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

The result was speedy redirect to Amish Paradise, the correct spelling. — CharlotteWebb 22:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amish Paridise[edit]

Apparently a test article. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 22:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as nonsense, so tagged as such. User:Logical2u_Talk 22:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kopimi[edit]

Kopimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I prodded this as non-notable, prod was contested, I thought I'd bring it here. Fair amount of google hits, nothing I see that's reliable. Article on Swedish WP is no better. Smells promotional Delete Aagtbdfoua 00:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as NN blog meme. 1250 hits on kopimi site:se (46,000 when you do -site:se, so it isn't just a svensk thing), but none that I can see meet WP:RS (there's one behind a paywall, ComputerSweden). Many of the hits are to social networking sites where it's used as a tag. Here's a semi-RS use of the related neologisms[1]. In short, fails WP:NEO. --Dhartung | Talk 00:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only halfway decent link is the Online urban dictionary which shows no proof of nobility. It is also not a part of our article on The Pirate Bay. --Banana04131 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge and redirect to The Pirate Bay. --Dennisthe2 01:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge with The Pirate Bay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. ← ANAS ^Talk? 03:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -for now. It may be something new, so it could come back in the future. For now however, it is very unnotable. JackSparrow Ninja 03:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Seems non-notable at this time per WP:WEB. Ronbo76 04:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - A kopimi is a logo used by some people on the Internet for a specific purpose. Furthermore, the term kopimistic, which is used on a site with a large public exposure, links to this article. Klassica 06:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does not work on the principle of taking editors' sole words for things, nor is it the place for first documenting the undocumented. Please cite sources to show that this logo has already been properly documented outside of Wikipedia. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G 00:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is nothing to prove that it is noteable. It links just to itself. Seems to fail [WP:WEB]] as only no noteable sites even seem to mention it. It is both a symbol and a new age term that fails WP:NEO.--Dacium 07:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: missing to much information to make a fair judgement. Meuh! Oh well next time source it. --CyclePat 07:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. _{Doc Sigma} ^{(wait, what?)} 14:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JCO312 14:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable on Wikipedia but could be moved to Wiktionary. Tellyaddict 16:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 17:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mkdw^talk 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 02:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Griefer[edit]

Griefer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

It's just lots and lots of original research. --Lijnema 00:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Keep" Research paper of griefing Although the three criteria are not so clearly displayed, an astute reader can identify all requirements. The paper does seem to suggest there are more but I believe that some are clearly condensed. It needed a some better external sources referenced. I've taken the liberty of supporting the information provided with the active policies of one of the top five biggest online gaming companies.
• Weak Delete The article is original reseearch but the term is a commonly used term among gamers. I would support if the article were changed to a stub with references and focused on what different companies do to try and get rid of "griefers". One such example is here. --Banana04131 00:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Support References have been added and this article need trimming and cleanup.--Banana04131 01:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per Banana04131 -- Selmo ^(talk) 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to List of online-gaming slang. No need to merge, it's already there. It is a common term, but dictionary entries are covered by WP:NOT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Seems to be a newer but notable slang term...but only in certain circles. I personally don't have a problem with it. The sources seem legit, and the term seems notable...but Wikipedia will survive without it. Ganfon 03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of online-gaming slang. JackSparrow Ninja 03:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: I don't think the nomination for this deletion is completly fair. There are "see also" sections which has some type of reference to the term itself. --CyclePat 07:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep So what about orginal research, that shouldn't be the sole grounds for deletion. There's plenty of information out there that can be used as a refrence such as this article on g4 the one on Microsoft's website this article on Escapist Magazine and this article from geek.com. Google yields many results for this you can find alot of information yourselves from this search. Surely, we can look beyond what we see as original research, and verify the information ourselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RiseRobotRise (talk • contribs).
  • Comment: Original research is absolutely a valid sole reason for deleting an article. But that's not the problem here. The problem here is that this term doesn't belong in an encyclopedia but rather a dictionary. --Lee Vonce 16:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I disagree, an article has to provide sources. Just look at the three "criteria", where did they come from? Google says that they're not to be found anywhere else. I really think the article needs to be deleted or completely brought down to a stub. I'm not contesting the existance of the term, it's all the original research I'm not liking, and original research is a reason to nominate an article for deletion as per the deletion policy. --Lijnema 10:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per Starblind. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A distinction should be made between articles having original reaserch and being original reaserch. This article has a number of citations that source a number of its statements; and, as just shown by RiseRobotRise, the potential for more citations exists. The article admittedly needs trimming to remove OR, but it needs fixing, not deletion. -Toptomcat 13:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commnent: The referencing is far from being wiki featured article status. All there is, is "see also" section at the bottom. A quick glance at those "reference" appear to be extremely relevant and have most of the information from this article. The problem I believe that Lijnema brings, I believe is not that the Article should be delete because of Original Research because he hasn't take the time to verify the information. And who would... it's a mess non-properly referenced , as per WP:REF material. Hence I understand the nomination. I however, do not accept it, as I previously voted keep. That means I believe that with a little work, a party of interest to the article should add the references. I think AfD should have to categories of deletion. I don't think the article should be deleted but, if you follow WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:V all these rules are interlinked and hence if one is violated they may all be violated. I personnaly believe the problem is WP:CITE and not, as per the nomination, WP:OR. --CyclePat 16:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the well thought out explanation of Toptomcat. JCO312 14:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per Starblind. Not notable enough on its own, it fits in better as part of a list.--Scimitar 16:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, per Ganfon Raitchison 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a non-noteworthy neologism. If it belongs anywere, it should be in some dictionary of computer slang terms. Perhaps some brief mention of the term in a larger article about online gaming might be warranted but not as a stand-along article. --Lee Vonce 16:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just needs to have references. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 17:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I see several references kicking around in there that indicate this term has been out there, and it appears to be more than just a dicdef thanks to some of the historical bits. But, I'm torn as to whether it's really notable on its own. Weak delete and redirect is about the best I can come up with. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While it appears to fall under WP:NEO, its a word that has been covered by the public media: LA Times, Toronto Star, etc. See references section. It's also mentioned in Blizzard Entertainment's End User Agreement, the largest subscribed to MMORPG to-date. Mkdw^talk 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while it may be a neologism... its a neologism thats been used by numerous media sources. The potential for referencing exists. When there is a potential, reference it ... dont delete it!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Too neologism-ish for me. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It may be neologism by hard and fast criteria, but the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia allows things to be documented more quickly than an encyclopedia. This means that neologism is likely to creep in. That said, 'griefer' and 'griefing' are important terms used in the context of virtual worlds, just as much as troll is used on the internet. Troll is as much of a neologism as Griefer. If we delete griefer, lets delete troll too. And while everyone is tagging everything for deletion, I wonder if we shouldn't have people wandering around tagging things to be kept. ;-)--TaranRampersad 14:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bananaman. - Ocatecir 03:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please. The recent incident on Second Life involving Anshe Chung being attacked by griefers was reported on internationally. We need this article. dreddnott 08:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "'Keep'" it's is extremely useful. --Slagathor 21:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it may be a neologism, but it's a notable neologism with plenty of sources out there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a notable neoligism. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is notable and well-cited. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This artice is very useful to me and I'm linking to it from my website for all the players of my game server to know what's against the rules. If you are going to merge it in the page with the list of slang, make sure that there is griefing and not only griefer. I still suggest to keep this page since it describe even better the actions that are considered griefing, for example in my game server we have this list: Leeching, Kill Stealing, Teamkilling, Stealing dropped items, Spawncamping, Suiciding. In short terms saying that griefing is forbidden is easy to make sure that you cover any lame action that a player could do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.54.88.8 (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Seraphimblade 03:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thor's Hammer (band)[edit]

Thor's Hammer (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Cynicism addict 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Is this a speedy? --Banana04131 00:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep Very nice rewrite and assertion of notability. --Banana04131 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and it sure looks like a speedy to me, as I don't see an assertion of notability. Heimstern Läufer 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed vote to Weak keep per edits. English wouldn't hurt, but I can work with it now. Thanks for changing my mind. --Dennisthe2 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Declined speedy deletion; the blue-link to a musician with an article is an assertion of notability by WP:MUSIC standards, which are more generous than my personal standards. GRBerry 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Ah, missed that part. OK. This still doesn't seem notable enough for an article, and should perhaps be redirected to Björgvin Halldórsson per WP:MUSIC. Heimstern Läufer 01:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This appears to be the same band that released Umbarumbamba, which is somewhat legendary among music collectors. I'll do some research and see what I can do to improve the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I find two sources, one unreliable but confirming the prior opinion and one that looks reliable and would be enough for me, given our systemic bias toward recentism and the difficulty of finding 1960s sources online.
  1. This source would tend to confirm Starblind's opinon, but I think it fails WP:RS.
  2. This source looks to me to be more reliable enough; and if someone proved it was in fact in the 2002 Sunday times that would be enough for me even with no other sources found during the AFD. GRBerry 02:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - One noteable member does not mean the group becomes noteable.--155.144.251.120 02:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note their All Music Guide entry begins with "Thor's Hammer was the most notable '60s Icelandic rock band." I would think that being the most notable band in an entire country for a decade would pass any reasonable person's interpretation of WP:MUSIC, but I'm open to hearing other opinions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up By now I've given the article a complete rewrite (only the member list is leftover from the original), and plan on expanding it further tomorrow. In addition to the AMG entry I've found what looks to be a fairly extensive bio. It would be very helpful to me in expanding the article, but I don't read Icelandic... perhaps someone else does? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Due to changes by starblind. Please remove not noteable deletes if as it is now sourced noteable.--Dacium 06:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per demonstrated rarity value of recordings. Catchpole 08:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Nice work, Starblind. -Toptomcat 13:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Catchpoles comment. JCO312
• Strong Keep - is surely a noteable band. Neonblak 15:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Excellent rewrite.--Scimitar 16:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to have no relevance. Tellyaddict 16:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Starblind. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Assuming WP:RS (I don't speak icelandic). /Blaxthos 18:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep This article has zero references, but assuming good faith that the information isnt falsified to change this AfD, I vote Keep for notability. Mkdw^talk 21:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, if we need more sources we can check the informative booklet accompanying the Nuggets, Vol. 2 box set released by Rhino Records (part of Warner Music Group, one of the major labels), which includes a track by this band. I will do this when I get home tonight. Andrew Levine 22:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the sources get up to snuff anytime soon. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But I would like to see better citing format (preferably inline). TonyTheTiger 00:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom FirefoxMan 02:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Këëp Article asserts multiple recordings released on Parlophone, which means WP:MUSIC is satisfied. JChap2007 05:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep A notable, classic band. The article might now actually fit WP:BAND. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garden real estate[edit]

Garden real estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Please keep in mind while reading this that I can always be swayed in my opinions. This article does not site its sources (WP:V). It reads close to the edge of an advert, and I suspect it may have been planted to support a company. From looking at the first couple pages of ghits, of which there are many, it looks like they aren't for this exact phrase, they're for some combination of "home and garden" and "real estate". I suspect that "Garden real estate" may be a non-notable neologism. Delete. If someone can make this into a real sourced article which makes sense, I'm always willing to rescind my nomination. Mak (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It doesn't read like an advert, and certainly doesn't seem to be promoting a company - but it looks a whole lot like an essay. --Dennisthe2 00:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Let us not be coy.This is an out-and-out blatant essay. Exterminate.--Anthony.bradbury 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete though content disputes are usually not AfD material it does not strike me as encyclopedic in tone at all. Seems like a lot of OR in my opinion.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the absence of anything to indicate that this is actually a notable subset of real estate. JCO312 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 17:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - looks like OR, no sources listed. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like an essay. Honbicot 22:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. RFerreira 10:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of references in Neopets[edit]

