< June 25 June 27 >
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 of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gone With The Blastwave[edit]

It's hard to imagine, I know, but Wikipedia is home to more non notable Webcomics than then entire internet combined. This one can be seen here, already up to its 17th strip! Their forums have less than 150 users and the domain its hosted on has an Alexa rank of 450,000. A prod tag was removed because the comic managed to achieve a rank of 9 on the buzzcomics topsite. This is pretty meaningless, as even tripe like InSONICnia manages to get into their top 25 and with only 130 Google hits, no decent sources, this is not a notable website. - Hahnchen 23:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per below.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil's Return (manga)[edit]

Copyvio - straight lift from website. BlueValour 00:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OneCone[edit]

Non-notable group/forum that makes unknown films. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice commerce[edit]

Seems like ordinary dictionary definitions of "voice" and "commerce", not helped by reference to website of "Voice Commerce Group" in the first line NawlinWiki 21:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was all redirected to Daily Kos and protected. There is a significant majority here who support deletion, redirection and/or merging, and as there is already content on Armando in Daily Kos I see that as sufficient consensus for the redirect. This article is so light on content of interest to those outside the blogosphere, with the only claims to outside recognition being a few radio appearances, that I see neither convincing reasons nor overwhelming majority opinion to keep this article against its subject's wishes.

The subject's objection to this article does not influence my decision - but I do suspect that, given the extreme lack of substance to this article, the generation of so much hot air (or impassioned discussion, if you prefer) towards getting this article kept on its own partly arises from a backlash against his agitation.

The continued existence of Armando Lloréns-Sar as a redirect may be a privacy issue, however this AfD has not sufficiently addressed that issue to support a deletion of that redirect, so if deletion of that redirect is desired it should be taken to redirects for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armando (Blogger), Armando Lloréns-Sar, Armando (blogger)[edit]

OK, this is as a follow-up to the 1st nomination (edited to include last unblanked version) which was brought up for review. The review was unanimous in favor of overturning/relisting, as far as I can tell, but was not properly closed but removed as moribund (review here). ~ trialsanderrors 01:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: [Full professional name] is the blogger Armando on Daily Kos and as such was deemed notable by most editors. The issue revolved around privacy because WP seemingly was used to spread private information on Armando. After new evidence on public appearances was posted this became moot, and can be traced now from various 1 1/2 news articles. So the question that remains for the community to find consensus on is:

  1. Is Armando as a blogger notable?
  2. Would it be better to merge or redirect to Daily Kos and add the news story there?
  3. Should this be deleted outright?

I'm recusing myself from the debate, but mention that "[FULL NAME] and variants don't pass my T&E:510 test. ~ trialsanderrors 01:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the two links from the 1st nomination for reference: Begin quote

Reference to Armando Llorens as guest blogger on Daily Kos at the Stanford Law School's "The Bay Area Law School Technology Conference" speakers page.
Reference to "Mr. ARMANDO LLORENS (Daily Kos)" at NPR Transcripts search page. Transcript available for purchase.
--Guest458 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End quote ~ trialsanderrors 04:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are not acceptable for biograpies of living people. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are not acceptable for biograpies of living people. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that Stanford is the secondary source, since they clearly did not make up the bio stub. The primary source is Armando himself. ~ trialsanderrors 16:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change the basic fact that the article is an attack article that was used to threaten the livelihood of the subject. It doesn't change the fact that it's disgraceful that Wikipedia should be used in such a way. It doesn't change that fact that using Wikipedia in such a way hurts the project because it earns us additional ill-will and fodder for our critics. Just because we can have an article on a subject doesn't mean that we should have that article. It isn't acceptable to use Wikipedia as a tool for harrassment and threats. Guettarda 05:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, a similar issue happened last year in the Tron naming controversy, where an article was kept by the Wikimedia foundation even though it contained personal information on the subject (such as the hacker's real name). I believe that Wikipedia's response to that situation should be applied to this situation. However, if this article is to be deleted, in my opinion it should be because of the WP:BIO guideline, not WP:RPA --TBCTaLk?!? 05:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC Tron was a. underage and b. did not personally reveal his full name? ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tron was underaged and his full name was revealed in a Wikipedia article, against the wishes of his parents and the ruling of a Berlin court (until the ruling was later overturned).--TBCTaLk?!? 06:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tron is also not a living person (he died in 1998) so WP:BLP doesn't apply to him. Phr (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But someone is missing: Armando. A favorite blogger and foreign policy wonk, Armando earned the privilege of posting on the front page of Daily Kos. But, before the festivities began in Las Vegas, National Review Online revealed this hero of the liberal blogosphere to be Armando Lloréns-Sar, a corporate lawyer in Puerto Rico who has represented Wal-Mart and Clorox. Even though this information is a matter of public record, and even though Lloréns-Sar's picture and affiliation are listed on his firm's website, his unmasking sent shockwaves through the Daily Kos community and led Lloréns-Sar to quit the site--and, according to bloggers here, cancel his appearance at the convention, lest his pastime create a conflict for his employers. ~ trialsanderrors 02:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to highlight a section, as this is from a third party source for those confused: "Even though this information is a matter of public record, and even though Lloréns-Sar's picture and affiliation are listed on his firm's website..." --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is incidentally the same as on his TPMCafe profile. ~ trialsanderrors 03:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but I don't think Armando's affiliation with Daily Kos was listed on his law firm's web site, just like your affiliation with Wikipedia is probably not listed on your firm's web site. If someone managed to connect your Wikipedia handle back to your real-world name and workpace, I don't think you'd want it posted here, if that helps you understand this situation a little better. Phr (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is even one example known where he (Armando himself) went on record as the same Armando who posted on Daily Kos? The sources cited so far seem to be from third parties who had access to the info and revealed it, possibly without realizing that it was supposed to be private. I.e. suppose I interview you on TV as "Silensor" and you give me your real name privately before the taping starts, but then somehow your real name shows up on the TV station's web site--have you gone on the record as being the same Silensor who edits Wikipedia? I'd say you haven't. Phr (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Stanford link I included above [5] appears to satisfy this. Conference speakers virtually always supply their own biography, and if he didn't want it used I think he would have said something to them in the last 14 months. The alternative is that Stanford was able to do their own research and come up with that bio back in April 2005, which I think is less likely. Dori 01:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Posting his personal phone number or other private information would clearly be a breach of WP:BLP. His full name and professional information, now that it has been second-sourced, not so. ~ trialsanderrors 08:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please locate a secondary source that documents his employer name. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please try to take a more WP:CIVIL tone with those you are in disagreement with. Edit summaries like this are inappropriate and uncalled for. Silensor 19:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Since it is clear that those who wish to do me harm are numerous at Wikipedia, I withdraw my request for deletion and ask for the following - IF I am so notable a blogger to merit such attention, then where is the discussion of my actual posts? I think the article should discuss what I consider my two most notable blogging issues - opposition to the Bush Administration's torture regime and to the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, and my posts on the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Indeed, as the folks who hate me so have duly noted, my appearances on the radio were wholly related to these two areas of discussion. Since the evidence of my notoriety that supposedly merit this article, relate to my posts on those subjects, then in all fairness they should be part of the article.

In addition, the evidence of my notoriety includes the name Armando Llorens, NOT Armando Llorens-Sar, thus any references to my name should be to my "notable name" - not to my non-notable professional name. Further, my law firm was not mentioned in my "notable appearances and is clearly not of interest to any but those with harmful intnetions. It should be excluded. Similarly, the client list of my firm also was not mentioned in any "notable" appearances and thus that too should be excluded from the article.

Thus, the description of my non-notable personal life should be to my name - as stated in my notable appearances "Armando Llorens" and my private professional life should be described as "an attorney in large corporate law firm." It seems to me that those who perceive these facts as "notable" should have little to complain about with such descriptions. Those with axes to grind of course will object to excluding the names of my children and where they go to school. I hope Wikipedia has the good sense to not let it be the vehicle for vicious person who have harm and hate as their agendas.--Armandoatdailykos 06:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I must ask one further question. I just checked and saw that Duncan black, more famously known as Atrios, does not have a biography in Wikipedia. It boggles the mind to believe that I am more notable than Duncan Black. I must again wonder how Duncan Black, once porrayed as a character on the West Wing, is not sufficently notable for his own bio, but somehow I am. I also review the standard for notability and inclusion as a bio at Wikipedia and no one can seriously argue that I qualify. I must insist that the clear inappropriateness of having a separate bio for me is conclusive proof that those who are insisting that it exist are motivated by hatred and the thirst for revenge. I do not believe any honest person can believe that there should be a separate biography for me at all.

I am now more convinced than ever that to include a biography of me in Wikipedia would be a sheer act of malice, a violation of Wikipedia policy and strong evidence that Wikipedia itself jhas flown off the rails. I must imagine that others have been subject to these vicious uses of Wikipedia to cause harm. Frankly, any sincere believer in this project will have a hard time explaining how this can be justified. I urge those of you who believe in Wikipedia to consider the damage you do to the credibility of this project. I can say that in all sincerity it is my view that the sooner Wikipedia collapses from its complete lack of control, the better. This is simply disgraceful.--Armandoatdailykos 09:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Atrios (created April 2004). Dr. Duncan B. Black and Duncan B. Black (redirect created Sept. 30, 2005), and Duncan Black which has a disambiguation link to Atrios. –Dicty (T/C) 10:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that there is a separate biography of Duncan Black? It seems to me that it means that there is a link to an article about Atrios. My point was that the link to Duncan Black did not stand alone. Obviously, I am less notable than Duncan Black. The minimum would require that a redirect would be the most I would face. Moreover, Duncan Black is a fulltime blogger who now blogs for a living. So, not only is Duncan Black much more notable than me, he is a fulltime blogger who no longer is anonymous. I am a non-paid occasional blogger, unknown to most of the world, who does not even come close to meeting the notability requirements established by Wikipedia, who no longer posts on the front page of daily kos, who was the victim of a concerted vendetta that used as its primary weapon Wikipedia and its extremely lax controls.

I am not sure what your view is on these issues as you expressed none but I think that your information misses my point.--Armandoatdailykos 15:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main article Atrios is a biographical sketch of Duncan B. Black (a redirect to the main article). Your initial claim "Duncan black, more famously known as Atrios, does not have a biography in Wikipedia" is incorrect. Your point in the comment directly above is unclear to me. The pattern in Atrios' biography article is exactly parallel to that of Armando (blogger) (main article) and Armando Lloréns-Sar (a redirect to it). I certainly agree with you that Dr. Black appears to be more well known than you—to illustrate, I was aware of him independently of his Wikipedia biography, whereas I have come to know of you through reading this deletion discussion—but I think the Armando (blogger) article makes a sufficient case for your notability. As to whether your name should be rendered as "Armando Lloréns-Sar" or "Armando Llorens", the issue seems completely pointless to me; and since you're here, I would much rather just ask you what your name is. You say it is the latter– good enough for me! One final thing: I would request you not to impute ulterior motives to any wikipedia editors here (assume good faith, etc.). Politically, I probably agree with you to a great degree (I have not yet found anything to disagree with in your columns on Daily Kos), and I have no reason to wish you any harm. I just don't see why stating your name, especially when it is well sourced, confirmed by you yourself, and especially when your livelihood does not depend on your anonymity, can constitute harm. If there are elements in Armando (blogger) article that are directly harming you or your livelihood, please point them out and I will remove them from the article, or an administrator will remove them by hiding a portion of the article's history such that it is no long publicly accessible. I will now make the changes regarding your name and place of employment that you requested above. (these changes have already been made by others.) –Dicty (T/C) 17:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such changes are under heavy dispute at the moment. None of the information he claims is anything that's only available here, and our policies are clear in such regard - "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." If we let the subjects decide what's worthy of inclusion, we may as well not do any biographies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, the onus is on the person wishing to include information about Armando's place of employment or the name he uses professionally to show why this information is notable. WP is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. –Dicty (T/C) 17:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reading the discussion on the talk page of the article, we've beaten the horse to a bloody, zombified pulp at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the discussion page once before, and have now refreshed my memory of it. I still do not see a proper argument for why Armando's professional name, his law firm, and its list of clients is notable information. What I see instead is repeated hamfisted use of WP:BLP to quash dissent and no small amount of bad faith accusations flung to and fro. You will do me a favour if you summarise the arguments for the notability of Armando's professional name, his law firm, and its list of clients in a separate section here or on Talk:Armando (blogger), without reference to any earlier argument. –Dicty (T/C) 17:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Armando's "professional name" has been used by Armando in his appearances associated with Daily Kos at NPR, among others. His law firm helps fill out a full biography of him, which is also cited in a variety of different mediums and doesn't rely on primary sources. The type of clients he has served helps fill out a full biography of him, also cited in different mediums and doesn't rely on primary sources. They're notable to be published all over the place, much of it is notable enough to be put out there by other third party places associated with Armando. I'm completely puzzled as to why this is an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two points: first, there seems to be a mistake of fact in your comment. The cited NPR interview[6] used the name "Armando Llorens", not "Armando Lloréns-Sar". The sole citation for the latter form of his name is the NRO blog posting (which was cited by Slate). In his comment above, Armando asked that the former be used in the article, and it's a reasonable request as the latter name is not as verifiable from multiple reliable sources. Second, that some fact is notable in other media does not make it ipso facto notable for WP. What is notable in a gossip rag (to furnish an example) is not necessarily notable in an encyclopedia. Armando is a notable blogger, not a notable lawyer. Information about his blogging activities are directly relevant to what makes him notable, and should be included in his WP biography. The name of his law firm, the list of clients of said law firm, the brand of suit he prefers wearing while at work, the make and size of his shoes, and the length of his stride are examples of facts that are not directly relevant to what makes him notable, and should be left out. By the way, this discussion is off topic in an AfD nomination and should be moved to a relevant talk page. –Dicty (T/C) 19:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with going w/"Llorens" officially, that's not a problem, although I disagree that we HAVE to. And we also disagree on what "makes him notable." Armando has gained additional prominence due to his "outing," all of which is encompassed in what we know about him. Certainly, no one's arguing shoe size or how many grey hairs anyone's given him recently, simply what's known, verifiable, and adds to the entry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Now am I to believe that this person is not acting in bad faith. Only if I agree to assume the role of an idiot. Of what significance can it be to this person that my entry use "Armando Llorens" not "Armando Llorens-Sar"? Why the same reason I prefer "Armando Llorens" (the only named used, against my wishes and permission,even in the evidence presented for my supposed acquiescence to my "outing") because I want to distance the entry from my law firm and professional life. Why? Because it is more likely to do me harm if the "Llorens-Sar" is used. And that is exactly why this person wishes to use "Llorens-Sar."

Thus this user is wrong when he says NPR used "Llorens-Sar." This user is wrong when says "his law firm helps fill out a full biography of him." Not one of you would claim that my law firm is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Why pretend this editor is acting in good faith?

This user is wrong when he say that different mediums mentioned my law firm PRIOR to the vindictive efforts to out me, commenced and forwarded right here at Wikipedia. This person is wrong when he says the names of my clients are relevant. He claims to be completely puzzled why there is objection to it. And I am asked to assume the good faith of the editors here? Ridiculous. Please do not insult my intelligence.

Does he want to describe the "type of clients" I represent? How about this descritpion? "Fortune 500 companies." Will that satisfy him? Of course it will not.

My position is clear. The integrity of Wikipedia is clearly going to be reflected by what is done here.

Unfortunately, it seems clear to me that this discussion is dominated by persons of bad faith. I expect the worst.--Armandoatdailykos 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I claimed or intended to claim that NPR used "Llorens-Sar." If you inferred that, fine, but that's hardly the issue at this point. You accuse people of claiming different mediums presented this information prior to "the vindictive efforts to out" you, although I see no evidence of that. If "Fortune 500" clients is accurate, great, if we can grab a third party source on that (since we have editors who will object to using you as a primary source) we'll be glad to use it. I'm sorry you feel that "this editor" is not acting in good faith - on the contrary, I've largely put my reputation here on the line in defense of the straightforward policies we have here regarding biographies of living people, which I suggest you take a look over sometime. The integrity of Wikipedia is going to be reflected poorly if we bow to the demands of anyone who is upset by a neutral, well-sourced biography of themselves here, and I'm sorry you can't grasp that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for inclusion as a biography, at least as I understnad it the following:

"Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia includes biographies of important historical figures and people involved in current events. Even though wiki is not paper, there are some criteria which may be considered for inclusion.

See also Wikipedia:Importance, which attempts to be a generic, all inclusive definition of criteria for inclusion. As well read the rules for biographies of living persons.

Important note: Please see criteria for speedy deletion for policy on speedy deletion. The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under A7 (Unremarkable people or groups).

The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.

I simply do not qualify in any sense. I do not k now how anyone, acting in good faith can think I do. You claim to be upholding the ethics of Wikipedia by violating them. It is an absurdity. Indeed, this whole exercise is an absurdity. Any honest person must acknowledge that that the only reason a biography was written about me was because I debunked a Jason Leopold/Wayne Madsen acolyte who, in an act of malicious vindictiveness, wrote a biography about me which has been the subject of this ridiculous charade.

Well, the rest of you can pretend that this is a reasonable discussion in good faith. But let's be clear about this. You are fooling no one. You are bringing disrepute onto Wikipedia.--Armandoatdailykos 23:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In good faith, you should clearly understand that you meet the second to last one, and many would consider you to qualify under the final one, too. Considering that you meet the second to last, that's when you need to check up on WP:BLP, which is the guideline concerning biographies of living persons. Besides, what you've quoted above "is not intended to be an exclusionary list."
Perhaps someone originally created an article on you because of vindictiveness. I was personally surprised you DIDN'T have an article prior to your supposed "outing." Regardless of what the original intent was, the fact remains that the article now, except for the whitewashing, is a neutral, factual piece, and continues to be with the currently deleted information. It meets our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about good faith. Jeez. There's 1,225,146 other articles on Wikipedia. Give it a rest. FeloniousMonk 23:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry this exchange upsets you so much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is now argued that I qualify as notable under these two rubriks:

What noteworthy event would that be? Why my outing by a malicious member of WIKIPEDIA and the revert war that ensued!! This is ridiculous. Thus, in order to make something worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia one need only write a malicious article about them, start a manufactured scandal and THEN make such person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.

That is your entire argument. That, you say, is the Wikipedia ethic. If it is, it is an indictment of Wikipedia.

You say you are putting your reputation on the line in this dispute. I would say you have damaged your reputation here in this matter. And unless you are a simpleton, I can not believe you believe this article merits such attention and such damage for your reputation. You clearly have other motives. Others can play the fool for you. I will not. It is not credible.

