it should exist on wikipedia, and you guys have given no real reason as to remove it, other than it sounds somewhat un-neutral, if thats the case then it requires a rewrite not a removal. Ajp100688 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Response' Yes, I am biased, because I WAS spammed (not linking, I'm not a moron so stop being so patronizing). I'm sure you'd be biased too if I had spammed your site. I run several forums and have not put any, nor plan to put any on wikipedia. I don't see how forums are encyclopedia worthy, especially the results of fantasy games (and its teams' logos) on them, which is just about the only thing in this article. Revolutionfan 17:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Well for your information there are 210 forums which have articles on wikipedia, maybe you do not feel that internet phenomena are worthy of articles on wikipedia (how ironic since wikipedia is an internet phenomenon itself) but others maybe do feel so, i believe the article is in need of editing, not deletion. Thevmail 18:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Once again revolutionfan, read what I'm typing. The...article...is...not finished, the prediction league stuff was only added to flesh out the article as it was the first information available, the rest of the article is awaiting a write up, and scans of the official letters sent by the FA and Adidas etc. If you deleted every article before it was finished, wikipedia would be empty.

As for your supposed spammed forum, whats it's name ? Ajp100688 18:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ajp100688 A few things worth pointing out, not necessarily in favor of or opposition to the delete:
  • I searched the user names found here in the BigSoccer search engine and Revolutionfan was the only match. So I'm either doing something wrong or we disagree on the definition of "some".
  • I never questioned the validity of Alexa results.
  • I did, however, suggest that you put the 90% number into perspective. So that's 18 clubs out of 20, which sounds impressive on the surface. But you have to consider the following:
  • Most of the remaining 18 clubs have limited appeal beyond their own fan base. The majority of soccer fans in the world have little interest in West Brom, let alone its official website.
  • Even if a club has widespread appeal, its fans can find out everything they need to know without ever visiting the official site. There are newspapers, rumor sites and message boards that offer the same, if not more, information than official sites.
  • A message board, by its nature, attracts more traffic than a typical club site. People visit club sites for specific information or transaction (say, tickets or official merch). People return to message board to post and read responses. The act of composing and posting a single message probably requires just as many page views (which is what Alexa rankings are based on) as a typical visit to an official club site. When you factor in the return visit, browsing through forums and threads, there's no competition.
So outranking 18 official websites isn't a meaningless feat by any standard, but it's not as impressive as you might think. I'm not saying Soccerpulse isn't a major site. I'm just saying that outranking official club sites doesn't tell us much one way or the other because it's not an even comparison.
  • FWIW, TV broadcasts are copyrighted sources and posting them on the internet is just as illegal as ripping footage from a DVD. Any video posted in a forum without the expressed written consent of the copyright holder is "illegal video". I don't think it matters for the sake of this discussion, but it's worth pointing out. Ytny 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Rockefeller V[edit]

Was prodded prod was removed by a annon listing here. Being the son of a US senator or being a member of the Rockefeller family does not by default merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Whispering 07:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SumTotal Systems[edit]

Advertisement. Improperly reprodded. Kimchi.sg 07:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Rockefeller Wayne[edit]

Was prodded prod was removed by a annon listing here. Being the daughter of a US senator or being a member of the Rockefeller family does not by default merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Whispering 07:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: new editor with just 5 edits, all to Rockefeller-related articles.
I don't know Ms. Rockefeller and have no particular bias against her. Wikipedia has standards for notability (see WP:N) -- either change these standards (pretty unlikely) or prove Ms. Rockefeller's notability per these standards. In the meantime, I'm just voting by the rules. I suspect most, if not all of the other 5 are driven by the same motives. --A. B. 15:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ormson[edit]

Non-notable actor. Was prodded, deprodded, and re-prodded by another editor. Kimchi.sg 07:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that prods should all include comments. You could mention this to the user on his/her talk page. JChap (talk • contribs) 01:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow and flame[edit]

Fails WP:WEB and WP:SPAM DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 07:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - way non-notable -- Whpq 18:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey James[edit]

WP:NN session musician to a bunch of WP:NN bands - Only LRB is worthy of an entry - and partial patent nonsense (due to vandalism) DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 07:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Shell[edit]

Plot and setting summary for a single game. It's written from an in-universe perspective, and is yet more plot summary of Metal Gear Solid 2, which already has a length, detailed plot summary on that page. Too much to merge, no encyclopedic value, and it goes without saying that it isn't independently notable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, this entry helped me clean up a problem over on 43places: Big Shell http://www.43places.com/places/view/862683 was originally created in Manhattan, as if it were a real place. I don't know if that helps you decide its fate, but it was useful to me. I agree that it's not a very encyclopedia-like page, but I'd like it if you kept pages like this in some form. I definitely use you guys as a definitive source when I hit problems on places that I've never been...

Thanks! Mary http://www.43places.com/person/maryhawkins

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skater Vision[edit]

Fails WP:WEB and WP:SPAM and probably WP:VAIN DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 08:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 22:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surfing (Counter-Strike)[edit]

This is one of the articles that was group listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps, which was closed yesterday as 'no consensus, but with no prejudice against the immediate renomination of individual articles' (as the previous AFD was so mixed, with many different 'keep these, delete those' opinions). This one is clearly a game guide about a technique used in Counter Strike, and fails WP:NOT and WP:V. Delete. Proto::type 08:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is NOT a "game guide"--Nick Y. 22:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread the context of "game guide." It is in the context of "Wikipedia is not an instruction manual." Do you contend that the article is an instruction manual, or did you misunderstand WP:NOT? This applies to everyone who has said that the article violates WP:NOT. Do you contend that the article is written as an instruction manual? If not, WP:NOT does not apply. TomTheHand 22:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your reading of NOT to begin with (instruction manual is not ment to limit, but game guide is ment ot expand the concept of not being instructive in general by citing a specific instance); but I also believe that the maps are primarily instructive. They have exceptional utility in assisting game play.--Nick Y. 17:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you believe "game guide" means? I'd be interested in hearing your personal definition, based off of the following policy:
Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.
Also, the article just contains a list of names of popular maps. I don't see how that is of "exceptional utility". Did you have this AFD confused with another one? This is an article describing a Counter-Strike mod. TomTheHand 17:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wieslawa[edit]

I can't really see why this warrants inclusion in an on this site - it was AfDed 2 years ago - result was no consensus DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 08:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as a repost - It had even less info than the first.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Wrestling Federation (Australia)[edit]

Deleted earlier after Afd discussion. Not exactly a repost as now someone has set up a MySpace page and a couple of yahoo pages. Still nothing in the reliable sources range I think. I can't find evidence in the article or by googling that this is anything more than someone's fantasy role playing. Deprodded with message in talk. Weregerbil 09:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. I ignored any silly sausage too silly to give any sort of reasoning for his point of view; I took into account the views of everyone else. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Green[edit]

Advertising; fails WP:CORP. Maybe redirect to Ed Green? -- MightyWarrior 09:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balfour's Law[edit]

Article is unsourced, reporting on something that was just VERY recently made up (cf. this proof), ergo it is not an adage at all as it claims to be, it is original research and is a vanity/autobiography pseudo-article, in this case for the purpose of non-encyclopedic soapboxing. [Note: I do not make "non-noteworthy" claims; I don't believe in their relevance because WP:NN is neither Policy nor a Guideline, and thus not actionable.] — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Cf. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The Ralakan Corollary, which is pretty much the same thing.

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ralakan Corollary[edit]

Article is unsourced, and is reporting on something that was just recently made up, ergo it is not an adage at all as it claims to be, it is original research and is a vanity/autobiography pseudo-article, in this case for the purpose of non-encyclopedic soapboxing [Note: I do not make "non-noteworthy" claims; I don't believe in their relevance because WP:NN is neither Policy nor a Guideline, and thus not actionable.] — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Cf. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Balfour's Law, which is pretty much the same thing.

Please use actionable criteria (i.e. Policies or Guidelines), not NN, which has been sorely abused with regard to AfDs. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ
Noted. Though as the original AfD reasons on this note (via its wikilinks) indicate, the same reasoning also qualifies it for WP:Vanity and WP:AUTO, which are actionable. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ
Um, see my edit summary for that deletion. As it explains, the WP:-namespace articles on the deletion process say not to use both, that AfD supercedes prod, and that prod should be removed if both occur on same page. You're really asking two question, though. The answer to the latent one is that I made this (and the related "Balfour's Law" wannabe-article) an official AfD instead of just a prod specifically to create a vote history that can be referred to later, both tactically, so that we can nominate for Speedy Deletion if the proponents of these "articles" simply recreate them later, and more strategically, to create a better body of precedent (on Policy/Guideline-actionable grounds - note my discouragement of relying upon NN for voting "Delete") for the removal of such bogus "adages" in the future, of which we are likely to see an increasing number in the months and years to come. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando A. Rios[edit]

not notable enough Yiyun 10:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as nonsense, and probable hoax - the article steadfastly refuses to name the "online forum" on which all the events supposedly occurred. Kimchi.sg 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KDF[edit]

Not even sure what this is. No shred of notability. Prodded and the link was removed without comment. --Xrblsnggt 11:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The article inherently cannot be neutral. There is no metric for what constitutes a "common" misconception about Iran. The page has already been userfied at User:Khorshid/Misconceptions; any factual information not already present in our Iran-related articles can be gathered from there. JDoorjam Talk 17:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((afdanons))

Misconceptions about Iran[edit]

