< August 17 August 19 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache






















































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

The result was no consensus. - Bobet 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black billionaires[edit]

This article is problematic on many levels. If it was named "List of Black billionaires according to Forbes" it would be fine, except then it would then be a copyvio. As it is now this article is merely a speculative essay. The criteria for inclusion is ambiguous (do mulatto and blasian people qualify? What about black Papua New Guineans and Australian Aborigines?). The very issue of being black cannot be agreed upon, as you can see in the article's edit history and talk page, as well as at Talk:African Americans whose net worth is equivalent to at least $1 billion and Talk:Black people. Someone renamed the article "African Americans whose net worth is equivalent to at least $1 billion", but that was refuted. "Black people of African Ancestry whose net worth is equivalent to at least $1 billion" would probably be refuted as well. As there are barely a handful billionaires who are black (Oprah Winfrey being the only current one), the article has to be padded with essayic speculation (as is the case now). I say delete this article and mention that they are black (if it is important) in Lists of billionaires. Ezeu 00:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD was three months ago, not less than a week ago. --Ezeu 01:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err, then this is at least the third nomination. I stumbled into this article through an AfD last week. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BLACK_BILLIONAIRESWilyD 01:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was PRODed last week, not AfDed.--Ezeu 01:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may find the evidence I've presented that it was AfD'd convincing. WilyD 01:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was barely an AfD. The nomination was withdrawn, and the AfD was closed after an hour. --Ezeu 01:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did make my points before digging it up - what I did recall was stumbling across the article through AfD. WilyD 01:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article is still a work in progress and wouldn't qualify for featured article status. WilyD 10:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says nothing. That and I'm tired of the damn race argument. DELETE, DELETE!!!! Everyone knows that in America particularly race matters. In this article it matters even more because the assertion that is being made and has been made overtly is that blacks are incapable of being billionaires and BEING BLACK. That the real racism behind adding that piece.

Most of you on here: Let's look at all the components of a person! Especially if he or she is "black"! They must have some other genes that account for their achievement. All or most so called African Americans or Africans in the Americas have other genes the majority Caucasian genes. So let's follow your ignorant argument that Asians and Caucasians are closest on the tree. That would mean by proxy, as a result of slavery most African American (who have been removed from African for damn near three centuries!) are the FURTHEST thing from African possible, and closer to Asians that you think. That is what makes that chart UNAPPLICABLE!

It does not take into account the mixtures that have happened as a result of chattel slavery and generations of Afro-European mixtures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:208.49.22.2 (talk • contribs)

You're not making any sense. African-Americans are on average 83% African and 17% Caucasian. They are Black because Black is the single largest chunk of their gene pool. No person on Earth is 100% pure so race is defined by the single largest chunck of ones ancestry. It's been pointed out that Michael Lee-Chin is 45% Black, 5% white and 50% Chinese so he's not predominantly Black, and any doctor that gave him medical treatment intented for Blacks would be fired especially since the Chinese gene-pool is the opposite of the Black gene-pool--Whatdoyou 18:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You already voted once as User:208.49.22.2, you're not allowed to vote twice.--Whatdoyou 18:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ezeu is right. Even though it may be argued that he's wrong about the copy vio (which I don't believe he is!), he is correct in pointing out that unless the definition for black is clarified this becomes a redundant exercise. This is becoming a referendum on what it means to be a billionaire if you have African blood coursing through your veins. The other question arises then at the same point as to who is right in their definition. Mareino if Oprah is the only person who will be counted contextually then folks can learn about her IN HER article. What's the point in saying, "geez we'd count Michael Lee-Chin but he's a unique racial category of genetic opposites." Oddly enough we have barely mentioned Bob Johnson in this article except to say in a cursory sense that he was a billionaire, but he lost that status post-divorce from Sheila.

If the argument about Jim Crow laws and one-drop rules are going to be pointed out then it needs to be noted that "black" comes in all "nationalities" if you will. It isn't much of an achievement to point out how much ground blacks have lost as they strive to be anything but black in America.

The caveat here is that there aren't that many arguments on what it means to be white and who's counted unless the KKK or other white supremacists are doing it. Moreover, I’d think we’d all agree if you don’t look white you’re not.

Question for all though: isn’t this blasian thing a phenomenon of new world intermarriage? Do the Chinese or Japanese government have a racial category for this? From what I hear the mixed children of GI’s (first true “blasians”) were treated like crap in Vietnam (which is funny as hell in brown ass Vietnam) and Korea. I even here the purer “Asians” (the Chinese and Japanese) look down on the more mixed Asian populations such as exist in Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines. Meanwhile, “black” people have opened their arms wide to welcome these downtrodden only to hear that they’d like to separate themselves.

Based on these factors I vote DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.196.2 (talk • contribs)

Black was defined in the article but Ezeu complained that the defenition was racist. A Black is a person with a majority of ancestors that stayed in sub-Saharan Africa during Homo S. Sapians original exodus from the continent some 70,000 years ago. No person on Earth is pure, everyone has mixed blood to some degree that's why doctors define your race by predominance of ancestry. If most of your ancestors are from sub-Saharan Africa you're Black, if most are from North-East Asia, your North-East Asian etc. It's not very complecated at all. And btw, the mixed children of GI's were not the first Blasians. Believe it or not, the first Blasians were pure white people. Yes, white people. This was stated in Time magazine and by Cavalli-Sforza who discovered that on the genetic level, all Europeans are hybrid population that is a mix of African genes and North East Asian genes. This is because all humans started in Africa, and Europeans are nothing more than Africans who are in the process of becoming North East Asian. So really by calling a Blasian Black you are calling all white people Black.--Whatdoyou 18:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
   * 1 Membership
   * 2 Current trends
   * 3 Blacks make history among self-made women millionaires & billionaires
   * 4 First Black Billion dollar business
   * 5 References
   * 6 See also