List of references in Neopets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Tumor filled with original research such as "One bird-like petpet resembles the character Fobs from The Adventures of Teddy Ruxpin." Completely fails at WP:V; we have no assurance that this article isn't a complete lie or that editors aren't grasping at straws. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 00:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To be fair, many of the references do look legitimate, e.g., "All your 404 are belong to us" is certainly a reference to All your base, and many of the other quotes are obviously also references. That said, the article at the very least needs to cite all the messages to demonstrate that they actually exist in Neopets, and only those that are clearly references ought to be included. One could also argue that this is cruft. Neutral. Heimstern Läufer 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to prove your assertions of "clear references" with actual sources. Your opinion doesn't quite cut it, no matter how "obvious" you believe it to be. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 00:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to be so adamant. I have no real opinion about the merits of this article, I'm just putting out ideas to be considered. Heimstern Läufer 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Things that can be easily verified by a person without special knowledge do not need citation. I think many of these fall into that category. (That said, this article is way too specialized to be encyclopedic, so delete.) — brighterorange (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The list is unmaintainable, and runs afoul of this guideline in WP:NOT, which dictates that we're not an indiscriminate collection of information. There also lies the question of notability beyond the realms of Neopets - and while these are unquestionably interesting to an extent, is it really notable outside of Neopets? --Dennisthe2 01:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is this notable outside of Neopets? No, not a chance. Anyone wanting to keep this should transwiki somewhere else ([2]). --- RockMFR 02:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most quotes cannot be proven to be unique to that game and obviously most of them do not originate with the game.--155.144.251.120 04:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ultimately this is the kind of article that will always be original research, because there's almost no chance that there's a source that indicates 1) that the lines are in the game, and 2) what they are in reference to. An editor has to make a guess as to what pop culture reference is involved, often a fairly obvious guess, but it's still the editor whose doing it. JCO312 14:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Popculturetrivialreferencecruft Bwithh 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OR. /Blaxthos 18:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its a pity to see such a large amount of work deleted that is also somewhat interesting. However, it should be deleted per WP:OR. Mkdw^talk 21:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Transwiki.... Philippe Beaudette 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Transwiki - not meant for Wikipedia. Sure, some of the references are obvious, but they still aren't sourced and are tainted with OR. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hahaha, Wikipedians create the darndest articles. Except this one is full of WP:OR. Delete, then burn it with fiar. Axem Titanium 15:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in agreement with above. Squids and Chips 22:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please no! *gets on soapbox* You guys may say that it is obvious guesses, but I recognize ALOT of them, and have seen many too ON THE SITE. We could show you exactly where the references occur, if you want, but if other people who actually PLAY the game saw this they would tell you this page is hilarious. For instance, I remember the "there is no jelly, only zuul," one, that happened a little while ago. I'm sure if you all want it "validated" then you could, I'm sure someone is willing to. We'll get the Neopets Team people over here to check it out...it is so funny, you just don't really get the point because you guys have probably never actually played. I have looked through the what-is-and-is-not-allowed list thing and I don't see why you should delete it, because this stuff isn't speculation (well maybe a bit of it) and think about it, we all have biases, especially for a website that has toys sold to mcdonalds, (except that little kids wouldn't recognize a quote from most of this, so it's obviously adults and teenagers who would see this anyway) and you wouldn't appreciate it like users would (who are not little kids). The Neopets Team often says funny things, and it is very cool that somebody actually made a list of them all. *gets off soap box* ok, you may ignore my ranting and go on with your buisiness now. 0:27, 21 January 2007

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

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

The result was Obvious delete, tagged as probable copyvio, hoax (i.e. vandalism) and WP:SNOW. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poison the Hedgehog[edit]

Poison the Hedgehog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

PROD contested by page author. PROD reason was "No relevant google hits for "Poison the hedgehog"; probable hoax". I endorse the prod reason; see my opinion. Hoaxes aren't eligible for speedy deletion or I'd do it instead of this. GRBerry 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One google hit, when Wikipedia is excluded, is clearly not video game related. [3]. Hoaxes should be deleted. GRBerry 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Almost certainly a hoax, and unverified at any rate. Heimstern Läufer 01:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-noteable fan-made character. --FlareNUKE 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete almost certainly a fanfic character, else hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probable hoax, only google hit is irrelevant. Exarion 03:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: 99% sure it is a hoax. Not only is there no evidence of his existence on the page, but as a fan of the series, I know very sure he is not real, or at least not official. JackSparrow Ninja 03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm the one that prodded it. Video game stuff, if real, gets tons of ghits, even obscure people you only talk to once. Dave6 06:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete upon the grounds of being a non-notable fanfic character, cruft, copyvio, and lacking substantial enough notability.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fancruft that completely and utterly fails the search engine test. Metrackle 10:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Dave6 --Arctic Gnome 16:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 18:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced fanfic, and fanfic characters are rarely worthy of an article.-- danntm ^T _C 18:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Why would we want to poison a hedgehog? They're so cute! Oh, wait. Um... Fan character, looks like, no sources... okay, yeah, get the arsenic. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without expressing an opinion on the cuteness of hedgehogs. JCO312 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, a prank article. Besides, faux hoax hedgehogs look cutest when they've been plastered by the tyre of a Morris Minor. Tubezone 07:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Gravity^Talk 10:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comforting Those In Mourning[edit]

Comforting Those In Mourning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not meant to hold FAQs or instruction manuals. ReyBrujo 01:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Raeven0 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteWhether this comforts those of the Jewish faith who are bereaved I know not; I hope it does, but that does not make it encyclopedic.--Anthony.bradbury 01:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete FAQ. Looks like a cut and paste job too. Somebody remember to console the author when this article gets killed. Wavy G 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a manual.--155.144.251.120 02:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --John24601 10:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but note that there may be some information here of value which might be more properly added to Shiva (Judaism). - Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. /Blaxthos 18:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Philippe Beaudette 23:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comments. JCO312 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I understand what it's talking about, but most other people aren't part of that language or culture. (YechielMan) 129.98.212.60 16:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, or integrate Proposal for new Artical: SHIVA, outline all that it entails... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.44.93.71 (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result was Keep. Seraphimblade 03:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zariski surface[edit]

Zariski surface (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This page was originally authored by Dr. Piotr Blass who has recently been banned from Wikipedia due to his exhaustion of the community's patience with his repeated creations of his vanity autobiography and abuse of the courtesy blanking performed on his autobiography's first AfD to just continue to make his biography over ten unique times. However, this is not the entire reason that this article is being deleted.

The only resources for this article are books and articles by Dr. Blass himself, and one by the individual this manifold is named after. If one does a Google Search and has it so any pages containing either "Piotr" or "Blass" show up, Google gives 374 "unique" pages of which Oscar Zariski's article shows up on Wikipedia and its mirrors. Compounded by the fact that Dr. Blass has used the page to promote his original research and had plastered his name all over it, until JzG got rid of nearly all mentions of him, this article should be deleted as an unimportant geometric figure with no reliable sources that do not promote the primary author of the article (R.e.b. was the originator, but Dr. Blass has taken a stranglehold on this article).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One Question. You say it has "no reliable sources that do not promote the primary author of the article". Ignoring the author entirely for a moment, are the sources themselves reliable or not? --tjstrf talk 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, my question has been answered. Blass may be a self-promoting jerk, but that's not a deletion criterion and it sounds like we still have our sources. --tjstrf talk 02:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: An article's problematic history or attractiveness to a now-banned editor are not good deletion rationales if the underlying content is sound or there is good material that can be added. (After all, we are dealing here with an abstract mathematical concept, not a living person biography.) It would be good to have input from the mathematics contributors as to whether this is a valid concept, appropriately described, and using reasonably common terminology. There are several links to this article from others which suggest that the answer might be yes, but I am not knowledgeable enough to say. Newyorkbrad 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not know know if the sources themselves are reliable or not. What I do know is that Dr. Blass used this article to continue to publish his ideas. Of the resources, only one has an ISBN number, and it is not cited. I do realize that this is an extremely abstract concept, and that the fact that Dr. Blass is now banned is not a deletion criterion. I have contacted WikiProject Mathematics about this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 01:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's not my field of mathematics, but the question is, is the term Zariski surface really used for this concept (by someone other than Dr. Blass and his students). If so, we should have some article here, even if it turns out only to be a stub because none of us know the appropriate references. If not,.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A search of MathSciNet found 26 papers or paper reviews containing the phrase "Zariski surface", with authors Masuyaki Hirokado, Joseph Blass, Piotr Blass, Jeff Lang, Tim Ford, Angie Grant, Toshiyuki Katsura, Torsten Ekedahl, Raymond Hoobler, Masayoshi Miyanishi, Peter Russell, James Deveney, John Mordesen, Marc Levine, Richard Randell, and William Lang. That many legit mathematical publications and that many different authors (despite many being related by coauthorship to Blass) seems well above threshhold for a mathematical WP article to me. —David Eppstein 02:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I looked through MathSciNet too, but I couldn't find any articles with the words "Zariski surface" in an article that wasn't written by Blass or one of his co-authors. I'm also not a geometer either so I don't recognize the description as having a name different from "Zariski surface". Lunch 03:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per WP:AN#Piotr_Blass and the shortage of non-Blass-related references I consider this a well-judged nomination. I am unqualified to evaluate the significance of mathematics-related articles and have no opinion on the outcome, yet a discussion of whether to delete this article is very apt. I was the administrator who performed the actual banning of Dr. Blass and his sockpuppets. Durova^Charge! 04:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's obvious that a decent number (> 10) of the 26 papers mentioned by David Eppstein are in perfectly respectable journals, e.g. Duke, Compositio, Proc. AMS, etc. Thus the concept should be considered valid for Wikipedia purposes. The only issue here is on the title. But generally we don't delete valid content just because we suspect the title may not be appropriate. We try to find a better one and then move it to that. Unless evidence is shown that indicates that there is another more popular name for "Zariski surface", I see no reason why this concept should not only have an article but live at its current title. The reliable sources we have so far suggest that is the name. The fact that many of these authors are related to Blass somehow is not important (with only several actually being his students), as they are perfectly respectable researchers. I would expect this kind of thing to happen for a niche topic. Incidentally, Marat Gizatullin mentions in his review MR0546289, that "here we are using P. Blass's suggestion to call a surface $X$ a Zariski surface if $X$ is birationally equivalent to a hypersurface in $A^3$ defined by an irreducible equation of the form $z^p-f(x,y)=0$ [see Blass, "Zariski surfaces", Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1977]". This strongly suggests to me that there was no widely accepted name for this until Blass proposed "Zariski surface". --C S (Talk) 04:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Chan-Ho. Although I cannot follow the mathematical journal articles, this appears to be a topic of minor but genuine importance. The article should be carefully policed for WP:COI intrusion in the future, which should be easier with the recent ban. bikeable (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep A named scientific contribution of this sort referred to by multiple other mathematicians is unquestionably notable by our standards. Whatever we think of the circumstances. DGG 07:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per David. Article existed long before Blass started contribution. It does require some cleanup with quite a few references need filling in. --Salix alba (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The concept is useful, but the article itself is not well-written. It almost looks like a series of abstracts from two or three different papers all jumbled together. DavidCBryant 12:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The attempt to delete this article seems to motivated entirely by personal considerations rather than any discussion of the merit of the article itself. Whatever personal conflicts Dr. Blass may have with the admins here should be kept out of the discussion. --Lee Vonce 17:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is unfair. The problem here is that the major source for this is known to be a serial and prolific creator of vanity articles (not just on himself). He has inserted his name and links to his website into numerous other articles. Since the only source we had for the significance of this subject is one whose judgement on the significance of his own endeavours has proven to be exceptionally unreliable, it is valid to ask whether this is in fact a notable mathematical concept outside of its (very few) proponents. That question remains unanswered. How many secondary sources exist for this? Is it included in standard texts at undergraduate level? Guy (Help!) 18:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:The journal sources show that "Zariski surface" as an actual topic in mathematical research. Whether it is included in an undergraduate text is irrelevant, as that is not how we judge whether a mathematics article should be deleted. I can understand the situation has been confused by Blass' actions, but really...the situation is simple enough, I wonder what the problem is. If this were any other mathematics article whose topic was the main subject of a dozen papers in well-respected mathematical journals, it would be an automatic keep by many non-mathematical editors. --C S (Talk) 18:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sorry guys, hate to be the lone dissenting voice, but this article is promoting original research. It's unforuntate that often times Wikieditors are asked to voice opinions on conceps we have little experience with, which makes it truely difficult to sift what's accepted in the applicable community from what is being promoted as a new construct or theory. Google hits shouldn't be completely trusted, as it appears everything we find originates from the same source (who was, incidentally, banned). /Blaxthos 18:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As material on Zariski surface has been published in reliable sources, i.e. respectable math journals, it is not, in fact, "original research" in Wikipedia's sense. I don't understand why you bring up Google, as nobody advocating "keep" has mentioned Google at all. Perhaps you are confused by the mention of MathSciNet. --C S (Talk) 18:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I think the main issue here is that the articles on MathSciNet are still all connected to Dr. Blass and his research on the manifold. While I do not own a subscription (and I don't know that as a student at UM that I have access to MathSciNet/I don't remember my library PIN), these results still show an avid connection to Blass' research, which we do not have knowledge of peer reviews.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Google was mentioned in the nomination.) Lunch 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is this a "main issue"? People are frequently "connected" like this for niche topics. As for peer review, actually we do have quite a bit of knowledge of what is peer-reviewed or not. If you have any doubts as to say, whether the Duke Mathematical Journal, is peer-reviewed (because of MR0650373), just ask! --C S (Talk) 19:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • {Is a biology student) The reason I listed it for AFD was to see if there were sources that could be utilized that have been peer reviewed and utilized for the article, and it was not just Dr. Blass publishing his research.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If you think this article is worth keeping because Blass (and coauthors) have published a few papers in reputable journals, did you also vote to keep the article on transreal numbers? I could see someone arguing either way. Anderson has had only one or two coauthors and has only published a handful of papers in journals. (He has self-published a lot more, but for the moment let's ignore that.) Blass, on the other hand, has had about 10 coauthors and has published a couple dozen articles in journals. Some of his coauthors have gone on to publish independently of Blass --- but still are, in a sense, his collaborators and aren't "independent". Where does one draw the line? Lunch 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm very surprised that you would bring this up. You were one of the people that mentioned in the transreal AFD discussion that Anderson's publications on transreal numbers were not peer-reviewed. Anderson basically had a couple papers in some conference proceedings that were not reviewed. I based my "delete" on that. The major difference here is that Blass and the other authors have published in well-known peer-reviewed journals. Not to mention that they are actually mathematical journals versus whatever it was that Anderson published in. --C S (Talk) 19:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, at the time I thought the proceedings where Anderson published were not reviewed. I was incorrect. The standards for that particular proceedings journal are different; his (few) articles were reviewed. The proceedings were also tangentially computer science related.
    • For the record, if it were my choice, I'd keep the article (this one on the Zariski surface). But I could see someone wanting to delete it. Lunch 21:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My understanding of the wiki process is that, if I invent (or research or discover) the magnificent Foo, I am essentially disqualified from writing the wikipedia article on Foo. The proper writers are other wikipedians, and the proper sources needs to be journals on Foo, newspaper articles on Foo, and government surveys sampling the economic impact of Foo on homeless beagles. The three sources on this page listed are by Zariski and Blass, and I'm guessing that Blass made significant contributions to the realm of knowledge -- which means neither of them are good sources, and neither of them need to be the wikipedian writing this article. Ideally, someone who understands such things should gather some information from reliable, secondary sources, and that person should write this article. (It won't be me; I didn't comprehend the first sentence.) Anyone want to correct my perception of how things should work? I do not have absolute faith in it. Deltopia 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not quite right. If you invented the magnificent Foo, it's perfectly okay for you to write about it, assuming your writing is based on published sources. Other editors may question the notability of Foo, or whether the article is NPOV, though. In particular, WP:COI says: "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to." --Sopoforic 21:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Chan-Ho and others.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The original short form of the article seems to have been quite satisfactory. I suggest retaining just the current introduction and references, which are adequate for cross-links from other wikipedia articles such as List of algebraic surfaces. Mathsci 20:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If its been published multiple times in reputable peer-reviewed journals then it doesn't matter if all the articles have a common author (plus many other co-authors). This pattern of authorship is fairly common in new and specialized work. AmitDeshwar 21:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The theory is legit, even if I'm not fond of the author. Philippe Beaudette 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep assuming the theory has been published in a reputable journal beyond the control of the author, I'm not sure how it could still be called original research. JCO312 23:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it has been published in reliable sources, it does nat matter in the least that the author has been banned from Wikipedia. There is no "nice guy" requirement for scientificor mathematical theoories. Edison 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Zariski seems to have been a real mathematician. There also appears to be an article for Zariski topology and the literature points to the existance of a Riemann-Zariski surface, which may be the same as a Riemann surface. An expert needs to go through and figure out if these are not all the same thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Infrangible (talk • contribs) 03:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Not the same thing as the Riemann-Zariski surface; introduced by Blass (presumably by analogy). The first paper at a search for Zariski surface (WE Lang 1984) says:

Remark: The motivating examples to which our theorem applies are the generic Zariski surfaces introduced by P. Blass in [two preprints] Blass uses the phrase "generic Zariski surface in two different senses in these two papers, but in both case it refers to the non-singular model of a weighted hypersurface with only rational double points, to which our theorem applies.

The next result (Favre, Johanssen 2005) cites "what is now called the Riemann-Zariski surface" as from Zariski, O.: The compactness of the Riemann manifold of an abstract field of algebraic functions. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 50, 683–691 (1944)

So there's a preexisting concept, and Blass's generalizations; all used by other people. Neither can be simply Riemann surfaces, known well before 1944. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 07:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment On ISI Citation search the 1987 monograph by Blass & Lang got three cites, if I include other Blass articles that refer to Zabriski surfaces I get about six. ~ trialsanderrors 08:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a speedy keep. Zariski was one of the greats of 20th century mathematics; this isn't about the Riemann-Zariski surface at all, but a special class of surfaces Zariski discovered. Zariski surfaces are entirely notable in algebraic geometry. User:R.e.b. is a mathematician of such distinction that there should be no question of deletion. Charles Matthews 21:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (it's a little too late for "speedy") per Charles Matthews. Newyorkbrad 21:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Chan Ho. Paul August ☎ 02:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is the erroneous belief that Piotr Blass is the initial author of this article the only point against it, or is there something else? Michael Hardy 02:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not exactly. If Blass and his students are the only ones using that name for the concept, the article shouldn't be here under that name, nor should there be a redirect at that name. I believe the concept to be notable, which Blass's papers in peer-reviewed journals give credence, but I'm not convinced that the name is actually used by wotking mathemeaticians other than Blass and his students. (It's not my field of mathematics, nor do I personally know an algebraic geometer I could ask.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on comment. Is there a good reason Zariski didn't himself name these objects 'Zariski surfaces'? Yes! Doesn't mean that the concept is less worthy of inclusion. Charles Matthews 12:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe someone could leave a message on r.e.b.'s talk page and ask him if he knows. Lunch 03:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that User:R.e.b. created the article under this name, presumably he believes it's an accurate name. I would support asking him to go through the article and delete anything that might have been inserted that's incorrect or OR, however. Newyorkbrad 03:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why this article title should not be used if it's the one generally used by mathematicians who publish in this area. If some other name were in general use, then you'd have a point. Michael Hardy 02:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — even a stopped clock is right twice a day; Zariski and his work is worthy even if Blass is a community-banned waste of electrons. ➥the Epopt 03:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The fact (if it is a fact---I haven't checked) that Piotr Blass is banned would seem to mean he cannot now edit this article in any way that would be abusive. Therefore no such danger can be a reason to delete the article. Michael Hardy 02:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Legitimate work. Reliable sources exist. | Noticket 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a pretty esoteric page for such a new user to contribute to. Is there something in particular that drew you to this discussion? Are there references that you can help add to the article? Have you edited before under a different user name? Thanks. Lunch 03:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Chan-Ho. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, since apparently the POV text can be fixed and nothing else to argue the deletion from. Which cat would this nom be now? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for It[edit]

Asking for It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No info on page, other Hole songs don't have own articles (unless they were a single) FlareNUKE 01:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable.Hank Ramsey 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close No assertion of notability. Redirected to Ask for It per WP:SONG and WP:BOLD. Ohconfucius 03:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Ask for It, despite having a similar name, is not included in that album's soundtrack. You also can't close afds like that or remove the afd tag. --FlareNUKE 05:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Song not sufficiently notable for own article. Merge any useful info to article about the album. WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 20:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The song itself has notability and does not need its own article. Mkdw^talk 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability. Philippe Beaudette 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I know very little about this topic, but the presence of background vocals by Kurt Cobain may be enough to make this notable. JCO312 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination ForrestLane42 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Paul[edit]

Bill Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Only marginally notable. Subject considers himself non-notable and requested the page be listed for deletion. juli. ^{t ?} 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not noteable. BSD has several hundred repeat coders.--155.144.251.120 02:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I just don't how Bill qualifies as a "repeat coder". He wrote almost every other Ethernet device driver that is available in FreeBSD and other *BSD systems. Check AUTHORS or HISTORY sections of manual pages returned by apropos ethernet. Bill also started Project Evil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MureninC (talk • contribs) 20:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Not noteable as above. --Dacium 07:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, as mentioned. Ganfon 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO Mkdw^talk 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO comment How so? I strongly disagree. First, it qualifies for the "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." rule specified in WP:BIO -- Bill wrote many Ethernet device drivers directly from hardware datasheets, and these drivers are now part of FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD etc. Second, the article passes the Verifiability test. Third, I was the original author of the article, and I've never met Bill Paul in person, nor have I ever communicated with him online -- so it passes the Biography test as well. MureninC 20:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per notability. Philippe Beaudette 23:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per notability. JCO312 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Bill Paul wrote almost every Ethernet device driver on FreeBSD, and is a legendary figure. MureninC 19:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whoever calculates the votes, please notice that most delete votes here are "me too" votes, and all people who voted to delete the article do not seem to have bothered to actually read it. Because if they did read it, they would have found that Bill wrote major component of the FreeBSD operating system -- namely around every other Ethernet device driver. I didn't specifically check, but I won't be surprised at all if every single device driver he wrote for FreeBSD was quickly ported to OpenBSD and NetBSD. I also added information about him having started the Project Evil to this article. Moreover, I took some time to contact him personally, and he told me that originally he did want the article to be deleted due to the "infantile humor of certain members of the FreeBSD community", but he also told me that "at this point" he doesn't "really care one way or the other". I do care, however. MureninC 17:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Bill Paul is widely known within the BSD communities and somewhat so in the larger FOSS community, and his contributions are large within the field of BSD Ethernet drivers (as the man pages testify). However, I can find very little other published work, and even very little general content about him (interviews, reports/articles about his work). A borderline case. NicM 12:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Some people write code (Bill Paul), others give interviews (ESR), some others try to do both. People take Bill's work for granted — in fact, I'd say he created this society of people that (rightly) assume that whatever Ethernet chip they have, there is a driver for it in *BSD, and no third-party patches are necessary to make it work. And the fact that we take it for granted now, doesn't diminish Bill's accomplishments, it only amplifies them. I still honestly fail to see how this could possibly be a borderline case as far as wikipedia rules or just common sense are concerned — count the number of FreeBSD, OpenBSD etc files that bear Bill's copyright, and remember that he only contributed to FreeBSD — i.e. files in OpenBSD etc could well qualify as "articles about his work" part of the rules. And to my understanding, Bill is (practically) the only FreeBSD person that is individually acknowledged and highly respected by NetBSD co-founder and OpenBSD founder and project-leader Theo de Raadt (see Theo's 2001 kerneltrap interview). MureninC 16:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that, but the lack of information doesn't improve his notability. He is a borderline case because: although he has contributed a lot to it, the community in which he is well-known is relatively small; he isn't a major figure outside that community; he isn't widely read or published or written about. Nobody is taking him for granted, I have a lot of respect for Bill Paul and his work and I think he is barely notable enough, but the fact is that IMO people who are solely *BSD developers have to have to be really significant—and not just within their community—to be notable enough. Can you really come up with enough relevent material to expand the article to the length of, eg, Theo de Raadt or Linus Torvalds (I couldn't)? NicM 07:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment The purported Project Evil article implies that it is a version of the Linux ndiswrapper project, when it was an independent work that evolved orthogonally. I recall vague discussion that some Project Evil code made its way into one of the Linux projects, but I don't recall for sure. Bill is very, very widely respected. He has not, however, published a lot of work or written books, like other BSD hackers of similar background who have articles about them (Kirk McKusick, Sam Leffler, Poul-Henning Kamp). I don't mean to be unfair, but it seems like one person has taken to adoring Bill and thinks there should be an article about him, and has created it with minimal content. There is, in fact, little non-OR information to add beyond what is there. Bill is a private person and doesn't have a large public persona or even a publishing history from which to draw even a trivial biography. He also actively objects to this article existing, but that isn't really a good reason to delete it, in and of itself. --juli. ^{t ?} 22:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. However, Bill is and was listed in the ‘Notable developers’ section of the FreeBSD article, and there are also some references to his persona from some other articles on the networking theme — he completes the picture. Moreover, consider that most articles describing programmers on wikipedia are rather small, so deleting this article only because of its size doesn't sound right, specifically as it has some relevant description of the subject's contribution to *BSD, all taken from reliable sources. MureninC 00:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Sporn[edit]

Wolfgang Sporn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The article fails WP:BIO (it might have passed if the significance of U-439 was noted). Also, the article has been tagged since August 2006 for not stating the notability of the subject, but hasn't received any non-technical edits (i.e., the notability tag and a bot edit) since July 7, 2006, and seems unlikely to be expanded. Black Falcon 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article provides no indication of notability or historical importance of this person. Agent 86 01:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only notibility is his rank, of which many thousands of people had. Collided with another friendly ship in an unnotable accident. Neither ship appears to have been used in any noteable attacks.--155.144.251.120 02:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "Delete" U-439 could be notable because it did not loose any personnel during her first patrols which, contrary to the myth, was quite uncommon but that does not automatically include the skipper Alf photoman 16:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no importance asserted distinguishing him from other Nazi officers of his rank. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete no assertion of notability, I think it qualifies for speedy deletion under A7 (I'm quoting the section of the speedy deletion guidelines from memory, so that might be off) JCO312 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged with Alex Etel. NawlinWiki 03:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Nathan Etel[edit]

Alexander Nathan Etel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This is pretty much a newly created duplicate of the long-standing article on UK child actor Alex Etel. Suggest replacing with a redirect to Alex Etel, -- Arwel (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Close, Merge & Redirect - Redirects for name changes do not require an AfD Discussion -- wtfunkymonkey 02:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done - I am not familiar enough on the AfD closing process to do it myself, but the articles have been merged/redirected to one another, and the AFD has been removed. wtfunkymonkey 02:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect per nom and wtfunkymonkey.