A listing of alleged misconceptions about Iran, consists of a combination of trivial facts (which would best go to Iran and related articles), and claims which could hardly be called neutral. Not an encyclopedia article - delete (possibly merge salvageable content to other articles). - Mike Rosoft 11:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to change my opinion to Weak Keep - while I still think this would be better embedded in various Iran related articles, there is work being put in to reference and NPOV it, and having stumbled across List of catch phrases I think there are considerably worse lists out there which could do with attention. Yomangani 08:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- If your argument is that since there is already an article that has the word 'misconceptions' in the title it would be hypocritical to delete this one, then that's a novel approach and I wish you all the best with it. I'd say the the HIV and AIDs article is unencyclopedic too, but at least for the most part it cites sources for where the misconceptions arose. - Yomangani 16:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion drive is nothing but an attempt to censor some certain facts about Iran. And besides, it doesnt follow WP rules. There is no good reason for deleting this article. "Not encyclopedic" according to whom?--Zereshk 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this discussion is to see whether there is a consensus to delete it, not to censor anything. If it follows all the Wikipedia guidelines then nobody reasonable is going to vote to delete it. At the moment it is is failing WP:V and WP:OR explicitly and WP:RS and WP:POV by extension. As to the unencyclopedic nature, that is up for debate, but I'd say it comes under WP:NOT. Lots of the info would as Mike Rosoft says be better in Iran (and likely to have a wider audience). If you can make it meet all the guidelines I'll gladly change my opinion to 'Keep'. Yomangani 17:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 1) Your first point is not true - many people choose to delete articles for many reasons, including spite, animosity towards subject matter, POV, etc. even if said article is 100% valid, sourced, and true. #2) There is no way that anyone would allow this information in the main Iran article - that article is already very long and this information requires a separate article. #3) All the information here is valid and true. Find me one instance of falsity or POV or OR. Khorshid 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said nobody reasonable is going to vote to delete it, not quite the same thing. I'll make some comments on the discussion page about sources.Yomangani 22:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with another Iran-related article. I'm sure sure which though. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 10:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is indeed the case! --Pantherarosa 22:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS has no "other side" for the very reason you explained. --Striver 10:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also worth repeating that citing the survival of one article with Misconceptions in the title isn't a basis for keeping this one. Articles with similar titles have already been deleted [33] (which seems to have risen again as List of misconceptions),[34]. I think a better precendent is the multiple AFD survival of Misconceptions about the Shi'a (albeit renamed several times)...and of course precedent is only a guideline in AFDs anyway. Yomangani 11:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a very Christian-like attitude. Please adhere to WP:NPA. Thank you. DragonRouge 16:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe un-Christian, but it isn't a personal attack. The policy you are looking for is WP:CIVIL. - FrancisTyers · 16:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the link. Thank you much. DragonRouge 16:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Mani1 11:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Aable[edit]

Copied promotional material. (The article contaided the comment: "The following is from a booklet about Chris Aable's book due to be released in 2007, entitled What is Self-Evolution - and Why is it Our New Greatest Priority?" - which the author conveniently removed after I proposed the article for deletion.) Fails to establish notability. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was

Holocarpha Imbecilus[edit]

I've read it, it's not even BJAODN material. DS 12:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, delete. Lupo 11:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merrill Keiser[edit]

Non-notable candidate who lost in primary John Broughton 12:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Big Gig[edit]

Nonnotable local high school band competition. NawlinWiki 12:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. Proto::type 08:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deadmines[edit]

Apparently every "instance" in World of Warcraft has its own article. Each one of these is written as gameguide complete with helpful information such as which weapons are "must have" and which is a "popular twink weapon" and which monsters "drop some very sweet loot for your raid" (Onyxia's Lair). These articles have no references and can be deleted as unencyclopedic as well. Wikipedia is not a game-guide. Also nominating:

Wickethewok 12:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are instances in WoW - that is analogous to having articles for each level of Super Mario Bros. 3. Having an article on something is not precedent for keeping another - perhaps if it was nominated for an AFD and voted to keep, then maybe. Wickethewok 16:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The term 'instance' means nothing to me, sorry. Not a Warcraft player. I see both groups of articles as essentially articles on game locations/maps/whatever. Delete the whole lot, or keep the whole lot. There is no need for haphazard application of standards. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps for a recent related AfD discussion. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the CS maps AfD discussion page specifically warns that that discussion is not to be referred to as precedent in future decisions. -- Super Aardvark 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am well aware of that warning, and haven't cited that AfD as precedent. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Instance essentially means "level" or whatever. As for the application of standards, I don't know of any other way to go through this other than on a case-to-case basis. If you have any ideas on a broader application of standards, I'd love hear them. A single AFD for all maps/levels/instances listed on Wikipedia would be a massive and confusing ordeal imo. Drop me a message if you have any ideas on such things unless they're specifically related to this AFD. Wickethewok 16:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I cared enough about it, I would propose purging all game map articles from WP wholesale. But, being not a gamer myself, I can't mount a vigorous defence of that position, so I haven't suggested it. If you do the honours I will chime up in support. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not have an article for each level of SMB3, in principle? In practice, I don't think there's enough to say about each of those to warrant an article, but there's plenty to say about these areas of WoW (lore, individual NPCs, impact on the game as a whole, etc.) -- Super Aardvark 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because there is information on such things does not make them encyclopedic (not an indescriminate collection of information). Wickethewok 16:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment here, a better analogy than having articles for each level of SMB3 would be having articles for each boss of SMB3. I know it seems like I'm nitpicking, but I just think it's important to clarify this for the non-WoW players. An instance is more of a special area where the major bosses of WoW are encountered. Sorry to be anal, but, well, I'm anal... --Polkapunk
  • I am not stating whether these are notable or not. My reasons for deletion are given above, you may address those if you wish. Things can be of interest to a large community but still be unencyclopedic, such as recipes, game guides, and such. Those things are "all notable to the substantial number of people", but are certainly not encyclopedic. The main purposes of these articles seems to be to provide information on "bosses", what items they drop, level recommendations, listing mission objectives, etc, which definitely falls under a game-guide, which WP is specifically not. Several of them even have "Strategy" sections, which is quite blatantly unencyclopedic. Wickethewok 16:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have placed my argument for notability as a response to the first Delete vote; sorry. After reviewing a majority of the articles in greater detail, I agree that their main purpose as they now stand is to be a game guide. However, most have some background story-line information that should be merged with another article or should be expanded to warrant its own article. Game guide material (essentially the Instance section of each article) should be removed. -- Super Aardvark 17:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are they referenced? Wikis can't be used as reliable sources of information, so WoWWiki is not any sort of reference. Wickethewok 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above for my refutation of the "not notable" argument. Do you have a counter argument? Do you agree with the grounds stated by the nominator? -- Super Aardvark 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: half are such redirects (to Caverns of Time), half should be made redirects to Outland (Warcraft). -- Super Aardvark 17:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article specifically, though of course the redirects as well. I removed the redundant article listings above. How does my reason for deletion not hold? Material that is unencyclopedic can most certainly be deleted. I have elaborated on these reasons including original research, WP:NOT a gameguide/how-to, and unencyclopedic in general. Wickethewok 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "unencyclopedic in general" I imagine you're referring to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't see how Caverns of Time falls under any of the stated categories of articles for which concensus has been established, and I argue that it is encyclopedic. It explains what this new, in-development feature of the game is, how to access it, and the lore behind each aspect. The article will continue to evolve as more information is made available, but it doesn't contain any speculation. -- Super Aardvark 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted. Here's my opinion on that: Assuming good faith re this person's frequent use of Wikipedia, you now have the opinion of a member of your target audience. This should count at least as much as a seasoned Wikipedian who may have no interest in video games. -- Super Aardvark 03:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the above user changed my comments on this AFD intentionally (I have reverted them). If you do so again, I will not hesitate to recommend you be blocked. Wickethewok 20:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - my apologies, I was unaware of, and have since become aware of, the policies on the AFD. I will, however, state that it is painfully obvious that the above user is biased towards his own deletion recommendations (due to the way in which he defended this AFD entry) and may also be biased against World of Warcraft for some unknown reason (as he has contributed to at least one other game entry in Wikipedia that could be construed as a "game guide", that game being Halo). Seansquared
  • Note - also, please don't attempt to threaten me or any user with such phrases as "Don't do it again". You do not own Wikipedia, you are merely a contributor like everyone else. Furthermore I have suddenly received a huge influx of spam on my gmail account for no reason; I can only assume that you have contributed to this and as such have reported you to both Wikipedia and Google for possible service violations. Seansquared 16:42, 19 July 2006
  • Note - Adding to my original recommendation of Strong Keep I would like to say that World of Warcraft is very notable (6.5M+ players worldwide), has a rich lore and history, etc. Again I recommend that the above articles be edited, not removed, to better fit with Wikipedia's standards. I would not, however, merge the entries, as that unified page could possibly contain hundreds of pages worth of scrolling. Seansquared 16:47, 19 July 2006
  • I enjoy being accused of being biased towards my own recommendations. I cannot deny that - my opinions are indeed biased by my opinions. I assure you I don't have anything against WoW. Also, I'm glad to see you signed up for an account. I hope this AFD does not deter you from making future contributions to Wikipedia. I apologize if I was a little rough with my "Do not do it again" comment. Wickethewok 20:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That line is from Onyxia's Lair. Wickethewok 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Your primary argument seems to be that these articles deserve to be included in WP merely because WP is "big" and has articles on a "great many subjects". However, WP aims to be a encyclopedia, which is not necessarily the same as being big and having many articles. The argument for inclusion of an article must involve the properties of the article itself, rather than the properties of WP. As far as opinions go, I disagree with the expectation that one should find detailed articles on game maps in a general encyclopedia. I have no objection to pointing interested people to more specialised resources out there (which can be wiki-based even!), but we don't ourselves have to be such a resource. However, I would recommend people who have strong opinions on this matter (i.e., people who have voted strongly for or against in this AfD) to try and draw up some notability criteria for video game information. In this instance a little bit of instruction creep is preferable to a deluge of AfDs if it will establish clear consensus standards. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I'd like to help out with that. It seems to be one of the more debated items on AFD as of late, so it'd be nice to establish some guidelines which would help streamline future AFDs on video game material. I'll try to start thinking of some general guidelines - feel free to message me if anyone here is interested as well (regardless of which way you voted of course). Wickethewok 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:if anyone giving their opinion about move/delete this info played WOW, they would realize that ALL info on the pages are so sumarized that can only be used for lore/information needs. nobody kill a mob in a dungeaon by reading wikipedia stuff. its just silly to base your arguments on "game guides" maybe wikipedia is not a place for game info huh?--Santosusaf 10:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming you're addressing me (if you're not, ignore me ;) ), I love Blizzard. Played D2, SC, WC2 for a loooong time. Wickethewok 16:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you did post the AfB and so the majority of comments must be directed at you, eh? Poking aside, I've begun editing some of the articles for clarity and removing the "guide" information. I will update with lore and non-guide information (to maintain a level of "encyclopedic-worthy content. I would request a minimum period of 5 to 10 weeks to thoroughly update and modify the above noted articles so as to avoid their deletion. I do believe that World of Warcraft, it's lore and fantasy, and all non-guide information related to it, certainly meets or exceeds any notoriety standards that Wikipedia holds itself to, and that the articles are merely under scrutiny due to the excessive (though not IMO) amount of "guide" content. I hope to rectify this as soon as humanly possible. Note that I am not the original contributor nor editor. Seansquared 12:08, 20 July 2006
  • You, like many other new users posting here, should really learn some basic Wikipedia policies before posting comments here. You have come here in search of unencyclopedic content. Until that picture in the upper left hand corner says "Wikipedia: The Free Place-to-Add-Whatever-You-Like", this is still an encyclopedia, regardless of what you would prefer it to be. Though this may not be your point exactly, the argument alone for keeping this information because it does not exist elsewhere should ring warning bells of original research and lack of verifiability. Wickethewok 04:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: You may want to also check out Wickethewok's user page and note that several of his articles, particularly those on widely unheard of electronic music creators, fail to live up to WP:NOT standards. It's a nice double-standard that he follows. Seansquared 12:32, 24 July 2006
  • Which articles are you referring to specifically? I'd be more than happy to fix them. Though, I'd like to point out this is not necessarily relevant to this AFD. Also, what part of WP:NOT are you saying they violate? I'm not sure what part of WP:NOT you could apply to a musician/producer. Wickethewok 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, nothing really jumped out at me on Wickethewok's page as WP:VSCA or WP:NOT. But, since WP is a collaborative effort, keep in mind that WP:DEL can be used by any editor, yourself included, to help improve WP. -- MrDolomite | Talk 02:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impressive! Most new editors usually make it to at least double digit edits before comparing other editors to Nazis. While I understand how you can feel frustrated, its usually not in your best interest to appear uncivil. I hope this doesn't discourage you from contributing verifiable information to Wikipedia in the future. Wickethewok 01:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly you are passionate about the AfD discussion, daflipman. Please remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and not to jump to conclusions about other contributors' possible motivations. Having that kind of discussion quickly moves away from Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, detracts from the original point, which is discussing the possible deletion of the article. Thanks for participating. -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't speak for everyone, but I have not said I "don't like it." I do feel, that while it shouldn't be "here" (as in wikipedia), it is definitely worthy of being "there" (as in another gaming wiki). Personal POV about WP content: if WP becomes a majority of articles about new bands, non-notable school, StarTrek, computer games and weaselly company ad-spam, then people will go elsewhere. All those things can be online, and maybe one solution is to have WP become the #REDIRECT jumping off point to other topic's wikis. -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hairy H. Man[edit]