You also say I am notable under this standard:

I have not been the subject of ANY non-trivial works. None. You argue that the National Review hit piece on me is not non-trivial? An article, by the way, about how I was fighting my outing in a WIKIPEDIA article! You argue that the TNR article about the reaction to my OUTING caused by a WIKIPEDIA article is non-trivial!

And you say you are upholding the Wikipedia ethic. For the sake of Wikipedia, I certainly hope not. Because it is about the most unethical course of action I can imagine. Malicious use of Wikipedia to make someone notable as the basis for a wikpedia article. Your ethics boggle the mind.--Armandoatdailykos 00:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTE, even if such articles were not non-trivial, the involve only one event, my outing at Wikipedia. So even if you, um, "ethic" is the Wikipedia ethic, I still do not meet the notable standard.

Now, what will your next straw man be?--Armandoatdailykos 00:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you fail to understand how we do things here is no reason to get snippy. Yes, National Review and The New Republic are non-trivial, it may be time to accept that. Furthermore, I've said my piece and you're being unnecessarily nasty, so I'm done spelling it out for you further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I will get snippy when you and others like you continue to campaign to do me harm. As for how you do things here, I did not know you were appointed King of Wikipedia. Rather presumptuous of you don't you think? A number of people are saying that what you suggest is NOT how things are done here.

Finally, the non-trivial requirement is for the story themselves, not for the publication. Moreover, it is my view the the National Review website is very trivial in the main and that TNR is often trivial. Moreover, I doubt very much that either publication would consider the stories written about me or that mention me (the TNR article was NOT about me) as serious.

So, Mr. Objective, what is your NEXT red herring?--Armandoatdailykos 00:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have no answer for the one event not being sufficient for notability rule. I take it you concede that I am not covered there. so you are left with the argument that I am a"[p]erson achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" - the newsworthy event being my malicious outing by a Wikipedia article. That is the ethic you are left to defend.

Well done.--Armandoatdailykos 00:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call for rational end to the fighting[edit]

Armando, do you disagree with the article as it currently stands? If so, please indicate which parts you disagree with. (I am not promising to edit the article according to your tastes, but merely would like a clear enumeration of the currently controversial parts.) If not, there is no further need to continue fighting or accusing "WIKIPEDIA" of trying to harm you.

If you want to discuss the content of the article further, please do it in Talk:Armando (blogger). If you want to continue fighting with User:Badlydrawnjeff, please do it in a different venue (eg. User talk:Badlydrawnjeff).

This page has a single purpose — to decide whether an article on you should be included in WP or not. Your argument that you are not notable has been recorded and will be considered in the final evaluation. –Dicty (T/C) 01:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect Dicty, I am not through presenting my argument, but this will be my final points. The guidelines for biographies of livin g persons states, in pertinent part:

"editors must take particular care with writing and editing biographies of living persons with these key areas in mind: 

   * The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies,

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view."

I think the INCLUSION of a separate biography about me violates each of these guidelines. We must always start from the most significant fact - the original article about was undisputedly maicious, written by the banned dkosser and Leopold/Madsen acolyte jiggy flunknut. This is so because it was a verbatim copy of his diary at daily kos which led to his banning. He posted that diary because I debunked his article based on some delusional reporting by Madsen and Leopold. It was without question a malicious use of Wikipedia. This abuse of Wikipedia to harm me led to the NRO article, which led to my alleged notability. When considering whether this article should be deleted, the misuse of Wikipedia as the genesis of my alleged notability should be central to your decision. To allow this article is to invite similar malicious use of Wikipedia to do harm. In my opinion, absent strong reasons, there should be a strong presumption to delete.

The guideline further state:

"Presumption in favor of privacy

Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy."

This article is in clear contradiction to this policy.

. . . Non-public figures

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used (see above).

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

I repeat "it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to b e the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating clams about people's lives." This is EXACTLY what Wikipedia has been in this situation. To further harm me by including this article is to make a mockery of that stated policy.

The guidelines further state:

"Malicious editing

Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

That is exactly what happened here. This article rewards that behavior.

You have read my further arguments made previously.

I object to all articles about me that relate to my personal and professional life and include my real name.

I especially object to the inclusion of the name of my law firm, the name I use professionally, and the names of my clients.

I especially object to the article entry Armando Llorens-Sar.

As I am sure my objections will not be agreed to, I will formally withdraw my objection to the article titled Armando (Blogger) as it is written today. Any changes will of course be objected to by me.

I ask that all references to Armando Llorens-Sar be removed from Wikipedia.

Thank you for considering my views of this matter.

I now retire from the field.--Armandoatdailykos 01:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to reintrude but I must object to this requrst for comment posted by Jeff:

"* Armando (blogger) - is using the name of an "outed" blogger a violation of WP:BLP? As the blogger is aprogressive one at a leading site, and has had relevant information published clearly in multiple areas that fulfill the various requirements of WP:BLP's standards, specifically "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it," even if some editors believe that including it - regardless of that prior quote - "does harm." The more input, the better, this is a policy issue, not a political one. --14:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)"

This request for comment is violative of the requirement that they be presented neutrally. I request it be retracted or deleted.--Armandoatdailykos 05:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Excuse me Mr. Rubin, but the guidleines for Request for Comments clearly state that request for comments must be presented neutrally. I thought you were an old Wikipedia hand.--Armandoatdailykos 10:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Mr. Rubin, your comment that I am out of line is, well, out of line. Particularly since you are clearly in error here and all said was that Jeff violated the express Wikipedia guideline, which he did. In shirt Mr. Rubin, your slip is showing. Now, you can safely say I was out og line.--Armandoatdailykos 10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)--Armandoatdailykos 10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC's should be presented neutrally. It compromises the comments if the arguments of one side are presented in the RFC and the arguments of the other are expressed only on the talk page by giving undue weight to the arguments of the side that filed the RFC. As such, I have edited the request, but note that the three users who commented on the AFD post the RFC, one an administrator, all voted delete or merge. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think there were any neutrality issues with the RFC, but if you're going to change them, don't eliminate major parts of the conflict. The RFC, for the record, ahs to do with the ARTICLE, not the AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the RfC. It's not mentioned on the article talk page, as it should be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned, but not pointed to (that points to the main RfC page, rather than /Politics), as of a few minutes ago, anyway. It's still irrelevant to the AfD. (Looking back over Armando's rant, it does refer to the RfC. My apologies for not seeing it, but it was badly written. If his blog writings are as bad as this, I think I'd go back to delete.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur:

They are much much worse. I think you should be counted as voting to delete the article. Thank you.--Armandoatdailykos 16:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Titoxd(?!?) 04:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Make It Bloom! Manly Usopp's Eight-Shaku Ball[edit]

Also nominating:

Legend Of The Rainbow Mist! Old Man Henzo of Ruluka Island
Where The Island's Treasure Lies! Zenny Pirates Full Charge!
How's That for Profit? Money Lender Zenny's Ambition!
Infamous Pirate Hunter! The Wandering Swordsman,Zoro
The Navigator's Mutiny! For A Unwavering Dream!
The First Patient! Anecdote Of The Rumble Ball
Inherited Recipe! Sanji, The Curry Expert
Zenny Lives On Goat Island And There's A Pirate Ship On His Mountain!

These articles were nominated two months ago (previous AFD). The result was no consensus. Everyone who suggested Keep said strong cleanup is needed. Other than adding/removing tags, only one of the articles has been touched. (I am NOT nominating that one here - that article has been cleaned up as to be borderline usable ... not spectacular, but usable.)

The opinions in the original AFD were 3 keeps, 3 merges, and 4 deletes, so that's not exactly a ringing endorsement. BigDT 01:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bettws RFC, Newport[edit]

came to light working on dead-end articles - self-promotional article;limited/no appreciable value Cain Mosni 01:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spongebong Hemppants[edit]

Parody of SpongeBob SquarePants of unknown provenance and little notability. —tregoweth (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds free[edit]

Insufficient useage to justify an article or establish notability. BlueValour 02:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by DaGizza. Yanksox (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bexhill high school[edit]

encountered whilst working on dead-end articles; a patent schoolkid prank Cain Mosni 02:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect'Blnguyen' | rant-line 03:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barron Hilton II[edit]

Top marks for conciseness and accuracy but I can't establish any notability of this guy in his own right. BlueValour 02:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Preference Items[edit]

Out of context. Someones unfinished project. Can't find proper merge. Brad101 02:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect Computerjoe's talk 20:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pride Rock[edit]

This is the place where The Lion King movies and books take place. I don't see why the the world needs its own article outside of the main pages The Lion King, The Lion King II: Simba's Pride and The Lion King 1½ . Also, this article might fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Starionwolf 02:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlueC[edit]

Non notable website, Alexa in the 3 millions. Crystallina 02:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, nn group with no assertion of notability Deizio talk 14:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trio-Sanity[edit]

Fails WP:NN. Only 3 relevant google hits, one of wich is his deviantART page, and the other two are in German. The section on Unreleased Titles, along with google results lead me to believe this is not real, and only exists in the author's mind --BennyD 02:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Ontology[edit]

Delete. It reads like an advertisement. There are no non-primary or otherwise credible sources cited. The Google, it turns up a lot of sites associated to the author of the idea, or that otherwise seek to make money off it. There's only 521 results anyways, which is peanuts. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded this previously, but it was recreated after the prod. The recreation counts as contesting the prod. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and patriotism[edit]

Looks like a diatribe to me. Violates WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, cites no sources, I say delete GabrielF 02:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two POV's don't make an NPOV. Wikipedia is not a debate club. Fan1967 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't try to misunderstand comments. Two well-worded, dignified and objective POV's do make an NPOV. It is necessary to present different sides of an argument in order to establish nuetrality. I do not in any way support this article, but I also do not in any way support ignoring societal consensus. AdamBiswanger1 19:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that this is not an encyclopedic article, it is merely a person's opinion, an essay. Balancing it with an opposing essay would still not constitute an NPOV article, it would merely create a debate. There is a potential for an article on this issue, but it would have to be encyclopedic, i.e. here are the arguments of this school of thought, or this sect, or this notable philospoher or theologian. Fan1967 19:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagreed. Wikipedia is not your normal physical encyclopedia, with limits on the number of possible articles. This article just takes so little space on the server. We should try to expand Wikipedia to include all school of thoughts, even wild ideas. If you disagree with the article, you can always write to explain why is it unacceptable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.127.126 (talk • contribs)
  • That's not an article; that's an essay. Everyone just posting their personal opinions is a forum or a blog, not an encyclopedia. You might want to read What Wikipedia is not. Fan1967 14:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly Wikipedia is not a conventional hard-copy encyclopaedia. It is, nevertheless an encyclopaedia. It is for articles on factual knowledge. It is not a medium for debate or social discourse. The correct way forward, if this were the policy of a notable group would be to document the group and its policies, not to expound the argument itself. As it stands it is, as has been noted more than once already, simply a political essay. Whether one wishes to read it, or perhaps even agrees with it is of no relevance. Cain Mosni 19:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasSpeedy delete a7 group (gang)/a3 not much context.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How Sanity Began[edit]

Fails WP:NFT, WP:NN. I wasn't sure if this should be a speedy delete or a regular AfD --BennyD 02:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete: A7: Myspace band by Geogre (who forgot to close the AfD - Viridae 07:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The Horrifics[edit]

Website advert BlueValour 02:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britxbox[edit]

encountered whilst working on dead-end articles; very pretty, nicely laid out, but no interlinks with the rest of WP and looks (from history) like shameless self-promotion. Cain Mosni 02:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is an ad. If you read the history, and compare it with the content, it looks suspciously like the main contributor is the guy engaged to perform PR duties... Cain Mosni 14:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casablanca Hotel[edit]

I'm trying to go through hotel pages to remove spam and un-notable entries. This luxury hotel in New York is relatively new and has no apparent history. The article was created by an anonymous user who has a total of 3 edits, all pimping HKHotels, which I am also nominating. The Library Hotel (page started by the same user) at least has a bit of interest, the two I'm nominating are essentially spam and have not been edited since their creation apart from cosmetic edits. Pascal.Tesson 02:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Gwernol 03:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trey 3: The Search for Trey 2[edit]

Prank page DarkAudit 03:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep: Redirect to Dungeon Siege. —Centrx→talk • 04:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mageworld[edit]

This is a fanmade modification and addition to the computer game Dungeon Siege I already merged the text from Mageworld to Dungeon_Siege#Mageworld. I'm not sure whether to create a redirect page, to merge the text from Dungeon_Siege#Mageworld back to Mageworld or to delete Mageworld. Starionwolf 03:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony De Ieso[edit]

Sounds very much like a hoax. DarkAudit 03:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per A7 by Fang Aili. --Coredesat talk 05:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cole (band)[edit]

Joke article, pure fiction and nonsense

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklyn Gottbetter[edit]

Long list of film credits, but all minor - best ones are producer of one unknown film, first assistant director (once), and editor of the 1992 Oscars. Not notable in my opinion.NawlinWiki 03:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consilient[edit]

Corporate self-promotion (see creator's username) NawlinWiki 03:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Cricket Club[edit]

Not-notable (zero Google hits); do not play in a national league. BlueValour 03:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk 11:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Hoban High School[edit]

Failed Speedy delete. (This is not an 'All schools are notable versus school cruft' debate!) The problem that this 'article' produces is a common one. Obviously written by a student, it is barely literate. Now it could be kept on the basis that it might be cleaned up and expanded (though it is improbable that it will); OTOH do we want this sort of low grade stuff hanging around in a serious encyclopaedia? There are loads of these being produced so I think we need a proper discussion as to what to do. BlueValour 04:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has been cleaned up; appears to be notable. ikh (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think efforts would be better spent cleaning these articles up than nominating them for deletion.--Konstable 03:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grecian Sands Hotel[edit]

Random hotel in Cyprus[13]. Article has not had a single edit since its creation (except two categorisations). Utter non-notability. Pascal.Tesson 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think it should. There are zillions of 4 star hotels out there. In fact, any commercial booking site will give you at least 50 4-star hotels in Cyprus alone. Pascal.Tesson 06:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note however that 19000 google hits for a commercial hotel listed on hotel-booking sites is not that much.Pascal.Tesson 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, author request Mak (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Chadwick[edit]

This page is about a film which is due to be released in 2009, only on the internet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only source is a youtube video link, which is broken, and Urban dictionary, which is not an acceptable source, so it is Unverified. It is also most likely a hoax. Delete. Mak (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the YouTube link By the way this is one of the only unfinished films with ANY external links Keep in mind theres no offecial page because it's an UNFINISHED film

Its an UNFINISHED film. Go to the unfinished films category and take a loop at the films there. It's no more strange than any other films in this category. Its also a childrens movie so don't expect it to be completly serious. I would like the EXACT reason why this article is for deleation so I can edit it so it will agree with the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheehanmds (talk • contribs)

The exact policies which it fails are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mak (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well I added the link for the Vision Films offecial website, the independent film company creating the film AND a fan-made website which by the way shows 700 hits. Now would a fake film really have 700 fans?

dont you have anything better to do than crush peoples dreams of creating a film to make kids happy?

ahh fine u guys i'll delete it if its that big of a deal//

But don't worry as soon as we finish the film and get it out there this page is goin back up//

And u guys better go see LC once its out

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Lissa Explains it All as the end article survived AfD this year - Peripitus (Talk) 09:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LEIA[edit]

Non-notable. (Note; listing on behalf of User:129.44.99.248 who gave his/her reason here but did not list AfD properly.) -Big Smooth 05:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to The Libertines - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dufour[edit]

Non-notable musician. He did play drums for a notable band, The Libertines, before they became successful, but I think that information is adequately covered in the band article and a separate one is not justified here. ("Paul Dufour" drummer) gets 65 Google hits. PROD tag was removed by original author. -Big Smooth 04:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that White did actually play on a record (according to his article), though. I'm sure you have other examples you could cite, and I know that as you say you're not fond on using a "like" argument, but there is a difference, since Dufour never actually played on a Libs record, leaving before they were signed to Rough Trade. I can't see that an article of this length on him is in any way worthwhile, since he hasn't contributed to a notable recording - but I can see that people might possibly search for him, so I think he's worth a mention in the main Libs article and a redirect from his name. Seb Patrick 12:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll buy that reasoning. Redirect per Seb. GassyGuy 13:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge to AMC Gremlin, AMC AMX, AMC Hornet, AMC Javelin, AMC Matador, and AMC Ambassador and delete. Source article is actually List of 1971 American Motors automobiles after the move. I provided a text of the article history in the talk page of each article, so that should satisfy the GFDL attribution requirements. --Deathphoenix ʕ 23:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


1971 American Motors Specifications[edit]

This is just a list that can be incorporated into other articles, I see no reason why this should be an article of its own. --ApolloBoy 04:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AMC article is much too long to put this in, nor duplicated after every car. This is a resource that adds to the content of the WP, I cannot believe how much stuff you folks are willing to delete becaues it does not fit somebody's idea of an article, can you quote chapter and verse that tables such as the Periodic Table have no place in the WP. I believe the guideline is that if there is useful information, and it can be edited to be correct that you should edit or change, rather than delete it. Otherwise it will have to be placed outside the WP on a private web page, which can disappear. What you advocate is NOT deletion, but putting somewhere else. You are free to do that, what you suggest is against the spirit of WP.--Wiarthurhu 14:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMC Gremlin
AMC AMX
AMC Hornet
AMC Javelin
AMC Matador
AMC Ambassador
then Delete. Otherwise an arbitrary list of virtually zero use. --DaveG12345 19:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys, don't you think a table like this is useful? what a about a table comparing different fighter planes? That would be good too. Sheeeesh. Just more people having a blast knocking down other people's sandcastles. impossible that this is of zero use, or the original popular mechanics article would not have included this same information. A listing of cars without specs is also of use. --Wiarthurhu 22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A listing of specs belongs in an article, not as an article. --ApolloBoy 01:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 16:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of books for copy editors[edit]

Can't possibly be NPOV. --zenohockey 04:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure if precedent supports that. There was a list of movies Roger Ebert deemed the worst ever that was deleted as (if I recall correctly) copyvio—even though there was evidence that he actually helped edit the article. Moral: If the list is written by someone whose opinions are objectively important (in this case, say, the editor of the AP stylebook), it should go in "External links." Otherwise, remove it. --zenohockey 20:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the case, Delete. POV list. --DaveG12345 20:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apjax[edit]

'Apjax' doesn't seem to exist as a programming language or technique. There are 41 results from a Google search; most of them are references to fluid mechanics or the Dutch language -- nothing about AJAX and PHP, as is claimed by the article. Seems to have been made up. Certainly not notable. -- ArglebargleIV 04:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediajolt[edit]

Delete advert for a non-notable company that fails WP:CORP. Prod notice was removed without comment Gwernol 05:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Non-Stop Teenage Wrestling[edit]

This page is non-notable as it is a backyard promotion. Normy132 05:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TOPGUN Navy Strike Fighter Tactics - game[edit]

Hmm let's see, little content; advert. I find all the good ones :) Brad101 05:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roma and Sinti[edit]

This one's a bit of an odd one - both Roma and Sinti have their own articles, and there's nothing here which couldn't be in those articles. But lots of things link to this page. Merge would be the best option, but which to? And is it worth keeping this as a redirect afterwards since it's just as easy for the other articles to have "[[Roma]] and [[Sinti]]" as "[[Roma and Sinti]]"? Grutness...wha? 05:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. A redirect wouldn't be amiss either. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Presidents of the United States[edit]

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files: "Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also seems like an abridged, redundant version of List of Presidents of the United States. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TIFIC[edit]

Hypothetical contraceptive name. Little is notable. Brad101 05:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avianca codeshare destinations[edit]

A list of destinations for a major airline may be enough, but I dont know about codeshare destinations, considering they don't fly there themselves and the general consensus in the related wikiprojects is to not list codeshares. --Arnzy (whats up?) 05:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pornocracy (term)[edit]

See also Pornocracy (AfD discussion).

