< June 27	June 29 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.  Grue  12:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In horrible shape, and it looks like this is for a band who might be unfamiliar to many people. Unless we can fix the importance thing, or edit it a little bit, I say delete. --S-man 07:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I have removed the copyvio and added tour history to establish notability criteria. This is a well-known band in the crust punk genre that I knew about even before this article, and was able to rustle up notable info on within minutes. Parsssseltongue 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BAND. Few relevant Google results [1] and no Allmusic profile--TBCTaLk?!? 07:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Parasite ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BAND. --Coredesat talk 07:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - given that it's written by band members we got attacked in Gdansk et cetera it certainly doesn't belong. WilyD 14:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOR. Not wasting time investigating an article without resources. Ste4k 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources.This band has traveled all over Europe and the United States. They are a very notable crust punk band. This is another case of a Wikipedian trying to delete a topic they have no knowledge of, when it's readily available. Did any of you check to see if the band had an official website? I did, and saw that info from the article was cut-and-paste from it (I removed it). Someone needs to write an essay entitled WP:LAZY. Parsssseltongue 18:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Don't let official websites fool you into thinking a band is worthy of an article. My band had an official website detailing our discography, concerts, et cetera before we held a single rehersal and before I even learnt to play guitar. Bands such as that example have official websites all the time. WilyD 20:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have prior knowledge of this band and they are not a hoax. Again, I stress, if anyone before me had bothered to check the website, they would have seen their tour history, their notable releases, etc. (and that the Wiki article as originally written was copyvio). I think people have itchy trigger fingers when it comes to AfDs. Parsssseltongue 21:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; would change to keep if significant content were added. A series of unordered lists does not qualify, in my opinion. Also, I would like to see a WP:RS or two cited. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Needs work, but has impressive touring for a band from Holland [2]. Albums released on Profane Existence Records, who are marginally notable for being devoted to crust punk. Meets WP:MUSIC. --Joelmills 02:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just did a very brief expansion on the article, and removed the "tour record" which was a copyvio. Referenced it instead. --Joelmills 03:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, needs work but they are notable enough. bbx 06:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not uninclined to change my vote based on the recent findings, but I still want to see that anyone actually wrote about them. Websites, tour listings, etc., don't really establish notability. ~ trialsanderrors 06:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Article is unbias and is a signed band — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.218.111 (talk • contribs)
• Weak Keep: I've heard of them and I'm not a huge crust fan, so they are at least partially notable. The problem (on wikipedia at least) for them, and many other punk bands is that there is a lot of distrust and scorn for the mainstream music industry, so the vast majority of punk bands (including many that are quite notable within the punk scene) are completely off the radar of major music magazines and comentary. This causes huge problems for verifying notability within articles. Crust punk is especially prone to this, since there is absolutely no mainstream popularity for the genre. The Ungovernable Force 04:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nothing to merge.  Grue  12:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A model on the Price is Right - does not meet WP:BIO, delete --Peta 00:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also Peta a nom is generally considered a vote for deletion unless otherwise noted. --Pboyd04 00:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. Possibly also redirect to the The Price Is Right--TBCTaLk?!? 02:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable person.--Blog Mav Rick 02:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 04:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. SM247 04:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Price is Right. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 05:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with or Redirect to The Price is Right Alphachimp ^talk 06:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NORWP:VER single resource is bogus. Ste4k 16:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Price Is Right (Australia). Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with or Redirect to The Price is Right --Alias Flood 23:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect into The Price is Right. -- Infrogmation 17:19, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet WP:BIO, delete --Peta 00:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO, non-notable person who's only claim to notability is being part of a non-notable organization. Few relevant Google results[3]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stupid comment - Even I've got more hits than that one.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Alhtough, this article needs to be expanded, it has the foudation to be more than it currently seems. I would like to see what does indeed develop before we make the decision to delete it. Perhaps more of his accomplishments and contributions to Australia and the UN could be explained. I think the organizations inolved are notable, and therefore this article has the potential for becoming notable as well.--Blog Mav Rick 02:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In running for young Australian of the year for NSW see [4] and there have been some mentions of her name in the media. Organised the first ethnic youth film festival and addressed the UN General Assembly so she has some achievements of note and perceived as a future leader. Capitalistroadster 03:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The Youth UN is not a valid claim of notability, it is not a proper part of the UN with any weight or influence, it's just a mock debate competition so that high school kids can win a trip to Europe and do a mock debate. There were also 198 IDs on that archive that Capitalistroadster gave us and we certainly do not keep articles on players youth international sports teams or academic representative competitions like International Mathematics Olympiad etc. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Belikov Blnguyen | rant-line 03:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' as per nom and Binguyen. No convincing indication of encyclopediac notability given by keep supporters. Not every candidate in every contest/election is notable guys. And claims of "future leader" potential is just crystalballing Bwithh 03:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, being in the youth UN is not a notable achievement. --Coredesat talk 04:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete oh yeah, this is just not a notable person, and our own Nguyen right here - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete major claim to fame is as part of the Australian delegation to the United Nations. Every person whose ever been in any country's or organization's delegation does not automatically merit an encyclopedia entry. If she becomes a future leader great, we'll talk then. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as User:Blnguyen - Motor (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blnguyen said it best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Blnguyen. SM247^{My Talk} 11:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this person is linked in the Australia section of The Weakest Link (and the link is at least several months old). If this is more than just a person with the same name, it'd suggest that someone else has a good faith opinion that the person is notable. Andjam 14:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there are around 200,000 people of Vietnamese etnicity in Australia, and about half have the surname Nguyen. Then half are female so 50,000. Thao would be easily on of the ten most popular female names, so there probably could be at least a thousand people with the same name. besides, being on Big Brother for everdday for 4 months isn't good enough, so an appearance in a30min TV show wouldn't do much either.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:VERWP:NOR at least that much should be in advance. Ste4k 16:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Blnguyen. Wickethewok 17:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Blnguyen. (Is there an echo in here?) Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and ensuing conversations here. -- Alias Flood 00:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is nothing inherently notable about his position and no notability asserted for himself as an individual. BlueValour 15:34, 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 merge to Directory Opus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability no demonstrated, delete --Peta 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Directory Opus--TBCTaLk?!? 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Directory Opus where it belongs. He is non-notable outside of that.Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to within Directory Opus. I don't believe that there is a need to keep him as a separate article just yet...--Blog Mav Rick 02:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I was the creator of the original article. Jonathan Potter is notable within the Amiga community (whether you consider that 'Amiga community' should be accompanied by the present or past tense, his notability in that community is beyond dispute). - Richardcavell 03:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Directory Opus. --Coredesat talk 04:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Directory Opus until his section in that article becomes large enough to merit it's own page. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Directory Opus Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It appears that Directory Opus is pretty notable, so I believe he might be somewhat notable too. Green caterpillar 00:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Directory Opus as above. Yamaguchi先生 08:31, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does being physio to a international sports team necessarily meet WP:BIO? --Peta 00:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO or perhaps redirect. An individual working for someone notable doesn't always make the individual himself is notable. Also, only 668 relevant Google results [5]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Andrew Leipus" physio gets 11,400 hits. Tintin (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm inclined to think this is worth keeping. The low google result is due to the fact that most articles about him were written in Hindi. Cricket is enormous in India, and when players got injured in the build up to tournaments, he would get quoted frequently. Further, articles about him note that Leipus had a great impact on the team, its fitness, and level of play. Leipus isn't any old phsyio, he's a physio who changed much of the thinking behind the Indian cricket team. Vickser 01:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting quoted from the media does not always merit notability. Also, due to the fact that doctors handle the well-being and health of their patients, technically all doctors for anyone notable can have a high impact on their life, thus do we really need an article for every single doctor that has had a notable patient?