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent 'Vinnie' Gognitti[edit]

Vincent 'Vinnie' Gognitti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Merge or Delete This character does not deserve it's own article; though he is featured in both games as, perhaps, a minor character, he isn't nearly important enough; merge into the "Max Payne" characters article or delete the whole page. Klptyzm 01:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Definitely doesn't deserve its own article. I'm doubtful about merging because the Max Payne 2 article contains a list of characters which pretty much covers this. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 03:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Rudjek 23:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a plain vote; cite a reason. Klptyzm 23:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a character in the Max Payne video games, applying WP:FICTION, he is already sufficiently described in the main articles, so nothing to merge, thus delete. -- Whpq 17:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per WP:FICT only a major character should have its own page it needed. Minor characters like this should be in the parent article about the series, or an article for description of all characters in the series. Note noteable enough to be considered anything but a minor character.--155.144.251.120 03:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge to list. if Joachim Mizrahi (from Xenosagas) doesn't get an article page (he used to), then no. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish-American mobsters[edit]

List of Irish-American mobsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

unreferences listcruft delete Cornell Rockey 01:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nomination reason is rather poor, list of mobsters is useful because you can't go dirrectly to any if you don't know there names. There are many articles like this, don't think nominator even knows this: List of godfathers, List of Italian-American mobsters, List of Irish-American mobsters, List of Jewish-American mobsters, List of British mobsters. Needs strategy worked out before we just delete them all.--155.144.251.120 03:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that to single out the Irish for deletion is prejudicial. There should be an overall soultution, but there should be referencing at all of the mobster pages. --Kevin Murray 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I'm completely open to nominating all these pages. I singled out an example, knowing there was a larger problem here. All these lists are indiscriminate, unsourced and partial > all of which are bad for an encyclopedia. Cornell Rockey 05:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Personally, I feel the lists are helpful especially to those editors involved in organized crime related articles. There are both pros and cons to lists vs. categories and I believe a reader or editor should be allowed the right to an alternative. However, among the various organized crime related lists (see 1) and categories (see 1/2) proposed for deletion, this specific list has previously been nominated and kept. If you feel the main issue is a lack of references, then a reference tag should be placed rather then then nominating it for deletion. MadMax 05:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is manifestly useful, it just needs somewhat better referencing. -Toptomcat 13:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a list. Also, who decides how to use the pejorative term "mobster"? How could this article ever be anything more than original research? Prejudicial and unreferenced, no matter how useful one may find it -- usefulness doesn't warrant inclusion. As with most lists, maybe this could work as a category (but I doubt it). /Blaxthos 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you have a general objection to all lists, ever? -Toptomcat 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep references could easily be provided, there are books [4] on the subject. So, I don't see that as an especially large problem. Get back to me if you can articulate a better objection. Cruft is not one o them. FrozenPurpleCube 19:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, list with a good scope, offers additional information beyond a mere list. I reject the arguments of the nomination. Unreferenced is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason for tagging. --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above of course Jcuk 21:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP is not a list. This is covered all over the place. Philippe Beaudette 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per, for example, FrozenPurpleCube. Note WP:LIST; there are good reasons to have lists in Wikipedia, and this list either fulfills these reasons, or has strong potential to, after some cleanup and better annotation/different sorting, fulfill them. schi ^talk 23:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung. ShivaDaDestroyer 00:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unreferenced, indiscriminate list biased with regard to ethnicity. What's the point to this list? With no references, who decides what names get added here? Further, it shouldn't be in article space at all. At best, this would be a WikiProject. -- Kesh 03:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think the list is hardly indiscriminate. Certainly prominant mobsters such as Dion O'Banion, Vincent Coll, Danny Greene, Whitey Bulger, etc. are clearly organized crime figures. Granted the article may need additional references although it dosen't seem that should be such a serious issue that it should be considered for deletion. MadMax 18:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The problem is, who gets defined as a mobster? More importantly, why does being Irish matter? Though probably not the author's intention, associating the two smacks of an ethnic attack. And there's no mention of Irish heritage in some of the articles listed, so why are they included? -- Kesh 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you'll notice the examples I provided, with exception to the North Side Gang which did include some Polish and German-Americans within its ranks, these mobsters headed or were members of criminal organizations which were predominanly made up of Irish-Americans such as the Westies, Egan's Rats, Winter Hill Gang and others. Organized crime is generally grouped by ethicity no different from Italian and Jewish-American organized crime, each of which have their own lists, and this list includes members of Irish-American organized crime no different then any of the other lists. Also all of the entries are categorized under Irish-American mobsters, regardless if their ethicity is mentioned in the article. MadMax 01:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If their ethnicity is not described in the article, how do we know they're Irish? It's this level of unverifiability that makes me vote to delete. There's nothing showing that the list is accurate, much less encyclopedic. -- Kesh 02:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references I have provided, specifically T.J. English's Paddy Whacked: The Untold Story of the Irish American Gangster and Stephen Fox's Blood and Power: Organized Crime in Twentieth-Century America, clearly descibe all of these individuals involved in Irish-American organized crime. I can provide individual citations on each individual mobster if nessessary, although in my opinion I believe it is exessive and unessessary. MadMax 02:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Duke Mason[edit]

As for previous AfD that resulted in delete. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Mason (son of Belinda Carlisle) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Auditioning does not provide notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Did not actually make it into any movies, so how can he be notable? Fails WP:BIO--155.144.251.120 03:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or properly source Alf photoman 16:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Putting aside the attempt to include speculative acting references, the fact remains that he is the son of two famous people and is noteworthy solely on that basis. --Lee Vonce 17:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being the child of 2 fairly famous people is NOT in and of itself noteworthy. Neither is his non-existent acting career. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 17:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources, not notable...get rid of it. Ganfon 20:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete This guy has done less acting than I have, and I'm not remotely notable. I could not find any verifiable sources to support the article. Magichands 21:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:Notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ganfon. WP:CSD A1 and A7 are relevant here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Frog Studios[edit]

Green Frog Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

NN-webcomic delete Cornell Rockey 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NOTE, and WP:WEB requirments, the article does not WP:CITE sources, content is admitted to be from the primary source which does not abide by WP:RS and WP:V guidlines. Article reads like a first party self-promotion meaning that WP:OR and WP:VAIN may also come into play. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Confirmed all that wtfunkymoney said. Fails almost everything!--155.144.251.120 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails at life. -Toptomcat 13:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced, certainle fails WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 19:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not very notable, no sources to back it up. Ganfon 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't DeleteNo, don't delete, fix, go to their site and use the info there to fix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlhc (talk • contribs) 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Doesnt matter what info the site has it can't be noteable self references.--155.144.251.120 04:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lack of sources and fails WP:WEB. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, non-notable bio. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvin sethi[edit]

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

Nice comedian, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. Fails WP:BIO. Jyothisingh 13:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non notable. Wrong CaSe! Cate | _Talk 14:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• stubSaurabh523 02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - repaired, maybe it was simple vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cate (talk • contribs).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or properly source and reference Alf photoman 16:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (nomination withdrawn). --Metropolitan90 18:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kibo[edit]

This article reads like a personal ad. I suspect that this is just a vanity page.--Azer Red Si? 16:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom - I think I jumped the gun. This article is probably notable enough, but just needs cleanup.--Azer Red Si? 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Navou ^banter 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of loudspeaker manufacturers[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a list of lists Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Agree as per Kungfuadam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedHillian (talk • contribs).
• Keep Nor is it a paper encyclopedia, if we have lists of companies by countries, manafacturers by industry why not this as well? -- Librarianofages 22:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep It is useful for reference. Loudspeakers article to big to include it. --155.144.251.120 03:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a reasonable list, not indiscriminate, majority blue links. --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung. (I say that a lot.) -Toptomcat 13:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:LIST WilyD 14:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Lots of things are useful but that doesn't mean we should include them. This article can never be more than a directory and original research. /Blaxthos 18:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, both of your rationals are pretty clearly false. Lists often get to featured status and to suggest we couldn't find a reliable source that a company manufactures loudspeakers is so strange I'm not sure how to rebutt it, since I can't fathom how you arrive at it. WilyD 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Lots of things are "useless" (Pokemon, Power Rangers, Manga......

) but we still have articles on them. Jcuk 21:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rushmore Mall[edit]

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

Non-notable mall. Contested endorsed prod. Contested by an IP address, which didn't address my concerns, with "malls are notable". I stand by my original justification of "notability not asserted". Akihabara 14:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete keep Only 828995 square feet of gross leasable area per [5], a bit small to be a regional mall. Big enough to be considered a superregional mall, so meets revised WP:MALL No historic or architectural claims to notability., so does not satisfy anything in WP:MALL Meets the proposed guideline for mall notability in area but nothing special otherwise. Edison 16:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Clearly a regional mall. A mall of this size in a metropolitan area no larger than Rapid City is an important building and plays a major role in the history and life of the area. --MatthewUND^(talk) 07:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you should be able to point to where that major röle has been documented, in multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources. Other editors are saying that it has not been. You've cited no sources so far. And the article cites no sources. Uncle G 10:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of meeting WP:CORP through being the primary subject of multiple independent and reliable published sources. GRBerry 23:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails everything in WP:MALL. Is only half the size normally required. Nothing else noteable about the mall is given. No significant cultural, social and economic impact nor achitecture explained. No sources. Other mall pages have a specific overview table on the left that gives general details (including reasons why it would pass WP Mall such as the floor space). This article doesnt have one because it obviously doesnt satisfy anything.--155.144.251.120 03:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This just seems like any old mall. The stores there are probably in the majority of malls. Just not notable. Ganfon 03:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Scimitar 16:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The mall is a notable business center. No reason not to keep it. --Lee Vonce 17:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The reason not to keep it is simple -- it fails WP:CORP and WP:MALL. I believe the default stance should be delete until meets notability requirements, not no reason not to keep it. /Blaxthos 18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable; fails WP:MALL. No evidence of credible third-party coverage. Fairsing 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as a superregional mall this should be notable and meets WP:MALL guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 00:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per MatthewUND and Ymaguchi, it is a superregional mall and meets WP:MALL. --Oakshade 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Yamaguchi... superregional, passes the proposed WP:MALL... I'd say that qualifies it as a keep.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Pk[edit]

Doctor Pk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article already speedly deleted as "a7 nonnotable hacker" and then recreated. Even in this version, in my opinion, the article still doesn't prove Doctor Pk's notability and the 50000 defacements that the article say made by his hacking crew (but if the deface, aren't they crackers? lol) and recorded on Zone-h.org, aren't listed there (or maybe I didn't find them, anything is possible). But since the decision seems to be controversial, I brought the discussion here. by Snowolf (talk) on 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please read l33t hack3x comment Ahsan 07:30 19-jan-2007 (UTC)