This article is unencyclopedic in several ways - most prominently, it is rife with POV terms. No sources are cited. It seems to only be a subjective analysis of the main Pornocracy article detailing a period in the history of the papacy. I propose deletion given that any actual information contained here is covered in the main article. According to the disambiguation page, a book with this title is being released this year - if it deals with this subject, perhaps this article can be remade then. For now, it's best we put this one to rest. I'm surprised it's lasted this long and wasn't speedied. --BDD 06:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I think all the words are spelled correctly. Fan1967 18:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plum (color)[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles, Bisque (color) (AfD discussion), Cadet blue (AfD discussion), Caribbean green (AfD discussion), Carrot (color) (AfD discussion), Cheddar (color) (AfD discussion), Blue-gray (AfD discussion), Adobe (color) (AfD discussion), Alice-Blue (color) (AfD discussion), Pale raw umber (AfD discussion), Bright green (AfD discussion), and Pang (color) (AfD discussion).

Dictdef, and one that is already at Wiktionary wiktionary:Plum with essentially all the information here, the only original information on this article are a few infoboxes. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Xoloz. Coredesat talk 03:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Roman-Cruz[edit]

No clear information given about notability; seems to fail WP:BIO. Crystallina 06:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney bus route 380[edit]

I don't think Wikipedia is an appropriate place for articles on bus routes that aren't particularly notable or famous. There's also a risk that the information on such a page could change fairly quickly without contributors noticing. My main disagreement is that the Wikipedia page is really only rehashing the content of the Sydney transport information website. -- Netsnipe 07:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney bus route 400[edit]

I don't think Wikipedia is an appropriate place for articles on bus routes that aren't particularly notable or famous. There's also a risk that the information on such a page could change fairly quickly without contributors noticing. My main disagreement is that the Wikipedia page is really only rehashing the content of the Sydney transport information website. -- Netsnipe 07:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 16:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney bus route 410[edit]

I don't think Wikipedia is an appropriate place for articles on bus routes that aren't particularly notable or famous. There's also a risk that the information on such a page could change fairly quickly without contributors noticing. My main disagreement is that the Wikipedia page is really only rehashing the content of the Sydney transport information website. -- Netsnipe 07:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was: We aren't yet at the point where headmasters automatically get articles as schools do, and with that out of the way, this man has never been committed of the crimes of which he is accused, so we have zero notable deeds by this man, and no claim by the keep side that he has ever done any. That makes this page little more than an attack - until a couple of days after creation the article contained the heading "Criminal History" where no such history exists. The use of possible sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry by the article's creator in this discussion gives even more cause for concern for the article's future if it was kept. The majority for deletion is present but not overwhelming, however if I was to close this as 'no consensus' it would be an abdication of responsibility. Per WP:BLP, the level of care we must exercise with articles on living people leads me to close this as delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph O. White[edit]

New Jersey high-school principal, accused of a crime and arrested only yesterday. Gets 8 Google News hits, all local. Otherwise completely non-notable. The photo used also seems to be improperly tagged. Was speedied and Prod'ed, but recreated and tags removed without comment. Calton | Talk 07:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. His elaborate user's page, oddly enough, was entirely created by User:NYC2TLV, author of the article being discussed. --Calton | Talk 04:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In New Jersey -- and as the Google News hits show, not even much there. --Calton | Talk 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's only edit. His elaborate user's page, oddly enough, was entirely created by User:NYC2TLV, author of the article being discussed. --Calton | Talk 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please be careful how you phrase your responses...other editors with hotter tempers than my own may interpret such statements as "...chose not to..." as being somewhat uncivil. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, can you actually prove that claim?--Isotope23 18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, after reading the article I'm not convinced. The article states "That case, as well as similar ones..." which denotes his first acquital was not the primary reason for the change in law, it was just one factor. That doesn't make a strong case towards WP:BIO in my opinion and makes statements that this person was directly responsible for changes to New Jersey appear to be hyperbole.--Isotope23 12:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment actually by User: Kengineer1 - User's only edits --Calton | Talk 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which ones? The ones that say "delete", or maybe the ones from the sockpuppets? --Calton | Talk 08:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you so against this page? Kengineer1 has been part of Wikipedia in the past only now he signed up because he agrees that this page should stay. --NYC2TLV 13:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur that there is possible sockpuppetry going on over here. Yanksox (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Stentorian, User:Maccaphile, User:Kengineer1, User:SpeechFreedom, & User:65.206.55.31 should all be looked into by the closing admin as possible sockpuppets of NYC2TLV based on the highly unusual edit histories of these users. WP:AGF and I don't bandy about accusations of sockpuppetry lightly, but there is enough evidence here to make me highly suspicious.--Isotope23 13:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Move to have unfounded accusation dismissed. While NYC2TLV did aid me as a like minded new contributor, I speak for myself and I think if you examine my (admittedly limited) contributions more closely, you will see the contrasts in our respective writing styles. --Stentorian 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've requested a checkuser to verify the users I've listed above and if it is indeed done, we will then know if sockpuppetry is being utilized here. Like I said above, the edits here are highly unusual. If I'm wrong, I will apologize.--Isotope23 16:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, is there a way to check IP addresses so that the acqusations can be done away with as quickly as possible? --NYC2TLV 21:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Have we run a check of IP addresses yet? I happen to be new to Wiki discussions, but that hardly makes me a sockpuppet. I'll accept your apology whenever you'd like to offer it, Isotope23. --Maccaphile17:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Comment -- 4 edit's worth -- actually by 65.206.55.31 (talk · contribs)[reply]
  • The very first edit you "two" make as registered Wikipedia editors is to come vote here. It also seems strange, "Maccaphile", that you can't remember to log in, but know enough to manually paste in a your sig, complete with date. --Calton | Talk 00:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the purposes of AFD, it doesn't matter whether they're from the same IP, or even the same human being: new users' comments aren't given much weight, especially if all they do is repeat each other. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-28 22:31Z
  • What "focus on schools" would that be? That would be: none. --Calton | Talk 00:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't you over-reacting just a wee, little bit. Considering this article concerns a public figure and is based on multiple references from the NY Times and other top-flight news sources, I don't see any violation of WP:BLP. Furthermore, the second page you referred to, WP:Not Evil, is an essay and thus has no bearing on the discussion. Wikipedia may be forever, but so are national newspapers - I hardly see that as a valid argument for deletion (and this is not a speedy delete). --JJay 22:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nice to see you make good use of the argumentative technique of selective interpretation. (Spot the fact I listed a number of offences not of global note, coupled with the use of the word "every"?) Some instances may merit mention in a global encyclopaedia, for reasons of notability. Most are of note to no-one but the immediate community affected. This case for instance. If it ever becomes important beyond its currently limited catchment, then there may be an argument for constucting an article in the context of the case. Currently it's just an attack on the individual based on regurgitating in a global medium what appears to be being published on a small local front. Currently I wouldn't say it compares well in stature against - say - Homer, Yuri Gagarin, or quantum mechanics. Don't let that stop you whipping up the fervour though. There's nothing like a good lynching. Cain Mosni 23:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't insult the New York Times [20]. It has been a "global" medium, both in print and pixel forms, since before wikipedia was a gleam in Mr. Wales's eye. --JJay 23:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Given the sterling work done to the article, at first glance a fresh AfD would result in a keep consensus, but I'm concerned by the fact that no articles link to this one, and no articles in Wikipedia currently mention Cedric Gore (so no potential for it). That's very strange for someone who's supposedly notable. Nonetheless, I'm not going to second-guess the discussion here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Gore[edit]

After an initial db-bio notice, this article still suspiciously sounds like a promotional press release promoting Cedric Gore's company "Java Kitty" rather than an encyclopedia entry. -- Netsnipe 07:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, as Wikipedia advert articles go, this one ain't even subtle. --Dweller 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC) opinion revised... see below[reply]

  • Comment You would need to demonstrate some notability as reported by verifiable reliable sources. Good luck, because I turned up zip. An example (just to illustrate) on being "general" - Bandlink (like several other DRM systems) seems somewhat unpopular with music fans, as there seem to be people who bought CDs with Bandlink who cannot play them in their machines, and others claim it is in effect spyware (this was the only kind of non-press-release stuff I could find on the technology). If this was to be a balanced article, it might mention the record company stuff and how great Bandlink is (which it does now), and then mention the technical problems and its critical reception. Then it might seem balanced. If the article only mentions the upside with happy quotes, as if the product's a roaring success, then it might look like a puff-piece. --DaveG12345 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Shawn Fanning" is listed in Wiki' too and though he has many hackers like yourselves on his jock, he was hated by the record labels.

"Cedric Gore" has done work that has been embraced and widely used by the labels and according to his speech, his work appears on something like over 20 million CDs. So 50 negative comments out of 20MM CDs is freaking amazing. That ratio makes Microsoft products look like Satan's work.

No one here says anything substantively negative about the guy, but if you have something, why not add it as you see fit instead of just "deleting". After all, is that not the point of Wikipedia? I did in fact link to the "Slash Dot" article, which is where I am sure most of the negative issues you list come from anyway.

Further, I have looked at other Wiki articles to gain examples of "good content" and see nothing that much different from what I contributed. Speaking of Shawn Fanning, no negative press is listed in his bio. What about Lars Ulrich's diatribe, and oh, I don't know, the entire music industry contempt for him and his work, yet nada is up there and you guys taint saying anything now. Yet, you want me to post just negative stuff about this guy to show the world just how bad black folks are. Why is that, hmmm?

Why just rush to delete stuff you don't know. I did not know about 99% of the stuff here until I saw it here, but when I try to include something about the black community you all just start slamming it.

DaveG12345, what exactly is the "Ghit" quota for approval?

I guess this is your collective way of "White Washing" the site. If an African American contributes to technology that the music industry embraces, his offering is meaningless because you can find a few fans who miscategorize just "one" of his products. That is just your arbitrary standard. How many musicians lost money, work, and music from Shawn's contributions and slammed him for what he was doing?

Oh... no Ghits to corroborate that? I see, if you got blonde hair and blue eyes but get shut down, you get a free ride on the site and a movie role.

I will withdraw the submission and look for a more fair opportunity elsewhere! --Francespeabody 08:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghits is shorthand for "Google hits". When I nominated this article for deletion, I had no racial bias whatsoever or any agenda against Cedric Gore or his company. It was simply my belief that since this article isn't a biography of a noted person, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You have to understand that a lot of people try to take advantage of Wikipedia's ranking on search engines to promote themselves and their own companies/products. At the end of the day this article isn't a biography. If it read like one, then I wouldn't have any objections. Sure not every article out there lives up to that standard, but I only have the time to call them as I see them go past me in the recent edits queue. -- Netsnipe 09:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hey, hey, calm down Frances, I have clearly upset you big-time, and believe me, that wasn't the intention. I certainly hope you won't be going anywhere just yet. I gave my comments above in good faith, as I'm sure everyone on here does. I tried to determine the "notability" of the subject of the article, and I couldn't.
Just to start off with, let me say that nothing that gets written on these Articles-for-Deletion pages is aimed at the people writing the article OR the actual people that the article is about. When we say "delete, not notable", we are not saying "that person is nobody" or "the writer of this article is nobody" - we are saying that, as a Wikipedia article, there is not enough evidence out there to convince us, personally, that this person is "notable" enough to have a WP article. We don't just have a random guess. Honestly we don't. Well - I certainly don't. We are not just looking at the person, for example, and saying "no, they don't belong" without thinking any more about it. Seriously, you must believe me on that. We spend as much time as is reasonable assessing these things before we make a comment.
OK.
The main criteria used for deleting an article about a person is - as you see above - called WP:BIO. If you follow that link it gives guidelines for the type of people that are "notable" enough to have Wikipedia (WP) articles. But there are other guidelines too, and at the end of the day, it is tricky, because we do have to weigh up lots of factors. What many of us do here as part of this process is a WP:GOOG test when we come across a new person article, to see how many Google hits we get (Ghits) for that person. If they don't get very many Ghits, we tend to suspect the person is not very "notable". But we will do other tests too - for example, I looked up the Bandlink product, and did some other tests too, that I can't exactly remember right now. But I did whatever I could.
OK, that's how I came up with my deletion part above. I could hardly find any Ghits about the person (50 is considered very low), or the product, and (as I said above), some of the comments were not positive.
Just a thing I want to point out before I carry on. The reason we have to do these tests and so on, is usually because the article doesn't already say why the person is notable. It often just says "this guy did x and y". There's often no evidence in the article. If we're not experts on the subject, we often have very little information to go on. That's why we do these Ghit tests and so on.
OK.
I think what has happened with my "Comment" to you above, is I was writing very quickly and shorthandedly, when I probably should have slowed down and thought for a minute, and explained myself better. So, sincere apologies for that.
I think the "only guy throwing up negative comments" about any products round here was me, by the way. I hope you can now appreciate that this wasn't meant to criticise the person researching the article in any way, nor the person this article is about.
I was just trying to say, that it's very common to see articles that describe a person in really positive terms, that make it sound like everything is great. You can always tell they are written by someone very enthusiastic about the subject of the article. Sometimes, it seems to be so great, that people suspect someone from the company, or related to that person, or even the person themselves, wrote the article. Now, let me point out, that wasn't what I thought about this article, but the people above who wrote "advertising" in their comments probably did. Don't take it as a criticism, it is just what people, reading the article for the first time in their lives, thought.
I just wanna say, there's nothing wrong with being enthusiastic about the subject of the article. But the problem is, it has to be "toned down" for Wikipedia. It isn't like a forum or blog. And that was what I was trying to point out with my "Comment" above.
So, to illustrate what a "toned-down" article might look like, I gave an example (looking back, probably a bad example!) of the Bandlink DRM technology, and how an "enthusiastic" tone might say "the technology is great", whilst a negative tone would say "the technology is terrible", but the neutral tone (the Wikipedia tone) might say "the technology is very successful, lots of record labels are using it, they are all very happy about it, ALTHOUGH! some users have complained that the technology made their CDs unusable, or whatever".
I hope you see what I was trying to do. It was just meant as an example of "tone" that doesn't look like advertising, because no one would ever put that in their advert, right? That it sometimes didn't work...
And I was writing it quickly, and probably not giving it enough thought. But I wasn't dissing the product or the guy that invented it - I only found out about them both today, so what do I know about them? - I was just saying, it helps to CONVINCE people a lot more that an article isn't an advert, if it says the positive things and the negative things.
Anyway, I hope you see how an article that presents both viewpoints comes across as a bit more "balanced" than the other two options. Obviously, to include any of that in YOUR article, you would need some sources to back it up in the first place, and like I said originally, I could hardly find any information on the internet, so I wished you good luck in searching (the internet is not the only place to get sources, of course, but it's all I have with me right now).
Finally, I am amazed you thought there was any racial motive behind what I wrote, and I hope you don't feel that way any longer. My user page is at the end of this post, and if you wanna talk to me about editing this article to maybe help it survive this AfD process, or about anything else to do with writing this article, just leave a message on my Talk page or the Talk page of the article itself (it is on my Watchlist).
And what I am going to do now, as a mark of good faith to you, for obviously upsetting you, is remove my "vote" from this discussion. --DaveG12345 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Look guys, do what you feel you must. I see this tendency time and again in American society. For instance no Black Senator or government official has ever even made his way on to a beloved postal stamp. Unless something of note has a white face or gains the blessings of the White propagation machine, it gets ignored.
What you folks fail to realize is that we are a Minority in this Country so if 100% of us were online and using Google, we would still represent 13% of the total traffic. That suggest that there would always be far less "Hit Based" traffic than any white counterpart. Now consider that by 1998 only 48% of blacks over 18 were online and though we are finally up to 60% that is only 8% of the total number of "Ghits". Do you routinely purchase African American themed publications? I doubt it, which is why the more obscure but noteworthy citizens of African descent, go largely unnoticed by anyone outside of the race. (Unless you can shake your ass, play sports, or sing, you don't stand a chance, but definitely not "thinkers".)
I don't say you are actively using race as a way to disqualify the article, but you are subjecting it to standards like a Google search. That is fine for Historical African American figures and references which have had some time to mature in discussion by African American contributors, but what of contemporary individuals. Guys who are doing things now? Who is the Black "Shawn Fanning"? (No one commented on his inclusion from my previous comment) Prominent Blacks do exist whether you know of them or not and that is my point for including this guy. How else are you going to find out?
Quick Story:
I went to Disney Studios some years ago and shook the hand of the guy who was Lead-artist in drawing "Mickey Mouse" for modern use in film productions. He showed me 80 years of design iterations and what he was working on for modern interpretations, took his time to patiently pull out all manner of his work and design contributions, he was also African American. I had no idea of the guy, what he was doing, the significance of his work or anything. I sure as hell know of John Lasseter, and I feel better for knowing of him, but that guy, who's hand I shook, nobody knows! I have a million folks I would love to inform about him but no outlet. Oh, but wait what about Wikipedia? Well I tried that but if the admins don't know the guy personally forget about it.
I honestly don't personally even know of any African American's who know of what Wikipedia is, let alone having contributed to it. I am sure many of us use it but I don't know of any personally contributing to it. Not when the fight for daily recognition is paramount. I don't think you guys are able to see things from this perspective but, the people of "note" in our community might not ever pop up on the radar in yours. Cedric Gore was featured in Black Enterprise magazine, which is like the "Black Forbes" to us, but I guarantee not one of you ever picked up a Black Enterprise magazine in your life.
I am not suggesting applying different or "Less" of a standard for African American contribution but at least try to investigate beyond traditional media or just "White" publications. I am not at odds with any of you for your opinions, I am asking you to expand your field of research. --Francespeabody 22:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the above. I've changed my mind and gone for "keep" on this, but Francespeabody you miss the point... when you refer to "this country" I assume you mean USA. This is not an American project. There are many millions of web users outside of your country and hey, guess what? Some of them are black and some of them are white. --Dweller 13:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In either case, I thought the contribution was being rather impetuously marked for deletion so I responded to the best of my ability. Sorry if it seemed overly defensive but no one seemed to want to do anything beyond Google in terms of research to validate the work but instantly everyone started putting the guy down. I actually believe that the remark of my having "Screamed Racism" implied recently by "darkaudit" is counter-balanced by the general "Soft Bigotry" implicit in his and others attitude to rush to remove a contribution based on the rather limited premise of "if I don't know the guy, he can't be worth knowing". But to not ask the question "why haven't I heard of the guy? and then do something to uncover the answer seems anathema to the spirit of the website."
DarkAudit directed his rather poignant remark toward me, "Time would be better spent fixing the entry, and less on screaming racism". This was a point I thought I exactly made earlier when I said; "No one here says anything substantively negative about the guy, but if you have something, why not add it as you see fit instead of just "deleting". After all, is that not the point of Wikipedia? 08:14, 27 June 2006".
Wow, if my remarks are going to be ignored in this conversation, why should I expect my thoughts from the primary article to inform opinion. Time spent criticizing is definitely speedier than having to "read everything" but hey, I can forgive your transgression if you can forgive my early ineptitude with the "Wiki-System".
I still hope to be given a chance here, as well I hope to contribute future articles which may or may not be deemed relevant to all admins/editors, but as a contributor I should at least be given a chance to defend my position or to minimally, have my remarks "read" by those who would put me on the defense for my contributions in the first place.--Francespeabody 06:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Coredesat talk 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigq[edit]