--TBCTaLk?!? 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Getting quoted frequently in the media as an expert would seem to me to pass the more notable than the average college professor test, and 11,400 google hits seems to pass the google test. I'm not saying that any doctor who's had a notable patient is himself notable, but I do believe Leipus's impact on the team and his extensive media coverage make him notable. Vickser 20:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge into Indian national cricket team. I don't believe his notability goes beyond the context of that organization. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • By this, I mean delete the article and put whatever useful information there is into Indian national cricket team. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge per Ted--Joe Jklin (T C) 02:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry you're right. My vote should be merge and redirect.--Joe Jklin (T C) 03:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Delete and merge is not a valid choice, as it violates GFDL. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How does this violate GFDL? Delete and Merge simply means to take whatever useful information is in the first article and put it into the other article, then delete the first one. I'll change my wording to be more explicit. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion of the original text loses the attribution from the original edtior, thus violating GFDL and copyright. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge as above Bwithh 02:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you even read my comment above? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope! On the other hand, "Merge" does not mean cut and paste as that rarely works. It generally means a significant degree of editing down and rewriting of the text is involved. Bwithh 03:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable enough - he was one of the people who wrote some report on the Indian team's fitness - one of which lead to coach Greg Chappell sending a heated email to the board calling for captain Sourav Ganguly to be dismissed - one reason being his abject physical state - Ganguly was eventually sacked amidst board infighting, allegations of scandal, board branch-stacking, and widespread rioting in his hometown of Kolkata, railways were blocked, state government threatened not to pay taxes, passed motions in parliament etc,et c. The styou can see how big cricket is in India. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Indian national cricket team, per TedE. --Coredesat talk 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Indian national cricket team. Not enough info for single article. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Verifiable and notable enough for mine. 18,300 Google hits including verifiable sources such as Cricinfo [6] and 10 Google News hits [7] gives multiple sources of reliable information. That in turn indicates notability. Capitalistroadster 07:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 08:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per those above. David L Rattigan 08:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO criteria. Information could be moved to Indian national cricket team before close of AfD if anyone cares to.--Isotope23 12:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very notable, through involvement in newsworthy events surrounding the Indian cricket team. JPD (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable. Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Indian national cricket team which, as written, contains no mention of Leipus who asserted to be notable because of his work there. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. Yonatanh 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Capitalistroadster, this person is verifiably notable. Yamaguchi先生 08:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- Srikeit ^{(Talk | Review me!)} 10:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Certainly notable. Tintin (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- certainly notable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Those voting delete may not completely understand the significance of Leipus' tenure as physio, during which time he oversaw acomplete transformation in the degree of fitness expected of a member o the Indian national team. This has in many ways revolutionised the way the team plays, as well as being partly reflected in its changed ranking in the world. Simply put, he's a notable person, was extremely visible for the period when he was with the national team, and emminently encyclopaedic. Note he is no longer with the team, so it does not make sufficient sense to merge him into the team page. In any case, I strongly expect that as more India- and cricket-related articles are created, someone will attempt to recreate this in the not-so distant future. Hornplease 18:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Satisfies WP:BIO per "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" Also, please note that WP:BIO is not a hard and fast rule - it reads "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." (emphasis not mine but in original) --Gurubrahma 18:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per evidence presented above. With note to nominator this is not the place to ask questions. If you aren't sure then you shouldn't be nominating for deletion, although other than putting the debate here you havn't given your opinion. Ansell 00:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, in this case it does. Silensor 22:25, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nn college club. Every college in the US (pretty much) has a college rebublican's club. --Pboyd04 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ORG, non-notable club--TBCTaLk?!? 01:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, there are just too many of these to have separate articles for, and nothing in the article indicates that they've done anything particularly notable. Herostratus 01:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. The College Republicans article doesn't really have a place to merge it, and it is not notable itself. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Joe Jklin (T C) 02:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable.--Blog Mav Rick 02:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ---Charles 03:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk 04:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:ORG and advertising. SM247 04:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Kent State. Virtually all college clubs should be in their schools article. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, other than the name of the club and one sentence about them, they should not even be in the Kent State article. Alphachimp ^talk 06:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If every college club got their own page we could add another 100,000 articles =P --mboverload@ 07:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but don't merge anything except for the club's existence into the main article -- none of the events mentioned in the article seem particularly important in the context of a rather old, rather large university.--M@rēino 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not notable. Yonatanh 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not notable. -999 (Talk) 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Student organizations that exist at a single school are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 03:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notable single school clubs may exist, but no evidence of notability for this one presented. -- Infrogmation 17:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - Non-notable. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to College Republicans. Sandy 00:07, 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 merge to Spaceships of EVE Online. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be nn fancruft Ethii 01:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Spaceships of EVE Online--TBCTaLk?!? 01:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. --Coredesat talk 04:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Perfect candidate for a Merge as per above. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, game/fan cruft. --Alphachimp ^talk 06:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge maybe the opening paragraph into the bullet point on Spaceships of EVE Online, the rest is just pointless stats that would overload the article. Kuru ^talk 18:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per TBC. Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Spaceships of EVE Online. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Kuru. The lead paragraph is almost useful, but the rest is just raw data. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:54, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB Pboyd04 01:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 294,538 [8]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk 04:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. SM247 04:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. And it's just in really bad shape. --S-man 06:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it even says that the forum is tiny. Alphachimp ^talk 06:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't even attempt to assert notability. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Madness Interactive. Green caterpillar 00:25, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating A New Hard Life (Hilary Duff album), as both are articles on supposedly forthcoming Hilary Duff albums that not even Duff herself has said anything about. Googling for either title only yields reuslts from Wikipedia mirrors and dubious sources, and there's no mention of one or the other at her official website. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball and most likely WP:HOAX since there are only 116 Google results [9], none of which are from official or notable sites--TBCTaLk?!? 01:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-existent. Let it get closer or more anticipated first. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete unless a reliable source confirms this. Perhaps we should create a Wiki for purely hypothetical pop albums dreamed up by fans... I don't understand why, but they're relatively common on Wikipedia. --W.marsh 02:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, not verifiable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk 04:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom, un-verifiable. If deleted a weak sugestion of redrection of It Can't Rain All the Time to The Crow (album). --blue520 05:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both untill some actual confirmation. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wiki is not a crystal ball and these both could be hoaxes doktorb _words^deeds 07:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this, but I'd support an article on her new album if anything is actually known about it. Everyking 07:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, crystal ball.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 15:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (put titles in track listing of Hilary Duff). Green caterpillar 00:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, not yet verifiable through reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 08:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one I vote to delete A Hard New Life but put a clean up tag on the It Can't Rain one... --209.89.94.153 19:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with Image:Cantrain copy.jpg. — getcrunk what?! 21:49, 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. --Ezeu 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pages reads like an adevert for Cordiant, even cleaned up I don't think it really has a place  Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - though questionable notability, Google does provide 3,200 hits from a variety of sources [10]; IMHO just needs a very major cleanup. ikh (talk) 18:43, 21 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, W.marsh 01:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS, no evidence of notability--TBCTaLk?!? 01:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per WP:CORP. A better google search is [11], which yields 2,600 hits. Some are job openings, but others seem to be news snippets about who is now using Cordiant Technologies. Very very marginal. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tree Biting Conspiracy, if it were to be kept it would need serious revision as it is copyvio now [12] .--Joe Jklin (T C) 02:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is a copyvio, it can merit a speedy delete per CSD 8--TBCTaLk?!? 02:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I believe that only applies to articles created in the last 48 hours. This was created in April. It should also be noted that this article is the only contribution that the author has made.--Joe Jklin (T C) 02:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, sorry about the misleading comment. I had assumed it was created recently as most articles that resemble the one nominated are usually deleted within days of creation.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ad, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 04:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. ---CH 06:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone makes a non copyvio article at the /Temp page. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Please take another look at the article. The copyvio argument no longer applies, as the article is no longer a copyvio. I think the company is quite large. TruthbringerToronto 00:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I still am not sure that this company is notable. While a google for cordiant turns up plenty of results, many are for cordiant communications group, which was one of the top advertising companies in the world at one point but is no longer in existence. Until I see some evidence that this company is notable (stock market indices,company ranking indices, etc.) I can not change my vote to keep.--Joe Jklin (T C) 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one result on Google News, other than that main results on Google aren't evidence of notability. Yonatanh 15:08, 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 speedy delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Pboyd04 01:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFT, as evidenced by statements such as that it was "created by two students at Warwick University UK: Matisse Jayasuriya, Terry van Gevelt."--TBCTaLk?!? 01:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as silly, made up nonsense. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as above. Don't they have homework at Warwick? Bwithh 03:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete? Under what criteria? It may be non-notable, but it doesn't seem to be patent nonsense, a copyvio, etc.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per above. SM247 04:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per WP:NFT, don't think this is a speedy candidate, though. --Coredesat talk 04:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Comes very, very close to patent nonsense. Morgan Wick 05:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. You cannot just make up something and then automatically put it on Wikipedia. Bad decision to put the article on here, good decision to delete it. --S-man 06:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not a speedy delete candidate, and not patent nonsense, and every game was made up by someone. But, since there is no evidence that anyone besides these two students has ever played this game, it fails verifiablity. If I could find an independent resource listing rules for the game, or anyone writing about playing it, I would reconsider. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice - Wikipedia not about how you waste time at school, et cetera WilyD 14:25, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niche forum software, permastub; Not to be confused with Shii-chan. Kotepho 17:56, 21 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, W.marsh 01:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SOFT, non-notable and now defunct forum software--TBCTaLk?!? 01:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonexistentware. See quote from link provided: "Shiichan was a 2ch-type board in PHP. It was written in late 2004 by a guy named Shii. Currently, it is in a buggy beta stage, and no development is planned." Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does actually exist, and people do still use it. Kotepho 01:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Buggy beta stage" doesn't sound like much of an existence, but I take your point -- I overstated mine. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable b/c it doesn't exist.--Blog Mav Rick 02:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it does exist, but it's not notable (WP:SOFTWARE). --Coredesat talk 04:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless I see some secondary sources, some innovative aspect of the software, or any claim to notability. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "As of 2005, it's no longer in development." Very true. And, as of 2006, it's "no longer in Wikipedia." --Alphachimp ^talk 07:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SOFT Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Shii-chan. Optichan 22:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 both. --Ezeu 07:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating List of remixes of Britney Spears songs. Per previous discussions (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Remixes of Beyonce Songs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kelly Clarkson Remixes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mariah Carey remixes etc.), these lists of remixes (some of which are unofficial and/or non-notable) contravene WP:NOT. Extraordinary Machine 01:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as listcruft--TBCTaLk?!? 01:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, textbook listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk 04:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete opens the door for an unmanageable, unverifiable, ever-expanding list. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft. Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all listcruft. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 21:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've just found Madonna remixography and Spice girls remixography, and have tagged them for deletion as well. Extraordinary Machine 01:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as listcruft --Starionwolf 03:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Why exactly are these aricles for deletion? I have devoted much time and effort into keeping Madonna's remixography 100% accurate. It is a useful resource and many people ask for this. It is a full and easy to understand list. Please explain to me why it, and the rest of these pages, need to be deleted. Someone explain. Thanks.--User:BertrandJP90 on 21:22, 28 June 2006
  • Upon further inspection, the Spice Girls one seems perfectly accurate as well, and that one won't change or need updates for obvious reasons. The Shakira one however, is falling behind on updates and is poorly formatted. That one should be cleaned up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.202.175.249 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 29 June 2006.
    • Sorry, the above comment was mine (BertrandJP90)
  • I think a very good point somebody raised on one of the other AFDs is that a separate list of remixes presents little context for the reader. They'd have to visit the song articles to see which of these remixes are significant (and not all of them are), and really only somebody very familiar with Madonna's discography would make immediate sense of it. So it would be more useful to include info on and discuss a song's remixes in an article for the song. Extraordinary Machine 20:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruftastic. --moof 08:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I've spent time making sure this is accurate (getting references from DJs, etc...) and fans appreciate that...I don't think it should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.70.153.216 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 29 June 2006.
  • Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Also, casual readers of this website should be kept in mind when contributing to articles, and not just groups who already have an interest in the subject. I'm not trying to demean your efforts, but I think these lists are more suited to a Britney Spears/Shakira/whoever wiki at Wikia or somewhere. Extraordinary Machine 20:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Articles like this are a valuable resource. The Madonna one is the most accurate listing of all her songs and remixes available on the internet and I reference it almost daily. I don't understand what sort of rule it is breaking that people want it deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Minusthesnake (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 June 2006.
  • User's first edit. The policy people think these lists are contravening is "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Extraordinary Machine 20:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How is this an indiscriminate source of information? Anyways, how does wikia work? What's the difference? Maybe we could reach a compromise. You could probably argue these points to two thirds of the articles here anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.202.175.249 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 June 2006.
  • WP:NOT states that Wikipedia articles are not "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". Wikia has wikis on lots of different topics, and they allow a higher level of detail than would be appropriate in an encyclopedia. I think a useful compromise for other readers would be to list and discuss the most notable remixes in the song articles rather than a context-less list. Extraordinary Machine 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of this is that fans have a FULL list to reference and update with any new finds or corrections. Anyways, I'll move it to wikia if someone explains how that works. I looked at it and it seems I have to apply for something?