which are all perfectly fine. Some work may need to be done to make racial terms more generally acceptable (i.e. Blasian, I've never heard that before in my life), the article and the contents are good: no violations of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, or WP:V. --Daniel Olsen 05:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think comparing races with one another could create conflict especially since some races are much richer than others.--Whatdoyou 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then get rid of ALL articles about race; don't start with this one.--Whatdoyou 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is third time the article has been nominated for deletion, despite the fact that it passed after several months of inspection when it was only a stub with a couple of sentences. Since then a useful chart has been added and historical parrallels with CJ Walker. Isn' there some rule about not nominating an article for deltion more than once.--Whatdoyou 19:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, but generally if an article's been nominated a few times, it's kind of pointless, and very unlikely to be deleted - see the AfD history of Gay Niggers Association of America though, for how persistant people can be. WilyD 20:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are so few people on the list is a strength of the article not a weakness. Black billionaires are extremely rare and thus note worthy. Besides, the list will obviously expand as the years go by. This article is a treasure trove of useful information for students of Black history and Black business. I wish someone had bothered to keep track of all the earliest black millionaires--Whatdoyou 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. The statistic are of interest because money is so universally valued and so it's of interest to see the number of Black billionaires since this is an extremely tiny club of historical significance slowly making their presence felt on the global stage. By contrast Blacks with masters degrees are a dime a dozen.--Whatdoyou 19:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Blood red sandman 13:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its good information. Their is nothing racist about this. We are not disputing facts but more less emotional outbursts of people with low self esttem.

If you'll read the article, you'll discover there's actually a wealth of information on the subject. WilyD 01:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all we're not talking about Australoids and Papua New Guineans though including them wouldn't matter since they haven't produced any billionaires. Black when spelled with a capital B refers to people of sub-Saharan ancestry. This topic is extremely important because most people I speak to do not believe that Black billionaires are even possible, so it's very important to document all the billionaires and near-billionaires in history that were Black or have had Black blood, it's important to document the economic contributions made by people with sub-Saharan ancestry. It's also extremely important to point out the economic inequality exists even at the highest levels. Black billionaires are extremely note-worthy because virtually every Black population on Earth has been either enslaved or colonized, so to come out of that to become a billionaire is worthy of extensive documentation. If we can have articles on subjects like controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians we can most certainly have an article on Black billionaires. Just because the information is not of use to you does not mean it can't be a helpful resource for others especially those studying Black business and Black history. It's extremely difficult to get information and statisistics concerning Blacks worldwide as most stats are confined to African-Americans. Thats what makes this article unique.--Whatdoyou 15:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should be a category, not an article. Mallanox 18:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category with only one person in it? That doesn't make much sense. An article is much more useful because there are a couple billionaires of mixed blood in addition to a former Black billionaire, a self-proclaimed Black Billionaires, Blacks half-way to becoming billionaires, & Black dominated industries forcasting billionaires.--Whatdoyou 15:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mukadderat 18:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


















































The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 14:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Boxers[edit]

The page is very very stubby, not linked anywhere, and appears to be pointless. If "Amateur boxer" is an official class in a notable boxing league the article should be changed to reflect that, but save that (or an actual organization called "Amateur Boxers") this article is just a dictionary definition combining the words "Amateur" and "Boxer". Staxringold talkcontribs 22:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please don't insult me for no reason. I understand what and how important Amateur Boxing is, I was just saying it's not out of the realm of possibilities that there is a league named "Amateur Boxers". Please don't insult folks off the cuff like that. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Weblog Awards[edit]

Fails WP:WEB; from all I can find it's an award site that's still relatively new and lacks sources. None of the winners seem to meet the notability criteria either. Crystallina 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 1ne 22:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blake's 7 Real Person Fic[edit]

We've already deleted this article's twin brother back in July (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake's 7 Fan Fiction). This one is, if anything, even more nonsensical. Also unverifiable, unencylopedic, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balistiq (producers)[edit]

They seem to fail WP:MUSIC at the moment; their most notable collaboration according to the article, although initially seeming promising, is "forthcoming" - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Crystallina 00:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirected. --SB | T 01:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nawroz[edit]

We already have a Kurdish celebration of Newroz and a Norouz which shouldnt even be seperate... We do not need a 3rd article. Cat out 00:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just did a diff, the user who created the page just removed the trivia section, and put re-ordered the list of countries to start with the Kurds, and changed the etymology of the word.
This discussion of seperating out the Kurdish festival was decided by consensus in March. See Talk:Norouz#Peace_settlement and Talk:Newroz which led to the current organization of the page and the creation of Kurdish celebration of Newroz. -- Jeff3000 00:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --james(talk) 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annihilator (truck)[edit]

This article does not give any reason why this truck is notable. In fact if I had not stumbled upon this article, I would have never even known what the bloody hell a "monster truck" is. Allow me to reproduce the entire article, save for the links and uselss little side box, here: Annihilator is a monster truck that races on the USHRA circuit. Displaced Brit 00:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I am pretty new to wikipedia, from what I've seen regarding WP:BIO as applied to an athlete, if they play at the highest national level and are verifiable, which this "Monster Truck" appears to do, then they tend to be included. I would hate to apply this guideline to the actual driver of the truck, simply because from my very little experience with the "sport," I don't think that anyone actually cares who drives the trucks, such as long as crap gets smashed. So, assuming that it is the truck and not the driver that is considered to be the competitor in the sport, it seems that WP:BIO can be applied, at least in regards to an athlete. will381796 15:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted before afd discussion officially closed