Snakes in a pig and stuff. More fiction from our prolific German organized crime contributor. Deprodded. Weregerbil 12:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear that this nomination was made in good faith. User: SuperJoe47

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

The result was redirect to Airbus A350.. Mailer Diablo 16:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus A370[edit]

Redesign was announced and the name was kept at A350[36]. Information on the redesign is already being merged into the A350 article to this stub is no longer needed. StuffOfInterest 13:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and please also delete corresponding redirect, A370. If Airbus A370 is used as a redirect, A370 should be reserved for use by the article related to the U.K. road. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be reserved for the UK road only? It looks like several European countries use "A" routes, which means there could be other instances of A370 out there. Perhaps "A370" should be a disambiguation page referencing both the road and postulated aircraft design for now which would allow adding other roads in later. --StuffOfInterest 18:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Airbus A350. Andros 1337 15:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --Dtcdthingy 17:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- There will eventually be an Airbus A370 (A320 replacement or something else), so reserving it to a British road seems to me short-sighted. Hektor 18:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We may not see an Airbus A370 for decades, at which point the A370 article could be converted to a disambig. Why plan for a contingency ten years or more away when it is trivial to convert it back? 20:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N328KF (talk • contribs) .
Merge with A350 and alter A370 redirect to target the A350 article. Ingoolemo talk 00:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Airbus A350, per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retail performance[edit]

A contested prod. Original rationale for deletion was "WP:OR", unprodded with edit summary "Retail Performance is an important reasearch topic in the ever increasing competitive retail market space" (Liberatore, 2006). 13:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect to Thomas Pytel. – Avi 01:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeless (demo)[edit]

Delete, extremely NN software. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete after relisting. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California Greenhouse Cafe[edit]

Although a chain, it is not a resturant that readers around the country would know, therefore non notable 11kowrom 19:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Readers around the country? What country would that be, mate? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is being relisdted in order to establish a consensus. - brenneman {L} 13:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AAF Ice Cup[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 Speedy close bad faith nom from repeat offender. Nothing new presented. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Libsker[edit]

1st nom Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ari Libsker.

I live is Israel and I'm sure that 99.99% of the Israelis don't know him. As I've said in first nom, this is a self promotion of Avriri staff. Which is also NN. He even doesn't have an IMDb entery. --Haham hanuka 16:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the result was keep in June, was did you nominate him again? What has changed over the last month??? gidonb 17:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 16:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Children's television series[edit]

I retract my Delete nowFancyPants 08:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep Go look at what a category is for and what a list is for. Categories most certainly were NOT invented to replace lists but to stand side by side with them. Jcuk 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've not problem with moving the list, but still feel it is indiscriminate. Sorting by country, considering most series on the list are shown around the world, seems a poor way of breaking the list up. IMO, it would be better suited if the list was broken down by target age demographic and then format(informative, drama, animation, sport and so on). Nuttah68 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To an extent, but I still feel the list needs to capture the obvious difference in programming aimed at three year olds compared with that aimed at fifteen year olds. Nuttah68 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Well done to Kwekubo (talk · contribs) for riding down in the nick of time to save the day with a vital message! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dobedo[edit]

Notability of this unreferenced article is not established. Olessi 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domenico Tassone (2nd nomination)[edit]

DELETE: article is STILL vanity. There is STILL a pitful google return for this name. Bulid your rep and THEN do a wiki article. Jackbox1971 07:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted as POV fork. --Cyde↔Weys 03:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli war crimes[edit]

It's too early to decide whether Israel committed war crimes in the ongoing conflict with Lebanon. Therefore this page should be deleted. If in time it would become obvious Israel committed such crimes, this page can be remade. Sijo Ripa 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to reapeat myself? This is not only about the current Lebanese conflict, but what happens on a regular basis in Gaza and other occupied territories. Either keep the article, either move it the Israeli army terrorism. 22:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greier (talk • contribs)
Than make it NPOV Greier 15:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon by name[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft. All the article contains is an alphabetical list of Pokemon (Pokemen?) in both the English and Japanese languages. There is no encyclopedic nature to the article hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No need to merge imo, List of Pokémon by stage is all the info we need. Perhaps move its contents to List of Pokemon. - Wickning1 20:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And while not relevant to the discussion, I had to smile at "Pokemen". ;-) --Sonic Mew 22:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OSRIC[edit]

Appears to be documenting a personal project which was recently completed. Google search for "Old School Reference Index Compilation" (with or without capitalization) returns nothing. FreplySpang 18:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Searching for "osric" turns up lots of results - because it has other meanings. But it only turns up one result - the creator's site - that is relevant to this usage of "OSRIC". If this were a notable development, other people would be writing about it too. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - if and when OSRIC becomes well-known or an industry standard, then it would be appropriate to have a Wikipedia article. FreplySpang 19:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shenmue Dojo[edit]

I don't deny the Shenmue Dojo may be a useful resource to many, but an entry here on Wikipedia is unnecessary - the article does not, and will never be able to due to it's subject - provide information that is relevant to readers. This article also relies heavily on dubious sources with no factual base. The majority of this article appears to be about Shenmue Dojo's web forum - this is not a solid enough base on which to build an article on Wikipedia. Translucid2k4 18:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shufeng Bai[edit]

Shufeng Bai is autobiography—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yongxinge (talk • contribs) 2006-07-14 01:09:51 (UTC)

Yes. It is autobiography. However, I think it should be kept because the following reasons:

  1. the Wikipedia Verifiability policy states: Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves . . . so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources.(Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography")
  2. One thing which you can do to assist other Wikipedia editors is, if you already maintain a personal website, please ensure that any information that you want in your Wikipedia article is already on your own website. As long as it's not involving grandiose claims like, "I was the first to create this widget," or "My book was the biggest seller that year," a personal website can be used as a reference for general biographical information. (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography")
  3. All the information in the Shufeng Bai can be found in the personal website listed as external link of the article. The research part is backed by publications and US Patent which are published by the third parties.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shufengbai (talk • contribs) 2006-07-16 15:33:09 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! GX minor characters[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft/gamecruft and unencyclopedic. This article is unsourced and full of original research . The list is also rendundant, as there is already a category for Yu-Gi-Oh! characters hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPARanormal[edit]

Nonnotable group/Internet radio show; 85 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 14:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as CSD A1 - short article with no context. Kimchi.sg 17:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free bets[edit]

Pure spam. Author has been spamming a gambling site in other articles as well. The concept of signup bonuses is covered in other gambling articles, anyway. SmartGuy 14:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and protect it is. Mangojuicetalk 14:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Glove Entertainment (second nomination)[edit]

Previously deleted on Feb 26, 2006 see discussion.