Ad for non-notable software reseller -- Netsnipe 07:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girls At The Cairo National Stadium[edit]

Self-promotion GrAfFiTTalk Contribs 08:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monday, March 06, 2006. Even the Israeli press got interested. Girls at The Cairo National Stadium on Google Video. Posted by A :: 3:06 AM :: 0 Comments: ... [21]

Mosque of Ibn Tulun · Girls At The Cairo National Stadium, A video. Further reading. Artemis Cooper, Cairo in the War, 1939-1945, Hamish Hamilton, ... [22]

Girls at The Cairo National Stadium \ A video by Nimrod Kamer \ Egypt-Israel2006. Meadowhead Girls Football. ANB Soccer Academy - Coach Bassam. [23]

Girls At The Cairo National Stadium. R. RC Egypt. S. Social Fund for Development (Egypt) · Categories: African countries | Middle Eastern countries ... [24] --Marina T. 04:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first link is a blurb on a NN blog, second and third are spammer-aggregators, they merely regurgitate the Wikipedia article GrAfFiTTalk Contribs 11:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasSpeedy Delete - A7 by User:Lectonar - Peripitus (Talk) 08:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy is hot[edit]

Vanity and no content. Kf4bdy 08:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SmutVibes.com is social networking minus censorship[edit]

Blatant advertising/self-promotion of non-notable site. -- Matticus78 08:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam O'Hirsi[edit]

Tagged as db-repost, but I did not see a deleted version in history, and no link to an AfD. May well be a nn-bio, but that might just be systemic bias. Needs cleanup or deletion, not sure which. Just zis Guy you know? 09:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwarts Daily[edit]

NN online game, text of article states less than 100 members, fails WP:WEB Percy Snoodle 09:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Craig, That DAMNED Liberal Show[edit]

Tagged nn-bio, contested. Seems to be "notable" solely as the host of an "Internet radio" show (i.e. webcast) of no provable significance. Rolling in the show, That DAMNED Liberal Show, which makes a single (and unprovable / uncoited) claim to fame. Looks like a case of WP:HOLE to me. Just zis Guy you know? 09:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - should also consider removing Kristopher David Craig as well, as it is a redirect to Kris Craig. Also perhaps we should have any admin investigating sockpuppets also look to see if User:Pub biographer is involved eith any of the IPs/Accounts listed above. -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  20:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also, if these articles are removed by this AfD, someone should also do an IfD for Image:Kris_craig_tdls_2003.jpg & Image:Kris craig 2003.jpg, which are used in the articles above. Thanks -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep per opinions beyond the usual reflexive school inclusionism - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Newman High School (Santa Rosa, California)[edit]

This school is totally non-notable. Being one of the top 50 (!) Schools in one particular religion in one country is not notability. Stroika 09:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Schools are not likely to be named after some nonentity. The mere fact that this school is named after Newman does not make it notable. Come on Peripitus, make that a delete, better yet a strong delete.--Stroika 09:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Catholic schools named after Newman are pretty much ubiquitous. --DaveG12345 23:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well for starters look at their addresses. Netscott 09:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page shows a bit more the linkage. I'm looking for another page or two. Netscott 09:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The other school doesn't seem to be notable, either. Even if it were, its notability wouldn't transfer over to this school. --Coredesat 09:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously, if you'd ask any student from any one of those schools I cited if their school was more "notable" than Cardinal Newman... 99 times out of 100 I'm sure you'd get a "no" answer. In the grand scheme of things none of these schools are exceptionally "notable". That is my point. Netscott 10:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why are you opposing the deletion? Just because we have other articles about non-notable schools does not mean we should have this article about this non-notable school. --Stroika 10:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly because all of these schools form a sort of "pod" and this pod is notable. If one of the articles is to exist they all should exist. That's really my primary reason. Netscott 10:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) OK we'll delete them later, but first things first. This is the discussion page for the proposal to delete Cardinal Newman High School. Can you come up with any arguments as to why this school is notable? I repeat: your arguments so far beg the question.--Stroika 10:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Netscott you are editing your arguments (not just for typos) after they have been answered. This diff shows. It has the effect of making it look like I am not replying to what you said. Incidentally why is this pod notable. If it is notable why is there not an article for it?--Stroika 10:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did my edit commentary say "typo" there? Please refrain from giving the appearance that my creditibiliy is in question. Netscott 10:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry edit conflict confused me.--Stroika 10:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument is for completeness. I don't feel strongly enough about this issue to track down how this school is notable outside of being part of the grouping I've mentioned but as part of a set of articles about related schools of equal notability from the same region it absolutely makes sense that it should not be deleted. Netscott 10:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous information. Again I ask, why is this school notable? Why is this "pod" notable? Why is there not an article on the "pod" instead of on the schools in the "pod"? To put it another way, could your arguments not be used to defend any article whatsoever from deletion on the grounds of non-notability? Where will it end?--Stroika 10:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyerbole is a figure of speech. Begging the question is a logical fallacy. Hyperbole is acceptable in argument (although in this case it isn't hyperbole, it's reductio ad absurdum). You are begging the question and by definiuton a logical fallacy is not acceptable in argument. Again I ask, why is this school notable? Why is this "pod" notable. Does anyone else even use the term "pod" in this connection?--Stroika 10:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love when others argue and rely upon fallacies while being fully aware of such a reliance. The Santa Rosa metropolitan area represents the largest Californian population center north of San Francisco therefore one of the principal reasons the pod (set) is notable is the fact that the combined student populations of the schools in the pod (set) represent the bulk of all high school students for Northern California north of San Francisco. In terms of student population Cardinal Newman High School is likely in the top 5 for all of northern California from Santa Rosa north (and surely in the top 10). Netscott 11:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Cardinal Newman High School notable? The bulk of the population of Northern California live on a street in Northern California, therefore (by your argument) ought there to be articles on every street in Northern California? If the pod is notable create an article for that. What is under discussion here is whether this article should be deleted. The reason cited to support deletion is that this school is not notable. What do you have to say to that? Mere membership of a supposedly notable group of schools does not make this school notable. (The US is notable, every US citizen is not notable). --Stroika 11:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No that's notable information (perhaps) for the article on Joe Montana. Its not "the likes of Joe Montana" is it?. It is just Joe Montana. Remove Joe Montana and you have no notability for this school. Remove Prince William from Eton and Eton College is still notable. The interest of those news outlets is in Mr Montana, not his children, not in the school. I list some of the schools I think are notable here. Why should one guy's interest mean that this school deserves a full blown article? --Stroika 14:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? Like I said, take him away and what have you got? Nothing. This information belongs if anywhere in the article for Joe Montana. This school is still not notable in and of itself. Therefore it doesn't deserve an article on wikipedia. Talk about the school please, not one (and it seems only to be one) famous parent.--Stroika 14:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the respectability of the article is not in question. The notability of the subject is.--Stroika 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd never heard of him at all. Would that have been allowed as an argument? No obviously not and rightly so. Therefore I ask why is the fact that you have heard of him an argument for keeping this article?--Stroika 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is this magical quality that makes all High Schools/Secondary Schools notable? Please I want to see if I can find it elsewhere. Maybe I have it. (sotto voce) Maybe you do.--Stroika 19:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is better than the common run of schoolcruft surely that's all the more reason to delete this one and make it that much easier to delete the others when the time comes (which assuredly will)? (*begins to hum Dies Irae*)--Stroika 22:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't follow your reasoning, we should delete notable schools so we can delete non-notable school? Say what!? I stand by my comment, it's one of the top 50 catholic schools in the US, and Montana tips it just over the bar. --Eivindt@c 10:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to forestall more arguments of this type. But why oh why do so many people value this article? (Assuming they do which is not apparent from its edit history). Do they only value it because other people value it? What is so valuable about this article? Why does Cardinal Newman High School deserve an article?--Stroika 22:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to reduce the hemorrhaging are we? Hehe. Netscott 00:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wait a minute there's a policy on schools? Well that changes everything. Why didn't I think of looking for it? Let's all go to WP:SCHOOLS right now and see what we find.
"This proposal was rejected by the community. It is inactive but retained for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion on this subject, try using the talk page or start a discussion at the village pump."
Can't see anything about trying to revive discussion on AfD......--Stroika 09:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentFrom WP:Music "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." This is appropriate material for Joe Montana's article. I draw your attention to the discussion between myself and Netscott above. <Re-edited after response below:> I don't blame Yanksox for missing it (and I don't claim it was definitive) but some people round here think that the whole thread should be taken as read. I don't claim it settled anything definitively but to save myself typing there it is. Probing too many arguments seems to provoke disgust among some editors. --Stroika 07:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly not disgust on my part but moreso puzzlement. Netscott 14:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do read the whole thread when an AfD comes my way, I've been here long enough to know that. I looked over the article and the statements that it made, and I do believe it should be kept (FYI, I do place my opinion for "Delete," on a few schools, check out the DRV on Arborview High School), it does make some claims of notability. Schools are put under a strange scope, and really that is the fact that it can make some sort of claim of being different from similar schools. About the WP:MUSIC comment, this AfD[26] stood up because of that argument. The situation involving schools is getting really ugly, but I admit there is a slight lecinancy in favor of schools, but this article does present certain information that makes in stand out from the rest of it's own class. That is really how people should judge the scope of notability, how does this subject make itself different from other similiar subjects? Yanksox 11:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Copy (1998 film)[edit]

A google search suggests that this isn't notable. I think it might be a student film (see the Chapman University link). I started to clean this up, before realising there's little point. The JPStalk to me 09:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Wintrich[edit]

Non notable host of Internet talkshow, total of 4 Google hits Fram 09:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 16:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PatriotNet[edit]

NN ISP advertisement, fails WP:WEB. Compare those listed in Category:Online service providers. —Lamentation :( 09:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KickBoxer Snaps Leg[edit]

Non notable, not encyclopedic: Only Google hit is a redirect from another Wikipedia article (Vicious Leg Break Fram 09:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Kickboxing Leg Break" gives 1,190 Google hits, but only 74 distinct ones. Still not a lot, and not enough to warrant inclusion. "Kickboxer Leg Break" gives 176 hits and 38 distinct ones. When checking the number of hits for a phrase (or any fixed combination of words), be certain to put " " around them. This will always heavily reduce the number of hits. Secondly, try to find if you have actually a large number of distinct Google hits. Often, Google will have many pages from the same source (like a forum or whatever), that will count a many hist but are in fact only one website. Thus, Kickboxing Leg Break gives 152,000 hits, "Kickboxing Leg Break" gives 1270 (this time, the number varies with every serach), and going to page 10 of the results gives me that there are only 74 distinct results. Anyway, enough Google lessons, the result is that it is not notable anyway you name it. Fram 11:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet other internet memes like:
"SNL Digital Shorts" get 500 google hits
"Anabukinchan" get 800 google hits
"Gert Jonnys" get 800 google hits
Although its not on Wikipedia look at the video clip of that guy who's head goes up an elephant's ass. Everyone has seen it but it only gets 400 hits on google Your google hit number theory is flawed, some video clips are so and popular that, like a virus, they change their name and are hard to track down. Google results shouldn't be the be all and end all of whether or not an article stays.--Abaddon 12:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I think that some of them (like Anabukinchan) are different, because they have a background (verifiable), a story beyond "it's funny". Secondly, many memes are discussed for deletion, and some are kept while others (most) are deleted. And if they always change their name and are hard to track down, how will you encyclopedize them? Give them a random name? Create fifty slightly different names and make them all redirects? And then, when people who come looking for it (and thus probably have seen the movie) find it here, all they read is what they knew all along, as their is nothing encyclopedic that can be said (or has been said at least) about this videoclip. Finally, another Google lesson: don't write elephant's-ass and then come here to show that it has only 400 hits. Written in your traditional way, it has 4,260,000 hits, and written in the strict way, it has no hits (none at all). I have no idea under what name that video is known (I don't know it and don't care for it), but obviously not that one. Fram 13:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This meme has no content ... YET. If it's left on here someone will come on who knows the story and fill in the background. That's the point of a stub is it not? Someone will come on wikipedia looking for info on the kickboxing clip and find it either by searching or in the list of Internet memes. Already people have added clues and content i.e. the link in the ring what kind of leg break it was, etc. As for the elephants head I was just following YOUR google search requirements. If I follow your NEW way of searching google then kick boxer breaks leg gets hundreds of thousands of google hits again. While like you said "head into elephant's ass" gets 0 hits. Just becauce YOU don't know about something and don't care for its subject matter isn't grounds for deletion. --Abaddon 22:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And just because something is indexed by Google doesn't mean that it is in any way important or deserving of an article. Try to think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than YouTube. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 23:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look again, you weren't following my Google search requitements at all, you didn't put "'s around the search term. As for the rest, we'll let the community decide if it is worthy of inclusion or not... Fram 05:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that we shouldn't use some flawed Google index number that someone thought up off the top of their head. While Wikipedia isn't Youtube it is an encyclopedia. Not an encyclopedia of just stodgy scientific data but also an encyclopedia of Popular culture too. This is were this Internet Meme fits in. It may not appeal to everyone but it's still Wikipedia worthy.
If your jab at the Google index is intended at me, could you then please just explain how it is flawed? Fram 10:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For reasons you've already pointed out. This clip gets more hits than other Wikipedia internet memes like:
"SNL Digital Shorts" get 500 google hits
"Anabukinchan" get 800 google hits
"Gert Jonnys" get 800 google hits
Famous "head into elephant's ass" clip gets 0 hits
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hansen Gress Corporation[edit]

Non notable company: only Google hits are to own website. Even "Hansen Gress" gives just 64 Google hits (14 distinct ones). Fram 09:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What has the talk of ECustoms to do with Hansen Gress Corporation? Fram 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, well, it means I've been spending too much time on the wiki and obviously can't read clearly anymore. BigNate37 21:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per A7. User:Angr 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bleeding Irish[edit]

Non-notable band, fails WP:Music: Just one EP released Huon 10:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Brydges[edit]

He won £1,000,000 and that is all, I couldn't find any additional information about him, I guess he hasn't done anything special with this money thus not making him very notable. It's a stub because there's nothing else notable enough to write about. Andeh 10:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Of the other UK winners, the first one and the first man (so, um, second one) to win it also had success in another TV quizzes renowned for being pretty difficult. This winner - Pat Gibson - also won another tough TV quiz, but it seems to read like a puff-piece (the "common consent" section in particular) - prob needs a citations/NPOV tag. --DaveG12345 00:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 17:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic Paraffinic Hydrocarbon[edit]

Reads like a copyvio. Nothing links here, and nothing links from here. It is a mess that seems non-recoverable. Bduke 10:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Tobinick[edit]