• Deleteper nom. What a mess!. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources, no notability. --- RockMFR 02:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as speedying admin. Still a nonnotable hacker. NawlinWiki 03:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not asserted. Seems to have WP:COI problems. References down right rediculous, you cannot reference a name or company in general. Does not cite as per WP:CITE.--155.144.251.120 03:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this page is not that bad, altho the refernces are not good but still i found some results on zone-h remind you (zone-h is only showing recent attacks archives) but still there are many links of this hacker defacements and group too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altaf 23 (talk • contribs) 18-01-2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Article need some editing, i have seen this Group work on alldas.de and attriton.org but found nothing on zone-h.org(Total attacks: 553 of which 204 single ip and 349 mass defacements...perhaps they are updating?lol dont know)The hacker is from pakistan and got some search results too on googleand yahoosearch. --Ahsan 18 jan 2007 (utc)
  • Since you have done the search, you should be able to cite sources to demonstrate that the subject of this biographical article satisfies our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Neither anyone here nor any editor writing the article has cited any sources at all, so far. Uncle G 10:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since L33t Hack3x now have done the search,i think now there`s no point in deleting this page.!! Ahsan 07:16. 19 jan 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Nice work, people in pakistan do wana know about this. This will help and encourage other people to write more. The King 10:15, 18-01-07 (UTC)
  • If it encourages people to write unsourced biographies, then that is a bad thing. Wikipedia does not want unsourced biographies, nor does it want unsourced content in general. All content must be based upon sources. Please read our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G 10:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the l33t Hack3x Comment please if you have any doubts about this hacker's nonotablity. Ahsan 07:25 19-jan-2007 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP I just get myself register to write this comment, LOvely Work, nice article, excellent note i have never seen article`s on pakistani hackers so open albet its need a little fixing which i can do but i will recommand admins to keep this page on wiki, the link are weak but can be fix and alldas.de is soon comming with their old database so i guess their should`nt be any problem. And Snowwolf do you really know the differnce in hacker and cracker ?? if yes then WOW , if no then try this Hacker or Hack3r and ohh sorry i forget yes u know the meaning of hacker thats why u wrote that short funny note and laugh! but now a days the ethical are history try to get the point . pointing out someone`s mistake is easy but make it correct is hard !! As far as article is concern all the club names i.e. FBH(fedral bureau of hacking) PHC(pakistan hackers club) Gforce flooders or TheBugz they dont need ne refernce or links, u can just type their name on google and u can get the result !! And if DOCTOR_PK is nonotable hacker then i`ll must say .. Duh .. REad some news :) ... Anyways My vote is to KEEP ON !(DOCTOR_PK can be reached thro IRC but ummm i dont know wht ircd :( SO guess lets wait )
  P.S: BTW .. the author didnt mention other pakis groups like cyberwarriors a-i-c(anti india crew) paklords etc may be because he`s updated and knows that these group are finished L33t Hack3x 18 jan 07 (UTC)

• Comment Here i am back again, i searched for Doctor_Pk defacements and come up with RESULTS which is on Zone-h about Doctor_Pk web defecments Altho this link got only his few defacements but Still the Point is IT'S THERE !! u can Check his work on zone-h.org Here is the Link Mirrors and remind you that these defacements are recorded on early 2002 SO now you it makes easy for us to think about it. As far as the US Department of justice matter is concern i think it should be removed. I also wants to tell you That this hacker Doctor_Pk is also a X member of Group Called TheBugz u can check This Groups Defacements here is the direct link Bugz|mirrors and you can view Doctor_Pk name in crew list .. i m just pasting some links 1 2 3 so .. .. now all i have to say is Why not Someone from YOU who know`s good editing, edit this page and keeps it on WIKI...

M sure When Alldas.de is going to be up again Then there will be thousands of links for this Hacker !! Void.ru is closed now SO its now use to give that reference !! L33t Hack3x 04:10 19-jan-07

Since you can't "vote" twice, I've moved this comment below your previous one and titled appropriately. -- Kesh 03:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Everything on Wikipedia requires references, per our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. This is not a policy that one can "vote" down in AFD (which is a discussion, not a vote). The only way to counter it is to show that an article actually is verifiable. Uncle G 10:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No keep points have asserted nobility and neither does the article. Needs to have done something notable as to be mentioned in media sites etc. Claims the the US Department of justice is a reference but can't actually provide any document etc. to confirm this. There is absolutely NOTHING in the article that is has a source or is cited. The references section is a complete joke, having a minor mention on a semi-notable site does not make you noteable. Keep voters above haven't provided any notable sources that are able to validate any of the article.--Dacium 07:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as per Dacium. If a hacker isn't notable enough to have been convicted of at least one felony he shouldn't listed here. --Lee Vonce 17:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poorly sourced, fails WP:BIO.-- danntm ^T _C 20:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• quick comment to lee Vonce: a conviction isn't nessisary for hacker notability, but it is a quick way to see if they've caught anyone's attention. Captain Crunch was never convicted, but he invented Phreaking as we know it, for that matter the morris worm (widely regarded the first computer virus) lead only to probation and some community service. Wintermut3 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • quick reply: according to the article, Draper was convicted and sentenced to four months at Lompoc. In any case, there were other reasons Draper was notable. I don't see any reasons why Dr. Pk qualifies. --Lee Vonce 21:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that we have got links and references. Its not good to delete this page and scince as L33t Hack3x mentioned in his comment that when alldas.de is up again then there will be thousands of link . so i think we should keep this. Ahsan 07:20 19-jan-2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The sources given don't actually verify anything, and certainly don't satisfy WP:N. In addition, we can't just wait until some other web archive comes up with the nebulous promise of more references. -- Kesh 15:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think now we should keep this page and as far as waiting for alldas.de is concern, let me remind you in late 90's and 200-01 alldas was only major mirror`s recording site and if they are not operating anymore it doesnt mean that now that hacker dont exisit. The given links are satisfing. King 08:23 20-jan-2007 (UTC)
    • The links are not satisfying, and that's the problem. If alldas.de is not available, we cannot verify the assertions of the article, and it should be deleted. When/if alldas.de comes back up, if it provides verifiable information, then the article could be recreated with the proper references. There's no point in keeping up an unverifiable article based on the promise that someday there may be information to back it up. -- Kesh 03:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safelayer Secure Communications[edit]

Safelayer Secure Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Speedy deletion disputed here. Please confirm that this is pure spam. -- RHaworth 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Confirmed. Fan-1967 15:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: looks like a company that wants to promote itself. --CyclePat 06:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obliterate. Looks like an ad, walks like an ad...it's probably an ad. // JoshKagan ^{Jrkagan | talk} 09:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. The company/product is notable for being certified, and implemented by the Spanish government and NATO. While there appears to be a WP:COI, the written article is not WP:SPAM. John Vandenberg 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is clearly WP:COI, would not exist if not for User Safelayer.mktg. Self promotion. Not noteable company, if it was they wouldnt have to make article themselves. Fails all criteria on Wikipedia:Notability_(companies_and_corporations) under 'Criteria for companies and corporations'. Being a 'real' company does not make it noteable, every buissness does real buissness...--155.144.251.120 03:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very, Very Weak Keep with Massive Cleanup Only - Because this is implemented by both the Spanish Government and NATO it is somewhat likely that a reader might want to look up information on the company here. However, this article reads less like information and more like a sales pitch. If someone feels up to cleaning it up, it can stay. Otherwise it needs to go, and if Safelayer's marketing department tries to recreate it again it should be immediately Deleted, Salted, and the company's domain should be blacklisted. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, at least provisionally, following cleanup. Probably needs the eye of an independent expert, but what I read - and specifically that this company's software is used by the Spanish gov't and NATO, suggests that it meets WP:CORP. (And frankly, the self-promotion in the prose is not that bad, and at least is mercifully free of buzzword nonsense.) - Smerdis of Tlön 14:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam! /Blaxthos 18:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rather weak keep and tidy it up to ensure it's non-advertising - as noted above, the use of its product by major governmental organizations seems to give enough notability. But, it definitely needs to be monitored to avoid promotional edits. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect all. No sources, all spoilers, so nothing for me to merge, but the edit histories remain for salvaging if someone can locate independent sources and add encyclopedic content. ~ trialsanderrors 07:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Creedy[edit]

Peter Creedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I am nominating all of the V for Vendetta secondary characters (with the exeception of Valerie page who apparently is the topic of a separate graphic novel) as they are mentioned to sufficient length on the main article a merge is not necessary. These pages provide little additional information and do not assert the significance of the characters outside of the fictional world Daniel J. Leivick 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Deitrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Roger Dascombe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delia Surridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lewis Prothero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anthony James Lilliman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--155.144.251.120 03:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Etheridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Conrad Heyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Keep I believe all these articles meet the notability criteria of being cited in non-trivial sources per WP:NOTE. Alternatively, though, we can consider deleting all other supporting characters from other works of fiction as well. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 03:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• These articles MAY barely pass WP:NOTE as they are the subject of a comic and a movie (of the same title), but they fail WP:FICT which states that secondary characters should be merged. As for deleting all other secondary characters, it would be a good idea unless they are significant in some way, which none of these are. Daniel J. Leivick 03:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mergethem all together, WP:FICT says minor characters are not notable enough to have their own page. A single page should include all the information for all these characters if it cannot fit into the V for Vandetta article.--155.144.251.120 03:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This has already been done, see V for Vendetta main page. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think more info could be merged in before they are deleted.--155.144.251.120 04:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to V for Vendetta or a subarticle List of minor characters in V for Vendetta. --Dhartung | Talk 05:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - far too much info to be lost.- JustPhil 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really any info here that isn't in a plot summary on a different page. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per JustPhil. Additionally, it'd be a good idea to consider WP:NOTE to supercede WP:FICT. -Toptomcat 13:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to V for Vendetta. Minor characters from a largely unremarkable movie don't need their own articles.--Lee Vonce 17:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - they are characters from a largely remarkable graphic novel. But, let's leave personal opinions out of this.- JustPhil 17:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters do not usually need articles no matter how remarkable the work of fiction that they come from. WP:NOTE may supersede WP:FICT but only if the characters are actually notable. Zero sources can be found for these characters outside of in universe fiction. I would merge only as a last resort as these characters are already mentioned with sufficient detail on the main page. These pages are merely plot summaries focused on a specific character. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. As per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) secondary characters do not warrant an article. 'Merge' would not be consistent with WP:NOT#IINFO a plot summary. The only encyclopedic info in the article is already in the main article. --maclean 00:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to V for Vendetta. No reason to spew articles all over Wikipdedia of nonnotable minor characters just because a movie is good. Have multiple independent articles been written about each of these characters in reliable sources? Not so you would notice from the articles. Edison 01:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge either to V for Vendetta or to a related 'minor characters from' page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Young Skywalker (talk • contribs) 02:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment: A LOT of people seem confused about this. V for Vendetta is not only, or even primarily, a movie; its primary claim to notability is as one of the best-known graphic novels of all time, having been written by Alan Moore, arguably the most notable writer in that medium. If the only form in which it existed was the frankly mediocre movie, I would also be confused about why these characters have separate pages, but that is not the case. -Toptomcat 13:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any confusion. The quality of the fiction does nothing to counteract the fact that there is no valuable info in these page. They are character focused plot summaries and should be merged with the main article. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edison and Lee Vonce both thought it was only a movie. I thought that was a sufficiently significant subset of 'delete' or 'merge' nominators to make the comment worthwhile. -Toptomcat 03:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article is more then just a stub, seems article worthy and notable enough. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles that are much more than a stub are deleted, I don't see what makes these characters noteworthy, no sources exist outside of the fiction that they are a part of. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not interested, I believe it's a good article, I believe it's notable, unless you can provide me with a deletion reason don't try and convince me to change to your "side" -- as a side note: I don't think anybody appreciates you leaving comments to everybody who isn't on your side of the fence attempting to undermine them. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a little civility? I don't think hostility is warranted, this is supposed to be a discussion, the idea is to discuss policy as it applies to this article I am arguing my point of view not exactly trying to undermine anybody. Personally I don't see any evidence that these characters are notable outside of their own fiction. Notability is not subjective it requires sources which at this point are not available. You asked me to provide you with a reason for deletion, but I think it is pretty clear, the deletion policy on minor characters states that if they do not have some kind of notability in the real world than they should be merged. I think that the main V page has enough character detail, but I wouldn't be opposed to a minor characters page that way we could use the pictures which would be nice. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to a "minor characters" page. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and review in a month. Given the allegorical nature of the V for Vendetta story, secondary characters could be more encyclopedic than the average fictional character. I do believe that these articles can be made more encyclopedic by discussing their allegorical roles (though in a verifiable way; don't want original research, of course). If, in a month, they aren't made more encyclopedic, then I would support a merge recommendation. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 02:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American TESOL Institute[edit]