Article was recreated July 1st. This article is sufficiently different than the original, so a speedy deletion for recreated material is not applicable in my opinion. Still, this article is not verifiably sourced and makes some rather dubious claims ($14 million made off a cable access show?) Artist roster list contains only one somewhat notable artist: Blade Icewood. He already has an article and I don't believe he confers any notability back to this particular label. My opinion is Delete and WP:SALT against further recreation. (note, I was going to invite the creator here to participate in the discussion, but he is blocked, apparently for violating WP:NPA)--Isotope23 14:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samrat Upadhyay[edit]

Procedural nom. Found the article in a substub state on Special:Shortpages. Not sure if it should be deleted or could be rescued, and not sure if the writer is notable.- CrazyRussian talk/email 15:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, per Phr (talk · contribs). fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William p. o'neill[edit]

318 google hits (for "William P. O'Neill" -- William O'Neill brings up other unrelated people), non-notable head of a minor organization plugging quack cancer cures. The article was created by someone using the username User:Woneill. Catamorphism 15:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Londonindie[edit]

Non-notable website according to standards set out in WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 4,890,240 makes this a minor website. Previously deleted - recreated by author despite message on Talk page.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, the same editor contributed the page on Valery Gore, who from what I can see is an undeniably hot but otherwise non-notable artist who hasn't released an album yet. It has assertions of notability (says a song has hit college charts), but no verifiable sources for this claim. This might be worth considering for AfD as well. -- H·G (words/works) 06:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man-Faye[edit]

The article is about someone whose notability is that he was banned from anime conventions for inappropriate behavior. Fails WP:BIO and the article fails the greatest of all WP essays - WP:HOLE. Some of this probably crosses into original research, or, at least, you would have to go digging through the guy's blog to verify the statements of the article ... not that a blog is particularly a verifiable source. BigDT 15:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gametalk.com[edit]

mainly notability. Although I would not have nominated it if the article didn't also have non-deletion criteria problems as well, notability still seems to be an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs)

Comment. Actually, non-notable movies do go through the AfD process. All the comments I'm seeing here seem to bring up the site's lack of notability, which "fixing" the article won't alter. - Tapir Terrific 21:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
that depends. If it's a personal movie created for some college class, we would still, the main point is notability and vainity concerns. If you have valid reasons for why this website matters to people who aren't forum members, or evidence that said forum members are a large group, that would be reasonable criteria for keeping it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs)


Umm, if you actually visited the forum you could see the amount of members. You could also see how this matters, it's telling people about a help site where you are gettimng help from hundreds of people. (By a Gametalk Regular) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.61.238 (talk • contribs)

"hundreds of people" doesn't get near what's needed for WP:WEB and mattering to some people isn't inherently good enough to justify an entry on wikipedia(as an examplie, my family is extremely important to me, but that doesn't make them encyclopedia material) i kan reed 18:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Duberrys[edit]

Fails notability per WP:BAND Crossmr 15:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic_of_Theodana[edit]

created by user:theodana (unique edit), is a fictional, joke-ruled, and maybe students-created republic Cantalamessa 15:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I was hoping for some version of A7. Couldn't a micronation qualify as "group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject"? Fan-1967 16:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The micronation article says that micronations are "eccentric and ephemeral in nature, and are often created and maintained by a single person or family group" so it seems that calling something a micronation asserts that it isn't notable. Yet WP has some articles on these things, usually if they have received some media coverage because of their connection to a political movement or meme. The ones that tend to show up in AfD have an awful lot of the "Republic of Me and My Cat" feel to them, though, which makes them kind of nonsense. WP:ORG probably applies, but it seems that there should be some standards specifically developed for mns, including csd, as they seem to be showing up in new articles and AfD a lot. JChap (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Frankly, there is way too much sockery for any kind of clear judgement. I'm going to withdraw this as no consensus, and renominate it for procedure's sake, with semi-protection. Proto::type 15:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the new, semi-protected AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gnostic_Movement_(second_nomination). Proto::type 16:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnostic Movement[edit]

unencyclopedic promotion page. Was prodded but tag was removed. See Talk:Gnostic Movement for details. -999 (Talk) 15:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, please see my comments in the sexual transmutation AfD; most of them apply here. And from nom's comments, I'm assuming that he took the time to familiarize himself with the Talk page discussions before nominating, even if he didn't take part himself. While I disagree with the nom's judgment on this article, I don't see any reason to think this was a bad-faith or drive-by nomination. -- H·G (words/works) 06:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless notability not proven by end of AfD: Given the prolieration of modern Gnostic movements, one main article is needed, but not many, many. The overall phenomenon "sounds" notable from what I'm seeing, but "sounds to A. B." is not enough -- this article has yet to verifiably prove its importance to justify retention under WP:NN. That could be fixed simply by citing some numbers (from reliable sources) as to how many people are involved. Notability is key -- fix it or delete the article. Remaining problems can be addressed before end of AfD. WP:OR can be fixed, as the author, Paul Stone, has suggested below, by shrinking it down to a neutral stub until someone has additional verifiable information from reliable sources. As noted, I remain concerned about the dynamics of this AfD, especially the apparent sockpuppet attack. --A. B. 15:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, I don't like all these sockpuppets either. As I have no vested interest in the outcome, I've been identifying sockpuppets when I see them whether they agree with me or oppose me, but I'm glad you've been doing such a good job of tagging them yourself - it seems to have become a bit more work than I'd like to deal with!!! -999 (Talk) 15:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on Viewmaster's speedy delete:
  • Viewmaster has only 10 edits -- all to this article in the last 30 days.
  • Edits have been "bold" (based on quick spot-check)
  • May (or may not) have a valid point
  • Viewmaster's contribution history.
  • Viewmaster's "Formal complaint regarding contravention of wikipedia policy"
  • For a new editor, has not made any of the typical new editor mistakes
I'm off to a meeting and may not have time to fully review this stuff myself for a few days.--A. B. 13:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect page to [[Gnosticism] - --Blacker10 01:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote wiki: "Attack pages. Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their
subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Citizen is a moron"). This
includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and
unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to."
In looking through the history of this article, changes proposed have been continually
reverted back to a POV. There have been enough edits and posts to have
this article neutral, but it seems the original author and some others
are intransigent. This has become an edit war. It is a pity but it seems
this page may be better off redirected to an alterate. Or at least have
the existing article, discussion and threads permanently deleted so
someone can have another go at producing something neutral that may
assist genuine searchers enquiring about the name gnostic movement.
Regarding all the possible sockpuppet claims, this may be inaccurate if all those people are not the same person. Wiki says "This tactic is commonly employed by vandals and bad-faith
contributors who create multiple user accounts in an attempt to bias the
decision process." As A.B. has stated these are POSSIBLE, NOT ABSOLUTE, unless wiki admins know for sure they are all the same person?
It is quite plausible that many people who have been interested in the article have never previously made edits to it. It is also plausible that those people have no other articles of interest in wikipedia and therefore not made any other contributions.
Irrespective I think that assertions like "Must have a weak case for deleting if so many sockpuppets are needed" is flawed. It is not a 'Must' at all. This statement may be totally misleading and inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clean2 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 20 July 2006.
Comment: New user Clean2's editing has mostly consisted of creating his new article, The Gnostic Movement Incorporated, and adding links to other articles directing people to that article and/or that organization's web site. Someone more qualified should evaluate Clean2's new article and links for their appropriateness for inclusion in Wikipedia. Their bearing on Clean2's neutrality in this AfD speak for themselves. --A. B. 13:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An important distinction: I made the comment for each of those new users that he/she was a "possible sockpuppet". Possibly one or two unique editors did come here and make their very first edits (and in good faith); that's why I marked no one editor as a definite sockpuppet. I can, however, say with great assurance that the great preponderance absolutely were sockpuppets. I will let their edit patterns speak for themselves. --A. B. 13:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page seems to have been started to do nothing more than debunk particular gnostic schools in favour of another and is littered with POV. Regardless of some users association with these schools the article is negative POV and contains some defamatory comments which the history shows has resulted in an edit war. It is inevitable that some users drawn to comment on this page will probably have a vested interest in the subject matter. Hopefully the admins or moderators can assist with either ensuring the page meets NPOV and other requirements or delete it. --Percevalles 14:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Percevalles has made about 20 edits, all to Gnosticism-related articles and most ading external likns to the same The Gnostic Movement Incorporated-affiliated sites Clean2 was linking to. --A. B. 15:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the average user in userland, ie non wiki geek (no derogation intended) it would seem that nearly everyone has been discredited.

999 who initiated the call for deletion is discredited for making a drive-by nomination, even though no previous history or association can be found.

The early 'voters' who do not appear as sockpuppets are discredited because they are making votes not discussions.

The sockpuppets are discredited because they are seen to jump in solely to ask for deletion or other, when they had no previous contribution history (even though some of their comments are definitely worthy of consideration).

Those who had previously made contributions to the article but have shown some kind of affiliation with the subject matter are deemed bias and therefore discredited. (Why would someone spend time and effort creating a wiki article if they had no involvement or interest in it?)

That leaves only...? Wish I knew how the system worked?

It seems there is more emphasis on who users are then the actual contents of the article!

My opinion now (if it counts for anything?) is I tend to agree with the author - have a NPOV stub or delete the article.