Olivia kennett[edit]

Delete. No notability. Google brings up 4 results, and none of them seems to have anything to do with the subject of the article. Previously prod'ded by User:Sparsefarce: "Non notable artist. Google search comes up with her (or another Olivia Kennett from New England) being quoted in an article about JFK, which had nothing to do with art. Also an article or two about a health instructor named Olivia Kennet. Nothing else found." ... discospinster talk 00:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. What might be notable in the future is not what WP is about. Sparsefarce 05:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE 65.175.162.145 06:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Wrestling Roster[edit]

WP:LC. There is no purpose for this list at all, pro wrestling cruft and most importantly, unencyclopedic. — Moe Epsilon 00:31 August 18 '06

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AirPiracy[edit]

Unverifiable/non-notable. Can't find any mention online other than AirPiracy.com. Article makes no clam of notability - possible vanity article. Scott Wilson 00:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I agree that is a contradiction in the article but there are stickers out there with the logo and Air Piracy underneath. unfortunately they are not in the most pleasent of areas to find for picture verification. 205.157.110.11 20:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna B Ur Lovr[edit]

Not notable, not a single, no video. Crumbsucker 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 05:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: Invoking the snowball clause: Wikipedia is not a memorial. ChrisO 17:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict[edit]

This article is an inexplicable POV fork of the Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The main article sufficiently covers all the facts and figures, and a highly detailed list of the death of Israelis non-notables, while certainly a tragic fact, has no encyclopedic value. This page has not resulted of consensus nor has any type of support from major editors of the pages from it is forking.--Cerejota 00:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before: "Since we pretty much only have details on Israeli deaths, I don't know if it would be fair for us to have detailed death lists for Israel but only numbers for all other parties involved in the conflict." ~ clearthought 18:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is idiotic. balance does not mean equality. If there is verifable, and notable information it does not need to censored because we cannot get the same imformation for "the other side". Do we have to remove information about chess tournaments because we cannot get the same imformation about the Scrabble tournaments! Jon513 19:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is all one conflict. There is no reason that we should list every Israeli death name by name if we cannot get even nearly as close in detail for deaths from other sides. On the topic of your comparison of Chess to Scrabble, that is not comparing apples to apples—in this discussion we are talking about one conflict and the parties involved, not two conflicts. Using your game comparison is like saying the World War II article should be just as long as the Gulf War article... not a fair comparison considering we are not comparing the Arab-Israeli war to this Israel-Lebanon (Hezbollah) conflict! If you are to call my idea "idiotic" at least come up with a good analogy. ~ clearthought 19:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every single fact is separtate. Every fact should be decided for includsion based only on wheather the fact is verifable and important. Where to put that fact and how to present it should be done in a NPOV manner. If you feel that this means making a parrell article for Lebanoneze, fine. Frankly I think that the fact that it is in a sparate article, not overwhelling Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, makes it NPOV. Jon513 19:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments/reasons others listed above says it perfectly: Wikipedia is not a "memorial", the article has "too much tactical detail" for an encyclopedia, "serves no purpose" in an encyclopedia. ~ clearthought 19:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Jon513 is misreading the spirit of " Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia". This means that we can cover more than a regular encyclopedia, are able to give more space to specific research threads, and cannot use size constraints as an excuse to not include material. It's not meant to say that we have to include ALL knowledge, because while we are not a paper encyclopedia, we are an electronic encyclopedia. Specifically, this means we are subject to certain content rules and policies. Among those rules this page goes against is the long standing one that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, in particular the section against memorials. Its incredible that you attempt to use WP:NOT to support the existence of this page and ignore the specific and clear disavowal of memorial pages. It shows you don't understand WP:NOT.
There is already and excellent, well debated, and continously edited page on the casulties of the conflict, which is more than enough for all combatants, and does a great job in presenting the information, in spite of course of needing a lot of work. SO the information is being covered in great detail. Instead of going around creating irrelevant, unencyclopedic memorial pages, perhaps you should go there and contribute.
I do congratulate the creator of the page on his/her boldness, but I think this time he/she went overboard.--Cerejota 23:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not a memoral page. A memoral page that WP:NOT is refering to is about a person who fails WP:BIO but we all feel really sad that s/he died; this article simply documents who died, it does not talk about their lives and acomplishment and the family they left behind. The article does not contain indiscriminate information, it expands on an already exsisting topic. A few editor have agreed that the article is notable, and should in theory be included, but since we can't do the same for lebanene we can't include it, because we don't want to offend lebanene sensabilities. PR is also a form of POV. NPOV means showing both sides of the story, not artifically removing information so they are equal in every way. Jon513 23:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I think you vastly misinterpreted my and other editor's arguments;
  2. You seem to be the only editor on this page who thinks this memorial, a group memorial (per se) mind you, should not be deleted!
~ clearthought 00:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I am the only one here who voted to keep. It is hard to go against a crowd and say what one believes. It would be easier just to say "delete per norm" (I wouldn't even have to read the article). Building Consensus does not mean bullying people into saying what you want him to believe. Jon513 00:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope you are not implying that I am bullying you, because I certainly am not. I am just staing what I -- and others here -- seem to believe about this article. There is already a decent Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict page. ~ clearthought 00:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We already have the toll numbers, there is no reason to have an expanded list of every single death. ~ clearthought 15:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in the light of recent fauxtography scandals, death-pimping and death toll shrinking, one might be interested in actual lists. When the world will start paying appropriate amount of attention to the conflict, and not concentrating almost all of the attenion on it (almost exclusively to flame Israel, of course), then it will indeed become redundant. But now it is not. --Aleverde 16:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list could be just as, if not more, full of false claims. There are always inaccuracies in these kinds of conflicts, and I don't know what "death toll shrinking" you are referring to... I just see it going up! I also fail to see your logic; if there is an even more detailed list, there is bound to be more bad info. Judging by your enormous hatred of Islam, you are prejudiced against them anyway and, thus, if this was a list of Hezbollah fighters who died, you and some others probably would not be voting to keep it! ~ clearthought 16:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, all of the media and most nations are just out there to flame Israel... yeah right. ~ clearthought 16:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, right. Just so. Except of half of US (not even the whole country) and some minor number of right-wing media like Fox News. The overwhelming majority is indeed just there to flame Israel. Heh, like it's something new. --Aleverde 16:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SynergeticMaggot 17:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish celebration of Newroz[edit]