Fellow who owns a patent for using an expensive drug for back pain. No indication that this warrants WP:BIO. Delete. JFW | T@lk 11:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: First of all, there is obviously some dispute as to whether or not his contributions are significant. That is why the AfD exists. In the absence of a substantial body of research, a pilot study posted on webMD's online journal isn't convincing. Secondly, writing a continuing medical education (CME) review, or presenting one in person, is not a significant contribution. Plenty of non-notable people do this. Similarly, answering a "call for papers" to present a short lecture at a conference does not make a person notable. A Google search for "Karolinska Institutet" + "Tobinick" gets five unique hits (all appear to be PR generated from Tobinick's office) and "Alzheimer's Drug Discovery" + "Tobinick" gets none. -AED 17:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The agenda for the 7th International Conference on Alzheimer's Drug Discovery is online at www.aging-institute.org/i/isoa/c_20061012_agenda.pdf. His cancer work has been cited by researchers from the University of Minnesota (see Wacnik, et. al. PMID 15802198 and Anderson and colleagues from Centocor (two articles on Pubmed, "Therapeutic potential of cytokine and chemokine antagonists in cancer therapy, PMID 16524718, and PMID 15251122. His work on neuropathic pain has been cited in a review by Sommer "Mechanisms of Neuropathic Pain: The Role of Cytokines", Drug Discovery Today, Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2004 pp. 441-448. His recent study on TNF modulation for Alzheimer's was discussed in an editorial written by a Johns Hopkins researcher "Editorial: Cytokine Inhibition for Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease" MedGenMed Neurology & Neurosurgery, vol 8, issue 1, April 26, 2006. See also a search done at www.scirus.com for "Tobinick". A search on Pubmed for "Tobinick" gives 7 hits. -tnfinfo 11:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:BIO and WP:PROF are pretty clear on the relevant standards. Giving a 20 minute lecture at a conference does not make a person notable or verify notability; I've been to plenty of CME given by lecturers who regularly respond to a "call for papers". Similarly, having a study footnoted in someone else's study (or having it mentioned in an editorial) does not establish notability of the research or the researcher. All it establishes is that the study was at least remotely related to the research of others. -AED 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: With regard to WP:PROF, please note criteria 5: "The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory, or idea". With the revision of the biography, to include additional information, verifiable by search of the U.S. patent office and published articles, the WP:BIO, WP:PROF appear to be met. tnfinfo 08:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per WP:PROF, "important" is the key word: "The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea." He is not. If he was, then it is likely that some of the other criteria in WP:PROF would be met, too! -AED 20:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)edited22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is AED arguing that a radically new approach, based on a recombinant DNA therapeutic, for treatment of Alzheimer's Disease is not important? Please note that AED's statement above about the (non)importance of the study ("...having it mentioned in an editorial") may be interpreted to have mischaracterized the editorial - rather than "mentioning it" the editorial [28] appears to have been written solely to discuss this single study [29], most likely because of the importance of the scientific issues which were raised by publication of the study. With regard to originating this treatment method, the U.S. patents awarded (6,015,557; 6,177,077 [30]; and 6,982,089 [31]) verify that the identity of the inventor is known. Therefore this element 5 of WP:PROF is satisfied, and the WP:PROF guideline would appear to be met, because the guideline states "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, they are definitely notable". tnfinfo 08:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First of all, your question contains a false premise: that the approach is important because it is radically new. Tobinick did NOT originate the idea that the suppression of cytokine activity may help Alzheimer's patients! Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that his approach has yet had a significant impact on the area of medicine and research concerned with treating Alzheimer's disease. One editorial in a relatively insignificant on-line journal does not suffice. Important concepts generate lots of buzz... and this one has not. -AED 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment: Let's stick to the facts. Dr. Tobinick did invent the use of etanercept to treat Alzheimer's Disease, and the specific patented method of administration, perispinal injection, that was used in the recently published article which he and his colleagues (two professors of Neurology and a rheumatologist) authored. All of this information is verifiable, since the patents, and the article are all documented above. With respect to AED's comment that "this one has not (generated a lot of buzz)" what does he think the nearly full-page article which appeared in the Los Angeles Times on June 19, 2006 about Dr. Tobinick's new Alzheimer's treatment was [32]? With respect to verifying inventorship, the following is a direct quote from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: "In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: “(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,” or “(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . .”"[33].tnfinfo 09:19 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)edited 11:58 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have stuck to the facts. No one is denying that the man holds patents for the use of etanercept to treat Alzheimer's, but the fact is that important concepts generate lots of buzz... and this one has not. The presence of an editorial in a relatively insignificant on-line journal and an article in the Health section of the LATimes.com is not "lots of buzz".
  • Comment: Perhaps you just have not been aware of the facts. Follow-up articles have been published regarding Dr. Tobinick's new discovery for Alzheimer's in newspapers around the country, including Baltimore (Baltimore Sun), Washington state, and Florida, just to mention a few. And this does not even include Dr. Tobinick's other published work, which is being cited by an increasing number of researchers around the world. Just as an example, his original concept of using TNF-inhibition for treatment of avian influenza (see U.S. patent 6,419,934 from September 2000) is now supported by publications from the CDC in 2005 [34] and is cited in a new publication just this week [35]. He has also co-authored a well-received medical textbook [36] and [37] tnfinfo 18:38 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)edited 23:10 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: 1) "Published" in newspapers is not the same as being published in academic journals. 2) As discussed earlier on this page, he has very little published work. 3) As discussed earlier on this page, having your study appear as a footnote in someone else's study doesn't make you notable. 4) You're manufacturing claims. Tobinick was not the first to conceptualize the role of inhibiting TNF in treating viruses, so its disingenuous to imply that others were following his work. I certainly don't see his TNF-inhibition work cited in the CDC publication. In fact, I don't see any published research by him regarding TNF-inhibition for treatment of avian influenza on PubMed or in his patent . 5) Contributing to a textbook doesn't satisfy #4 of WP:PROFTEST. -AED 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)edited 06:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Meets another criteria for WP:BIO: "Published authors... who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work", see two reviews cited above [38] and [39] and a third review [40]. Please note that Dr. Tobinick is one of four authors of this textbook, see [41]. On another point, #4, AED is wrong also, Dr. Tobinick's TNF inhibition article on SARS specifically discusses avian influenza; this is verifiable by just reading the article, available at: [42]. Since AED has now given an incorrect opinion on so many points here, there seems little point to correct him further. (He was, however, right about patent 6419434; this was a typo, which should have been -934, and has been corrected). On another note, Dr. Tobinick has individually been awarded 17 U.S. patents (compare all faculty at Caltech combined, who were awarded 139 patents in 2003 [43]. By this criteria alone he meets WP:PROF. tnfinfo 23:30 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: 1) So now he's a notable author on the basis of his contributions to a medical textbook on skin surgery?! 2) You claimed that Tobinick was the first to conceptualize the role of inhibiting TNF in treating avian influenza (which is false), so I wrote: "I don't see any published research by him regarding TNF-inhibition for treatment of avian influenza". As I pointed out in my first post here, Tobinick's "article" is a letter to the editor! 3) Yep... CalTech faculty combined for 139 patents in a year and Tobinick has 17 in his life. Probably for good reason, there is no "patent criteria" on WP:PROF, though. -AED 07:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Examination of U.S. patent 6,419,934 [44] (see claim 14: "A method for inhibiting the action of TNF in accordance with claim 1, wherein the step of administering said dosage level is for treating influenza") verifies that Tobinick originated the concept of TNF inhibition for treatment of influenza. AED appears to be violating WP:NPOV by posting verifiably false statements. In addition, the Caltech press release [45] states that "Caltech ranks No. 2 among American universities in number of patents awarded in 2003" with 139 patents awarded to a total of 345 faculty members, equivalent to 0.4 patents per faculty member per year. To return to TNF inhibiton for influenza, a concept Dr. Tobinick originated, is AED arguing that this is of no importance, even after publications from the CDC [46] and others [47] [48] have documented the important role which TNF plays in the Acute respiratory distress syndrome which is responsible for the high mortality in H5N1 influenza avian influenza. Is AED saying that the concept that Dr. Tobinick originated, as documented above, which may, as described, potentially reduce H5N1 mortality, is not important, when the world is facing a possible H5N1 epidemic? tnfinfo 06:00 PDT, 02 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Surprise[edit]

Google search 150 unique hits. No news The first link is to www.praxis brainchild of on Lanir, and the second link csel.eng.ohio-state.edu Emily S. Patterson October 8-12, 2001 refers to Lanir, Z. (1986). "Fundamental Surprise. Eugene, Oregon: Decision Research." Looking at the other contributions that the editors of this article are making, this appears to be advertising. Delete.
brenneman {L} 11:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep the rewrite. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Island Home[edit]

Song lyrics/poem with no context or explaination. Not relevant content for wikipedia. --11:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Ladybirdintheuk

The lyrics can be found at http://www.ozmusic-central.com.au/oztabs/uvw/WarumpiBand/My%20Island%20Home.txt
I have listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 June 27/Articles suggest this AfD be closed --A Y Arktos\talk 08:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • see My Island Home/Temp for work in progress on revised version by Capitalistroadster--A Y Arktos\talk 10:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote that My Island Home/Temp be moved to main article and Kept, Capitalistroadster has done a great job of cleaning it up. -- Chuq 12:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Ladybirdintheuk 12:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all. Proto///type 12:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomfield Road, Blackpool[edit]

These pages would appear to be the beginnings of potential listcruft. Can individual streets of questionable note in a town really justify individual articles? Matticus78 11:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article on Blackpool F.C. itself already makes mention of the road, and there is already a perfectly good article on Bloomfield Road (the stadium specifically, rather than the road). Can't see the merit of a separate article on the road unless there's anything else of note about it. -- Matticus78 13:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages for the same reason:

  • Preston New Road, Blackpool could be deleted under ((Template:db-empty)), since the entire content is "Preston New Road is a major road in the UK town of Blackpool", essentially repeating the title.
Whitegate Drive, Blackpool is four months old now. Have a look and see what you think to it. --Mr Stephen 23:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 16:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Advertising[edit]

The clue is surely in the name. This is blatant e-Advertsing. Fiddle Faddle 11:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield United Full Record 1889-2006[edit]

No real content. Original editors only edits were to this page early in March. It could be completed but the start is so small and the material would be better in the main article on Sheffield United. Bduke 11:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Ydam 13:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy close, redirects are cheap, if for some reason you want it deleted, you can take it to RfD, but I think it should stay. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Iltaf Sheikh[edit]

initial spelling mistake, article for mohamed Iltaf Sheikh already exists. no need to use this page simply to redirect Lordb 12:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus, though I would have liked to see it deleted - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006_FIFA_World_Cup_controversies[edit]

Article is POV (note the word blatant used a couple of times in it for example) and really doesn't deserve it's own article. At the very least it should be moverd to a subsection on the main worldcup 2006 article-- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 13:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Contrary to my nom above now Very very weak keep it does read better now but I still think it is better suited in another article, on it's own it just looks like alot of POV rather than say criticism in a balanced article about refereeing at the world cup. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is important to note that some of these actions have led to consequences that impact the event. Graham Poll was a likely candidate to referee the final, but that is now very unlikeley. Finally, it's not all about the refereeing. There have been other meaningful controvesies surrounding this event that need to be documented. --204.113.19.8 22:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that the article is supposed to document mistakes. To afirm that there really were mistakes in most cases is POV (to say there's something fishy about the number of fouls between BRA and AUS is misleading, to mention a 3rd yellow card doesn't deserve it's own article). You say it's supposed to document the whining. Newsflash, fans get upset when their teams lose. You say other controversies are meaningful or notable. I disagree. I also think giving the spotlight to some of the controversies unintentionally validates them, therefore stepping over that fine distinction you mentioned. PHF 00:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
World Cup trivia section? That would be 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany. Carcharoth 07:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a subsection of the World Cup 2006 article, check the archives and you'll find the discussion where it was deleted as POV.
My bad, that was me ^^^^. Batman2005 13:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense (and you didn't sign your comment). Deleting a section of an article is a totally different process to deleting an actual article. I definitely saw a red link at some point, so I want to know what got deleted, by who, and when, whether it got recreated or undeleted, and why I can't find any "paper trail" showing what happened! Carcharoth 07:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Looking at the date in the deletion log, and seeing the date of creation of the article, I see that this is in fact a recreation of already deleted content. An admin earlier speedy deleted the article as "patent nonsense". The article probably looked different then, but as non-admins cannot see deleted content, we have no way of looking at the history. Does this affect the debate? Was it improperly speedy deleted before? Can it be speedy deleted now as a recreation of deleted content? To answer the last question, this debate already means that speedy deletion because of recreation is not an option. Carcharoth 07:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI dont think you can cite original research in fairness, the content is from proven sources - specifically the FIFA website. Also it is a relation of actual events which IMO does not constitue research but observation. I thinkthe important question is does the content belong here or split up and distributed between the other FIFA 2006 articles as criticism (for example).
I believe I can cite the lack of original research as the article fails WP:NOR in that the FIFA citations (with the exception of the citation of the Sepp Blatter comments) explain the rules and some editors have taken it upon themselves to interpret the rules themselves based on what they saw (all of the "appears to show" analysis is original research). Perhaps I was a bit hasty in saying the whole thing should be scrapped, as the bit with Togo, and the comments by FIFA officials could certainly be distributed appropriately (not criticisms, so much as news) elsewhere. However, these few bits of encyclopedic information do not excuse the completely POV OR nature of the article hoopydinkConas tá tú? 12:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, upon further review, I'm going to vote Keep for now per others, so we can have a reference point for all of this, as the competition isn't even over yet. Once over, we can collaborate and write it in such a way that it'll be encyclopedic and a great addendum to the 2006 FIFA World Cup article, as the yellows have been flying like crazy. Having said that, I plan on deleting some of the obvious POV passages for now. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 12:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a bit of time on the article today and have researched all of the sources and citations, and I'm going back to my original Strong Delete vote; I actually tried to justify what should and shouldn't be included by using stringent WP policy, but was unable to, given the nature of the sources and incidents. I had to interpret the sources and citations from WP policy, but it was my view of whether or not the sources were NPOV or not, as it's so subjective. Therefore, much of the editing I intended to do was compromised. One can see the talk page for a look at what I was trying to do in remaining NPOV and NOR. Certain incidents, however, such as the three yellows, the record number of cards, and the Sepp Blatter comments should be merged into the article where appropriate. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are all saying here and perhaps the title 'controversy' is a little mis-;eading. I think the thought of the original and cirrent authors is to highlight areas of dispute / human error in the 2006 finals. If 2 newspapers take a different view over something (eg the final seconds penalty in the AUS / Italy game) then it is obviously a dispute of interest. THe article does provide an objective view of that (and all the other) incidents (or just about anyway) in my opinion. Taking the example of that penalty again I don't think saying one team find it a controversy and one team don't is fair. I watched the match and am impartial (supporting neither team plus England are unlikely to play either of them) and think that it was a contreversial decision - not because it was wrong but because of the outcome from it -> Italy scored and won the match. Now even if it is a foul (I personally think not but that is your own opinion) the decision would be contreversial. It is the timing and the oucome that determines it!!! Some of these commments are response to bits and pieces up the page so I stuck it down here for ease. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 14:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does not "explain the context" of anything. Any pub bore can waffle about how such a ref is this or that - the facts are thin when opinions rule a topic like this. This article has no independent view point, just conjecture and bias. It should be deleted doktorb wordsdeeds 07:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 16:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deurosis[edit]

No Google hits on the word. Reads like a hoax. -- Matticus78 13:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 16:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shakor[edit]

Non-notable artist. cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merged to Vladimir Putin (whether this is actually worth mentioning there, we'll see). --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comrade Wolf[edit]

Delete this is an article about a character in some Russian jokes (clearly a very minor one, b/c I have never heard of him) who was apparently mentioned once by Putin. Characters in Russian jokes are not verifiable by google etc. The basic idea here is that this is profoundly NN, indiscriminate, and probably unencyclopedic.- CrazyRussian talk/email 13:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microquest[edit]

non notable advertisement. Dweller 13:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauna Kea Beach Hotel[edit]

Non notable hotel in Hawaii. The page was nominated for deletion in 2004 and barely survived because one user deemed it a decent stub. Has not been edited since, save minor edits. Fails WP:CORP. Pascal.Tesson 13:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KnightsBridge Castle[edit]

advertising Jmartinky 14:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Merge to List of The Shield episodes. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Money Train Heist[edit]

Delete or Merge. I'm a fan of The Shield. I think its possibly the best TV police drama series around (Homicide: Life on the Street is the other contender]]). But this article is just about one of the main story arcs! This version is only half complete too. If its merged, it needs to be cut down drastically. Bwithh 17:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the phrase "Money Train Heist" on the show, and I've watched almost every episode of the series. There's been no episode entitled the "Money Train Heist". so who's going to search for that phrase, or even think of searching for a story arc? Bwithh 22:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I'm counting on you to know the show well enough to decide this. I withdraw my vote. --Uncle Ed 23:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it in the gub[edit]

No more than a dictionary entry, plus nn--No hits on google for "Taking it in the gub" AdamBiswanger1 20:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Scottish and I agree with the first and third entry of this article. It surprisingly didn't come up on google but this doesn't mean its not true. moloch2012 21:14, 16 June 2006 (GMT)

It really does mean oral sex,its not an offensive term or anything, just slang. i was in America recently and my friends and i were saying it and people didnt know what it ment, i just wanted to tell people.. thats all. I dont mind if you feel you have to delete it but its a genuine phrase i thought people would like to know. Its used in everyday language in Scotland. Mullerdrooler 21:20, 16 June 2006 (GMT)

Comment Thanks for your input. Perhaps if you could substantiate the claim that this is a widespread term in Scotland, I would agree with you. However, I nominated this article for deletion not necessarily because it is non-notable, but because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, there is aversion towards neologisms among editors. Feel free to chime in with any evidence or support you have to save this article. AdamBiswanger1 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think if you want to save this article, Muller, you need to add more than a definition, say, when the phrase was first coined or something, how vulgar it is in Scotland, what other slang related to it, famous people who have said it etc. Dev920 22:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge to IESE. Oldelpaso 07:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IESE International MBA Case Competition[edit]

This doesn't seem notable. Nothing links to it. The list of winning team members appears to be unsourced. The username of the page's creator is similar to that of a member of one of the winning teams listed, suggesting a possible vanity page. Kickaha Ota 20:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Update: I nominated this, but now suggest a merge rather than a delete. Kickaha Ota 18:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CooperYoung[edit]

A board game invented by a university student, only ever played by him and his friends, then abandoned. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Percy Snoodle 14:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It IS a clever idea isn't it? I just got the really clever bit. Deizio talk 02:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Feel free to enlighten us at some point. --DaveG12345 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kre-alkalyn[edit]

advertising Jmartinky 14:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tuesday Club[edit]

Not notable. Seems like something made up at school one day. Few web hits, though it's hard to search because there's a book with a similar title.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, now that the copyvio issues have been resolved. Default action would be to merge this back to 4000 series, so I'll apply the appropriate merge tags. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4026 IC[edit]

I think this article raises a general issue - what should be our policy on standard IC datasheets? As it stands, the text (and, previously, the illustrations) were copied from here, or possibly from another source, so that gives us grounds for deletion per WP:CP. However, the text could easily be re-written and the images re-drawn to avoid the copyright issue. The question is therefore: do we want to include this sort of datasheet? There are three such articles, including this one, linked from 4000 series, and one linked from List of 7400 series integrated circuits. Do we want to keep them, or not? My opinion is currently Neutral. Tevildo 20:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cut n paste copyvio and non-notable. --Ezeu 20:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the topic (not the content; that is, after fixing copyvio) back to the 4000 series topic. The 7400 and 4000 series parts were revolutionary, not just notable; the individual chips, though are hard to say anything about. -- Mikeblas 15:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete do not merge - this is a complete copyvio, to fix it you have to re-write the article from scratch.--Konstable 02:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Older version not copyvio, see below.--Konstable 11:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CD4007 - which seems OK, if stubby
4017 IC - which reputedly uses a copyleft image, but describes the pinouts (presumably not copyrighted?)
4511 IC - as 4017 IC above
7400 - which seems OK, if stubby
What to do about these...? Not a big fan of the inconsistent naming, and there's question marks over pinout info being copyrighted for two of them. Diagnosis: uncertain. --DaveG12345 03:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged 7400 into 7400 series. I think 7400 series and it's list are the way to go; we should have the 4511, 4017, and 4007 articles redriect to the series, and make sure there's a "list of 4000 series" parts, merging the content from 4511, 4017, and 4007 articles. This implements the idea that the series were important enough to warrant an article or description, but not the individual parts. -- Mikeblas 13:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 scenarios in fiction[edit]