[Sorry A.B. can't get the editing neat?] --Clean2 02:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. I'll be moving it, per HG. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual transmutation[edit]

unsourced original research. Was prodded as such, but tag was removed. -999 (Talk) 15:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm going to nitpick here....Notifying a page's creator that the article is nom for AfD is not necessarily "part of the process," although it's considered a good thing to do. Also, the "Before nominating an AfD" section generally has suggestions, not guidelines that must be followed (most start out like "Consider adding," "Consider making," etc). I can say that I don't always do any of these things when nominating. And in fact, oftentimes if an article seems like an obvious candidate for AfD, I'll track down the author's other contributions to see if other pages are also obvious candidates (this isn't uncommon for vanity pages, for example). My point being that User:999 wasn't necessarily acting in bad faith in nominating this, and it's not fair to him/her to assume that s/he was (WP:AGF). -- H·G (words/works) 06:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You make some very good points. At the same time, shouldn't 999 in turn be applying WP:AGF to Paul Stone? (By the way, I never had any contact with the participants or interest in the topic before this AfD -- "I don't have a dog in this fight").--A. B. 08:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he wasn't, then yes, he certainly should be. I'll assume (and hope) for now that he was, until I see an indication otherwise. To be sure, he could have done more--notifying Paul Stone, for example--but I don't know if he didn't because of a bad faith assumption or what. (And I'll make the same caveat as you did: I've had no previous interaction with any of the key participants in this AfD, including A. B., and I have no personal interest vested in this.) -- H·G (words/works) 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Janis[edit]

A DRV consensus endorsed the original deletion of this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Janis, but a new rewrite made in the meantime was found to have more merit. This new rewrite is submitted for AfD vetting. Since previous debates concern another version, they are only tangentially relevant; the article should be evaluated here afresh. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAs long as I add neutral, verifiable material that is not original research as per wikipedia's guidelines to original research, Wikipedia's guielines to verifiability and Wikipedia's guidelines to neutrality, then I can edit any article. Of course, anyone can revert my material if it doesn't meet those criteria. Also, I would also add, that as long as I treat fellow editors with respect, I can continue editing. Perhaps, my initial nomination used language that was not entirely respectful, but I did apologize and everything seems copascetic. To prevent me from editing for any other reason, as I see it, would be censorship, which seems to violate the basic premise that Wikipedia is founded on. My vote is Keep and cleanup to provide dates and categories for the awards and references from sites that list the individual awards. Also, if a fellow editor feels that I am vandalizing articles or in violation of the 3 revert rule then an administrator can block me from editing. If you truly feel that I vandalized this or any other article, then we can sit down and have a cup of tea and discuss it, or if you feel that something stronger is called for you can request arbitration or report me to an admin. Whichever you choose, there are many avenues for resolving conflict.TheRingess 01:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'can' doesn't mean 'should'; no-one is saying you aren't 'permitted' to (your claims of potential censorship isn't necessary, as no-one has a 'right' to edit Wikipedia Wikipedia:Free speech), just that it may not be the wisest decision. I get the impression that Jaime234 is noting that you may be a bit too close to the subject to see it objectively - I can't comment on that, as I don't know anything about you or the subject of the article, but this is the reason judges recuse themselves, and it's worth considering whether this is worth doing here or not. Ziggurat 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again, my own language seems to fail me. Jaime seems to have legitimate questions regarding policy. I was trying to point out that there are guidelines for when an editor might or might not be blocked. I also provided links to material that might aid in answering those questions. I am also attempting to point out that as with any other editor, my contributions are judged on their own merit. I am fully aware that editing Wikipedia is not a right. I did not "claim potential censorship". To be clear, I was making no claim that I was censored or will be. Speaking generally, not specifically and certainly not about my edits or my contributions, it seems to me that blocking any editor who has violated none of Wikipedia's guidelines, is similar if not the same as censorship. This is not the same as claiming that I am being censored, or that I am accusing a fellow editor of potential censorship. I wished to provide a fellow editor, with legitimate concerns, links to material that might help address those concerns. As long as my edits and contributions conform to the guidelines, they will speak for themselves.TheRingess 03:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be talking policy, but I'm talking pragmatics. As I said, thinking about what is best and not just what is 'allowed', as just because you can do something within the rules doesn't mean that you should do it. Anyway, I didn't notice anyone even suggesting a block, so I'm not sure why you bring that up. Ziggurat 03:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps no one did, however, I interpreted the sentence "I'm not sure how Wikipedia handles a situation like this, but I don't think it is appropriate for TheRingess..." as both a request for information on how to prevent me from editing the article (a block), and as an accusation that I have or will edit the article inappropriately. Perhaps, if the person pointed out in what ways I was inappropriate and why they feel I will be, then I might understand better their concerns. In which case, if both they and I agree that the potential exists for me to make inappropriate edits in the future, I can agree that I should be recused. Right now, I do not think that I have done anything inappropriate. My edits should speak to that. If I am too close, then specific examples would also help me to see that. I hope that someone can point out the inappropriateness of my edits.TheRingess 03:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should take this off topic discussion to your own talk pages. --Ezeu 04:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, you're quite right. Just over-explicating again... :) Ziggurat 04:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I have certainly digressed from the subject of this discussion.TheRingess 04:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Doctor Who serials. There appears to be a consensus for the redirect to eventually exist, and per my understanding of the GFDL, since information has been merged we should keep the history available. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who New Series 3[edit]

A DRV consensus overturned the previous keep closure for this article, but was unable to reach a concensus regarding what to do after overturning. There was substantial support for closing as a redirect, but also some support for outright deletion. Pursuant to Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, this is relisted for a new AfD debate. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. - brenneman {L} 03:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case of English pronouns[edit]

A DRV consensus overturned the result of a previous AfD debate. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for fresh consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7 - author request. Kimchi.sg 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LadyThrills.com[edit]

Article is blatant spam for a website which has not even launched. Prod was removed by author. Wildthing61476 16:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. --JoanneB 18:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumber Cartel[edit]

A DRV consensus overturned a previous "Speedy Keep" closure on this article. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read what Wired said about the reliability of articles by that author (who they still employ)? I actually contacted Julian Haight directly and asked him if he said that. He said yes. And yes, it's still common. There are more sources as well; but they've been removed from the article. DS 21:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Ph?m Hoàng Long"

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

scool[edit]

Looks like a hoax to me. Is it? Helicoptor 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 17:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+SiN+[edit]

Article is complete vanity page for a clan. Speedy Deletion has been removed, sending to AfD. Wildthing61476 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as CSD A7. Xoloz 17:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Dhruv[edit]

Non-notable. 41 google hits, not all of them the same guy. Cheese Sandwich 16:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. early closings are possible. Unanimous decission. There's a policy about common sense being valid to ignore the so called "rules" in certain cases -- Drini 07:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First image on the Web[edit]

A DRV consensus overturned the previous AfD closure on this article. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. - Bobet 10:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lie Evolution[edit]

Adds nothing to the debate or controversy - it says nothing not already said. Interested2 16:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. No votes but there's no point in relisting an obvious hoax, formula 1 drivers aren't exactly obscure enough to go unnoticed by google. - Bobet 10:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ikaash Chatha[edit]

Hoax about a motor racing superstar who has three hits on Google Nuttah68 17:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if it was a hoax how would i know so much abou his life and championship

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, looks much better now than before the nomination. - Bobet 10:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HSR Layout[edit]

unknown list of places in a maybe small town, created in 2005 by a numeric IP address. Cantalamessa 17:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. - brenneman {L} 04:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of wands in Harry Potter[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unencylopedic nature and no notability to speak of (minor objects in a book/movie franchise) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. - Bobet 10:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Paines[edit]

Non-notable person Whpq 18:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Earls of Dublin[edit]

This page provides no sources, and previously a anomous IP address (probably the person who created this page) vandalised the Earl of Dublin page with this 'information' about the Irish Earls. S/he provides no sources for this information, and is clearly biased if you read some comments s/he makes about the real Earls of Dublin Berks105 17:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Note that this user User:Lorddublin, and the many differant IP addresses he is using, not only keeps attacking other people's remarks on this page, he has also removed the 'This page is up for deletion' templete on the Irish Earls of Dublin page itself. --Berks105 11:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC) --[reply]


Actually on one point you are wrong. The Irish state does recognise titles. The Genealogical Office has been involved in doing so for decades, and peers have sat in the Seanad under their full title and have contested seats in the Dáil. And issues of succession have gone before Irish courts in the past. Not too long ago the Oireachtas amended a law to regulate issues concerning the property inheritance of Lord Altimont. The Irish state has never abolished titles. It just does not issue them, an important difference. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, though I can see where you're going but this is not the place - see pm Alci12 10:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


MAJOR POINT References and sources have now been added and quoted from Public Records Office papers, I don't see any of this level of referEncing on any other article in this encyclopeadia!Lorddublin 01:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is noteworthy as the author James Kane cites "This book charts the long and distinguished history of the Blackers of Carrick Blacker, which the reader will quickly realise was one of the most remarkable and influential families to settle in the province of Ulster."

I intend adding page some fascinating extracts about he civil wars, the Irish famine and the general history of the province through the eyes of one of Ireland’s most noteworthy contemporary writers. I have several pictures, maps and commentaries to add and this page will become a source of material like no other page.

This page should stay.

lorddublin (a member not anonymous)Lorddublin 01:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]



No vandalism occurred, it was the insertion of valid one line remarks such as "This of course does not concern the Irish creations." and suchlike. It was only when offensive 'don’t vandalise my precious page' remarks flowed from that author that things got silly. Leave this work alone, it is self declaring and of inestimable value to the true historian searching for information about this family. Did you know for instance that Kate Blacker was the first person to take aerial shots of Everest? Well I have them to include here; did you know that Latham Blacker was the first person to survey Everest and the mountain is only known as Everest as his assistant finished the work after his murder? No well if you remove this page you will never know about these and many other fascinating things.

IF THIS PAGE IS NOT RIGHT FOR WIKIPEADIA DELETE IT, I AM QUITE CONTENT WITH THE ENTRIES IN WHO'S WHO, ITS JUST THAT YOU WILL LOSE OUT ON SEVERAL FASCINATING ( A WORD USED BY JAMES kANE) PAGES OF INSIGHT INTO DOCUMENTS IN THE PUBLIC AREAN. IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR PEOPLE TO COMMENT THAT THE PAGE IS UNWORTHY WHEN I HAVE CITED SVERAL PUBLIC SOURCES. THE OTHER PAGES WRITTEN ABOUT ME ARE WRITTEN BY ME FOR OTHER AUTHORS, LORD BRADFORD ASKED FOR AN ARTICLE SO I PROVIDED ONE, HE AND I FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT AGAINST FALSE TITLE HOLDERS AND SELLERS THE WORLD OVER. SO ITS NO SKIN OFF MYU NOSE I SIMPLY WANTED TO PROVIDE THIS ENCYCLOPEADI WITH LOTS OF USEFUL IFNORMATION IF THE ILLITERAY ABOVE DONT LIKE THIS I'LL CLOSE THE PAGE MYSELF. Lorddublin 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF THIS SILLYNESS CONTINUES I WILL REMOVE THIS PAGE MYSELF AND CLOSE THE LINKS ALTGETHER AND RELY ON MY OWN SITE SO IT REALLY DOESNT BOTHER ME AT ALL, THE LOSS WILL BE YOURS, YOU HAVE SEVENTY TWO HOURS. IT IS INTERESTING THAT THE ONLY PERSON TO WRITE IN FAVOPUR OF THE SITE DOES SO WITH AUTHORITY AND CITATIONS WHEREAS THE NUTTERS WHO WRITE IN DERISION CITE NO AUTHRITIES BUT PERHAPS THIS IS HOW YOU LIKE IT IN THIS UNAUTENTICATED ENCYCLOPEDIA, IT IS NOT CREDITWORTHY IF IT DOESNT HAVE CITATIONS AND MY PAGE HAS THEM BY THE BUCKETLOAD. Lorddublin 16:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you used one of the systems available in Wikipedia to link specific facts to specific references. As things stand, it's not clear which of your heap of references is being used to back up which claim. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for more detail on how they are commonly used. At the moment, I have to say that the article reads as though it is trying to refute some claims elsewhere. User:Alci12's and User:Phoe's efforts to find some corroboration and context have turned up only mentions of legal issues. That isn't reassuring. Nor is your name-calling. It is possible to edit for a long time without reading all the Wikipedia polities, but you can't get too far without knowing about WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Telsa (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Angel Pagán. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Pagan[edit]

This article has been considered for deletion.