We already have a Norouz article explaining the topic. I do not see the reason we need a seperate article for the kurds since its the same holiday for them just like the other god knows how many countries listed on Norouz. Article is more of a link-o-rama with random links that dont provide additional info. Links are often vaiguely relate to the topic such as news reports. Some of them only have a sigle referance to the holiday while not providing any info about the holdiay itself. --Cat out 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article had many irrelevant links. I have just cleanep up in them. Bertilvidet 06:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the poem (how does that explain the celebration?) and you end up with text small enough to fit the main article.
A holiday by definition is a part of "self identity" I suppose, that would explain why Norouz is notable, but does not explain this article. You might want to start a Kurdish self identity (whatever that is) for that purpose. You just made it sound like content forking...
--Cat out 07:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if people see the need of these articles: Christmas customs in the Philippines, Christmas customs in Poland and Christmas customs in Romania? and these articles are not merged then why not have Kurdish celebration of Newroz it's absolutely the same thing. Ozgur Gerilla 08:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 20:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes (Hannah Montana)[edit]

We have a Wikiquote page for this, and besides, this is fancruft. It's very low on content too. Bibliomaniac15 00:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted as CSD A7 (and userfied).. alphaChimp laudare 03:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Rao[edit]

User created vanity page.--BigCow 01:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Catamaran Company[edit]

delete proposed per WP:AUTO -submitted by Catamarans, WP:CORP as applied to chains and franchises and WP:NOT wiki is not a soapbox Ohconfucius 13:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 04:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a simple re-creation of previously deleted content. No attempts have been made to address the point about soapboxing and original research made in the original AFD discussion. ((db-repost)) was the correct tag for this, not AFD. Uncle G 12:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmin Contribution to Other Religions[edit]

Delete. This is article is an unchanged recreation of a previously deleted article Brahmin influence on other religions (AfD discussion). Both created by the same user.--Tigeroo 07:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Boyd (amateur wrestler)[edit]

Serially recreated article. See [2] and Matt Boyd (wrestler). Article claims that he is a collegiate wrestler, but the linked reference shows he wrestled in high school last winter. In other words, he will be a freshman next month. Fails WP:BIO. JChap2007 01:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The collegiate level happens to be the highest level of amateur folkstyle wrestling. He has participated in a great many competitive events, and is the only wrestler to have been pinned by Zack Newborn in 2 minutes, 43 seconds.
  1. The Olympics and other international wrestling tournaments are far more significant than college level
  2. Namedropping and bragging about being pinned point towards a joke/personal entry. --Wafulz 02:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is completely incorrect, folkstyle wrestling is not competed at the Olympics. That's like saying spacewalking is more interesting than this individual's sport so his article should be deleted. - Dollarsign$ 09:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, what? I don't know what "fokstyle wrestling" means, but the freestyle wrestling performed at the Olympics is exactly the same wrestling as performed in college. Greco-Roman is different. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your information is incorrect. Wrestling performed in American colleges is not the same style as either style performed at the Olympics. Please do not post incorrect information and present it as the truth, thus compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. 18.246.6.179 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain what differences there are. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    why delete the article on the account that you don't have a good understanding of Matt Boyd or Wrestling Mattboyd112 04:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per NeoChaosX --Edgelord 06:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal4kde and Image:Metal4kde.jpg[edit]

This is just one of hundreds of KDE themes; there's no indication that it is more notable or important than the others. Even the author's entry for Metal4kde on kde-look.org states that it is "just another metalic look for kde".

The creator of the article in question also uploaded a corresponding image with the attribution "Moty Rahamim". Moty Rahamim also happens to be the creator of the Metal4kde theme. Therefore, I think this is also a vanity article. Both the article and the image (Image:Metal4kde.jpg) should be deleted. —Psychonaut 01:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Alt-D (Snowball + Vanity + Bio + NN + CSD Material). Tawker 02:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Burns[edit]

None of this seems to assert meeting WP:BIO. --W.marsh 01:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Media Design School is one of the most prestigious design schools in New Zealand. It's Game Dept. is award-winning, and has produced titles such as IGF 2006 Winners "Goliath" www.goliathgame.com and "Shear Factor" www.ShearFactor.co.nz.

http://www.mediadesign.school.nz/

and more specifically:

http://www.mediadesign.school.nz/diploma_of_game_development_overview.asp

also

http://www.mediadesign.school.nz/diploma_of_interactive_gaming_overview.asp

also

http://www.mediadesign.school.nz/diploma_of_interactive_gaming_faculty.asp— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.13.174 (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. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William I Orr[edit]

"Many classic books" yet none can be named and no sources can be cited. Possible vanity page. ReverendG 01:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domination (2004 computer game)[edit]

The game does not appear to meet notability requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (software) - or anywhere near that in fact. No 3rd party sources; possible self-promotion. Mdwh 01:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telaprolu Rangamma[edit]