• Keep. 72.130.198.232 08:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular reason? Extraordinary Machine 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Discography articles are enough; we don't need additional remixography articles for every artist. --Musicpvm 08:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like this will be deleted. Can anyone suggest other similar places I can keep this? I don't mind removing it from here, but I want to keep this up somewhere, as I worked very hard on it, and many people from fan communities find this very useful. If it doesn't fit into the wikipedia, where does it fit? -BertrandJP90
  • If you want to you could set up a Madonna wiki at Wikia, and people from the fan communities could contribute to it (as well as other Madonnna-related topics that may not be notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles, such as her album tracks) there. Extraordinary Machine 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nomination. — Tapir Terrific 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate for Democratic party state central committee; no other offices; not sufficiently notable NawlinWiki 17:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Well, was also a candidate for a state legislative race, but withdrew. A blog that is the only reference in the article. No reliable sources used, not up to the standards of WP:BIO. GRBerry 01:27, 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, W.marsh 01:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO, non-notable candidate currently running for a non-notable office. Only 50 Google results [13]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, failing WP:BIO. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 04:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If he is elected, and a page is created on the Democratic Central Committee, this information could possibly belong there. Not enough to merit own article. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; no evidence of notability presented. -- Infrogmation 17:23, 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 CSD A7 and/or G1 - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nn group. There are probably a hundred of these across the US. Pboyd04 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ORG. Also, as mentioned by nom, there are hundred of "news team channel 5"'s across the US due to the fact that channels and staff differ depending on region and television company--TBCTaLk?!? 01:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Because of the names listed in the article, I'll have to say Speedy delete per CSD G1. —Whomp [T] [C] 01:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one amongst, betwixt and amidst a sea of other news channels.--Blog Mav Rick 02:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7.--Joe Jklin (T C) 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Should be merged into whatever TV station this actually belongs to... but the article doesn't state which station it belongs to. So, delete. --Elkman 02:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with this, the best of my searching abilities couldn't find proof that this actually exists. Also, fails WP:ORG. Yanksox ^(talk) 03:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This doesn't even sound like a real television station's news team (note that all the names are male). --Metropolitan90 04:02, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable website: Google returns circa 500 hits for the organization's name and only 21 for the parent organization (which has no content on its website). Nothing links to this article. Website has not, as far as I can see, received any significant media or foundation attention. Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable -- MrDolomite 21:06, 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, W.marsh 01:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 5,107,137 [14]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. It is simply too young and they haven't made a notable impact. I hope that changes, but not just yet. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk 04:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for failing WP:WEB Alphachimp ^talk 06:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I wish this site well on achieving notability. Until then delete. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect to Freecycle Network. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whoa! This is tricky stuff. Freecycle Network has and deserves an article. AFAIK it doesn't have or need much in the way of a central website. It is basically a meme that self-propagates through people setting up Yahoo Groups, using a suggested set of boilerplate rules. I'm completely baffled as to what the relationship is between FreeCycleAmerica/FreeCycleEarth and Freecycle Network. That needs to be clarified. If it's a non-notable little group using a similar name, then it should be deleted. If it's a splinter group from Freecycle Network, it should redirect to Freecycle Network and a line or two about them should be added to Freecycle Network. P. S. I occasionally participate in the local FreeCycle. It's a Good Thing... although I must say it's a little bit freaky to give your name/address/phone to total strangers so they can drive to your house and pick up stuff. P. P. S. As Bob Blue once said, "Let's save the world... and use it again!" Dpbsmith (talk) 13:31, 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems not notable enough to have an individual page dedicated to this man. I suggest a merge or deletion -- Ethii 01:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. Possibly also redirect to Tracey Temple, his girlfriend--TBCTaLk?!? 01:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable former boyfriend of the diary secretary of the First Secretary of State. Even the obligatory affair between the latter two does not save this one. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 04:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, quite frankly this is so NN it doesn't even merit a merge. Alphachimp ^talk 06:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this bit player into the Tracey Temple or John Prescott article. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per User:Nscheffey. David L Rattigan 08:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, falls well short of WP:BIO unless you take a very liberal reading of "involvment in newsworthy events".--Isotope23 12:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnotable. Green caterpillar 02:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Inner Earth 16:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It is notable, because of the nature of the comments that he has given with regard to this heavily publicized controversy. Comeon, guys, apply the same yard stick to all celebrities -- R7 2 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 as copyright violation – Gurch 12:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having a famous child does not automatically make an individual notable, and Carey's mother isn't notable outside of her association with Carey (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Carey, which resulted in a delete). Extraordinary Machine 01:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I meant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Roy Carey. Apologies. Extraordinary Machine 02:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or redirect to Mariah Carey--TBCTaLk?!? 01:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge any useful information into Mariah Carey. She is completely non-notable outside of the Mariah Carey connection. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Mariah Carey since she hasn't done anything deserving of her own article. TJ Spyke 01:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything useful to Mariah Carey; Delete as copyvio. Fails WP:BIO - having a notable child or relative doesn't make someone notable. --Coredesat talk 04:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything relevant into Mariah Carey per above. My cousin is a rock star...can I get an article too? --Alphachimp ^talk 06:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends, who's your cousin? --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Rather not say... I'll go and start my article right now. You'll be able to find it on WP:AfD --Alphachimp ^talk 07:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Coredesat. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge some kind of re-written material into Mariah Carey, but it's kind of a mess. Hard to tell what's relevent and what's just gossip. Kuru ^talk 18:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. — Deckiller 20:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Hmm, I've just realised this is actually a copyvio from [15]. I should have done earlier, since the article on her father was also a copyvio (from the same website). Extraordinary Machine 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Good grief. Looks like it has been that way since day one, so we can't revert it to non-copyvio text. I only see one sentenace that has been added as new content and that won't stand on its own. Will blank for now. Kuru ^talk 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per copyright violation, Extraordinary Machine and Kuru. Merge useful text to pop/ R&B singer Mariah Carey. I see the copy violation too. The useful text is in the article's history if anyone wants to merge anything. --Starionwolf 03:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ack, I misread the comments above. I need coffee. --Starionwolf 03:32, 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. Sango123 02:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. —EdGl 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ORG, non-notable festival; few Google results [16]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, failing WP:ORG. You can also go with copyright violation, since we only have the editor's comment that they (s)he has permission. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Strong delete per CSD-A8 as possible copyvio, fails WP:ORG. There is no evidence the editor has permission to post this, and it definitely reads like it was copied and pasted from somewhere. --Coredesat talk 04:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio? From which site? Though it may seem like copyvio, without any actual evidence the above article doesn't fall under CSD-A8--TBCTaLk?!? 05:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, needs secondary sources for verifiability. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nscheffey --Alphachimp ^talk 07:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no offense, but try googling High Zero Festival and you'll get a lot more hits. Also I apologize for the direct quoting of the other website, it has been changed. There is no longer any direct quoting from the High Zero website. Rosehammer 12:15, 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. Sango123 02:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication that this meets WP:WEB or is in any way important. Note that while it does get numerous google hits, as an IRC many of these hits are not helpful to determining notability. Was prodded a good while back, but the tag was removed. Indrian 14:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable web forum. <10k google hits is not much. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-22 08:36Z