  • Note. I redirected Angel Pagan to Angel Pagán, since Fan-1967 merged them. User:Clay4president
  • May as well go for a Speedy Close, then. Fan-1967 00:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NSider's Lounge[edit]

Doesn't look notable, and no other articles link to it. JD[don't talk|email] 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete textbook case of CSD A7 - no assertion of band's notability. Kimchi.sg 02:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Unidentified Falling Objects[edit]

Article for a band that fails the WP:MUSIC notability test. From the article itself - "Labels: Unsigned, but hopeing (sic) to be signed to 604 Records & Roadrunner Records in the near future." --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. - Bobet 10:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestation[edit]

Obvious advert with company link. Fails WP:CORP. Only first few hits on Google even pertain to it. KarenAnn 18:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How is "Life Alert" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Alert different from Lifestation and is not being considered an advertisement?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 10:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Country[edit]

The article in question is not a notable song, and all of its imoortant content is already listed on the page Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (film) FiftyOneWicked 18:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While I agree this should be kept, I also believe that this was a good faith nomination. Please both assume good faith and be civil. GassyGuy 02:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I understand. It very well may be a good faith nomination, but I am tired of seeing people on Wikipedia nominate articles for deletion for some elitist reason. Extra articles on Wikipedia do not hurt it, and only provide more information that makes people use it much more. For example, while a particular video game may not be considered notable, there is no harm in listing information about the game on Wikipedia. Maybe I just disagree with some of Wikipedia's principles. Regardless, I apologize for not being civil before. - JNighthawk 15:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Swank[edit]

Delete there is no verifiable evidence this person exists or was a member of Frank Zappa's band, may even be a hoax. See the article's talk page for some discussion. Prod removed without comment. Gwernol 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volta (Tekken)[edit]

This page is full of bogus information, and obviously created as a joke. There is no character called "Volta" in the Tekken series. Its continued existence comprimises the integrity of the encyclopedia. Chandra K. 19:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of running gags[edit]

Another case of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Since its first nomination in October 2005 this list is starting to resemble a katamari (sticky ball rolling around) picking up references to every cruft of fiction that's ever employed humour. But after the failure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional military organizations I have my doubts sanity will prevail here either. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessi Summers[edit]

The actress is a non-notable performer per WP:BIO, as well as the WP:PORN BIO proposal. She has achieved no awards and the crux of her page seems to be about how she overdosed and left porn. Therefore, delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 19:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7 no assertion of person's notability. Kimchi.sg 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myles Oxton[edit]

The guy definitely exists but most of the stuff about him is not verifiable. No evidence of notability. 3 Google hits here. Delete. BlueValour 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all.

The questions here are still complex, but there seems to be a strong consensus for one thing: the bulk of the information in these articles constitutes a "game guide", which Wikipedia explicitly is not. A smaller article listing the maps with a brief description would be allowable under the consensus I'm seeing below; individual articles about each level would not be, even in the case of maps which may be more notable than others.

I read "transwiki" as including both the statements: (1) "these articles don't belong here" and (2) "these articles might be useful to this other wiki". Thus, in my view, the discussion below indicates that there is a strong consensus that the information doesn't belong here. I am definitely willing to temporarily undelete in order to help someone perform the transwiki. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Counter-Strike maps[edit]

This discussion is about whether or not the individual counter-strike maps, as a class, should be wholly deleted. The individual merits or demerits of any single map is not relevant (that would require its own individual AfD). We are talking about the principle of having individual counter-strike maps... whether that principle is in violation of the WP:NOT policy, and whether any individual counter-strike map could be considered notable.

These articles are being considered for deletion because of the following policy:

Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks.


Additionally there are two supporting reasons, but not actual wikipedia policy by themselves (as stated clearly on their respectable pages):


Many of these articles also had a discussion in the following AfDs:


Please keep in mind that referring to debates that resulted in "no consensus" is not a sufficient reason for counting either a keep or delete vote. Neither does it count to refer to essays that are not actual policy (like WP:NN or WP:CRUFT). And in this peculiar instance, the nominator is actually opposed to deletion, so "per nom" votes would be ambiguous and also not countable. (You can find my reasoning next to my vote below.)

As nominator, I will be informing all users from the 3 aforementioned AfDs who participated with more than 2 edits, as they will likely be interested in this discussion.

Closing admin, if the result is to delete, take note that many of the articles have screenshots and images of the maps. Fair use may expire on these images. David Bergan 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


So much for my reasons for nominating. Now for my reasons for keeping.
Regarding the "instruction manuals" violation, I maintain simply that these articles do not constitute an instruction manual. Take Cs italy as an example. There is nothing in that article that explains how to play the map. In fact in the game Counter-Strike there never is any one "right" way to play a map. The game is exclusively multiplayer, and because either team can do an infinite number of things to which their opponents have to adjust, there is no possible "walkthrough", or "how-to" beat a map. What the article has is (A) a description/history of the map, (B) an overhead view of the map, (C) some screenshots, (D) professional criticism against the map being balanced for both sides, (E) listing of some trivia regarding the map, including the translation of an opera song that can be heard in one section. None of those five constitute an instruction manual for anything. They are a simple description, much like what we find in the article about the Roman Colosseum... (A) description/history (B) blueprint (C) pictures (D) architectual criticism (E) trivia. The latter article is not an instruction manual, and neither is the former.
Regarding "not notable," I maintain that the article's notability can be plainly ascertained from a count of users daily playing on public servers (something like over 1 million), or the hits from a Google search (de_dust = over 1 million). In the last AfD an argument was presented that this sort of counting doesn't automatically justify an article as notable. He has an office by a street that probably sees more than a million cars a day, but that doesn't make an article on the street notable. My response is that yes an article about that street would be notable... if he put together something like the 5 sections I included in the last paragraph. If he merely described the road, then it might have AfD issues (although I haven't read any policy or guideline that would immediately sink it). But if in addition he researched the local newspaper archives and dug up a history of the road, described the points of its uniqueness, and uploaded a couple pics and map of its location, it would clearly be notable. "Not notable" violations are things like "shirts in David Bergan's closet"... not things that a large part of the public encounters.
Regarding "cruft," I have 2 arguments. First, that cruft is a highly subjective term. Any specialist understands that things related to his specialty are more important to him than the average person. It doesn't matter if your specialty is fishing or quantum physics, there are a certain realm of topics that will be very interesting to you, that wouldn't be interesting to my mom. To accuse another's specialty topic as being mere cruft, shows little more than the obvious fact that you don't have an appreciation for that specialty. Counter-strike, being a world-wide professional sport now, has its realm of specialty, just as baseball or football. My second objection comes from a plain reading of the cruft page. That page defines cruft as "of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans," which in the interest of these maps is simply untrue. So many people play these maps that it is impossible to consider it a "small population."
And finally for those considering a merge vote, I respond that there is simply too much content for one article to cover it all. Discussing the uniqueness, history, and trivia of 22 maps (and hopefully screenshots, and overhead maps) would make a convoluted mess. I hope I have persuaded you to keep. Kindly, David Bergan 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're voting on the concept of "individual counter-strike maps, as a class." Sure some of the articles may be riddled with original research, but I don't see how the concept itself can be considered original reseach. Thus, an original research argument could work for an AfD of a specific article or two (or even, hypothetically, for every single one of these maps), but we would have to consider each article separately to do that. It just doesn't seem possible that the class itself could be considered original research. But maybe I'm missing something. Kindly, David Bergan 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, they were "no consesus", which is different from an outright "keep". Wickethewok 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a difference between taking text or speech directly from a source (such as a novel or TV interview) and the issues discussed here. Conducting original research in real life (like weighing a cubic centimeter of an element or writing about what you see from the top of the Eiffel Tower) is equivalent to original observations and original research in fictional universes ("A Terrorist can easily sit near the hostages.", "The snow provides a lot of resistance to the player's movement"). Wickethewok 19:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper. To be cruft, it must appeal only to a "small population", which is not the case here. — brighterorange (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • He has done this in good faith and has contacted people on both sides of the argument. While not the usual, I don't think he was trying to swing votes imo. Wickethewok 20:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did this in accordance with the WP:AFD page. "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article." My method of discerning "main contributors" was just to take anyone with 3 or more edits in the previous AfDs... since those people are the most likely to have the strongest feelings on the subject. Also, that method included users from both sides of the debate, so I couldn't be accused of vote stacking. David Bergan 21:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Bergan is doing this because in the most recent AfD debate for these maps, he notified the significant contributors, and was accused of vote stacking. It should be noted that significant contributors will naturally support the keeping of these articles, since it is their own work. --Varco 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A common Counter-Terrorist strategy is to rescue two hostages and kill the last one for an immediate win (which works because a majority of the hostages, not all of them, triggers a win). This strategy works very well in Estate. or From the upper level Terrorist spawn point, a Terrorist can snipe at Counter-Terrorists entering through the front or back entrances. .. and so --Jestix 17:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has not an description for every people, place and thing. No I don't think that every level should be descriped in wikipedia. What comes next, an article for every level of prince of persia? An article about every map from [netrek], xpilot, nethack, not to mention articles for every place you find in games like Ultima Online and so on? -Jestix 21:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, note that in fact many of these articles do have strategies/general advice listed. Wickethewok 21:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with this. I enjoyed reading about the history of the de_dust series and don't think that page assists gameplay at all. More importantly though, a useful reference should not be confused with a how-to (which is what a game guide is and what Wikipedia is not). For example, I frequently use Wikipedia as a reference while programming (e.g. recently DES and cyclic redundancy check), but that doesn't make those articles how-to articles. — brighterorange (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't merging them getting a bit ahead, since that is what is contested here? --Varco 03:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All seriouse gamers? I don't know any Counter-Strike maps, but I am a very serious gamer and have been all my life. Maybe you should say all serious Counter-Strike fans know those maps. Having pages for indivdual maps is like having seperate pages for levels in a game or for different chapters in a book. Just put all those maps on one page with a short description of them, they are not notabel enought to be on thei own. Better yet, just delete them. TJ Spyke 05:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote change: STRONG Transwiki to CS Wikia. Just finished reading the above comments in full detail, did not notice before that this existed. Get this content off WP servers and onto that one. This solution should satisfy all parties--the information stays, WP servers don't bear the brunt of it. -- H·G (words/works) 06:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm always happy to restore deleted material for the purpose of transwiki, however most closers will read a transwiki as "delete from here first, try to move it somewhere else after." For example, if the desired transwiki target does not want the material it would not then be kept. - brenneman {L} 07:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the discussed pages should be transwikied to CS-Wiki, regardless of the decission here if they stay on wikipedia or not. Since this transaction is quite some work, and since they seem to have a some benefactors, I would wait for one of them to cater for them and to transwiki them, if it does not happen in the next near-future, well then I guess they weren't so important after all. Jestix 14:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the amount of detail is not needed.--Toffile 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google states that it is not not notable (they exist, they are varifiable and they appear widespread all over the internet). It helps show that these things exist, it's notable, and it's all over the internet. There's several pages about dust2. Maybe you should read it yourself? "It is also used to ascertain whether a topic is of sufficiently broad interest to merit inclusion in the wiki". IMO, it does ascertain this. I mean, I could do the Google groups test too and several of these maps appear hundreds of times (thousands in the case of dust2). These things /are/ talked about, well known and are not fly by nights, and as such /are/ notable topics, and as such do deserve a page. Maybe I'm being stupid, but please quote the section from that Search Engine Test article that I'm missing. Over 120,000 are playing Counterstrike right now [53], primarily on one of these maps. I call this notable.
  • It doesn't fit into any of the WP:NOT categories. These articles are certainly NOT game guides. They don't tell you how to win at the game, which is what the page implies. They are information about the maps.
  • It seems lots of people here are to jump onto cruft for anything non-physical, irrelevent of it's popularity. These maps have been around for 7 years, and are still extremely popular. For the record, I am particularly opposed to the deletion of the de_dust page - there's no doubt about that notability. Halo 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: even the real life stadium article ususally dont have a "critism" section, and not 4 screenshots/photos per stadium not to speak of floorplans like wikipedia has been consecrated for 24 floorplans of CS-maps. Can I have a total-level-view of every level from prince of persia and all its successors also please? --Jestix 20:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Wendel[edit]