Four cleanup tags, first-person writing, and no google hits for the full name - charitably, this is non-notable; more likely it's just nonsense. Opabinia regalis 01:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obviously a hoax and therefore nonsense (G1). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Dragon: Jake Long: The Movie[edit]

(This was previously prodded, and was contested) There are no references given in this article, and I can not find any indicator that this movie is actually in production. The IMDb ID that's given gives me a 404. These things, and the super-celebrity casting makes it seem likely to be a hoax. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of models[edit]

Unbounded list of potentially infinite size. Article is unmaintainable by nature. Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Allen3 talk 02:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpinionSource[edit]

Reads like an ad, 1st person involved. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 02:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --james(talk) 13:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendocore[edit]

The term itself, while not a neologism, is not a real genre. It was a joke coined by the members of HORSE the Band during an interview to describe the sound of their album "The Mechanical Hand". The band themselves object to the use of the term as a genre. And even if that isn't enough, no other bands have adopted the term nor has it been properly used as a genre. A look on google will demonstrate that most hits are either tags on last.fm, which don't qualify as genres or as a reliable source for that matter, Wikipedia and many usernames. There isn't a reliable source, an article or anything that describes "Nintendocore" as a real genre nor that it actually links the bands named in this article to it. Its unsourced, unverifiable and pretty much taken out of context. Also, it's beyond me why the article is still on wikipedia, because it had already been nominated for deletion and the decision was "deleted". That discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendocore -- Clementduval 02:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not forget that the band that created the term, did so as a joke in an interview. And actually doesn't describe themselves as such. This "genre" is nothing more than an inside-joke that got kinda big. But anyhow, if the article is kept, I guess it sort of needs a full re-write & mention of its real status and use, instead of making it seem like a real "genre". However, I guess that'd also be hard without original research. --Clementduval 20:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted by CambridgeBayWeather as WP:NN and closed by SynergeticMaggot 21:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Pérez Gay Rossbach[edit]

Not a single Google result, contains nonsense, probable vanity. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Ageo020 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against women [edit]

This article is not only a stub and provides little more then a page for links, but has a few glaring other problems. Firstly, the fact that any of the violence exclusive to women, such as bride burning or sati, are covered in other articles that provide more information. Conversely, the topic of domestic violence was brought up as "predominatly suffered" by women. However, many recent studies show this to be false, and that men are more often victims of violence. With several such glaring errors, and a lack of any new and useful information other then links, is a reason why this article should simply be deleted altogether. Matt620 02:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. Violence can be very well defined and restrictive in what scope the article would present as Violence against women. Judging by the list presented in the current article, the scope would primarily be physical violence, which leads itself to the potential of numerous studies and news reports as sources. In the hands of a compentant editor, those sources can give way to a clinical NPOV tone. 205.157.110.11 08:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as an empty page with no claim as to the notability of the subject.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Attitude Song[edit]

Nothing in this one-sentence article implies notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was a subscriber to the magazine and I thought that including this fact could be of interest. In fact, Guitar Player Magazine was the first to issue turntable playable inserts that featured artists. It is of historical note for the magazine, artist and song. Markmckeever 14:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuicetalk 04:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate sally[edit]

From the page, does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC guidelines. Article is also very poorly written, and looks a bit like self-promotion —Mets501 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requel, Midquel, Interquel[edit]

Neologisms. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge into Ozzy Osbourne. —Mets501 (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Necromandus[edit]

My initial reaction upon seeing article is that this band is not notable enough, but not being well-versed in the genre, would appreciate input by others. For now, delete is my opinion. --Nlu (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 03:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beep Beep (band)[edit]

Article for an band of questionable notability. See WP:BAND guidelines. Also not clear that article's sources meet requirements of WP:V. Was previously PROD, but disputed by experienced editor, so comes here for review and consensus. --Satori Son 03:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7, as no notability was asserted for the subject. Aguerriero (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Bates[edit]

Tagged for cleanup last month, WP:BIO and blog-like and/or advert may be applicable.  — MrDolomite | Talk 03:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Ohio State Fair Youth Choir[edit]

A non-notable youth choir that fails WP:ORG (it's the closest I could find, this isn't quite WP:MUSIC. In addition, the tone is not encyclopedic. Crystallina 03:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question What is the policy for articles that are copyvio. Previous articles have been speedy deleted because they were totally copyvios. Is this policy or just what some admins do? will381796 06:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the ((db-copyvio)) template, db-copyvio only applies when This article was created in the last 48 hours and all of its revisions are blatant copyright infringements, taken from the website of a commercial content provider ..., with no assertion of permission. . This missed the deadline. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligit[edit]

An advertisement-style page for a subject that fails WP:SOFTWARE. Crystallina 04:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greendale, Kapiti[edit]

I do not believe this is a real place. As a native of the Kapiti Coast, I have never heard of Greendale; it does not appear on any map I have or can access online (all I can find are Greendale Drive and Greendale Reserve in Otaihanga); a Google search does not give any page mentioning a village named Greendale on the Kapiti Coast; the only page (besides the Greendale disambiguation page) on Wikipedia that linked to Greendale, Kapiti was the page on Sidney Holland, who was actually born in Greendale, CANTERBURY; and most tellingly, the Land Information New Zealand website's placename database states the only Greendales (a locality and a homestead) in New Zealand are in Canterbury, not on the Kapiti Coast. Therefore, due to the lack of any evidence that Greendale is a real place on the Kapiti Coast, I have nominated the article for deletion. Axver 04:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinda Mendez (Valiant Comics)[edit]

Minor character. Has only ever appeared in a single comic issue. Non-notable fancruft. g026r 15:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 04:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controlling Psoriasis without Steroids[edit]