This page can go one of two ways: either it will devolve further into the nebulous, ORish "stories that bear some resemblance to 9/11," for which there is no standard of similarity and no quantifiable metric for inclusion or exclusion, or it can go the other way, and strictly be scenarios in published works of fiction that are explicitly retelling the story of 9/11. The latter would be fine with me, except none of the items currently in the list do that. (One example occurs before the attacks, another afterwards, and the rest have nothing to do with September 11.) If "9/11 scenarios" is to be widened to "Works of fiction that mention 9/11", this would mean every TV show from The Sopranos to The Shield, which both mention 9/11 and life after it, would need to be included, which would be fine except I don't want to start the precedent of Works of fiction that mention the Civil War, Works of fiction that mention World War II, etc., etc. Delete as either original research, or simply an indiscriminate collection of information. JDoorjam Talk 14:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Yeshua. Proto///type 12:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshuah[edit]

Not notable. No info at AllMusic, less than ten hits searching for his name and "humdingers". Mikeblas 14:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Define "well known in the London area"? --Dweller 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that "underground" popularity is impossible to verify and is, to be frank, frequently a lot less than claimed. If Wikipedia did not require some verification of a musician's notability, we would be constantly be keeping new articles for every aspiring performer who's had one performance (sometimes not even that) or posted one mp3 on a myspace page. Fan1967 14:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waggish[edit]

This page is about a small fashion house that is not well known enough for inclusion as per the policy set out at WP:Corp. It appears to have been written by someone connected to the company for promotional reasons. RicDod 21:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toenut[edit]

POV chronicle of a nn band. On Google and on the article itself I see no assertion of notability. Delete as nominator. AdamBiswanger1 21:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serius Jones[edit]

Five minutes of fame; no contract, no releases, just the appearance on Fight Klub. Few web hits aside from copyvios of the MTV show. Mikeblas 14:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serius Jones is gaining notoriety in the hip-hop and rap battle underground. As stated in the article, he defeated the former champion Jin the Emcee, but what has not been mentioned is that he won $10,000 dollars by defeating Jin and that Jin the Emcee is on the Ruff Ryder label. Defeating an MC who was a rap battle champion, is a rapper on a major label and winning $10,000 dollars by defeating said rapper adds weight to the importance of keeping this article. Keep this page. --Toddd 06:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC

Comment I don't think a $10,000 contest is notable. mscdirect.com is running a contest to win a tool box and a set of tools; would you have us write up an article about the contest and its winner? Every scratch-off lottery winner, or local poker champion? -- Mikeblas 01:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm just working off the WP:MUSIC guideline: "Has won or placed in a major music competition". As I say, I have no idea whether this competition is "major". It's more major than that tool box comp you're citing, for sure, but I don't see the relevance of your follow-up questions anyway (poker? this is music, isn't it? "every magazine best newcomer award winner" might be more like it). I was assuming anything MTV put out is probably trivial, but would have liked some confirmation. Seriusly. --DaveG12345 01:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mikeblas; you don't consider defeating a rapper(Jin) on a major record label(Ruff Ryder) who has had one or two hit songs in the past few months a big deal? I know I do. --Toddd 06:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, CSD A7 db-bio. Deizio talk 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KonShence Allah[edit]

Not notable. Not at All Music Guide (under either name). No hits for either name plus album names, except here on Wikipedia. Mikeblas 14:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Schirra[edit]

Non notable author: 96 Google hits, 37 distinct: no reviews, no published books Fram 14:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge. I think I did this already ... weird. Proto///type 12:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel F. Zubairi[edit]

A US Congressional candidate, not otherwise notable. This is in parallel with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Stein, a similiar candidate in the same race. Like Stein, he doesn't deserve a separate article, so Merge both Jeff Stein and Daniel F. Zubairi into Maryland congressional elections, 2006 or an article about the 8th District in particular. Calton | Talk 04:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a parallel nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Stein, as I've already noted above, and should be treated the same, especially since the Stein nomination has already garnered two "delete" recommendations. What goes for one ought to go for the other. --Calton | Talk 09:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, CSD A7 db-bio. Deizio talk 22:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Engineer (artist)[edit]

Not notable; no page at All Music, can't be found in Amazon.com music for sale. Only edits to the page are from a single user named "Engineerdj", and external sites are commercial in nature. Mikeblas 14:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abrasu[edit]

Originally, this page was a copy of the Wiktionary article ameliorate. The word abrasu does not seem to return any English hits on Google. The page seems to be a dictionary definition for a non existant word (at least in English). It may be complete bollocks. Molerat 15:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grabsteins[edit]

Extraordinarily obscure. Delete.- CrazyRussian talk/email 15:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chromavision[edit]

Speedy Delete and sanction author Advertisement. Nothing more. DarkAudit 15:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of coins[edit]

unmaintainable - there are 174 currencies, Wikipedia is not for collections of photographs. Redundant to commons:Category:Coins --Astrokey44 16:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • this gallery is incomplete showing only 8 of the worlds 174 currencies and is already at the 32kb suggested file size. it would be enormous if it included every coin of every currency in use today (front and back view, i might add), while the flag gallery is complete. also because it is called 'gallery of coins' it could include all of countless historical coins like Roman provincial coins, the St. Patrick Halfpenny etc. --Astrokey44 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merged in to ACIM.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACIM church movement[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted:

This article is noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy based on:

and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 14:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It's not unremarkable, and significance is noted. User Ste4k appears to be on an anti-ACIM jihad, as this is one of a long list of AfDs this editor is suddenly proposing, all using an identical list of "concerns," above, and all from the same general topic. I have no personal interest in ACIM, other than that I assisted in arbitrating a dispute, and have since noticed Ste4k's unusual activity here. -The Editrix 15:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not necessarily the case. There is little or no cited evidence of significance in any of these articles which comes from outside the ACIM movement itself, as such it appears to constitute a walled garden and this is a legitimate reason for nomination of multiple related articles which does not constitute bad faith. Just zis Guy you know? 12:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pathways of Light center[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted:

This article is noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy based on:

Note: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service.

It only matters:
1. that what is put in the article matches the sources.
2. that those sources are reliable.
It is therefore based solely on original research.
and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 15:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It's not unremarkable, and significance is noted. User Ste4k appears to be on an anti-ACIM jihad, as this is one of a long list of AfDs this editor is suddenly proposing, all using an identical list of "concerns," above, and all from the same general topic. I have no personal interest in ACIM, other than that I assisted in arbitrating a dispute, and have since noticed Ste4k's unusual activity here. -The Editrix 15:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community Miracles Center[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted:

Ste4k believes that this article is noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy based on:

Note: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service.

It only matters:
1. that what is put in the article matches the sources.
2. that those sources are reliable.
It is therefore based solely on original research.
and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It's not unremarkable, and significance is noted. User Ste4k appears to be on an anti-ACIM jihad, as this is one of a long list of AfDs this editor is suddenly proposing, all using an identical list of "concerns," and all from the same general topic. I have no personal interest in ACIM, other than that I assisted in arbitrating a dispute, and have since noticed Ste4k's unusual activity here. -The Editrix 15:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And might I add, the user's motivations do not change the evaluation that I or others make on this article. Pascal.Tesson 22:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note:To be fair, please note for the sake of documentation, that I performed the citation research for the premise of notability and was denied access to making the factual changes to the single article at the base of all afore mentioned articles. I brought the matters to discussion with other editors about the matter and was ignored, harrassed, and otherwise denied access to justifiable edits; specifically speaking, the thesis statement of notability. I would be more than happy to discuss this or any other matter regarding that research, but please be aware that policy on Wikipedia states that any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Consensus being preferrable to ambiguous motives, it is my opinion that nominating any group of articles for the scrutiny of others to decide upon is a more civil means of challenging and removing problematic articles than otherwise. Thank you. Ste4k 01:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, CSD A7, db group. Deizio talk 22:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kodesmack[edit]

non-notable Jmartinky 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 17:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KVRaudio[edit]

Exactly - billed by itself. Looks like an advertisement. -- Jack Blueberry (t)⁄(c) •  16:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Ochoa[edit]

Non notable event/music promoter. advert/Spam Fiddle Faddle 16:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted at author's request.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeding Was Only Half the Job[edit]

I - the author of this entry - concede that the afD is stacked up in favor of "delete" and support the deletion of this entry whenever a moderator is able to perform such action.JB196 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC):::[reply]

Many are concerned that this is a vanity article that doesn't meet WP:WEB; hopefully we can settle this here. William Pietri 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<<<Mainstream celebrities such as Ron Jeremy and Verne Langdon have endorsed it. To say that it is not notable is entirely ignoring that fact. It has also been unofficially endorsed by pro wrestler Chris Hamrick. Wrestling superstars such as Shane Douglas, Jerry Lynn, Chris Hamrick, and Missy Hyatt have done exclusive interviews for it. Adult film stars Kristi Myst and Lizzy Borden also read the retrospective. Verne Langdon has unofficially endorsed it, and Kevin Kleinrock (the former VICE PRESIDENT of XPW) has officially endorsed it.

<<<It is PRINTED on sites which Wikipedia considers "Verifiable." The information printed in the retrospective comes from people who were in XPW. None of that specific information is published here; All it is saying is that the information is published in the RETROSPECTIVE. So the argument that there should be a "Verifiability" tag on the article is not a fair assessment.

<<<ObsessedWithWrestling.com - one of the web sites that the articles are printed on - was featured in Harley Race's autobiography and has also gotten other coverage. At WP:WEB it says The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. The OWW site is definitely "well known" and has received mainstream coverage as mentioned above. So I would think it meets that WP:WEB guideline. If OWW is not notable, then over 100 wrestler profiles should be edited on Wikipedia because htey include OWW.com as a reference.JB196 17:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with the article is that it clearly refers to something that does not exist. It is an article about someone intending to write and publish a book rather than a page about a published book. An article about someone intending to write a book seems like vanity to me. Minus the book, this is an article about a collection of short pieces written for the web and posted on a few websites. That would seem to fail the test 168.127.0.51 18:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ronnie did it unpaid. I don't see why you would question that, as it could be considered a violation of WP:AGF. I am fine with having somebody else writing it. Although I don't see how the endorsement of such a high-level mainstream celebrity shouldn't be mentioned. I mean, he is THE RON JEREMY. Not to lose focus, but how can one argue that Lance Storm's criticism of DVDVR should be included in that article and yet argue that Ron Jeremy shouldn't be included here? With all due respect, that argument holds zero ground because without the mention of who has participated in/endorsed it, OF COURSE it's not notable, because its just a creation by a fan. It's the fact that such notable people have attached their name to it that makes it notable. Also, you are a DVDVR board poster and you wrote the entry for that site that should be kept mind when you suggested that someone other than myself write the entry.JB196 19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And now folks can see why I took the other case to mediation.*shrug* Tried to extend the olive branch, but got it thrown back in my face. SirFozzie 20:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just responding to your claims. There was no hostility anywhere in my reply.JB196 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This suggests other criteria must be weighed up. I personally think this article fails Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy implicitly, since the author is writing the article themselves. It obviously fails notability criteria for books, since the book artefact does not yet exist. For that reason, it also fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy, since the text of the article clearly refers to a future publication, and asks the reader implicitly to trust that it will be notable when it arrives. Finally, it seems to go against the vanity guideline that states:

Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses can be "vanity" depending on the amount of recognition - e.g. a homemade movie or game, a self-published book, or a fanfic story is not generally considered encyclopedic. In general, the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional. The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them.

"Overtly promotional" would appear to me to be the tone of those celebrity endorsements. Celebrities endorse many products that would not fulfill WP notability criteria. Drawing attention to their endorsement of a yet-to-be-released project appears, to me, "overtly promotional". The notability should come from neutral and reliable third party sources with zero interest in the project's genesis, not the testimony of people involved in its creation and promotion.
Taken as a whole, and with nothing personal against the editor whatsoever, I feel these factors - taken all together along with all the foregoing discussion (which I have read with great interest) - constitute a delete IMHO. I have tried to weigh up all the evidence here in good faith, so apologies for the length of this comment. --DaveG12345 06:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it to Parsonburg's edit. He is the one who put it there, not me.JB196 22:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have readded the material at least four times [52] [53] [54] [55], so I don't think saying it's somebody else's fault quite explains the situation. It still looks like self-promotion to me, and your comments make it clear that your goal is to dodge the community consensus that comes out of this AfD process. If people think the material belongs elsewhere, they they can suggest a merge. --William Pietri 22:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The readding of the material were reverts to Parsonburg's edit.
"your goal is to dodge the community consensus that comes out of this AfD process."
William, I expect better from you in terms of following WP:AFG. That is not my intent at all and I am upset that you would think that it is. Also see talk page of XPW for more info.JB196 22:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting to somebody else's edit does not absolve you of responsibility, especially in a case where you have a stake in this. As to good faith, I certainly tried to assume it, but your edit comments include "Paulley the entry for BWOHTJ is going to be up for deletion in a few days. If it passes afD without being deleted then we can take it off this page, but until now I'm putting it back on" and "readded Bleeding Was Only Half the Job info as the entry is going to be deleted". I was unable to come up with an explanation other than that you were determined to keep the material in Wikipedia even if the AfD results in deletion. What interpretation do you feel I should be making instead? Thanks, --William Pietri 22:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If my intention was "to keep the material in Wikipedia even if the AfD results in deletion" then wouldn't I have continued to revert Paulley's edits to my version rather than say "(sounds good)"? Of course. That is where I see flaw in your interpretation. Sometimes people make misjudgments like I did; I am not saying you violated WP:AGF because I know where you are comiong from, all I am saying is to use language that so strongly casts me as someone I'm not ("dodge the community concensus" has a very strong connotation). Something that I think has gotten lost in a lot of this is that from the very beginning I have done everything I could to try to make any mention of BWOHTJ on Wikipedia fit to Wikipedia's standards. To deny this is simply ignore the NUMEROUS examples of my edit summaries along the lines of "Let's try to work out a wording for this that we can both agree on" and various modifications of that summary.JB196 22:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're trying to work with other people on wording. However, you haen't addressed my main point: You don't seem to be following WP:VAIN or WP:AUTO. The consensus is pretty clearly that this material doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If you add the material into another article, as yet another edit comment today [56] suggests that you intend to do, then that is dodging the community consensus. I'm glad you're excited about your project, but Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. If you can't bear to lose to the material, move it to your user page, where it's perfectly appropriate. William Pietri 16:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, your arguments have failed to convince anyone. The best you can expect now is a link in external links on the xpw article. The edit history on that article today shows exactly what you have done and shows an unwillingness to compromise as far as I'm concerned. People have told you over and over again that you can't write about a book that doesn't exist. 64.12.116.6 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most people who looked at my edits objectively would easily see that "an unwillingness to compromise" is the last thing that my edits show. If you are tryiing to argue that I am not willing to compromise then you really have not been paying any attention.JB196 23:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, nomination withdrawn and doomed to fail regardless. - Richardcavell 01:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Jain[edit]

A man running a Nebraska insurance company doesn't seem hugely notable, even if he is slated to be the successor to a significant businessman (Warren Buffet) -- the linked news story states he is only a "possible" successor. This seems to be jumping the gun somewhat. -- Matticus78 16:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw my AfD in light of this. The article is in dire need of expansion however. ~ Matticus78 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Although there are only three !votes (keep and deletes) and one neutral, there are sufficient number of comments arguing on both sides for me to close this as no consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Content[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Not yet notable. See review here BlueValour 17:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has already blanked the article's Afd tag. BlueValour 17:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as obvious vanity/hoax entry. Apart from the creator all voters agreed it didn't belong in the article namespace. Creator has copy on their own website. Userfication not needed. - Mgm|(talk) 12:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Targo and Abbdona[edit]

Delete as NN micronation/vanity page. Original article was ((prod))ed and contested by creator. Article currently claims to have declared independence from the UK as of yesterday (25 June 2006). Article was created by the micronation's 17 year-old king (King Finn I --> Prof. Finn). --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per Tevildo, and for what its worth, I have no objection to userfying the article, despite the vandalism of my user page by "His Majesty". --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 01:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User already has own copy on his website. - Mgm|(talk) 12:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG[edit]

I am the only person who knows enough to write any more than a sentance about Targo and Abbdona. Do you think H. M. Queen Elizabeth II is in denile about the fact that she is a Queen? NO! I have to refer to my self as the King! You don'y go round deleting the Kingdom Of Lovely artical do you? NO! I actualy am the King of at least 10 time the land on King Danny!!!

Accept this artical because it is NOT A HOAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prof. Finn (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment Actually, you have done something wrong. You have vandalized my user page, apparently in retaliation for the nomination of this article for deletion ([64], [65]), and you have started making what could be seen as bad-faith deletion proposals ([66]). In other words, you aren't doing anything to help yourself out, you're just stirring up trouble. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 12:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- That you are the only person who could write more than a sentence about the topic is a sign that it's not an appropriate article for Wikipedia. See WP:VANITY and WP:AUTO for more info on why you should let other people write about yourself and your projects. --William Pietri 21:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; micronation silliness. Kingdom Of Lovely had a TV show based around it. You haven't. (Quite honestly, though, the KoL article could use some serious work.) Zetawoof(ζ) 08:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any one who says this is just compensating for the fact that they are not real them selves Oh, and I'm sory Bugwit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.189.94 (talk • contribs) .