American TESOL Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Unable to find any evidence of notability despite searching. See Talk:American TESOL Institute for details A. B. ^(talk) 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Most of the google hits are self-serving press releases and adverts. Fails WP:CORP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to fail notability and certainly lacks reliable sources per WP:RS. EdJohnston 03:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – besides the notability problems already listed, the pattern of edits by the primary contributors, Atesol (talk · contribs), 24.122.13.145 (talk · contribs) and 71.201.181.10 (talk · contribs) raise conflict of interest concerns. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTE. While the TESOL certification is notable (and which is what this school trains students up for), this institute has not acheived notability yet. A Google search yields 908,000 results, but most of the results are for the TESOL certification itself. As a "non-deletionist", if anyone can point me to sources which prove notability, I will change my vote. Just write on my talk page. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 03:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is interesting that the person who's been updating American TESOL Institute never mentioned TESOL Inc., and it is not listed as a TESOL affiliate. --Alvestrand 05:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable, rather new, agressively spamming, web-using, TESOL institute offering on-line courses to anyone with the money to qualify. Wikipedia should aggressively persuade them not to use Wikipedia for ads, until they become notable enough elsewhere for an article to be justified. KP Botany 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not proven. WMMartin 15:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Peralta[edit]

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

Fails notability test. Google search turned up few to no independent articles. Few other articles link to it. Ocatecir 16:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, promising young jazz pianist but apparently mainly known in Japan at this point. Unless WP:RS turn up, seems like his notability lies in the future. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If the kid really has two solo albums to his credit on an actual record label (not self-released) then I'd say that makes him notable.--Lee Vonce 17:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Subject is the son of Stacy Peralta, a possible redirection target. The two albums appear to be self-published. There is possible non-trivial coverage at The Acorn.com, All About Jazz.com - I don't know enough about these sites to know whether they pass WP:RS. In the first 100 hits on Yahoo and Google, I see no evidence that subject has played outside California. On this basis, delete as failing WP:MUSIC, but it would not take much new evidence to change my mind. Eludium-q36 18:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: If he's the son of a notable person, then he's notable simply on that basis. He's already mentioned in his father's article in fact. Not only that, if he's been mentioned by mainstream jazz commentators, as you so deftly showed, then that gives the lad some notability of his own. Wouldn't you agree? --Lee Vonce 21:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but being the offspring of someone famous does not warrant their own page. Neither does the other reasons you've mentioned. The criteria for notability for whether or a not a page is warranted is listed at WP:Notability and WP:MUSIC among other places that give Wikipedia's guidelines. - Ocatecir 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Notability may have some dim reflective properties, but is certainly not hereditary, as Ocatecir has noted. The children of a notable person may get a brief mention in their parent's article, but an article of their own requires them to be evaluated as individuals, on their own merits. The links I've noted above may or may not constitute independent non-trivial coverage - jazz is certainly not my field of expertise, and I defer to those who know more about the field. Eludium-q36 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Fails WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus 20:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The kid is sure a whiz at self-promotion. Such schlocky fake posts of interest questions on jazz boards he posts. However, he does have two albums that appear to have at least sold a few. There are less notable people on Wikipedia. Still, that's no reason to include or exclude him. I can't figure anything out because of the overdose of self-promotion. This concerns me that the article should not be posted without a couple of solid neutral resources in line. KP Botany 02:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Un-notable bio and free server website!!! -- User:Chiketychina 08:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Cry) All the Way Home[edit]

(Cry) All the Way Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

As far as I can tell this song has zero relevance outside of the fictional Spinal Tap universe Daniel J. Leivick 02:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although Spinal Tap is quite a notable movie, this is a very, very, very, very, very minor joke. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. /Blaxthos 18:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FICT and nomination. Strangely, it wasn't even bluelinked from Spinal Tap discography. --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Messianic Jews[edit]

Orthodox Messianic Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete This article should be deleted and at most the information may be merged into Messianic Judaism. This subset may not even exist, and if it does, it is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Avi 02:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as for Avi by Snowolf (talk) on 02:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. GabrielF 06:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete given the lack of references and the quotes from the New Testament this feels like OR GabrielF 06:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, complete lack of sources. Need sources to get to square one on WP:N and WP:V. --Shirahadasha 06:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article's use of quotes from the New Testament as its exclusive source, including as support for a claim that a modern movement exists and has been in existence "for centuries", is but one example of the article's level of WP:OR. Even if the New Testament could be interpreted as calling for Jewish converts to continue living as Orthodox Jews (a view that would appear to be, at the least, debatable), this provides no evidence, as claimed, that "this very thing has existed amongst them for centuries" or that there exists a notable or verifiable group of such individuals today. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and GabrielF. Pretty blatant OR. — coelacan talk — 07:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lack of sources, per se, is not grounds for deletion. This does read like original research, though, and uses insider jargon instead of plain English (Yeshua). - Smerdis of Tlön 15:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced, likely OR.-- danntm ^T _C 20:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:V, WP:OR. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because there is no such animal! The whole point of Messianic Jews is that they claim to be "like Orthodox Jews" so that it makes absolutely no sense to talk of "Orthodox Messianic Jews" besides which, it's a total oxymoron as if to say there are "Orthodox Reform Jews" or "Orthodox Jewish atheists" all of which would defy logic and reality. This stub is entirely WP:OR and is nothing but a WP:NEO and must go. IZAK 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this nonsense. Tomer^talk 00:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I wouldn't be going so far as some others and calling this nonsense! I know people who regard themselves as this. Mathmo ^Talk 09:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Why then is the article completely unsourced? — coelacan talk — 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It is, without room for equivocation, complete and utter nonsense, regardless of what you would call it or what some undocumented people regard themselves as. Some people believe they're aliens stranded here from when Hale-Bopp passed by Earth. That doesn't mean their beliefs are anything but nonsense. IZAK does a good job above of clarifying that this is not only nonsense, it's even oxymoronic. Beyond that, even if it weren't pure unmitigated hogwash, the article fails to cite a single supporting source. Tomer^talk 22:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Note to closing admin: check out the talk page also. (YechielMan) 129.98.212.60 17:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am an Orthodox Messianic Jew. True the article appears unsourced at this time, but it is a brand new article. I'd say give the author a chance to respond to sourcing the article. Messianic representation on Wiki is like very minimal (in fact I seem to be the only known regular at this point); and I myself am hardly on once a week. The guy who created the article probably isnt on for durations shorter than mine at the most. If people want sources, feel free to request them. Submitting a brand new article for VfD due to lack of sourcing is not the best way to go about it. It will only serve in having the article probably recreated by the original author who may have totally missed this VfD discussion. Shalom. If someone wants me to provide sources, post on my talk page and I'll make it a priority. If you want a website to an orthodox Messianic synagogue check out: http://www.rootsofthemessiah.com/ for sources. inigmatus 03:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless I'm misunderstanding your intent and that of the website you cited above, it appears blatantly obvious that these people make no claim to being "orthodox", and certainly not "Orthodox Jews". On this page, in fact, they clarify that they are not Jews according to rabbinical determinations, which indicates that whatever they are, they are absolutely not orthodox. The fact that they claim to be "Torah-based" is also at odds with their statement of faith, especially obvious in their Paulinist self-contradictory version of the Sh'ma. So, I'm wondering if perhaps your claim to being an "Orthodox Messianic Jew" is specifically a claim to be following the orthodox beliefs of Messianic Judaism, as opposed to what I think everyone else here is assuming, namely that you are claiming to be an Orthodox Jew who believes Jesus was the Messiah. Please clarify. Tomer^talk 04:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparently you are misunderstanding what is meant by the term "Orthodox Messianic Judaism" but you're not far from the definition. "Orthodox" isn't a term exclusively owned by rabbinic Orthodox Judaism, however in this case, a relation can be implied and should be. I disagree with your assement of the so-called contradictory "Pauline" version of the Shema. But this isn't the place to debate theology. An orthodox Messianic Jew is a Messianic Jew who has accepted as many practices of Orthodox Judaism that do not conflict with faith in Messiah Yeshua - now I know Orthodox Jews would say all of it contradicts it, but that's just not the opinion of Orthodox Messianic Jews who live it. Obviously this means OMJs reject the OJ view that God can not manifest himself in the physical. So then the definition becomes not one of an OJ becoming Messianic per se, but rather a Messianic becomming more like Orthodox Jews in lifestyle, tradition, and practice. Thus the most obvious difference between a Messianic Jew and an Orthodox Messianic Jew is that the Orthdox Messianic Jew has a religious and theological reason for wearing a kippa (usually the same reasoning Orthodox Jews do), they will wear a tallit katan, keep kosher (some even glatt); study Talmud as well as Torah; and lay tefillin - basically they observe the Torah commandments PLUS orthodox rabbinic traditions that do not conflict with faith in Messiah Yeshua - namely the theological view that nothing oral or traditional should EVER nullify the clear and expressed written of the Torah. The list goes on: they keep beards, grow out the sides of their hair, dont drive on Shabbat, and live a very strict lifestyle. However, they wont care to wash hands before eating for anything other than sanitary reasons, because Yeshua taught that belief that clean food eaten with unwashed hands was failing to distinguish between clean and unclean as the Torah is specifically clear that we should do, and here a handwashing tradition nullifies this commandment to distinguish between clean and unclean because by tradition one is led to think that clean food is not clean to eat if eaten with unwashed hands - but this is only a tradition and nullifies the written commandment to "distinguish" as the Torah distinguishes and not as tradition does. This is a group of Messianics that are a far cry different from Ham-eating Easter-keeping Jews for Jesus who find themselves inaccurately labeled as "Messianic Jews" by outsiders who don't know the difference. In short, an orthodox Messianic Jew is a Messianic Jew who in addition to observing written Torah, also engages in the traditions of rabbinic Judaism as found in the Talmud and elsewhere, where it doesn't conflict with expressed Torah commandments and the principles of Torah observance that Yeshua laid out. inigmatus 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, this isn't the place to debate theology, but it is appropriate to discuss proper naming of articles here. The statement "An orthodox Messianic Jew is a Messianic Jew who has accepted as many practices of Orthodox Judaism that do not conflict with faith in Messiah Yeshua..." quite clearly indicates that "orthodox" is not a part of the appellation (it also states quite unequivocally that these people are "Judaizing Christians", or "born-again Christians with a few Jewish practices"). What's obviously being discussed is Messianic Jews, and the proper place to do so is in Messianic Judaism. Merge whatever material is relevant from this stub into that article, with proper sourcing, and under an appropriate section heading. It does not warrant an article of its own. Tomer^talk 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In response to this VfD, I have added quite a number of quoted and linked references to the article now proving it's legitimacy and notability. inigmatus 19:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've reviewed these sources, and it's not clear they support the claims made. A critical reason is that "Messianic" has several distinct ordinary meanings when used to describe Orthodox Jews, which have nothing to do with Jesus. For example, the article that mentions "fanatical messianic Orthodox Jews" in Hebron refers to a group who are fervently awaiting the coming of the (first) Jewish messiah -- nothing to do with Jesus. Similarly, Messianic Lubavitchers refers to a group of Chabad-Lubavitch who believe that the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, was the Jewish Messiah. (See Yechi for more detail). Again, nothing to do with Jesus at all. There seems to be a basic misunderstanding about the use of "messiah" and "messianic" in Judaism, which has a very different meaning from its meaning in Christianity. Perhaps this whole article is the result of a misunderstanding. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- it's been corrected now. inigmatus 04:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inigmatus? What are you doing? Does adding "Beit Tefilla, however could be classified as an Orthodox Messianic Jewish congregation according to this wiki article." seriously make sense to you? You invent your own personal definition of "orthodox Messianic Jew" and then say you've proved the legitimacy of your chosen definition by citing some website, which doesn't say anything about the term you've chosen nor the definition you've contrived, but then based upon your interpretations of their website contents, you say that according to the definition you've come up with they could be considered "orthodox Messianic". This is a rather difficult to follow, but it's clearly circular reasoning, and it definitely does nothing to strengthen your argument. Tomer^talk 07:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you neglected to quote the far more relevant part of what they do say about your term, to wit:

We are NOT "Sacred Namers," "Two-House," "Dual Covenant/Noachide," "Lunar Shabbat," "Orthodox Messianic," or any of the other bizarre, cult-like sub-movements that have branched off from the Messianic movement in the last decade or so.