Non-notable artist - Google search for "Eric Wendel painting" brings up 27 hits, not all of which are about him (about the same for "Eric Wendel painter" and "Eric Wendel artist.") Tapir Terrific 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - brenneman {L} 03:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art Houston[edit]

non-notable biography, apparent vanity, speedy deletion template has been deleted before. Sertrel 19:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page's first major link was to the "mondegreen" page, where an example of a mondegreen told to Art Houston by Todd Hallowell, a childhood friend and motion picture producer. A Page for Todd Hallowell was also created to explain his presence and significance, as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.126.113 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of slasher films[edit]

Listcruft. This would be better served as a category, and in fact one for "Horror films" already exists. If "slasher films" are considered distinct from horror films, then maybe categorize this; otherwise, the "horror films" category already covers this article's purpose. -- H·G (words/works) 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Oh I definitely agree, we need to keep this sort of info. I just feel that a category does the job better. -- H·G (words/works) 23:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dananananaykroyd[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 Redirect to Actuary. - Bobet 10:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing actuary[edit]

From WP:PROD:

WP:V Unclear what article is about. There is such a thing as a marketing actuary, but it has little to do with "Web 2.0".

Treat that as a nomination for deletion vote from User:Nagle, I guess, who PRODded the article.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terah Belle[edit]

Non-notable child actor/model. Speedy deletion removed twice by author. Requesting speedy deletion. Wildthing61476 20:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message board drama[edit]

Only 200 google hits for this term. Another 200 hits (some overalapping) for the other major term in the article "Message board addiction". Given that these terms supposedly refer to something on the internet, if these were common terms, or a common phenomenon, then one would expect to get a lot of Google hits. The article reads more like a personal essay and should be deleted as a non-notable dicdef or neologism. Force10 20:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainz[edit]

Should player-nicks from Online Games have their own article? Even if they are somehow "famous" inside the game? what comes next? each leader of the biggest clan for every MMOG wants also his wikipedia page.. Maybe Rainz wants to do a wikipedia-user-page instead, i don't know if thats okay. Jestix 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge and Redirect to List of characters in the Harry Potter books. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnabas Cuffe[edit]

So minor that he has only had one passing reference in all six of the Harry Potter books. The only other thing that could be said about him is already covered in Harry Potter newspapers and magazines. --Sonic Mew 20:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On seeing List of characters in the Harry Potter books (thanks RJH), it could do with some information next to the names. I now agree with the consensus to merge. --Sonic Mew 23:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, as consensus to do so exists and the article is yet to address the concerns raised. I've userfied this to User:O. Pen Sauce/Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP) so that it may be worked on. - brenneman {L} 02:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP)[edit]

promotional page Ekajati 20:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks, Ohnoitsjamie. But fwiw beware Alexa. It skews very steeply toward underaluing non-huge sites. I have friends running small, medium, and rather large sites who all agree Alexa underrates by a factor of magnitude. They get the super big ones right, though. Just FWIW! (I have no idea what traffic is for the AYP site)--O. Pen Sauce 23:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement from an old-time Wikipedian[edit]

I haven't been doing any work on wikipedia in ages (just busy), so I don't know how much cred I have at this point. However, most of my work dates back to before "Advanced Yoga Practices" came into being, so I'm at least not a new face. This is certainly not a new "branch" of yoga, Ohnoitsjamie. They haven't added any in a few millennia. So that's not a fitting benchmark. However, it's a fresh and innovative approach, it reveals a lot of information previously kept secret (one had to be initiated and stick around for years to get this stuff), and it integrates a lot of obscure, esoteric, and far-flung elements into one very well-written and exceptionally clear system purged of superstition, doctrine, and lots of the other junk that inevitably gets added on over the millenia. It's a brilliant work of integration, IMO. And since Yogani has been called "the first yoga eGuru, having come to prominence on the Internet" on a patently independently web site (http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Yyoga.htm), the topic deserves inclusion. Though I agree some work needs to be done on the article to make it a bit less boosterish. --O. Pen Sauce 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the contribution, O.Pen. Other editors please note O.Pen's contribution history: many quality edits in 2003-4 on articles relating to yoga and its schools, and no contributions either recently or to the article up for review. A genuine, expert, outside opinion is rare on AfD. Hornplease 04:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That was nice, thanks, especially 'cuz I feel like Rip Van Winkle here. Listen, I'll commit to doing a once-over on this article once it goes live to purge the hype. As you can see from my old edits, I'm one of the rare yoga practitioners with a balanced eye toward the different schools. The problem with yoga people is they tend to be dismayingly sectarian. This creates a problem for Wikipedia that I ought to start pitching in to help fix anyway, with respect to some of the other yoga entries.----O. Pen Sauce 14:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

AYP is a very new approach to Yoga and is catching on very fast among people around the world. It is a guruless system.. wherein you are given all the tools and enough guidance through lessons and a forum to take you ahead in the spiritual path.

All these yoga techniques have been around for ages, however AYP picks the best and most effective tools.. and has come up with a system that is the most efficient for both meditation and pranayam.

The reason for not having many hits when you google is because it is still new.. but catching on very fast. AYP online memberships in the AYP Yahoo groups and the AYP website forums total nearly 10,000 people. The AYP websites have been visited by over 50,000 people during the past few years, and are currently receiving over 20,000 page hits per day.

It may not be at the Wikipedia popularity level.. but it is getting there.. it can only increase with addition of new online lessons and the publishing of the remaining 5 books in the AYP enlightenment series.

Thousands of people who have been following AYP have had very quick progress in their spiritual path.. You can find testimonials of this http://aypsite.com/Testimonials.html

"The creator of the article immediately set about linking numerous other Yoga-related articles to this one which supports the suspicion that the intention was promotional". - The reason for this was because I was told to add link to other Wikipedia articles ((linkless)) template to orphan article). Once I was done with that, I was told to link other Wikipedia articles to mine. "The category and the tag both just mean that links to Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP) </wiki/Advanced_Yoga_Practices_%28AYP%29> need to be created from other articles. You're on the right track, just add Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP) to other articles and that will do the trick." I have been following orders. And now that I have done both way links I have been tagged as trying to promote AYP.

Finally search for "Yogani," yields only about 730 hits, many related to a few books.. is because Yogani wants to remain anonymous.. AYP is not about him.. it is about Yoga and getting the best and most efficient techniques out to everyone who may or may not have a guru.