Personal medical testimonial that really should be speedied, but I'm not sure it meets any criteria. So it's here. Daniel Case 04:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuicetalk 04:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitistics[edit]

nn website, fails WP:WEB, only two Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What proof does Mr. Mahan need when he's got the power of accusation? Joe 04:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ObertsOberst's argument fails: Google Talk is Beta and has an extensive article; also if Wikitistics had 51 articles would that make it relavent enough? Yes, I have friends/relatives in San Diego just like ObertsOberst has friends in Yellowknife, or maybe not. Joe 19:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Darn it, I wish people attacking me by name would at least spell it correctly. That aside, being a non-notable website failing WP:WEB is no sin, but it certainly leads to an article's removal until the situation should change. And again, there is nothing wrong with having friends and family (although apparently I wouldn't know), but if people are commenting on their own website and , um, accidentally forget to mention this, they shouldn't be offended if this omission is pointed out for the benefit of the closing admin - WP:VANITY exists for a reason. Finally, I'll assume pride of ownership can cloud one's analytical skills dramatically enough to see Google Talk as a suitable notability comparison for Wikitistics. - David Oberst 23:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that you used the Beta status to discredit the website, which isn't reason enough because of the Google Talk reference. Can you describe exactly how it fails WP:WEB?
"beta" was merely an additional observation confirming the impression that the site was small, new, and had no evidence of notability, not an effort to "discredit" it. As for WP:WEB, this seems a little backwards - are there criteria you feel it meets? I've got nothing against small websites in their millions, but i don't think I'm wrong in saying that Wikitistics comes nowhere near Wikipedia inclusion threshold, as the results here show. I'd suggest you wait until the likely Deletion closure on this, and politely ask the closing admin to explain their reasoning, and confirm with a couple of other admins that they would have handled it in the same way. - David Oberst 01:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copy that on the closing admin. About the your reasoning, perhaps it is backwards, but I've already explained its worth as a WP article and showed how other similar articles exist (above). In addition, it's unique as far as I know. I maintain that the burden of proof falls on the people that want to remove potentially viable information. I'm sure the Wikitistics inclusion threshold is as high as any other website despite its current user status. You mention that it's small (though you have "nothing against" that) and new (which doesn't seem to carry much weight), but besides that, is there anything that you find non-notable about the site so that it must be removed to save the 8k of storage space? Joe 01:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Mets501 (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardware Store (song)[edit]

Not notable, wasn't a single, no video. Crumbsucker 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 04:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for reasons 1) Author has requested (see below). 2) WP:SNOW 3) there is some evidence that the subject of the bio is unhappy. 4) borderline A7 anyway -Doc 22:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lora Bofill[edit]

A living person, and the only indication of notability is a bit part in a movie that I'm unable to confirm from any source except for what's reportedly her resume. Significantly, not listed in IMDB for any of the major studio movies she is supposed to have appeared in. That leaves us with the fact that she's a doctor, which is nice but doesn't justify a Wikipedia article. In conjunction with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariju Bofill, the creation of these articles smacks of stalking. Picture should be deleted as well. --Michael Snow 04:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:SNOW and author's request (see below). -Doc 08:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mariju Bofill[edit]

After removal of unverifiable information, we're left with the fact that this is a State Department employee, that's all. Considering the appropriate care needed with biographies of living people, that's not a suitable article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lora Bofill. Frankly, these articles give an appearance of stalking. Picture should be deleted as well. --Michael Snow 04:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if you've got anything to back up the accusation of "bad faith nomination", I'd like to see it. Tychocat 10:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't call it bad faith myself, but something's really fishy when Michael Snow has deleted information as "unverifiable" when it shows up at the top of a simple Google search. VivianDarkbloom 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Bad faith nomination:" (n) AfD jargon for an AfD nomination in which the nominator feels compelled to make personal attacks, unwarranted attacks, assume bad faith, or generally act like a %^&*. Come on, nobody uses the phrase "bad faith nomination" properly, so get off my back. Anyway, I do have a gut feeling that the guy's got ulterior motives, but can't prove it to the satisfaction of most. Billy Blythe 16:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact "nobody" uses the phrase properly does not justify you using it improperly. I won't quote WP:CIVIL to you, since it looks like we're 'way past that stage, thanks. Try to stick to the issues. Tychocat 04:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UniFriend.co.nz[edit]

non notable, seems to be somewhat of an ad American Patriot 1776 04:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Ever[edit]

Not long awaited on Google. JD don't talk email me 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 04:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Popular[edit]

Non-notable per WP:BIO -Bogsat 21:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 04:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about sources? Right now it looks like spam. 205.157.110.11 06:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blink music[edit]

Probably is a vanity page by blinkmusic.com. It seems non notable. --Cyclopia 21:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at the very least, rewrite for NPOV and to eliminate the advertising language. CPAScott 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 04:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autopinger[edit]

Apparent vanispamcruftisement for not-notable webtool. 190 unique Google hits for this web-based product [12]. Google link search returns 0 hits [13]. Alexa rank = no rank [14]. Does not meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Prod removed.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 04:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Mets501 (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOVE and SUICIDE[edit]

Not many Google hits. JD don't talk email me 23:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 04:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - WP is also not a newspaper, nor a free webhost. This has nothing to do with the artistic merits of the film or its actors or production crew. You may want to see the WP guidelines regarding notability to see what I'm referring to. Also, I note six distinct Google hits where Youtube, Rottentomatoes and a fanpage have been given video from "bobbilou" - are you an employee of the production company? Tychocat 01:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that their is a bias but I would stem that more from the fact that there really hasn't been a guideline laid out for the notability of small-budget indie films. For me, personally, distribution and screening is the key. However, I would like to see more discussion on the matter 205.157.110.11 20:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 souces have been added. Eluchil404 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delfi.lt[edit]