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 777,214[17]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Umbranet returns 145 unique google hits [18].--Fuhghettaboutit 02:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk 04:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are many specialized IRC networks with articles on Wikipedia (DeltaAnime, Enter The Game, etc). This could be valuable information to someone trying to communicate with the bands listed, or just trying to find a music oriented IRC network. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, a resource to communicate with those bands would be a personal website. I don't think that their Wikipedia page should be that website. --Alphachimp ^talk 07:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I was saying was that if it were true that these bands regularly were active on Umbranet, that would at least deserve mention in their articles. Even if that turns out to be untrue or unverifiable, how many IRC networks are you going to put up for deletion? Should Enter The Game, Blitzed, and ChatAutism be co-nominated? Is there some policy, proposed or otherwise, to deal with IRC networks that you could point me towards? --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:WEB and the whole thing reads like an ad to me --Alphachimp ^talk 07:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:WEB - Motor (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -999 (Talk) 22:26, 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. Sango123 02:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity, unverified, and really a non-notable travel agency. Extremely Strong Delete Ardenn 01:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. What the wha??? This is a Canada-wide travel agency that has expanded beyond locations at university campuses. There are even offices overseas (I recall there is one in London, assuming it's still there). Certainly satisfies the criteria of WP:CORP. I fail to see the vanity, and the basis of non-notability mystifies me. Agent 86 01:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable subsidiary of the Canadian Federation of Students, which is the largest student organization in Canada. Also, it has over 256,000 Google results [19]. Perhaps also merge to Canadian Federation of Students instead.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect - I changed my vote from rewrite to merge. It does seem that this would be better suited to be part of the CFS article - pm_shef 03:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. The only outside references I could find were for the lawsuit (which counts, but is not enough). All other relevant hits appeared to be ads through various colleges and so hard to filter out. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have cleaned it up. It is a notable service to students. It has 50 locations. There is some history to it. This article is not advertising. Ground Zero | t 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many travel agencies have multiple locations, that doesn't make them notable. Ardenn 02:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the issue would be quickly settled, then, if "non-notability" were an accepted grounds for deletion. But it isn't, not matter how much some deletionists like to bandy it about as if it were. Now that the article is cleaned up and linked from the CFS article, Wikipedia will not be improved by deleting this article. Ground Zero | t 02:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is grounds for deletion. No personal attacks. Ardenn 02:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not intend to attack you personally, and do not believe that that I have. Let me clarify that I am not calling you a deletionsist. Please identify where in Wikipedia's deletion policy non-notability is a grounds for deletion. WP:NOTABLE, an essay on notability, states clearly (in bold text): "There is no official policy on notability." Ground Zero | t 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Canadian Federation of Students. Not notable for its own article Bwithh 03:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appears to satisfy WP:CORP. Yanksox ^(talk) 03:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CORP is not policy. Ardenn 03:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither is WP:NOTABLE, a basis on which you nominated this for deletion. The only binding policy which your nomination alludes to is WP:V, and the facts in the article are verifiable. Agent 86 03:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • When one cites another source, they are not claiming it to be an all knowing source. The person is citing it as a reason to keep or delete. Yanksox ^(talk) 03:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Article satifies wikipedia NPOV guidelines and WP:CORP as well all information is factual and verified Dr sean chronic RSX 03:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appears to satisfy WP:CORP which is not policy but does not need to be. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, satisfies WP:CORP, information is verifiable per WP:V. --Coredesat talk 04:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have bought plane tickets there. TruthbringerToronto 07:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Large, important and verifiable corporation, and the lawsuits make the article a lot more informative than most WP:CORP violators. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Definitely notable, doesn't read as vanity at all, and easy to verify. --Ckatz 08:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Although it doesn't look like a vanity page to me, I can't see anything particularly notable about it. Blaise Joshua 12:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest keep possible It is a pretty prominent chain, as far as I can tell here in Vancouver -- multiple locations in a single city, and one of the most well-known student discount travel agencies in Canada. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-written, verifiable, nationally known. Kirjtc2 14:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real, Verified, Notable, Yadda, Yadda WilyD 14:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The largest student travel company in Canada is notable. BoojiBoy 15:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Easily verifiable -- just pick up a phone book in any major Canadian city -- and certainly notable. 23skidoo 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep regardless of nominator's intentions. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 21:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'll occasionally suggest that an article be deleted on notability grounds (while notability isn't usually a grounds for deletion, sometimes things are worth deleting on common sense grounds), but seriously... the subject of the article is decades old, involved in a decently high-profile lawsuit, significantly impacts the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands, and serves as an useful illustrator of a couple of things mentioned in other Wikipedia articles (hence the wikilinks). Keep it around. Captainktainer * Talk 01:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A travel agency for Canadian students? It's probably pretty notable, at least in Canada (However, not judging fully on notability). Green caterpillar 02:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Keep. This operation is on or near pretty well every campus in Canada, including campuses such as the University of New Brunswick which are CASA schools (i.e. not members of CFS). - Jord 21:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very notable. I've used it before myself, and I actually just drove by one a couple hours ago that I hadn't seen before. OzLawyer 23:44, 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 keep. Sango123 02:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:Music. Curiously, their website link defaults to an NBA site (at the time of writing anyway). BlueValour 02:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I fixed that, sorry, but they are a real band, they have 2 cd realeses and a "redux" available in stores and they are singed to a fair size label, Eulogy Recordings, they usually handle bands with this kind of sound. Avenged Evanfold 02:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thought id add they have a page on allmusic.com and a page for all three releases. Avenged Evanfold 02:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable group, failing WP:MUSIC. Their label should probably be deleted as well as non-notable, but that's another story. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (without question) (creator) Are you kidding? I just went through hell last month to get Cancer Bats to be kept. I think I know a little about what makes a notable band. They have 2 cds in stores, do national tours and have an allmusic entry. Don't mess around. Avenged Evanfold 02:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep for touring info present on their myspace profile, and for being on Eulogy Recordings. But needs to be written, entire first part of article is from their allmusic bio [20]. --Joelmills 02:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "national tour" is a tour of [non-notable] clubs, which really isn't a national tour. Eulogy Recordings really should be deleted as well. At best, it is marginally notable -- which is not enough to carry the band. Keeping bands of this level of notability opens the door to every band that has ever spent a summer playing at clubs and has a local recording studio pressing CDs. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC). (Added [] Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment - I agree they are marginal in their notability, but I still think they squeak by. A little more info, their album has been released by a German record company [21], and according to the Ventura County Reporter [22], Eulogy Recordings is a subsidiary of Warner Brothers, and the band is headlining some shows at fair sized (400 seat) venues. If you google "the warriors" + Tehachapi, you'll find a lot of independent music websites that talk about this band. --Joelmills 05:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Maybe the German one is affiliated somehow but according to Eulogy, Thw Warriors are still with them [23].