It would seem that not only are they not "orthodox Messianic", they abhor the name or any association with how they define the term (which is apparently at odds with your preferred definition). So, again, I'm compelled to ask... "What are you doing?" Tomer^talk 07:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's pretty clear that Shirahadasha's concerns are not going to be adequately addressed or even taken seriously, however, they are absolutely correct concerns. The "sourcing" of this article has been attempted with a shotgun, and I still see no reason to believe that any such group of people exists. Chabad-Lubavitch'ers, yes. Orthodox Messianic Jews? Nope, made up, delete. — coelacan talk — 10:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL!!!!!! How did this even get discussed? frummer 07:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is Wikipedia, it's part of the information super highway and anything can drop (in) on it. Instead of "LOL"ing -- please VOTE!!! Thank you, IZAK 08:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per almost everyone else here. Ridiculous article. Daniel^C/_T+ 12:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looking at the list of editors supporting delete, you don't suppose this is another case of bandwagoning based on the concept of sheer mainstream Jewish rejection of any concept of Orthodox Messianic Jews - of which I am one? I mean come on, I at least know who I am. The sources provided paint a picture of Orthodox Messianic Jews, and the references provided clearly use the term "Orthodox Messianic" to describe them. One would have to be blatantly biased against the existence of Orthodox Messianic Jews to reject their existence at this point. I hope the admin takes this truth into consideration. The article is noteworthy and increases the legitimate knowledge of the Wiki community about a group that gets the rap from both mainstream Jews and mainstream Christians, and if comments like "ridiculous" and "hoax" aren't enough to raise a red flag over the intentions of some of the obvious non Messianic Jewish editors here voting to delete yet another Messianic Judaism related article, then call me blind. inigmatus 22:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, perhaps, it is an attempt of someone with a self-avowed POV to push it into wikipedia, notwithstanding existing policies and guidelines regarding size, notability, fringe elements, and the like? Just hypothesizing. -- Avi 22:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The hypothesis works both ways. Any attempt by Messianic Jews to assert the truth of who they are, what they are, and what they believe, is often met by the Jewish editing community on Wiki with accusations of POV pushing, notability, and wikilawyering. WP:AAGF seems to be a foreign concept to some editors when it comes to Messianic contributions to Wikipedia. Maybe it should be taken as an honor that Messianic Judaism articles are now actively policed by the standard group of "delete" editors above; but to be honest, as I always keep saying in these VfDs that ultimately get concluded to 'keep' anyways in spite of the sheer number of delete votes, submitting an article for vfd is not the best way to go about improving wikipedia; but it sure is a good way to POV push and *gasp* dare I say: "censor" legitimate articles that enhance the knowledge of one exploring the subject. Imagine how much better the article could be if all the time spent in these VfD debates over Messianic articles was actually spent on IMPROVING the article rather than cackling to get them deleted because a bunch of people have a POV that no such belief is compatible with biblical Judaism. inigmatus 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Inigmatus, you cannot have it both ways. The above is a blatant expression of assumption of no good faith in the rest of the community. You have no idea what the rest of us believe about anything. Your protest about "wikilawyering" clearly indicates that you have no idea what the term means. Please stop trying to talk about the people who disagree with you here, and concentrate on the subject at hand, i.e., the article. You have yet to demonstrate that there is any merit in keeping this article, and, in fact, your latest contributions here, and to the article as well, seem to underscore the correctness of all the "delete" votes. Tomer^talk 05:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given that this proposed "Orthodox Messianic Judaism" is a fringe group of the already fringe Christian group that is MJ, it is not in the least unreasonable to nominate it for deletion under notability. If it is indeed notable, it should be fairly straightforward to show this - the fact that the article has previously cited sources that would condemn the movement as irrelevant in the strongest possible terms (i.e. Lubavitch Messianics) is ample evidence that even the authors and contributors can't find a way to prove notability and are grasping at any straw that's entitled "Messianic Judaism". I fully support notable MJ articles, but this isn't one of them. Daniel^C/_T+ 23:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Inigmatus, if you find someone cackling, I suggest a nice bowl of chicken soup. I understand, to an extent, the paranoia you are exhibiting here. However, I do not believe anyone is attempting to delete articles that belong, such as Messianic Judaism itself. The article we are currently discussing is a neologism at best, and a POV attempt to create a linkage with an accepted form of Judaism at worst. Either way, the topic of this article is not wiki-worthy as it currently stands. If the movement creates enough buzz and press coverage (by reliable and verifiable sources -- not self-aggrandizing websites and poli-zines) over the next few years, and justifies its existence as a legitimate accepted subgroup of Messianic Judaism -- in the eyes of more than its adherents and fringe elements(not to mention the laundry list of self-contradictions and other problems raised above that make this look like it falls somewhere between WP:NEO and WP:HOAX, each of which are unacceptable) -- then the article will survive. Until that point, I believe any impartial wiki editor would agree that this is not an acceptable article for wikipedia. -- Avi 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I cannot wait till User:Inigmatus starts creating articles about Haredi Messianic Jews; Hasidic Messianic Jews (especially Satmar Messianic Jews and Chabad-Lubavitch Messianic Jews -- who would be more "messianic" since Lubavitch already has their candidate and it's gonna be hard to convince the world that Satmars love anyone more than their old "Reb Yoilish Teitelmaum"?); Modern Orthodox Messianic Jews (that should fun, do you think that Shlomo Riskin could compete here?) and how about Religious Zionist Jews, hmmmm, can JC displace Rav Kook? Stay tuned, if anyone can create these kinda articles (with matching templates to provide "understanding" and linkage to even more Judaism articles and personalities, of course) Inigmatus can... so Inig, I hope you are reading those Jewish encyclopedias cause you have your work cut out for you 'ol buddy. IZAK 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • First I didn't create the OMJ article; second, I don't have the time to catch every VfD offered on Messianic Judaism articles and respond to comments like yours, let alone create articles for groups which I myself have limited knowledge of. inigmatus 23:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Are there a lot of Messianic Judaism articles? Are a lot of such articles facing proposed deletion? If so, which? Tomer^talk 00:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If we focus on the article's merits ojectively rather than placing it in the confines of a Mainstream Jewish-Messianic Jewish debate, I thinkthis article deserves to be deleted with some of the key pieces being moved into the Messianic Jews article or elsewhere. The subject of the article is too small to warrant its own entry and would be better served as part of the larger movement (I can think of a number of subsets with the various Reform/Conservative/Orthodox denominations that don't deserve their own pages either). Should the group grow in size and notability, a page can be re-created then. But my second reason is that it isn't really a very well-written article. It has a defensive tone that reads like a member of the group wrote it rather than an encyclopedic objective approach. The sources at the bottom are not integrated well and they serve more to simply acknowledge the group's existence than to further the article. If the page remains (which it isn't looking likely) then it needs some massive rewrites. JerseyRabbi 06:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments to delete outweight those to keep. Our rules on verifiability are non-negotiable. Proto::► 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sneeze[edit]

The Sneeze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Nonnotable blog. Cited sources assert notability, but don't really show it. Alexa ranking below 90,000. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but the article should be rewritten in a more encyclopedic way. Alexa ranking is 80,665 (lower it is, better it is - I also have to say that Alexa rank wipe out operating systems different from microsoft and browser different from Internet Explorer, so it's not a good index), google page rank is 6/10 (net's average, according to UrlTrends, is 2/10 --> [6]. The website The Truth Liad Bear, has a 7/10 pagerank but it's not in Alexa 100,000 (which means n/a). by Snowolf (talk) on 03:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All it needs is a major makeover. It appears to be notable, but it does need a huge clean-up. Ganfon 03:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am rather new to making pages at wikipedia, as soon as i figure it out, i will clean it up. i'm sure somewhere in the 8000 daily readers there is a wikipedian besides me. I just started it, and i plan to finish it.Cherryeater987 04:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup Sorry for the tough love, but, ugh, this is one of the most poorly written articles I've ever seen. Read through the Manual of Style please. Thanks. --Wafulz 05:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, one mention in PC Magazine in 2005 is one (1) WP:RS, and I could find no others. Technorati rank is 1577, which isn't really impressive, nor is TTLB ecosystem ranking (171) below 100. Alexa and Google stats presented above (80,000? 6/10?) are just a joke. It's a cute personal blog, but fails WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one mention in PC magazine is not enough, the number of hits a website gets does little to assert notability.--Daniel J. Leivick 06:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lacks multiple, independent reliable sources. Recury 15:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:RS /Blaxthos 18:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fred Ott's Sneeze (film). Come on. I doubt anyone typing in "The Sneeze" as a search term is going to be looking for some guy's blog. Wavy G 19:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless editor learns how to bring it up to snuff instead of relying on the other 8000 readers. TonyTheTiger 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hey.. give it a chance. It's a very entertaining and relatively longstanding blog with enough readers to warrant an entry. when did wikipedia become such an exclusive organization? I'm trying my best to learn how to make the page better, but i have little time and skill. FYI, i am NOT the site's author. Cherryeater987 01:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not seem to have real world notability. GassyGuy 05:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep So Wikipedia should keep stuff like this but a blog with 7000 visits a day should get the boot? It may be poorly written by Wikipedia standards, but it's pretty short so it's easily fixed. Unmitigated Success 16:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment naming other articles that you think should be deleted does nothing to assert the notability of of this article. 7000 Visits a day doesn't do much either we need verifiable sources. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Last time i checked, most encyclopedias don't need a "You must be this famous to enter" sign. 7000 people. hey! that's a lot. that's REGULAR VISITORS. filtering out one time visitors, according to the author's counters. An encyclopedia should be a comprehensive index of information. and by adding this page, thereby making it more comprehensive, i and all the members of the sneeze are helping out. Not hindering. as long as it contains information about the page and author, it should stay. and even at its current undeveloped stage, it contains information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cherryeater987 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• It doesn't have to be "famous," perhaps, but it does have to meet some basic guidelines, else there'd be no way to delete any article. Also, you don't have to start every comment with "keep." GassyGuy 08:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it. The TV show South Park is valid on Wikipedia. The Sneeze is no less worthy a venue for entertainment or satire.--B2k 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that something exists does not mean it automatically gets a wikipedia article. South Park is notable, and its article establishes its notability. Wavy G 04:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Btw, check the hamper for missing socks; this is this user's first edit. Wavy G 04:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Its visitor stats are not that bad. Killroy4 11:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - the site appears to have a pretty strong presence, but more reference and evidence of notability should be added in order for it to stay. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Precedence and popularity is NO reason to advertise a blog on Wikipedia, per WP:NOT. Discount major sockpuppetry.--WaltCip 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Who is advertising? i am in no way affiliated with the blog or its author, and stand no benefit by this being here, i was just trying to do a service and make wikipedia more complete.Cherryeater987 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shogun Wars (Online Game)[edit]

Shogun Wars (Online Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

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)).

The game was previously deleted here while still in beta. I couldn't find any reliable sources via Google, and it doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Verifiability issues. Posting a pre-emptive anon-vote warning. Wafulz 03:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could not find anything that could be considered a source that is independent of the company itself and thus has no notibility (Wikipedia:Notability (software)). Game has only 800 accounts active. Has WP:COI problems, as creator seems to be author based on edit comments.--155.144.251.120 04:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Creator of site was NOT the author of this Wiki; I was. Creator re-named Wiki for capitalization. It's a good, up-and-coming game, why not keep it?Dp76764 04:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said in the nomination- verifiability from reliable sources and WP:WEB. Also the capitalization is wrong too. It should be Shogun Wars (online game). I have absolutely no idea why it wasn't just made at Shogun Wars seeing as that article name isn't taken.... --Wafulz 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Up and coming? Quite possibly. But we are an encyclopaedia whihc requires reliable non-trivial independent secondary sources, so you'll have to come back when it's actually up and arrived. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:WEB, no assertion of notability or secondary sources. Nothing has changed since the last AFD except that the game has a larger userbase and the developer's blog is encouraging players to 'fight' for the article in any AFDs that occur [7] (see Jan 8 entry), missing the point. The amount of players which would deem this game notable is debatable, though 800 active players for a product that is being given away on the web doesn't leave much room for discussion. Get some reliable sources and we can build a balanced article, until then I'd suggest Shogun Wars' fans refrain from adding an entry and that any relisting without secondary sources is speedied. QuagmireDog 14:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This bothers me, QuagmireDog... secondary sources? The terms is boggling since in any research, you would rather have primary resources. So whatever you mean is unclear. I find much shorter, less interesting articles all over wiki, ever hit that random article button? and do not see these articles backed by "reliable sources". Many wiki articles beg for sources or do not cite any at all. So your argument makes little sense to me; "any relisting without secondary sources is speedied."? Is this a jargon that is spoken somewhere I am unfamiliar with? There is no product given away, it is played on the internet, much like Wiki is not given away, it is used and enjoyed by millions. Both SW and Wiki are free, therefore neither gives away a product, but offer a service. If it were selling a product, would this not be an advertisement and therefore misguided in advertising on Wiki? The article is, in part, simply the beginnings of an explanation for players to refer friends to and say, this is what I enjoy. There are many MMPORGs or whatever they are called scattered all over Wiki as well as just games in general. In fact, the game Half Life got on the front page roughly the same day this article appeared. As for comment above about SW designers making this article. Neither the article creator nor myself are designers, we are players. Wafulz faults the capitalization as if that is something to delete article for. Note in the next comment, the person cannot spell which (JzG). Do we condemn that person or fix it? Hardly a reason for deletion. I am afraid I see little in the Delete comments that really merits deleting an article that several people have already worked on and argued to keep. I will note one thing fyi, just so you understand my vehemence. I enjoy the game and in fact won the first age of the game under the name of Tobionitaru. Valthalas 21 January 2007
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikipedia is a tertiary source, taking information from reliable secondary sources and some core details from the primary, original research is not usable. No secondary sources and no appropriate award is a failure of WP:WEB, which is why the article stands to be deleted and is the only reason needed for deletion.