Spam. Ny866 05:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earle's Curve of Predictive Reliability[edit]

NN and not verifiable, OR claim by obscure speculator JQ 05:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta Anime Review Project[edit]

Spam. nn websites. Ny866 05:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuicetalk 04:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush Scotland bicycle accident[edit]

This event is not notable enough for a separate article. In fact, it probably isn't notable at all as the publicity from it lasted for about a week. At most, it might get a mention in a trivia section on GWB's page (much like his father's vomit episode in Japan has on GHWB's page), but again, I don't think the bike accident is worthy of any mention. Cjosefy 05:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TLV CO., LTD.[edit]

Non-notable Companies. Google 886 hits, Japanese Wikipedia as non article. Ny866 05:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP is a good start. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Value Investing Congress[edit]

Commercial promotion, NN JQ 06:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libharu[edit]

nn Software, Google 885hits. Dey68 07:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Das art[edit]

nn companies. Dey68 07:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please put more effort into your nominations. Using AfD jargon ("nn", in particular) makes you look lazy and ill-bred, confuses new users (particularly new users who want to know why you want to delete their work), and will cause pretty girls to hate you and your car keys to go missing even though you just put them down a second ago. Far better, for your reputation, your health, and your love-life, to instead explain why you want something deleted in simple and polite English. A bit of detail won't go astray, either. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just clicking "edit" to encourage you along the same lines. When asserting that something is "non-notable", please always link to the notability criteria that you are using and explain how the subject does not satisfy those criteria. Uncle G 15:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marla Weech[edit]

Contested PROD. Nonnotable local newscaster; no indication of meeting the criteria at WP:BIO. User:Angr 07:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quickerwit[edit]

Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Only 100 unique ghits, although 25000 raw hits. No independent coverage as far as I can see. Current entry is a blatant advert, not to mention a copyvio since the content is exactly that of the official webpage of the service. Pascal.Tesson 07:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 1ne 03:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And The World Goes 'Round[edit]

This seems to be an collection of information about a show which combines the tunes of 3 shows. Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary, and all the other things wiki is not. Ohconfucius 08:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain where in the article Broadway is mentioned. It says "it's a revue". Which could cover anything from Broadway to a troupe of 12-year-olds in their end of term play in Northampton. That's what I mean by context; if this is a notable Broadway show revue it fails to establish that. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears from the Kander and Ebb article that they themselves wrote the revue - however, that is not only unclear from this article itself but not clear to me from a brief amount of off-WP research - i.e. I'm not sure whether it's actually true. Paddles TC 13:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean to say you didn't read the related articles? I'll bow to Paddles' extra knowledge here, but you really should have at least read Kander and Ebb, Tony. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read it but missed that reference, sadly. Changing to Weak keep per fuddlemark above and Metropolitan90 below, Tonywalton  | Talk 10:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In musical theatre, a "revue" is usually pretty much just a performance of a group of songs. There usually is no script or book, except maybe intros for the songs. Fan-1967 14:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland Stereotypes[edit]

Stereotypes are not encyclopedic, and this article is not referenced. A similar section in the Auckland article was removed earlier; see [20] and Talk:Auckland#Social_perceptions_section_-_removed. Delete.-gadfium 08:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely I agree 110%. However this article is completely unsourced and to be honest I am not sure where one could find sources sufficient to meet WP:V on this subject. I have looked online and the pages online all seemed to be a mirror of our Jafa article which obviously doesn't get us very far. I will give it some thought and have a hunt around however - GIen 16:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also seriously doubt Aukland Stereotypes will ever pass WP:V. This one certainly doesn't WilyD 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfy and delete from mainspace. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Jacobsen[edit]

The more I look at this, the more it looks like vanity. It was created by user Gary Jacobsen (talk · contribs) and it links to his personal web page. Userfication may be appropriate. Discuss: --Xrblsnggt 09:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted, no assertion of notability. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosher_komedy[edit]

Article about a person with no assertion of notability. Unsure if the article qualifies for a speedy delete, but if it does, it would fall under CSD A7. Kyra 10:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per A7 Petros471 14:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beds Herts and Cambs Land Rover Club[edit]

Not encyclopedic Delete -Doc 10:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try http://www.bhclrc.org.uk/about.htm May fail as a candidate for copyvio in that there's no copyright notice on there, and they may not qualify for ((db-copyvio)) as they may not qualify as a "commercial content provider. Speedy delete as ((nn-club)) anyway. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. As Tony points out, AfD is not the place to try to delete redirects. Beside the point, but a useful bit of info if you're planning to go to RfD, is that typo redirects are extremely useful and attempting to delete one is Very Silly. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Chinesea[edit]

typo. hence, delete __earth (Talk) 10:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celticminded[edit]

WP:WEB. 'Nuff said. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by me. Iolakana•T 15:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tramlines[edit]

Non-notable high school band. Fireplace 11:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telenovela (good band)[edit]

Non-notable "good" band. Dancarney 11:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Petros471 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Pérez Gay Rossbach[edit]

Funny one :-) nn-vaninonsense. The author "cleverly" created the article with a ((prod)) tag, waited until the article had disappeared from new article patrollers' radar, then deleted the prod tag. Technically a deprod so here we are. Weregerbil 13:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Couch potato. --CharlotteWebb 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse potato[edit]

While this is a valid phrase in the dictionary, I don't see how this becomes anything more than a mere dic-def. The entry in Wiktionary already has more info so there's nothing to transwiki. Apparently it can't be prod'd because it was nominated for VFD three years ago. Delete as WP is not dictionary. Wickethewok 13:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanglefish[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 1,760,217. Contested prod. Geoffrey Spear 13:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sprugli[edit]