• A tour of clubs isn't actually a tour now? That's new. Keep, by the way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Notability is marginal at best. --Coredesat talk 04:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What is the point of having a list of all the record labels if they arent going to have functional links? And if a band has released multiple cds that are sold throughout the US and in Canada (or at least Toronto) doesnt that make then at least a little notable? 1 more thing: remember this isnt a vote, its a debate, quality over quantity of argument. Avenged Evanfold 05:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I'm convinced of this band's notability and verifiability. Despite being negative, reviews are reviews, so Keep. --Coredesat talk 02:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete needs secondary sources. Any published reviews or articles about the band would sway me to a keep. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well, when I search The Warriors + Beyond the Noise I get a few reviews, unfortunatly they are all either negative or neutral. The reviewers believe they have created this music for hardcore kids to start fights at shows. While that may not appeal to many people I still think that band is notable to keep. I just dont know if putting up negative reviews is appropriate, or even where I'd fit them in. Avenged Evanfold 15:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Negative reviews are still reviews, I'm now satisfied this band is verifiable enough for a keep.--Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. National tour, allmusic.com page, releases on notable label... some of you don't seem to really get the music business as it is today, and shouldn't be putting music articles up for deletion. Parsssseltongue 18:20, 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 - non-notable club. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About local college computer club, gets 70 hits on google, fails to meet organization notability requirements. Burgwerworldz 02:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ORG, non-notable club--TBCTaLk?!? 02:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clubs wthin universities and colleges are not notable. BlueValour 02:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Mike _{(T C)} 02:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete no assertion of notability, mere student club. SM247 04:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability. --Coredesat talk 04:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a bullet point in the Western Michigan University article. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's such a great idea. I go to this school, and there are hundreds of clubs there, this may not even be in the top 50 of clubs at Western, from my experience. --Burgwerworldz 09:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at normal speeds and concur with Burgwerworldz... Universities usually have hundreds of clubs and there is no reason to list them all in the Uni article.--Isotope23 12:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Computerjoe's talk 15:15, 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. Sango123 03:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't assert any notability as professor, other than being a department chair at a small college NawlinWiki 02:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Only 690 relevant Google results [24]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a professor he has published therefore is notable. Mike _(TC) 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:PROF. Bwithh 03:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. (Many people have published articles, they aren't all notable.) Catamorphism 02:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, publishing is not notable sui generis. If so, every book's author would deserve an article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. All full professors have published, as have nearly all assistant professors. That doesn't make them notable. Department chair at a community college that isn't even on Wikipedia is not notable.Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC) (Fixed college reference, thanks Metro. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Presumably the article creator meant Kingsborough Community College which does have an article, but that's a two-year college so I'm not convinced the subject passes the WP:PROFTEST. --Metropolitan90 04:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete decidedly - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above Bwithh 03:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BIO, fails WP:PROF too. SM247 04:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:PROFTEST. --Coredesat talk 04:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:PROFTEST Alphachimp ^talk 06:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' per nom.TheRingess 07:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not close to passing WP:PROF based on current information. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability of professors is established by research. Teaching & administration is irrelevant. JeffBurdges 10:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of notability evident. -- Infrogmation 17:28, 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 Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 10:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD only posted on the article, not properly included on the AFD page. Listing it here for proper debate. Elkman 02:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Talk:False berry contains some debate about deleting False berry, but it wasn't properly included in this AFD.)

• Keep. This article provides information about False Berries, as well as organizing all false berry bearing plants on the same page Cliffb 23:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although brief, the article is informative--more so than many Wiki articles. andersonpd 18:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For reasons stated above. SB Johnny 10:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above. --Janke | Talk 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As far as I can tell, it's a valid botanical term. If this is wrong, or a hoax, maybe a botanist can tell us. --Elkman 02:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comment. Mike _{(T C)} 02:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Strong Keep A poorly researched afd call. A google books text search shows several authoritative sources using this term http://books.google.com/books?q=%22false+berry%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 Bwithh 02:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep "berry: A simple fruit with single or multiple carpels having a fleshy pericarp with no accessory parts (a true berry) or with accessory parts (a false berry)." from RE Gough (1993). Glossary of Vital Terms for the Home Gardener. Haworth Press, Inc. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep due to poorly-researched AfD nomination. --Coredesat talk 04:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, valid term and informative article. --Musicpvm 07:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep lack of proper AfD suggests not a serious nom. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:26, 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. Sango123 03:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely an advertisement, through and through, in addition to non-notability. AdamBiswanger1 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not seem to pass WP:CORP or WP:WEB. ikh (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ADS, WP:CORP, and WP:WEB. No alexa ranking [25]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:ADS, WP:CORP, and WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk 04:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely non notable, has anyone actually looked at the website? Big ol' list o' links. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If it looks like an ad, reads like an ad, smells like an ad and quacks like an ad - delete it. WilyD 14:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or as the article says "I decided to drop..."--Richhoncho 18:51, 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 03:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub that never got expanded; I'm not sure this is a credible concept. Is there really a distinct "feminist" school of design (aside from there being 2 articles about it)? Delete. Catamorphism 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. --Blog Mav Rick 03:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Danny Lilithborne 03:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete half the time I can't tell if this arch-feminist stuff is satire or not. Garden design? Opabinia regalis 03:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. --Coredesat talk 04:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a mention in the design methods article. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. This could be expanded and placed into a larger article on sex outlook differences and would be very nice. As it is, there is simply not enough for a stand-alone article. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:42, 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. Madchester 07:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Forumcruft, fancruft, lots of nn people, linkspam. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - History is something I see on Wikipedia all the time. Why discriminate what kind of history we're looking at? That's ridiculous. Pissy people who don't like the way the page was written simply need to add their own little piece, or talk to the people who DID make it and talk to thema bout it. You people who want to delete it are people who think you matter more than you really do. Just because it's new doesn't mean you have ANY right to try and squash it down. Go find better things to do if you're bored, please. 68.228.73.35 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• User's first and second edits. Scepia 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post on this page anymore. You're just helping ensure that this page will be deleted. kthx. --Major Organ 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's a page about fan forums. And the fans who populate them. Can't get much less encyclopedic than that. Opabinia regalis 03:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - documenting the history of one of the biggest fan communities, give it some time to progress into something better please. We're still determining the format and structure. --TSA 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Documenting a history on our own constitutes Original research, and isn't really our place. We need to let journalists and historians document the events, and then we synthesize their documentation into a summary. Since there's no basis of journalism or historical works about the Zelda fan community, there's no possible way we can do that with this article.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's not a page about webforums, but instead describes the broad collection of sites and other mediums that the Zelda fan community exists in. In fact, the only times forums were mentioned was in addition to another, more relevant fact. I admit the article is rather new and underdeveloped, but that is no reason for deletion, but instead renovation. There is currently some dialogue within the talk page to figure out what needs to be done. If you guys feel the article contains certain violations, such as linkspam, those can be dealt with for sure, but the article itself serves a legitimate purpose. --Major Organ 04:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, note that virtually all of the above user's edits have been on the Legend of Zelda Fan Community article as well as on this AfD--TBCTaLk?!? 05:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think you've read the policies, you said "but instead describes the broad collection of sites" well