For other sites that have talked about AYP, please look at http://www.nandhi.com/siddhasana2.htm

http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Yyoga.htm#yogani http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Yyoga.htm

http://in.geocities.com/gitabykrishna/

http://ayp.zaadz.com

http://raysender.com/2005/07/death-rattles-and-advanced-yoga.html

http://www.nandhi.com/tantirayoga.htm


There are articles from Hindustan Times that I have, which are scanned articles.. but the links to them are not active any more.. they have been archived. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_578621,001100010004.htm

Amazon carries all of Yogani's books and you can check out the review http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0976465507/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/104-2573561-2247916?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/097646554X/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/102-2895957-6361724?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0976465566/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/102-2895957-6361724?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0976465582/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/102-2895957-6361724?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0976465515/sr=1-5/qid=1153235483/ref=sr_1_5/103-4923313-7675054?ie=UTF8&s=books

There are various press releases

http://www.aypsite.com/pressrelease.html

There is more on the founder

http://www.aypsite.org/pressrelease1.html

The lessons are being translated into various languages..

AdvancedYogaPractices -- International Translations

Bulgarian -- http://www.bg-ayp.dir.bg/index.html

French -- http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Pratiquesavanceesdeyoga

German -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AYPdeutsch

Hindi -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AdvancedYogaPractices_Hindi

Spanish -- http://www.namaste.com.mx/practicas


I would really appreciate if you would consider this topic for Wikipedia. If the writing does not fit in with the Wikipedia standard and style I will gladly re-write it. However, this was not meant to be an advertisement or a promotion. I just thought it would be a good topic for people looking for a fresh approach to Yoga and let them know that there is something available for people interested in spirituality who don't have a guru.

Thanks for your time and patience. Shantiayp 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: I cant really speak to whether the topic is encyclopaedic or not, because I'm not sure what the notability criteria should be here. I just thought I should share the information that, when I accessed some of the Amazon links to the books provided above, several of them had fairly high ranks. Ranks above 75,000 change frequently over time, but most of the books had ranks (either today or yesterday) below 300,000, and several had ranks well below 200,000, which is a commonly-used cutoff for notabiliity. Hornplease 04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit of article -- attempt to achieve NPOV. If not sufficient, please advise. -- Yogani, July 19, 2006 Yogani 19:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ohnoitsjamie, Thank you for adding Wiki format and links to the article. If and when it is approved, I will be happy to add informative articles on the practices you have linked, plus some more. Very few are covered on Wiki so far. Is there more that needs to be done to the article now to meet Wiki standards? Yogani, July 20, 2006 Yogani 19:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see the promotion in this article, it is written in a very objective way and I find it useful and informative, what's the big deal? how would I find out about it otherwise? The more yoga information the better! Anthem, 22:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Access america transport[edit]

Absolutely no wikilinks, no meaningful information, your basic WP:SPAM --EazieCheeze 20:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Stifle (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Shleine[edit]

Page is complete nonsense, hard to understand what is being said. If I am reading this correctly, it's a character played by Dakota Fanning in Uptown Girls, however I don't feel the character itself is notable for it's own page in Wikipedia. Speedy tag removed twice by author. Wildthing61476 20:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orion Custom[edit]

Fails WP:CORP and WP:SPAM Company only started trading May 2006 according to article. Has been listed as for importance since June. --Richhoncho 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ability Online[edit]

nn website, does not meet criteria of WP:WEB Agent 86 21:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - brenneman {L} 03:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Heery[edit]

WP:BIO; while the first hit for a Google search is her casting agency[54], I looked up a few other casting directors who have worked on major productions and found nothing. Although I've never seen it explicitly said, I would think that "Wikipedia is not IMDB", and so I'm unsure if we would want to start listing all those affiliated with the motion picture industry. Timebuilder created this page, and he seems to be creating pages for a linked set of lesser-known personages in the entertainment industry (see Art Houston and Todd Hallowell, two of his other new pages. Sertrel 21:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - brenneman {L} 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timbercon[edit]

Company does not appear notable A. B. 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Fiber-optics 22:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: -- Interested party: article's author; one of four accounts used by one or more employees to link-spam other articles
I have cleaned up the article. You may consider removing the AfD now. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MM Minimano[edit]

Seems to be a vanity article, subject is not (yet) notable S Sepp 21:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 22:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Magia[edit]

Local pizzaria, doesn't establish notability Kungfu Adam (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Upsilon Chi[edit]

I can't see one iota of evidence from this long, and well-written, article, that suggests that this fraternity is any more notable than the tens of thousands of others in the USA. Stifle (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JKCinema.com[edit]

Non-notable humour website. No claims of meeting WP:WEB criteria. Alexa rank of 127,951. Eluchil404 21:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was kept no consensus Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Rho Omicron[edit]

No evidence that this fraternity meets WP:ORG or other notability criteria. Stifle (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was kept consensus to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Sigma Alpha[edit]

No evidence that this group meets WP:ORG or other notability criteria. Additionally, no sources provided, so fails WP:V. Stifle (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are mistaken. ESA is not and has never been a college club but is a charitable fundraising organization/service club for adult women. WBardwin 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Appreciate the polite correction. Keep. -- GWO

I say KEEP! This organization is just as real and notable as Girl SCouts, Phi Mu Fraternity, Lions Club or Sigma Chi. Maybe it needs some clean up, but the article is very valuable. Believe it or not there ARE other national/international organizations out there. A simple visit to their website or an email to Annie Greengrass, Director of Expansion would clear all this up. There are many people who like to get rid of any "competition" in the Greek world and do not like others learning about these non-college groups.

Actually I think those who want to delete this group are not aware of (or at least not very involved in)the Greek world and that’s part of the problem. Most Greeks would recognize that this group is in no way even related to them I’m sure quite a few college Greeks are also members of ESA. To compare it to Sigma Chi or Alpha Chi Omega is like comparing the Red Cross to State Farm Insurance In any case ESA does not compete with Fraternities and Sororities and as has been noted is not even a College club. It should be re-classified as a charitable service organization like Key Club or the Rotary Club and then the article cleaned up and laid out according to the templates of those organizations. And once again I must emphatically say Keep this article--Trey 22:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trey-I respectfully disagree with your discrition of the group. But I do agree this article should be kept. While ESA is not a traditional college sorority, it IS an international sorority! It is every bit as active, viable and important as any other fraternity or sorority. Double membership in ESA and a college group does not change this. And while ESA is not a traditional college sorority, they ARE on some college campuses. This can be easily verified on their website as well. I believe it should stay under the category of fraternity and sorority. Just because it doesn't conform to what the media has deemd a stereotypical GLO, that doesn't make it wrong. In Indiana there are over TWENTY groups like this are national sororities, but people do not hear about them all the time because they are not collegiate. They are still sororities. And they ARE in competition on some campuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackjackattack (talk • contribs)

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

The result was speedy A7 delete. Punkmorten 21:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lindstedt[edit]

Speedy tag removed twice by author, Ryanlindstedt. So also fails WP:VAIN. --DarkAudit 21:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viewers Like You[edit]

Surprisingly long article about a phrase used in the underwriting credits of PBS programs. —tregoweth (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McManus & Miles[edit]

Article for a boutique investment bank. Google hits for "McManus & Miles" = 46. Fails the Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) test. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was kept consensus to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wilkinsons[edit]

technical nomination. this was speedied, and I expanded the article to show its notability. the template clearly does not prohibit those who did not create the article from removing the template. After editing the article and explaining my actions on the article's talk page, Ardenn challenged my edit and posted a ((db-band)) on the article. I don't want to get into some needless edit war, so I bring the article to the community for its input. I for one say keep. Agent 86 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike equipment[edit]

Clear violation of WP:NOT as information only useful in the successful execution of a video game. There is no value to this entry beyond the scope of being helpful in playing Counter-Strike. It's a game guide folks! Nick Y. 22:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although a very quick glance suggests they have equipment articles already. BryanG(talk) 04:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genebase[edit]

prod was removed, nn notable company failed WP:CORP no google hits [61] Avril fan 22:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete CSD G7 author's request. Kimchi.sg 03:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loki (PyIM)[edit]

  • That makes it Speedy Delete per author's request. So tagged. Fan-1967 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmie Sylvester[edit]

Not notable (per WP:NN), extreme vanity (per WP:VAIN), and extensive copyvio (per WP:COPYVIO). Themindset 22:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was kept consensus to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deep-sea gigantism[edit]

Basically I have never heard of this phenomena (as a practising marine biologist) nor have my colleagues...cold water gigantism yes but not deep water gigantism. The examples given are inappropriate as two of the species are pelagic rather than deep water per se. No references are given either Tullimonstrum 16:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a mention in Fundamentals of Aquatic Biology ([64]). Ziggurat 06:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was kept consensus to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThouShaltNot[edit]

Lack of notability, appears to be purely promotional SweetNeo85 23:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotronics[edit]

Psychotronics was nominated for deletion on 2004-12-31. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Psychotronics.

IMHO, cannot be made into an encyclopedia-worthy article -- Writtenonsand 23:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete CSD G7 - author's request. Kimchi.sg 02:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous, Never on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives[edit]

According to the talk page this page was created to stop people adding people not on the list to the list. Would appear to be entirely subjective and based on OR, delete --Peta 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote change: Speedy Delete as article's author has requested deletion. -- H·G (words/works) 00:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to McDonald's menu items. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fish McDippers[edit]

Delete: A regional dish that has been discontinued at two of the four markets it was originally launched in. It's already covered in the International section of McDonald's menu items --awh (Talk) 23:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Redirect per above. PS - this doesn't need an AFD. Themindset 17:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Sabbatini[edit]

Autobiography of User:Msabbatini. Non-notable and only gets 521 google hits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schzmo (talk • contribs) .

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 23:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This AfD is being closed early in order not to feed the trolling sock and meat puppets. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Barrett[edit]

Opinions from Established Editors[edit]

Opinions from new users or anonymous users[edit]

General Comments[edit]

Who cares. No one with any understanding of the way in which Wackypedia is edited and censored would consider it a serious source of information, particularly on a politically sensitive topic. Until Wikipedia names its contributors and editors and published a statement of its accounts with explicit information on all funding sources, it must be taken as a mere propaganda tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.227.181 (talk • contribs)

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