I sent a declaration of independance to No 10! Why would I go to all the trouble to set up 2 websites about my REAL COUNTRY and a wikipedia entry???[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Finn (talk • contribs) NawlinWiki 12:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. —Centrx→talk • 04:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Timson[edit]

Non-notable artist. ScottNestle 06:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, I'd urge care in slinging around insults. I know the Scott Nestel that you are referring to well (hell, a quick Google search would tell me anyway), but you can't prove that this is the same individual. It could just be a coincidence of there being 2 people with virtually the same name. Vizjim 16:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the notability of small press titles is judged by their importance in breeding notabletalent, surely they should only be added once they have actually generated that talent? Also on top of that you;re listing people who are otherwise non-notable because they are affiliated with a publication that MIGHT make them notable and then assert their own notability... It's a bit of a wobbly house of cards isn't it? ScottNestle 20:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 17:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry lee jones[edit]

Possibly non-notable musician. Article shows a MySpace site as the relevant external link. But claims a couple songs "went national", so might meet WP:MUSIC. I can't tell based on a quick look and want the AFD community to review. Treat as a technical nomination, so no opinion from me. GRBerry 17:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep and cleanup. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1980s retro movement[edit]

While I don't debate the existance of '80s retro, this article as written is completely original research. cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep the article. Let's at least have a crack at editing it into an acceptable form first. Besides which I'm not sure I class much of it as research, it's more a list of easily verifiable examples that back up the existence of 80s retro. --Matthew Humphreys 18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as below. Deizio talk 22:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dddb[edit]

Not really encylopedic, plus its a copyvio from this page. Wasn't sure if it qualified for speedy delete or not, so I listed it here. ~ Falls End (T, C) 17:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. —Centrx→talk • 05:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6loWPAN[edit]

An IETF working group. Article created by user:6lowpan.com and already deleted once as promotional material. But I would be happier if had an AfD debate before it gets deleted again. -- RHaworth 17:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Pity indeed the administrator who sorts this one out. It would seem to be the opinion of the keep voters that the article has indeed acquired referencing. This is often the goal of deletion nominations which rest on the question of referencing and verifibility (if it can be referenced, then it shall be kept). No clear consensus to delete; "cruft" has never been a criteria even though we've all done it at one time or another. On a further note, this is the third nomination in three months. Absent strong consensus this is not inappropriate, although a fourth nomination would need to address different criteria. Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightsaber combat (third nomination)[edit]

  • Comment Klingon language may be equally notable but that article is not original research. The Klingon Language was created in detail and research has not been required to piece it together from espisodes and novels etc. In this case this material is being pieced together for teh first time before our eyes.--Nick Y. 01:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many wikipedia articles combine information from multiple sources. Read WP:OR carefully. I see no evidence of suppositions, no interpretive claims, no original ideas, just information compiled from many different pieces of fiction, all of which are verifiable as Lucas canon. I understand what you're saying, that's exactly why my keep is weak, but it's a very subtle difference. (minorly edited) - Wickning1 05:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Upgraded to Keep after article update - it's been made explicitly clear that this info is canon, and not a work of originally researched fan fiction. - Wickning1 21:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's ignore my on-going edits sourcing the article. I certainly hope the closing admin will actually look at the article, and see how it is sourced better than the majority of articles, and will realize how baseless the grounds for deletion. --maru (talk) contribs 03:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources are not "Reputable"? The web pages are in general either official in and of themselves, or are copies of official material; and I have absolutely no idea why you are objecting to the quotations from novels, legitimate published canon sources. The article is not original research; all of it is/can be sourced (and indeed, in a number of cases I had to tweak text to shy away from plagiarism, which is as unoriginal research as you get). As it is not OR, your NOT contention is irrelevant, and I believe I've established that this subject is neither OR as everyone keeps chanting and also not an "over-analysis" (see my discussion with Gareth Owen and the sources in the article); assertions that the used websites and novels are somehow not references for this article (but references for other articles) smack of a double standard to me. Incidentally, being "an example of the systemic bias" on Wikipedia is not a deletion criteria. --maru (talk) contribs 22:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source would be a book, or article, on the subject. Now, if the article is based on "Fightsaber: Jedi Lightsaber Combat" and the like, and if Star Wars Insider is considered a reliable source on Star Wars, all would be well. Is it ? If not, it looks original research. Another WP:NOR problem is the vast list of neologisms (shiim, jung ma, so chung). Where did those come from ? And, yes, you're right. Being an example of Wikipedia's systemic bias in favour of cruft is not a reason to delete. In fact, it's usually a reason to keep, as fanboys and fangirls nearly always turn up at AFD to vote en bloc. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To address your first point, Insider and the rest are generally C-canon, so they are reliable SW sources, no worries on that score. As for the neologisms- I didn't make it very prominent, but "Basic of lightsaber combat" and all sub-sections thereof are based on the two sources listed right under the "Basic of lightsaber combat" header. --maru (talk) contribs 00:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Mike said. Any hypothetical recreation without the blessings of DRV or a really good reason for why the new version was impervious to the OR and unsourced-ness which supposedly plagues the current one would be quickly and in the main deleted. --maru (talk) contribs 00:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are lots of articles on WP about fictional subjects that don't degrade its credibility. - Wickning1 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, that wasn't my point. Re-read my comment. - Motor (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think that it IS the point. This article is not about filmmaking (the art and the science), rather its objective is to add information to a fictional universe that people might be interested in. I think its completely releveant from that perspective, and the delete call originated from whether or not the article "was just made up" or had actual referenes in order to substantiate itself. Not if it was "imaginary" or not. A subtle difference for some people perhaps. Naturally you are more than welcome to start a page on the stunt work in the starwars movies if you're interested. I'd certainly like to read it too. :) However the larger question of if wikipedia should only contain articles on "real" things, or "fictional" things (Hemmingway's characters are fictional yet are articled in Wikipedia), is perhaps a debate out of scope for this discussion - oblivionboy (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not whether Wikipedia should contain articles on fictional subjects... it is whether those articles should be named and written as if they are real subjects. This article commits both of those major crimes against an encyclopedia. If Star Wars fans cannot separate fact and fiction enough to write a suitable article, then it should be deleted... no matter how much work has gone into it, and no matter how many fans show up to shout "keep". As much as you might like it to be, this is not a Star Wars fan site, it is an encylopedia. Wookiepedia exists to allow Star Wars fan to play these sorts of imagination games. - Motor (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you're that concerned about blurring the fact/fiction line, throw a disclaimer into the overview. No need to delete it to solve such an issue. - Wickning1 21:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'll have to assume you are joking there... the alternative is almost too horrible to contemplate. - Motor (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FWIW, I'm not particularly a Star Wars fan, but I do lean inclusionist. - Wickning1 21:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're kidding, right? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. The article states in the very first line "Lightsaber combat is the fictional style of lightsaber fighting used by Jedi and Sith in the Star Wars franchise." Fictional, and Star Wars. It is categorized as a Fictional martial art. What more do you want to ensure people don't inadvertently think this is real - besides the whole solid light thing. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, So what? Just sticking "fictional" in the introduction does not solve it. Read the rest of the article, and look at the name of it. If you added a disclaimer at the top saying that "this article has been written by people who have difficulty telling real from imaginary", it still wouldn't work because disclaimers shouldn't really be necessary in an encyclopedia. The article is fundamentally inappropriate (hopeless would be another way to describe it), by its name and by the style in which it was written. It should be deleted and restarted as an encyclopedia article that is both named and written from a real world perspective. The only reason it's survived this long is fan voting. - Motor (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Do you hav any idea how many thousands of articles would need to be deleted under that logic? There are many hundreds in each of the Star Wars, Star Trek, and Tolkien universes that exhibit these same tendencies (just to name the fandoms that I follow). While I am sympathetic to the need to maintain the focus on the "real world", there is clear community consensus for inclusion of these articles. Eluchil404 12:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Wikipedia's Deletion Guide for Administrators says: "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies ... " — Mike • 14:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Lafreniere[edit]

Songwriter yet to have a single album. Article survived prod through a user adding the guy's apparent claim to notability: a supposed romantic link to Nicole Richie, supported by a web gossip page. In any case, this still clearly fails WP:BIO or any other criteria for notability.Pascal.Tesson 17:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IR Gurus[edit]

Previously deleted as spam at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IR Gurus, this version is not spam but neither does it make any substantive claim in excess of those made by the previous deleted version. Not a repost (different content, different editor). I'm inclined to advocate keep due to the company's products having been distributed by Sony, but since it's in a single market (not much call for Aussie rules football in America, I guess) this is debatable. Either way if it stays here it is likely to be tagged repost without an unequivocal vote one way or the other. Just zis Guy you know? 09:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete the copyvio version and consider the non-copyvio temp version in its own right.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keki dadiseth[edit]

Sounds like a self-promotional autobiography rather than an encyclopedia entry Netsnipe 18:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It's a copyvio -- Netsnipe 20:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Keki dadiseth/Temp for a replacement article that is not a copyvio. TruthbringerToronto 22:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia isn't a site for résumés though, and if Mr. Dadiseth isn't notable enough to be known outside the Indian corporate world, I don't really see the point of keeping the rather short temporary article either. When Mr. Dadiseth becomes more notable by Wikipedia standards, someone will write a better article; hopefully one not influenced by a copyvio to begin with. -- Netsnipe 05:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Without giving my opinion on the merit of inclusion of this article, I feel that if a person is considered notable at national level in any country (howsoever small or large it may be), there is no reason why the biography can't be added in Wikipedia. We shouldn't introduce any systematic bias in Wikipedia. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - I wonder how a person covered by Businessweek is not notable by wikipedia standards [69], [70], [71]. The Indian arm of Unilever became the no. 1 FMCG company of India under his chairmanship -- Lost 06:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Deizio talk 22:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asim[edit]

Persian dicdef. Artw 18:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Your Are All A Bunch Of Cowards For Having Our Page Deleted And Wikipedia Are Spineless Sheep For Doing So!!! Hail Satanic Victory!!! I.N.R.I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.46.58 (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Catholicon (band)[edit]

No evidence of meeting any of the gratuitously generous criteria of WP:BAND. Their album release was not with a major label. There are a ton of google hits for "Catholicon", but those seem to be from Catholic dictionaries and other media by the same name. Their website is a myspace page. BigDT 18:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate wasSpeedy keep due to the nomination, in my determination, to be not in good faith. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Hoops 3-on-3[edit]

Non Notable Video Game Petunialover 18:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Løser[edit]

may be vanity page by User:Loeser. Can't find much professional references on-line. Anyway, this subject may be notable, but it's very unclear LimoWreck 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Death Throes of Christianity[edit]

Album by Catholicon (band) (see AFD). If the band is not notable under WP:BAND, neither is its music. BigDT 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Series runner-ups[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 of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 17:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audioactive[edit]

Does not appear to meet any of the points of WP:SOFTWARE, and the official website redirects to a telecommunications company. -- Matticus78 18:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metavideo[edit]

Likely neologism or protologism; Google returns only companies named "Metavideo", or text copied from this very Wikipedia article. -- Matticus78 19:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted... eventually.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wenis (disambiguation)[edit]

This disambiguation page is redundant and superfluous now that Wenis (once again) refers only to the Egyptian pharoah. Disambiguation page was made necessary when Nickmanning214 recreated the wenis neologism page which had previously been AfDed, speedied as hoax, and finally (just this afternoon) speedied as a repost. I recommend deletion of disambiguation page and protection against reversion. Charles 19:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Stories[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; the article is apparently based on rumors and are not official. No credidable sources either via Google.[72] ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres Division[edit]

Not much context here. Does not appear to be notable to me based on a Google search so I thought I would bring up the discussion. -Big Smooth 19:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The three live links in the RNR article don't have much (if any) info. In addition, this is the only "satellite" unit that has its own article. I am no expert on this subject but considering the lack of information in the RNR article itself, I am not sure a 35-person subdivision is notable. Perhaps the info in this article and the others could be merged to the RNR article, with a redirect added? -Big Smooth 20:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is everyone's problem about this article? If you know more about the Royal Naval Reserve than the original author, then edit it! The other RNR Training Units will edit their 'red links' in due course I am sure! For the record, Ceres Division is an "up and coming" part of the RNR and is the only representation of the RNR in Yorkshire.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.171.187 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was Merge with A Course in Miracles. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for A Course in Miracles[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted:

This article is noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy based on:

Note: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service.

It only matters:
1. that what is put in the article matches the sources.
2. that those sources are reliable.
It is therefore based solely on original research.

been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Failing WP:CORP, the topic of this article is insufficiently reputible to be referencing itself. This article refers under the link "million dollar lawsuit" which may or may not be true, however, the statement is misleading and cannot be verified by the article it points to.

and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 19:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note that the nominator is using the same "secondary consideration" for attempting to delete several other ACIM-related articles. -- Andrew Parodi 23:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not necessarily the case. There is little or no cited evidence of significance in any of these articles which comes from outside the ACIM movement itself, as such it appears to constitute a walled garden and this is a legitimate reason for nomination of multiple related articles which does not constitute bad faith. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I hope to see about 2/3 of the rest of Wikipedia nominated for deletion. Again, a website that will give time to Celebrity sex tape and List of people with breast implants and not allow for an article about the main foundation in a growing spiritual field, is a site with some interesting issues at hand. -- Andrew Parodi 02:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed that the statement about the law suit on this page is turned around backwards logically, that on the page it states that the defendant sued the plaintiff. Ste4k 12:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete - There is a large volume of text here. However, nearly all of it is from two users. I have examined the edit history, and I have found that most users are clearly in favour of 'delete'. - Richardcavell 04:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Inner Peace[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted:

THisbelieves that this article is noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy based on:

Comment. Completely subjective and biased statement. A Course In Miracles is one of the most notable books in the entire New Age and New Thought genre. Foundation for Inner Peace is the original and current publisher of ACIM. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could this possibly be because the subject in question is not a company or a corporation but a non-profit organization? -- Andrew Parodi 08:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service.

Comment This is not "self-promotion" by any stretch of the imagination. Take a look at the history of the page and see that this article was started by a man named Scott Perry. On his personal website, Scott Perry is identified as a "student" of ACIM who lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan and is a professional "licensed master plumber" [73]. Foundation for Inner Peace, on the other hand, is in California and was started by Judy Skutch, a woman who comes from a wealthy New York family that, during her childhood, used to entertain Eleanor Roosevelt during breakfast (citation: Journey Without Distance[74]). Mrs. Skutch hardly needs the help of a professional plumber in getting word out about the organization she helped to found. (No disrespect to plumbers. The point I'm making is obvious.) Foundation for Inner Peace did not start this article. Besides, they are a non-profit organization that does not need any advertisement anyway. ACIM has been a steady seller for more than 20 years. Go to any bookstore and you will find it there ... all without any promotion! (You will never see an ad for ACIM in any magazine. It doesn't need it. It is grass roots and spread by word of mouth.) -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment. Nor is Wikipedia a place for people to disguise their own personal bias as neutral editorial procedure. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It only matters:
1. that what is put in the article matches the sources.
2. that those sources are reliable.
It is therefore based solely on original research.
Comment. Wikipedia states that there is a difference between "notable" and "famous." Foundation for Inner Peace is not famous. But it IS notable. Whether you had heard of these sites or organizations is not the point. The point is that within their field these organizations are notable. Oh, and it is hardly "original research" to mention an organization and then link to that organization's official website. That is actually called "verification," the thing you have claimed on three ACIM-related pages to hold so dear, and yet it is also the thing you cannot accept with regard to ACIM. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This information is entirely verifiable if you read what is linked to in the article. For some unusual reason, you will not accept this. You just do not want ACIM to be notable. Your personal bias is showing. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The proper response to such a situation is to work to improve the article, not to delete it entirely. If the article is about a notable topic (and it is), then it needs to be worked on, not deleted. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 19:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to whom? You? So, your word over thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people that ACIM is not notable? Do a search for ACIM and see how many hits you get. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not necessarily the case. There is little or no cited evidence of significance in any of these articles which comes from outside the ACIM movement itself, as such it appears to constitute a walled garden and this is a legitimate reason for nomination of multiple related articles which does not constitute bad faith. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess I get frustrated by the fact that you all say it has not verifiable evidence. It is a book publisher. It is verified that this exists. I'm also frustrated by the lack of "good faith" in all of this. These articles were started by a very nice and well meaning man who was not attempting to do anything other than contribute articles he thought would be of value to other people. There is no denying that Ste4k (or whatever) has been spiteful and mean spirited all the way through. With that, delete the article. I don't care. -- Andrew Parodi 21:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually it is not a publisher. The book's contents are public domain. And as a publisher they only printed perhaps a couple hundred books out of a small print shop known as Freeperson's press. Have you read the valid secondary sources? The court case? Ste4k 13:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vertek[edit]

Even more corporate spam NawlinWiki 16:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Allen, Mike. 2001. "Profile: John Riley" Business Journal. San Diego. Feb 05.
-Anon. 2003. "Government of Canada funds Vertek Diversified Services Limited to offer employment assistance services" Canada NewsWire. Ottawa. Sep 23
and a few others. --TeaDrinker 17:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 19:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 16:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brainjogr[edit]

Spamvertising for nonnotable website (18 Google hits, all either blogs or this user's WP userpage) NawlinWiki 19:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DataSynapse[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement, innit. Recury 19:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Articles aren't deleted because they are bad articles, they are deleted because they are on subjects that are not appropriate for the encyclopedia. That is what Tevildo is referring to when he mentions WP:CORP, which is a guideline that says which corporations can have articles written about them. WP:VANITY also applies, which is a guideline about conflicts of interest. If your company is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, then you shouldn't have to be the one to write it. Someone else will. Recury 20:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypercoding[edit]

Neologism of dubious notability, possible copy:vio Artw 20:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Vitruvian Society[edit]

"it remains successfully secretive" Tom Harrison Talk 20:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy retarded guy[edit]

Two episodes of a home-made movie on a public video upload site does not notability create. -- Matticus78 20:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jackson[edit]

Inventor of what appears to be non-existant fancruft Star Trek series. Charlesknight 20:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT - You might not be aware but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. What you seem to saying is that someone has submitted a proposal (Solicited? Unsolicited?) to paramount and that's about it. That's actually a case for the article to be deleted not kept. Please explain further if I have misunderstood any element of this. --Charlesknight 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, a time-out is required here before the insults really start flying. Regardless of this show's real or unreal status, something that hasn't been released yet, or even announced in any official capacity whatsoever, does not belong on Wikipedia. This is not victimization, this is not a comment on personal worthiness, this is official policy. --Matticus78 21:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment probably could go speedy delete as the author has claimed copywrite on the material and wikipedia is violating his copywrite by reproducing it without permission.--Nick Y. 21:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide any verification from reliable sources on any of this? Wikipedia has rules, and we cannot keep articles just because you say something is true. Fan1967 21:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think you might be misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about. It's not a question of "heard about this" it's a question of verification. Can you offer any sources to provide such verification? --Charlesknight 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 16:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grimmfold[edit]