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information + Wikipedia is not a mere collections of external links or Internet directories., sorry.--Andeh 17:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I never stated it was a list of sites, but rather the history of an expansive community (or will be). As stated elsewhere, we're discussing how to rework the article in order to include notable events and moments in the history of the community instead of giving a summary of large sites to decrease the chance of spam. I also believe it is a notable enough community to pass the "indiscriminate collection of information" test. There are multiple Star Wars fan articles, and Zelda is notable enough for atleast a general overview. We will try and work on making it more encyclopedic. We just the time. --Major Organ 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sorry TSA, but I've always been of the opinion that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the fandom doesn't matter (in spite of the furry fandom, which has its own convention). Nifboy 04:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you mean "conventions". :-) Not to mention that the furry fandom is at least twenty or thirty years old, and - in its online incarnation - consists of what are likely thousands of web sites, rather than the maybe-fifty significant Zelda sites out there. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fancruft, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk 04:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, fancruft--TBCTaLk?!? 05:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Total cruft. --Burgwerworldz 06:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has some important information. It's not advertising the sites, it's just giving the facts. --Cygnus 06:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Users 4th edit, this edit being the first in 2006.--Andeh 17:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fancruft. This will lead to articles about the fan communities of every video game, musician, actor, television show, movie, etc etc. --Musicpvm 07:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hugely original research, impossible to document with verifiable sources as to what are important/notable events, etc. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, The article needs some work, but its aim is to document a huge fandom that has been around for 20 years, of one of the biggest video game series of all time. Lysia 08:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Users 2nd edit, 1st edit was on talk page of this articles talk page.--Andeh 17:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I am new to editing Wikipedia but I have followed the Zelda articles and their discussion for a long time. I quote from the announcement at the top of this page: You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. I have been in the online Zelda community since 1999, I have followed the series since the very first game, and have run a site of my own since 2001, therefore I feel I have a right to state an opinion here. Lysia 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or possible merge to Legend of Zelda, if any NPOV, verifiable info can be salvaged. Large, serious, prolific, and unique fan communities may warrant mention in the main article on their topic, but they do not need their own article. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I essentially concur with Night Gyr's reasoning above.--Isotope23 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most of the article consists of POV, fancruft and original research - when you remove that, I believe the article reads The. WilyD 14:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Too bad if there's original research and blabla, it's the only way to document something like this, which is most certainly a valid entry. Hyrule 15:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for admitting that it's original research, and needs to be deleted. Your contribution is appreciated. WilyD 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:NOR. A topic like this is inherently vanity/link spam. Is there anything from outside the Zelda community? If not, then it is also simply fancruft (I hate the term, but there it is). Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per above. Article fails on the three main content policies: No Original Research, Neutral Point of View representing views fairly and without bias, and Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, most of the links on the page fit Occasionally acceptable links — although fails because of the number of external links: "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link." — and the article also appears to fail Criteria for web content. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Somebody used the Wikipedia is not a keeper of indiscriminate information argument. I read it over, and nowhere does it say "history" is unacceptable. I find that argument rather weak as the own definition does not specifically say "history". Just to point out - a hoax about a fake video game The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga has survived a AfD, and I swear that has less relevance than the history of one of the biggest fan communities on the internet. It is obvious the people voting for deletion are 1) Biased against this article because they are non-fans or 2)Believe fan works have absolutely no merit in the referential realm to warrant an entry in this site. There is an extensive history of Star Wars fan culture page, even more specific down to categories of works. The Legend of Zelda fan community is a phenomenom and a pop-culture icon status, not just a blantant advertising article which has no profound meaning. I concede the current version is not very reflective of that, but if this article was given more time to develop into something better, I believe the article would have better standing on this site. Sometimes I feel Wiki is more of an oligarchy because there seems to be a faction who decides what stays and what goes, especially in the Zelda articles, and it baffles me as to the logic sometimes. Not to be too self-righteous and full of myself, but how the hell did a Zelda hoax The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga remain and the article somebody made for GANNON-BANNED was deleted? The latter has more impact and presence and importance in the realm of Zelda than the hoax. Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I feel part of these AfD are personal grudges against me, whic is totally unprofessional and crap. Again, my argument - I do not get how the history of one of the biggest fan communities, not just any community, does not count as suitable material for this site. We can provide original research without a POV, and we can provide published citations from credible sources if you give us time. You are judging this article on its infancy, when the future version will turn out to meet Wiki's standards. But you are resolving this article to a Catch 22 - there is no way it can start off perfect and totally conforming to Wiki's standards - it needs time to get to that point. I never got the AfD after such a short time. Wiki's guidelines need to be ammended to either have AfSP, or AfD after a timeframe of significance to allow the article suitable time to develop into a proper Wiki article. But I'm sure this will get deleted. Perhaps it will be put at a more deserving place than Wiki. --TSA 17:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment if this does get deleted, perhaps Zeldawiki would welcome your contributions TSA. You could always transwiki this over there before the close of AfD if you are concerned this is going to be deleted from Wikipedia. As for The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga, I'm not familiar enough with this particular case, but I know in some instances, hoaxes have been kept because they were so pervasive that they become notable simply for being a hoax. Again, I don't know enough about the specifics of The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga to say if this was the reasoing for keep opinions on that particular AfD. That article could use a rewrite though.--Isotope23 18:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, and move to a better title. A well-documented and detailed discussion of Zelda fan sites on the web is a notable topic worthy of inclusion, as quite a few of them have been notable in their own right, pulling in millions of hits, as well as their interaction. They were more important and centralized in the earlier days and are an interesting aspect of the early web. Finally, no one around is more qualified to document this stuff than TSA. I don't agree with everything TSA says, here or elsewhere, but I think this is an important topic. Deco 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amending my comments: TSA didn't actually do most of the writing in this article, didn't mean to convey that, but he does review it regularly. Also, I think this article is a great place to merge articles about Zelda websites that aren't notable enough on their own. I'd suggest "merge into The Legend of Zelda series", but it's just too large a topic for adequate coverage in the space of that page. Deco 17:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as this is an important subject that many surely care about. I don't have much knowledge of the history of the fan community, so this is useful, and it is not a collection of facts, but rather a helpful page with good info. Scepia 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:TheJC and User:Musicpvm. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all similar comments above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TheJC and nominator --Starionwolf 03:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per original nomination. With regards to various arguments that it's "interesting," see WP:INTEREST. — Mike • 04:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - entirely unreferenced, and not particularly notable. For pretty much every game or franchise there's some sort of fandom out there; the real question is whether it's sizable and active enough to take note of. This doesn't appear to be the case for Zelda, judging by the article. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:06, 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. Sango123 03:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About local journalist, appears to have be written by subject, possibly violation of WP:VAIN. Burgwerworldz 02:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, also appears to fail WP:BIO. Yanksox ^(talk) 02:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:VAIN and WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 04:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete makes no assertion of notability, and reads like a poorly written resume. WilyD 14:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it might fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) --Starionwolf 03:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Just because an article needs to be cleaned up is no reason to delete it. I may be the minority here, but if we have such an expansive Wiki section on trivial Star Wars characters and Warcraft slogans, it seems we can include state capitol journalists. If the article needs to be cleaned up, then please instruct the article's originator, CountVonBob, on how best to do so. As to Burgwerworld's point, I don't think statements like that should be made unsourced. tdslappy 08:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete I think this meets Speedy A7 since I don't see anything that even asserts notability, but others may disagree. Eluchil404 19:06, 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. The prod-cleaning admin can also contest the deletion, so the procedural argument is moot, yet the rest of the comments stand. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was on Prod that ended today. There are quite a lot of google hits at least for the sculpture in Australia. I think it should go through Afd. Voting Neutral for now abakharev 03:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete and close, no need for AfD if prod was uncontested for five days. Incoherent anyway. SM247 04:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and close, as if the prod was uncontested for five days, the article should have been deleted. Also, the sculpture is notable, but its notability doesn't transfer to the article's subject. --Coredesat talk 04:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any verifiable info to H. R. Giger --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Omniplex 09:21, 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 speedy delete.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Investment banker, but nothing notable that I can see from this article NawlinWiki 03:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost A7 - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete A7 seems a clear A7 to me. His published articles may as well be powerpoint slides. or notes for powerpoint slides. Bwithh 03:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy per above -Drdisque 03:50, 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. Sango123 03:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally tagged for speedy deletion by Dipics, but creator Iknothetrth objected. I'm bringing the discussion to AFD as suggested. No vote on my part. Roy A.A. 03:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: VAnity page. --Ragib 03:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nonnotable, vanity. ---Charles 03:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If you Remove this Page you might aswell remove the other Wind-Up Artist Pages. --Iknothetrth 03:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable, fails WP:VAIN. --Coredesat talk 04:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepWhat does it take to Prove notability? He was in One Of the Top Christian Bands, The Band Broke up & now He is Solo. Google Him up, is that enough notability? Big Dismal on VH1--Iknothetrth 05:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't vote twice. If you want to know what it takes to prove notability, see WP:MUSIC. Morgan Wick 05:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've removed the duplicate "vote". --Coredesat talk 06:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, per WP:MUSIC and per WP:VAIN. Pascal.Tesson 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to Notability for Music The Artist"Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable....." Eric Durrance was in "Big Dismal" one of the Major Christian Bands. "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network"... Big Dismal's Music was in radio Stations Nationwide, Just because the band Split and The Lead singer decided to continue a solo career does not make him loose his notability. --Iknothetrth 14:43, 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 03:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A listing of events sponsored by a college club. I find it hard that the club itself is notable, but before I work with that, I'd like to see if this is relevant. Burgwerworldz 03:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable list associated with nn club. Agent 86 03:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of lists, particularly when the university organization is non-notable. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk 04:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above comments. --Metropolitan90 04:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. The related aritcle Former Staff of Michigan State University Residence Halls Association should also go. --Musicpvm 07:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT and indescriminate collection of information. Michigan State University Residence Halls Association doesn't really qualify as a non-notable club, but a list of the events they've hosted isn't really necessary either. It was a fun little trip down memory lane when I saw the author listed the Helmet/Therapy? concert (which was MC'd by Timothy Leary.--Isotope23 12:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT -999 (Talk) 22:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What's next, List of Food Items Served at Events Sponsored by Michigan State University Residence Halls Association? ~ trialsanderrors 06:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Michigan State University Residence Halls Association -- some of this is notable, but not in it's own article --T-rex 15:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an indescriminate collection of information. One of the things Wikipedia is not. Eluchil404 19:09, 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. Sango123 03:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable author, vanity page (possibly created by subject himself. --Ragib 03:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: NN author's vanity page --Ragib 03:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nasim, and kindest regards to the "Pakistan Commercial Exporters of Towels Association" hehehe - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable, fails WP:VAIN. --Coredesat talk 04:42, 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 due to copyvio concerns. Can be re-written under a different name as suggested. --Ezeu 07:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essay about history of Utah state law. Also obvious copyvio, though I cannot find the source online. Generally UE. An article about Utah law is possible, though we don't have articles on any state's law/bar association. In any event, this one's not it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, appears to be a possible copyvio, the creator created all the text perfectly in one post, that seems rather odd. Prehaps a very toned down version could find a home around here. Yanksox ^(talk) 03:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appears to be copyvio. Reads like WP:OR. --Coredesat talk 04:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete without prejudice as copyvio unless the author steps forward and releases it under the GDFL. If he does, strong keep: the subject is worthy of an article, and this text could be made encyclopedic with light editing. Smerdis of Tlön 14:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The copyright holder is obviously the state of Utah and/or one of its administrative subdivisions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could be; it could also have been prepared for a bar association publication or magazine. If this is the case, republication rights probably are still held by the author, and if the author is the uploader, it wold be fine. We probably ought to identify, on a state by state basis, which states claim copyright in official publications as well. I know Indiana does not. Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite Poss. copyvio. State goverment copyright law varies. If it could be rewritten, sourced and such Keep Computerjoe's talk 15:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think a state bar association deserves its own article, but there should definitely be a Law of Utah article concerning how Utah's laws compare and contrast with other states.--M@rēino 20:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's virtually impossible. Individual notable state legislative acts (Utah Constitutional Amendment 3, New York divorce law, e.g.) have articles, but an article that endeavors to compare the whole body of law state by state would be untenable. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite and Rename into Utah State Bar Association, which is an actual notable organization. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep iff this can be written or text is released as GFDL. Yamaguchi先生 08:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite and Rename A state bar association ougth to bne notable. The presetn article has too much on the last 25 years and not enough on earlier history. Peterkingiron 23:23, 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. --Ezeu 07:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College club, seems to be in violation of WP:ORG. Burgwerworldz 03:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. This isn't a free webhosting/marketing service, kids Bwithh 03:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Associated Students of Michigan State University (ASMSU), and Michigan State University Residence Halls Association (RHA). It is non-notable outside those organizations. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk 04:43, 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. Sango123 03:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to serve no encyclopedic purpose. Article promotes its subject without assertion of notability. - Richardcavell 03:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet requirements of WP:CORP, and claims asserted as facts are unverifiable. Agent 86 03:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable local restaurant. Not in Michelin Guide. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete despite throwaway line about fame, no real assertion of notability; puffery should not be taken as an assertion of notability. SM247 04:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, fails WP:CORP as non-notable local restaurant. --Coredesat talk 04:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It doesn't have to be in the Michelin Guide, but it has to have SOME sign of notability, otherwise Wikipedia becomes indistinguishable from the Yellow Pages. This particular place doesn't even show up on Roadfood.com [26], though some other places in Essex County do (Agawam Diner, Clam Box, Boulevard Ocean View, Caffe Sicilia, Essex Seafood, Flav's Red Skiff, J.T. Farnham's, Jim's Bagel & Bake Shop, Marty's Donut Land, Nick's Famous Roast Beef, Salem Diner, The Dory, The Village Restaurant, Turtle Alley, Virgilio's Bakery & Deli, Wenham Tea House, White Farms Ice Cream, and Woodman's of Essex). This one, as the British like to say, not a sausage. If they can't clear even that relatively low bar, out it goes. --Calton | Talk 05:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete foodcruft. Danny Lilithborne 06:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CORP. If it had made the list of 20 hamburgers you must eat before you die, this would be a diferent situation... but there is no evidence Skip's is "world famous".--Isotope23 13:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although some trace of this article could be kept for the sake of good examples of perfect candidates for deletion. I just love the "world famous" and "tourist attraction" quotes. Pascal.Tesson 02:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) --Starionwolf 03:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Oh boy, just what we need! Another so-called world-famous place! If it's so world-famous, how come I haven't heard of it, buddy? These kinds of articles that are SO SPECIFIC don't usually do well because they're of such useless information! OTAKU 21:52, 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if this article has any merit as a distinct topic, but in its current form it serves only as an advertisement for www.superalerts.com, which a little investigation reveals, shares the same address as the software company (WWWSoftware) owned by the author of this article. If the topic has any merit, the spam can be deleted, and the article redirected or merged somewhere else. As it stands, it is worthless. Charles 03:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:SPAM miserably. --Coredesat talk 04:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ADS and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary--TBCTaLk?!? 06:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and maybe recreate as a redirect to Toast (computing)? -- Plutor 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Toast (computing) --Starionwolf 03:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article's original author has removed all the advertisement-themed parts of this article, thereby reducing it to almost nothing. I still see no reason for the article, and my original suggestion that it be merged into some other relevant article stands. ---Charles 03:53, 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.