Speedy deletion means just that, deletion without a five-day AFD process, nuke on sight. Recreation of previously deleted material is eligible for speedy deletion. If players wish to refer their friends to the game then that is exactly what they should do, point them to the Shogun Wars website so they can create an account. Video games in general are not under the microscope here, there is no reason that VGs cannot be in WP which is why that hasn't been said - Half Life got on the front page because it is a featured article, IE is an article of the highest quality on WP. All featured articles are loaded with secondary sources, that's what WP is about. If yourself or any other contributor wishes to keep this article, Valthalas, then I'd suggest you try to find some secondary sources (if they exist), because it's the lack of them which is the problem here. QuagmireDog 12:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Some comments for Valthalas:
  • I pointed out capitalization as a note, in case the editor wanted to create a page sometime in the future- I never once suggested it as a reason for deletion. The article should actually just be at Shogun Wars since there is no article under that name.
  • Using the game , its players, and its website as the only sources actually violates No original research and makes it impossible to create a neutral article.
  • The deletion comments are actually founded on Wikipedia policies: verifiability and No original research
  • Before you compare this article to that of Half-Life 2, please examine Half_life_2#References--Wafulz 20:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3/g10, vandalism/attack page. NawlinWiki 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becca manns[edit]

Becca manns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)- (View AfD)

• Not notable, no sources. Plain old vandalism. Ganfon 03:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phelan Sanders[edit]

Phelan Sanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This appears to be a hoax. The author has been unable to provide any sources to substantiate the notability claim of the subject. Prod removed by the author. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hoax, 1 Google hit for the creator of the most popular song in DC for 2006 give me a break. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clear hoax.--Kubigula (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even if not hoax does not meet WP:CITE--155.144.251.120 04:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as for Leebo by Snowolf (talk) on 04:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or speedy if possible, since the assertions of notability are blatantly untrue. Flyingtoaster1337 04:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoaxes. No google hits for "bang it till it stop". As I've said before, I wish obvious hoaxes like this one were speediable. --N Shar 04:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete someone must by trying to pull our leg Alf photoman 16:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Should have been speedy deleted, doesn't seem to be notable as I could find no information on Google. --Nehrams2020 20:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 155.144.251.120. --Richmeister_talk 09:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. RFerreira 11:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military of Vanuatu[edit]

Military of Vanuatu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Subject won't ever be anything more than a stub or small entry. The article has been a stub since 2002. I've already taken the little information that the article contained and put it into the Vanuatu article ([8]) so that it wouldn't be lost. Cla68 04:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete It will never be expanded, I think. Since it's already merged with Vuanatu, the article isn't much important. by Snowolf (talk) on 04:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect changed for Kirill Lokshin by Snowolf (talk) on 04:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect; nothing to merge, but no reason to make searching more difficult than it needs to be. Kirill Lokshin 04:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, changing my vote to redirect ;-) by Snowolf (talk) on 04:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I would keep as this is a standard subarticle to have for sovereign countries, and it facilitates categorization. They are also periodically in the news[9] so the article has potential for expansion. --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'll create it when we need to. They only have a paramilitary right now. --Ineffable3000 05:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Ineffable3000, at the moment there isn't much need of such an article by Snowolf (talk) on 05:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted below, we can categorize a redirect to the appropriate section of the Vuanatu article, leaving us with the same navigation and categorization as before. We can always break out the separate article again if/when someone actually wants to write one; but, given that there's no assurance that one can be written, including the available material directly in the main article seems like a cleaner approach. Kirill Lokshin 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect support also. Cla68 06:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ... holy cow, are you serious??? Being a stub is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 14:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but that's why we're discussing a merge/redirect, not an outright deletion, now. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung. Until such time as we can categorize redirects, so that a redirect page can appear in Category:Military by country, this should remain. Until then, even if a tiny paramilitary is all they have, this page should stay, if only to avoid WP:BIAS. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth pointing out that we can categorize redirects? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 16:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung.-- danntm ^T _C 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung (occasional news coverage) and Smerdis of Tlön (WP:BIAS). Additional information may be available in print sources. The article could use some cleanup, however, as right now it just seems to be copied from the CIA World Factbook.Black Falcon 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect seems to be appropriate here, but only due to the total lack of information on the subject. Nlsanand 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to the justifications provided by Dhartung and Smerdis of Tlön, redirects discourage expansion (indeed, they have been used as surrogate deletions). Indeed, if the country primarily has to outsource its military, there ought to be some discussion of that somewhere, possibly in local press. Serpent's Choice 00:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I suspect that more could be said about this topic. For example, our article on Espiritu Santo (island) which is part of Vanuatu states "Between May and August 1980 the island was the site of a rebellion during the transfer of power over the colonial New Hebrides from the British–French Condominium to independent Vanuatu. Jimmy Stevens' Nagriamel movement, in alliance with private French interests and backed by American libertarians hoping to establish a tax-free haven, declared the island of Espiritu Santo independent of the new government. British Royal Marines and a unit of the French Garde Mobile were deployed to the nation's capital island but did not invade Espiritu Santo as the soon-to-be government had hoped. The troops were recalled shortly before independence. Following independence Vanuatu, now governed by Father Walter Lini, requested assistance from Papua New Guinea, whose forces invaded and restored order on Espiritu Santo." Capitalistroadster 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung and Capitalistroadster.-gadfium 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per user Capitalistroadster. Wikipedia is systematically biased against subjects with little available info; there's a massive amount of information about the militaries of the Pacific that could be added if people had all the local newspapers available. It doesn't much make it into books, unfortunately.

Buckshot06 07:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, is such a tiny article it is almost a blank page! I'll fully support it being on its own page if only it had at least one whole paragraph! But as it is now it is just one little sad article, it should go join up with its Daddy! Another comment, when the main article [10] goes into greater detail than the subarticle you know something is wrong! Mathmo ^Talk 09:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep This is Vanuatu's military and there's no good reason to redirect it to another topic as there's the potential to expand it, though the current article is very lacking. --Nick Dowling 09:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture references in Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide[edit]

Popular culture references in Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Nonsense such as "In the episode about secrets, Ned and Cookie, after getting chased by Billy Loomer, ran to Moze, who told them "You guys look like you've seen a ghost" in a similar way Captain James T. Kirk told Captain Spock in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier." The article is filled to the brim with trivial, unsourced opinions of editors. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 04:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:NOT, not material relavent for encylopedia.--155.144.251.120 04:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per common sense. Incredibly, vastly, deeply trivial. -Toptomcat 13:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fancruft. Recury 15:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial, inane, impossible to verify, and just plain useless. Magichands 23:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Strong Delete completely useless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EditingManiac (talk • contribs) 03:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Indiscriminate, unverifiable fancruft. ShadowHalo 11:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Drivel. ( But I suspect ShadowHalo is wrong when he says this is unverifible... I'm sure someone with nothing better to do could confirm that Everclear is indeed mentioned in Episode 17 of Season 2... But why would they want to ? ) Non-notable. WMMartin 15:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End Year Chart 1991[edit]

End Year Chart 1991 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Unexplained list of Spanish song titles. "What links here" reveals that it's an end-of-year chart for Billboard Magazine's Hot Latin Tracks. I'm not sure if we can legitimately republish this list without running afoul of Billboard's intellectual property rights. In any case, I don't believe it belongs here - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Note: PROD removed by anonymous editor without explanation or change to article. FreplySpang 04:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also nominating End Year Chart 1989 for deletion; same thing, two years earlier. FreplySpang 04:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. End of year chart is not notable.--155.144.251.120 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Have to imagine this is copyright infringement. GassyGuy 05:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Recreating the year-end chart has got to be copyright infringement. ShadowHalo 04:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trannies (Transformers)[edit]

Trannies (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article about a self-produced on-line one man awards show for the Transformers community. No sign whatsoever of reliable third-party coverage. I doubt that much can be found outside the transformers community itself which does not exactly control reliable publications. Of course Googling for "Trannies" is useless, unless... ahem, unless your looking for a different kind of tranny. Here's the result of a more specific search.[11] Pascal.Tesson 04:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not have any relavance outside the transformer community and cannot even assert notibility within it.--155.144.251.120 04:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• My granny would sometimes listen to her tranny. "The transformer community" (?) could perhaps create its own wiki for stuff like this "awards show"; as for WP, delete as Pascal.Tesson suggests. -- Hoary 05:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Interestingly, you'd think the page was created yesterday by an unexperienced user but as it turns out, it was created back in the prehistory of Wikipedia by JIP (talk · contribs) who's now an admin and one of Wikipedia's busiest editors. But we all make rookie mistakes! :-) Pascal.Tesson 06:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I was surprised by that too! Must be a bit of a "What was I thinking?" sort of situation. Of course, in all fairness, back then our notability/verifiability guidelines were sparse and poorly enforced, and a lot of articles like this were being created. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cannot assert notibility. Fails WP:WEB etc.--Dacium 06:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I would suggest merging to Transformers community but I don't think we have such an article. Therefore I have to say weak delete as not notable enough. JIP | Talk 07:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the holy trinity: WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. Not only that, but it stopped in 2003, so no future notability is forthcoming either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as nonsense, bad joke, etc. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medi-Kill[edit]

Medi-Kill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

An "upcoming movie" with no evidence outside this article that it is in fact coming up. Which is a bit odd, given the number of big name actors that are apparently slated to appear in it. You'd think someone would have mentioned it, at least enough to get a note on IMDB. I suspect that this is a daydream, a hoax, and/or something made up in school one day.. (Note: PROD removed without addressing the sourcing issue) FreplySpang 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as for FreplySpang by Snowolf (talk) on 04:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete is obvious hoax. Look at actors and there character names. Someone tag this for speed delete --155.144.251.120 04:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wafulz marked this as speedy! (rightfully so Delete) SkierRMH 05:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Malbrew[edit]

Ricardo Malbrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable, but some relevant references in a quick search on google, so might not quite be a CSD. Delete. Kesac 04:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obvious WP:COI violation, username article name. Fails WP:BIO, No assertion of notibility (claims to be Film Producer without asserting any notible works)--155.144.251.120 04:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Vanity auto-bio--Kevin Murray 04:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as for 155.144.251.120 & Kevin Murray by Snowolf (talk) on 05:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above fails WP:BIO and WP:COI does not assert notibility and cannot find anything that is noteable.--Dacium 06:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sounds like a person who's accomplished a lot in life, but has not (yet?) achieved the level of recognition we are looking for (WP:BIO). FreplySpang 10:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or properly reference and source Alf photoman 16:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nigeria in America 2004[edit]

Non-notable, as far as I can tell. Less than 180 Ghits, and oddly enough, this is the only edition of this pageant which happens to be mentioned anywhere here, which makes me think that perhaps the page was made for vanity purposes by the winner. It's also plenty of NPOV and embellishment (Tawes Theatre is anything but prestigious.....). fuzzy510 04:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now If we can verify it it should stay, pending a cleanup. If not, then delete. --John24601 10:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks to be an attempt to sneak a non-notable bio in through the back door by pretending to actually be about a pageant. I note that "Miss Nigeria in America" gets just 61 unique Google hits, and that's counting Wikipedia and mirrors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a review of a very unremarkable event, which appears to be a one off. Nuttah68 18:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn event; unencyclopedic. Eusebeus 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete would vote to keep if enough other countries had similar pageants. Can not endorse as a lone pageant. TonyTheTiger 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: nn event. Miss Nigeria in Nigeria would be notable as major national competition per WP:BIO, but Miss Nigeria in America.... I think not. Ohconfucius 08:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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