Non notable neologism (hoax?): Grimmfold cheese gives no Google hits, Grimmfold alone gives 56 hits Fram 20:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please provide references about the usage of "grimmfold" in this context, if any. — TheKMantalk 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The difference is that every kid in the English- (or their semblance of English ;) )-speaking world is using that term; obnoxious as it may be it's entered the common parlance. Even toy manufacturers are capitalising on this (with "Bling" editions of fashion dolls, etc). And where Google enters the equation is a quick way of checking verifiability: if this term is being used a lot, a lot of people will have written about it, and it will appear a lot on the internet. If nobody can verify the information, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Matticus78 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google isn't the definitive guide to notability, but if I can't find it on Google, it is up to you or ther defenders of the article that it is nevertheless notable, by providing other verifiable sources. Mentioning on the talk page of Grimmfold a book that is equally absent on Google doesn't help your case. Fram 07:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--User:BrewmasterJ

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

The result of the debate was Keep Computerjoe's talk 15:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalina[edit]

This page is unnotable Dan200 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

07:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk 05:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrickson[edit]

nonnotable company NawlinWiki 21:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Moline[edit]

Unremarkable personage on his own; he's the divorced husband of someone notable. Also, this reads like a press release copyvio. His mention on the Kathy Griffin page should be sufficient Tenebrae 21:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: His IT consulting company is a freelance home office. Hundreds of thousands of people would be included in Wikipedia on that basis. -- Tenebrae 22:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extra note: he is only listed on IMDb as the former husband of Kathy Griffin. Pascal.Tesson 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since being listed on IMDB is the Hollywood equivalent of what being listed in the phonebook is to the rest of us, I fail to see what an IMDB listing says about notability per se. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology as a business[edit]

"Scientology as a business" is somewhat of a POV title, and indeed POV subject, to the point that I cannot see how this article could be worded neutrally. The article is rather anti-Scientology in POV at present. As a consequence I think it should be deleted, perhaps also merging to other Scientology articles in part. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment votes from IP address-editors cannot be counted.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as CSD A7 - article had no assertion of the club's notability. Kimchi.sg 16:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1066 MCC[edit]

Non-notable club Travelbird 22:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top 50 Companies for Diversity[edit]

Non-notable list/advertisement for a specific company Travelbird 21:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Interbeing list of articles[edit]

should be a category — goethean ॐ 22:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the articles are now in Category:Order of Interbeing, and it appears the creator of the article agrees it should be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy Sites[edit]

A list of not particularly notable websites. All listed websites are run by the same individual. Nonsuch 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can check (in the "what's new" of www.entropysite.com, this site (and those related to it) are not trivial or ordinary websites. The ideas in them and the articles cited (and reproduced by permission) in www.entropysite.com have resulted in a complete deletion of "order-disorder" in most new editions of US first-year university textbooks,15 as of 2006. This is a revolution in the teaching of entropy to beginners in chemistry. The replacement is the approach of 'entropy is a measure of the energy dispersal in a process'.
Later today, I will justify the reason for (whoever suggested!)the existence of this unit, Entropy Sites. As a novice, I would greatly appreciate your suggestions and ask for advice as to how to proceed to bring these changes to the major pages of Wikopedia dealing with the second law and entropy. It is a half-century overdue for 'order-disorder' to be discarded and a modern conceptual view of entropy change presented. (That does NOT mean any change in thermo! It means that thermodynamicists should be aided to speak understandably to the naive as well as to the math advantaged.)Thx.for your aid -- emails would be most time/space economical: flambert@att.net .
Response You have not provided any compelling reason to have an article dedicated to your websites. The merits of the contents isn't the issue at hand. The question is, should there be two articles in wikipedia dedicated to these marginally notable sites? The current consensus of disinterested editors is that there should not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 'Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers'. Nonsuch 19:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I note above, I have added the links to the Entropy article, but discussion on the talk page is not positive to keeping them or at least keeping all of them. Sorry, Frank, I welcome your contributions to teaching thermo to students, but I have to agree with Nonsuch that these two articles are not appropriate on WP. --Bduke 23:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Two articles? I ran into only this "Entropy Sites". Of course "Wikipedia_ is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information" ideally, but it certainly should contain vital information about the changed interpretation of entropy for students and pros. I have no time to argue to help W -- so delete what you want to. Thanks to Bduke for including (correct!) URLs -- can I properly order them and give a sentence of explanation for each? I'll do so, but delete whatever you wish.

Now, as to a more important insertion about which I would appreciate your joint advice: The Entropy article is well-organized and well-written standard presentation. I do not want to make any changes in it, but I believe an insertion of a dozen lines is essential -- in a box, or somehow set off after the intro. They would outline the reason for the demise of 'order-disorder' in chemistry instruction with the resultant simplification of a scientific view of entropy for all levels of interested individuals. Could you give me a clue as to typographical symbols for such a box? Even better, is there any way I can submit the material to knowledgeable thermo editors for approval or rejection before laboring on learning the wikipedia format? Thanks for your aid. Frank Lambert, 28 June.

Yes, put what you want to say on Talk:Entropy and see what arises. Indeed I think you should move this debate there right now and not clutter up this discussion on deletion of an article. --Bduke 03:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entropysimple.com[edit]

A stub about an unnotable website. Possible link spam. Other listed websites on the page are all run by and written by the same person. Nonsuch

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

The result of the debate was Delete - I note that most of the activity in favour of keeping this entry is from participants of Clandestine. The author of this article appears to equate his creation of the article with 'advertising'. - Richardcavell 04:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clandestine (mud)[edit]

non-notable gaming group, advertisement Travelbird 22:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Also, please look at Top MUD Sites, we have been consistently in the top 20 for incoming traffic since readvertising. --Blackrazer 01:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure what the boundaries of notability are in this area. It seems to have garnered respect in the MUDing Community, which has several other text-based games on Wikipedia. It points to awards, rankings, various communities, and a large number of people who have played it. I wouldn't delete it, but I am simply unsure of what "notable" refers to. Searching the TopMudSites site ranks them 14th(at this moment) out of over 1,000 text-based online roleplaying MUDs. -D
A simple check of the other MUDs which received the same award from MUD Connector that we did will show you that the ones that have survived the years are the most popular free-to-play MUDs on the Internet. BatMUD, Carrion Fields, Clandestine, and Wheels of Time MUD are all examples of this. I am rewriting our player's entry to fit more into the WIKI mold, and remove the advertising qualities of it. Once this is done, I sincerely hope that this silliness can end - Clandestine has been a great contributor, very popular game, and a source of originality in a gaming world that is stagnant with mediocrity. I simply cannot fathom researched opinioners being able to call Clandestine not notable. The Advertising issue will be taken care of shortly. Thanks. -- Donathin
One last thing, instead of just saying Delete (which makes it very frustrating to figure out what's wrong when someone would really like to have a wiki added) some comments about how to fix up the entry would be appreciated. One person said it was advertising, I see now how it could have been viewed as advertising but constructive criticism would have solved that a lot easier and probably kept me from stressing out over what I was doing wrong. This is suppose to be a discussion of why it's to be deleted. One-liners do not cut it whatsoever. Reasoning is sorely needed when you comment. --Blackrazer 08:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both myself and Donathin have read the section on notability multiple times. It says that notability is based on being publicized in some manner and makes like a very quick statement about advertising. The problem is that you all were saying we are non-notable which is why we were trying to find a way to say "Hey, we're known in the MUDing community". Instead it seems you guys were saying "You're trying to advertise your MUD" by saying we were non-notable. Which I can see your point in that matter. However, instead of saying that and trying to give us an idea of what we could have done to prove otherwise, you guys let the matter drop. "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." We meet criterion three in the WP:WEB as TMS is well known within the MUDing community and independent of the creators of our MUD and is distributing our web content to others. Also as Donathin has already shown, the wiki entry has been changed to be even more of an encyclopedia entry. So I urge you to not delete our entry. --Blackrazer 18:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that my recent changes to the Wiki entry should satisfy any complaints of advertising or no-notability. If they do not, please specify for me what we are still doing wrong, as I have used several other MUD wikipedias as a guideline in our newly designed entry. I thank Blackrazer for his help in this, and shake my virtual fist at some of the rest of you for your lack of specificity. -- Donathin
  • Comment I am actually confused. It looks like Carrion Fields was actually deleted in 2005, but has had its article recreated. Perhaps someone needs to look into that? GassyGuy 19:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Blackrazer has no affiliation with TMS or the advertising element of Clandestine. I only became involved because I was asked to help make the entry more encyclopediac. The thread on TMS was meant to get feedback from other respected leaders in the community on (first) our entry, and (second) this issue. I would also again push that Clandestine's the originator of several coding elements(particularly minigames) that have been copied and have become mainstays on many other DIKU-derived MUDs. Beyond just 9 years of service, a large playerbase, recognition in the text-mmorpg world through awards and awareness - Clandestine has actually affected other MUDs. The poster's claim that Armageddon is notable because of the quality of its roleplay is the sole opinion of the poster (OneThousandYears), who appears to be a member of the TMS community with some sort of bent towards making sure Clandestine does not get the entry that it certainly deserves. If someone else, other than this poster, is able to tell me that Clandestine is still(after this) not-notable - I would like to hear the specific reasoning and explanation. Thanks. -- Donathin
Advertisement It's my belief the Advertisement is one of inexperience in writing in Wikipedia, rather then trying slight-of-hand tactics. I must go on to write, that if said advertisement is harmful, then help them out with some POSITIVE FEEDBACK, just saying it's advertisement and not specifying how it does advertising, or where it does advertise is a negative post
When I see the willingness of Donathin and Blackrazer saying they want to comply and fix whatever they can to make this a better Wikipedia page, and then those negative posts from other people without constructive criticism show me an almost spiteful approach from the other participants in this review. In fact, I'm wondering if the only reason Onethousandyears is speaking out, is because of his biased nature, he claims to be a long time MUDder and an advent suscriber to groups of people of the same game type, what shows he doesn't have his own he wants promoted or being plain envious? Is this a childish dispute on his part?
MUDs are a part of our history in gaming, If E.T. the game can have it's page, even though it's one of THE WORST games out their, so should Clandestine, for better or worse.
-J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.197.108 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 June 2006
  • This new article is much better. Very detailed, fixed some of the tone problems. I applaud the effort. I hope you'll post it somewhere it belongs, but I still can't help but think that this doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, theorizing as to reasons why users may be expressing sentiments in favor of deletion does not strengthen your case and, in my opinion, borders on attack. Please read WP:AGF. GassyGuy 18:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not meant to be an attack. I just understand the frustration of wanting to meet wiki-standards(which many people seem to think we meet the notability requirements), and only having received very unhelpful, nearly insulting responses in return. It made me feel the need to open whomever may read this debate/consensus' eyes to the fact that there could possibly be unsavorable outside motives. Other posters(of whom I have no idea of their identity at all) seem to agree. At any rate - what do you think makes this article not meet the guidelines for inclusion? As has been said before by someone else, the notability requirements for MUDs on Wikipedia is very grey area - and Clandestine has surpassed the age and popularity of over 99% of other MUDs, including other MUDs that were given Wikipedia entries. I'm just not sure what you think we're lacking, specifically, though I really do appreciate your cordial approach, GG. -- Donathin
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per overwhelming comments here, nn-band. — xaosflux Talk 03:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volume Uno: Tha Beggining[edit]

non-notable group, even less notable album/tape/song Travelbird 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Rapmastaman, you are welcome to comment, but please do not vote more than once. Fan1967 00:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete A7.  RasputinAXP  c 02:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Clarke[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, but too funny to just speedy out of existance --DarkAudit 23:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax article. But amusing. Yanksox (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'd better hurry up with it then. I tagged it for a speedy deletion. ikh (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 13:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L. Craig Schoonmaker[edit]

I just prodded this article as describing a nonnotable person. Someone has removed the prod, so now I'm listing it here. Klooge 23:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the first nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Craig Schoonmaker. --LambiamTalk 23:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response I did not vote for delete due to a belief that the subject is non-notable. I voted for delete because - as I stated - that this subject does not have enough notability to be encyclopedically notable for his own article in Wikipedia . Can you see and appreciate the difference? The "this article does no harm" argument inherently fails to understand that Wikipedia is an attempt at an encyclopedia and "harmless" articles of insufficient notability do cumulative damage to the authority of this attempt. Bwithh 02:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wikipedia:Deletion policy states under Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles that may require deletion that if the "subject of article fails...WP:BIO (for biographies)", then it "may require deletion". Note that the title of WP:BIO is "Wikipedia:Notability (people)". The Deletion policy also refers to WP:NOT, which states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: ... Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." The rationale of non-notability refers to these policies and guidelines, and is a specific application of the fundamental principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 23:01, 28 June 2006
WP:BIO is a guideline, not a policy. Furthermore, it states: "The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."
WP:N is not even a guideline. It is an interesting interpretation that notability is a "specific application" of a fundamental principle when WP:N states that: "There is no official policy on notability. However, there are a number of consensual guidelines regarding notability within a limited subject field...." and "Although notability is not formal policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious), it is the opinion of some editors that this is what is meant by Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (which is a formal policy)." You are entitled to your interpretation of notability and WP:5P, which is shared by some other editors, but it just isn't policy, and there is no accepted consensus on it. If consensus could be developed on notability, you can be sure that it would have been added as a real ground for deletion to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy a long time ago.
Schonmaker filed to run for President of the US in 2005, and announced in March 2006 that he is running for mayor of Newark, New Jersey. This doesn't make him famous, or important, but given his colorful background, it makes him an amusing addition to the wonderful world of Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 00:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, these delete recommendations do cite policy, they just don't agree with your interpretation of it. Also, note that any U.S. citizen over the age of 35 can run for President of the United States, and presumably there is similar openness in the Newark mayoral race. —Centrx→talk • 07:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ground Zero says:it makes him an amusing addition to the wonderful world of Wikipedia. That kind of attitude is exactly why we have official policies such as Wikipedia:Deletion policy and WP:NOT which specifically support "consensually accepted guidelines" such as WP:BIO. Bwithh 02:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 16:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Mitchell[edit]

Can find nothing very notable about him. He is not even the first DJ Mitchell in Google. To be listed below a wedding DJ seems a good indicator of non-notability. For this DJ, a few myspace type hits, nothing more. My vote would be Delete Dipics 23:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HyperProtocol[edit]

Appears to be non notable software, very few Ghits with Wikipedia at the top. Artw 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete without prejudice, of course. Anyone improving this article would probably be starting from scratch anyway. W.marsh 13:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car fire[edit]

insufficient importance of specific subject matter Travelbird 23:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OH, for crying out loud! I only created the damn thing because the Fire Portal suggested it be created! If you don't like what's in the article. CHANGE IT. Don't delete it because it is not up to "Featured Article" standards. Philistines. --ttogreh 01:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There don't seem to be articles for subjects like building fire or specific types of fire except forest fire. I can see this maybe being viable if lots of sister articles are created and it's put under something like Vehicle fire, but it's weird to have this by itself. This is ignoring the need for a rewrite. Ace of Sevens 02:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's an idea. No matter how "in demand" other articles are, people should stick to writing about subjects they know about. A bad article is not better than no article at all. -- GWO
I disagree. It is much easier to change something that is in extant than to make a new thing from whole cloth. I just wrote two paragraphs off of the top of my head. I am sure, with a little effort, those paragraphs could be improved or replaced with something better. However, if no record of them exists because of a deletion by haughty philistines, we run the risk of repeating the creation of a poor article.--ttogreh 18:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I understand you correctly, we shouldn't delete an article that others think is poor, because it might lead to another poor article? Circular reasoning. Grandmasterka 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not circular reasoning; it is a statement of fact. An article with encyclopedic value should be improved, not deleted. An article that is nothing but original research, gibberish, and profanity, fine. Delete that. An article that is poorly written but is nothing but facts and relevant information... fix it. Is this too hard of a concept to grasp, or are you just a jerk?--ttogreh 00:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the personal attacks, even if it does deserve an article, it's in the wrong namespace, so why not delete and (if necessary) recreate in the correct place? Ace of Sevens 01:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks? I have never met any of you people. I am using caustic rhetoric. Besides, Grandmasterka's passive-aggressive allusion to me using tautology is less offensive than me calling him on it? What a load of tripe. Oh, and it appears you have given up your vote for deletion in the face of cold hard facts; car fires are a subject worthy of an entry. Now, it appears you are trying to salvage your pride by calling for an renaming of the entry. Fine, whatever. Call it a "vehicle fire". Delete my paragraphs, and substitute your own. I don't care. Car fires are not unworthy of encyclopedic mention. Do you remember some rioting in Paris a while back? Say, what kinds of fires were there a lot of?--ttogreh 08:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is indeed a need to call the act of a philistine; the deletion of a nascent article due to its poor writing rather than its encyclopedic value, as the act of a philistine.--ttogreh 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You sir, are more interested in destruction than creation. It is better, to you, to obliterate something than to improve it. You are a philistine.--ttogreh 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wren did not build St Paul's Cathedral by renovating the hovel that originally stood there. He knocked the damn thing down and started again. What a Philistine. -- GWO
Oh, look, an analogy!, I love these, because when someone uses them, I can so very easily point out the fact that it does not apply to the discussion at hand. Tell me, is St. Paul's Cathedral made out electromagnetic ones and zeroes on a computer server? No? Then STFU. Building construction REQUIRES destruction for creation to take place; be it the pristine landscape or an older pipe that needs to be replaced. An Encyclopedia on the internet does NOT require the same kind of destruction; paragraphs can be deleted, but the base, the actual article with its entire history... that remains.--ttogreh 15:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Students For Action[edit]

Not verifiably important. Group established last month. Possible vanity: created by User:Students4Action. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kris Craig. -AED 23:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was snowball delete. This is not an article on some obscure issue. It is a supposed international incident between two major countries. If it cannot be found, it doesn't exist. `'mikka (t) 15:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War on chairs[edit]

Article about a trade dispute between Japan and China which although sounds plausible, is unreferenced and I could not find any results when searching on Google. --BrownCow &#149; (how now?) 23:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that the article discusses folding chairs and the image, which comes from the Chair article, is definitely not a folding chair. My guess is that it's a big hoax. --BrownCow &#149; (how now?) 06:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... It seems it was created by the user "WarOnChairs", who has worked exclusively on that page. A bit weird... Artw 00:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He may have made other "contributions" that aren't as apparent anymore. He has created an article called The RubberChickenWithAPulley Law, which is up for speedy deletion. If it gets speedily deleted, I think it shortens his contributions list. —Tokek 12:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I googled "War on chairs" and the only other instance besides Wikipedia I could find was a June 18 post [83] by andyandy on the JREF forums, the same day the article was created on Wikipedia. A separate article by Waronchairs that was speedily deleted today was about JREF forum culture, so putting one and one together, it seems like the War on chairs article was created by andyandy merely for his JREF forum needs. —Tokek 14:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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