Non-notable neologism. 186 Ghits, most of which are related to a chocolate manufacturer and not the subject of the article. Geoffrey Spear 13:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben villanueva[edit]

Allegedly a Honduran Colonel, but I find no sources. One web result returns something related to Ruben Villanueva + Honduras, but states it is a Mexican soldier, not a Honduran officer. Apart from that, no sources that apparently relate to it. Creator's only contribution. --Thunderhead 13:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PodSpot[edit]

Spammy spammy spam spam. Prod removed by author. Non-notable, advertising, vanity, you name it. -- Merope 13:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott D. White (computer scientist)[edit]

NN biography. Possibly vanity, as subject of article shares surname of author. I requested an SD (per CSD A7), but was changed to prod by another editor. Prod then removed by author. -- Merope 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few things: was Scott ever involved with writing software to help visualize the connectivity of networks on the internet?
Another thing: I've read the paper "Generative Model for Feedback Networks" - It's quite interesting for me to see how some of Tsallis' ideas have propagated to all sorts of topics. One concern I have is that the model is pretty new - it's cutting edge, but it would probably be better to merge that information into a separate (possibly new) article on say, the History of network modelling. As a rule of thumb, Wikipedia tends to present topics proportional to the volume of existing work that is out there describing it.
One last thing: In my opinion, Wikipedia tends to lean on the side of conservativeness when it comes to notability. Yes, there are articles just like this one out there somewhere, but if we had a more efficient system of article review, they would also likely be deleted. The way this AfD is proceeding, it indicates that the community wants to have an article on a subject where the notability is more self evident. If this article were to exist on Wikipedia after this discussion, it would unlikely be developed into a more extensive article (say, like Richard Feynman) simply because there is a lack of information available, beyond what has been presented already.
In my opinion, another reason why this article was spotted for notability concerns to begin with, had to do with the style and approach used in the article. For example, there is a sentence that says:
His generalization of google-type PageRank algorithms for relative importance in networks and graphs represents an important advance for algorithms that run the central processes in the information economy.
As an example, in the typical WP:NPOV style of Wikipedian prose, the reader does not need to be told explicitly that algorithm X is an "important advance" - instead, the reader simply needs to be told that this person worked on generalizing PageRank algorithms for use in networks. This would be sufficient. As another example, the phrase "(a field founded by his coauthor)" suggests that the notability is conditional on that fact, which is also something to avoid. However, typically an article does not reach get to that state overnight - it usually takes months and months of revisions. I'll keep this page on my watchlist. If the article ends up being deleted, there are other things a Wikipedian can do, but I'll elaborate on this later when it's more appropriate to do so. --HappyCamper 04:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good questions, comments and suggestions. Pt 1: Scott wrote quite a few of the JUNG package programs that dealt with that particular question of visualization. I dont know the details tho -- to run JUNG you need to build your own Java front end (GUI) and that is beyond me. We would have to get Scott in on this (he hasnt a clue that I have tried to draft a presentation of his contributions) but if he did get involved he could explain what his contributions were.
pt 2, on the generative models article. You have what may be a better way for me to have written up that presentation: as a history of the the model classes, from small-world to scale-free to social-circle. Could be quite interesting presented that way, and could be short as well, although others might chime in on the variants and some of the issue involved. Since the first two have their own sites and you have read the paper on the third, this could be a joint venture. Usually takes me a bit to get the kinks out when writing.
pt 3, right, the SDWhite article would unfold more slowly, but somewhere I read too that we want to pick up on work that will be developing in the future and scott's work is one of these areas. As for the relative importance sentence, yes it was bad and I rewrote it. Your NPOV point is quite correct.--Douglas R. White 05:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about part 1, because way back, I read in a magazine somewhere, that someone managed to create a meaningful "map" of the internet in a day, and this was something which was considered unfeasible. Perhaps this was in New Scientist or something like that. I will have to check. Actually, this is really drifting away from what an AfD is supposed to be for - stuff like this should be relegated back to the article talk page. --HappyCamper 10:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Periscope Press[edit]

advertising puff piece that reads like a press release. Unencyclopedic and does not appear to be at all notable. Spartaz 14:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC) DELETE as nom --Spartaz 14:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, why'd you add this? AfD is not a vote, so I can't see what you have to gain beyond wasting a bit of time and Corrupting The Youth™. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did this to clarify that I thought the article should be deleted. It's possible to nominate something while being neutral on whether it should exist or not. I don't know how that fits with policy but I'm sure I have seen it done. --Spartaz 22:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inside The Console[edit]

Not quite speedy A1. Suspect prod would just get removed, so AFD it is. Delete as nn spam. Petros471 14:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potbanger[edit]

Neologism article. Unique Google hits for (potbangers -wikipedia) = 44 [22] (potbanger -wikipedia) = 67 [23]Fails: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  14:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - this one seems clear enough that we don't need to spend much time on it. Friday (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicars.org[edit]

Two-month-old website, no Alexa ranking. Lots of Ghits but you would expect that for a wiki site. NawlinWiki 14:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Shields[edit]

Autobiography JoJan 14:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the comments below, I have taken the liberty of formally adding SShields Couture to the AfD. Paddles TC 03:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a copyvio. I won't object if it's restored as a free version. Yanksox 23:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titan Radio[edit]

Smacks of copyvio, first person. This seems non-notable, merits a blurb in the CSU-Fullerton article maybe. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 14:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Good work, Grutness. --CharlotteWebb 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandymouth Beach[edit]

CSD A7, no assertion of notability TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 14:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily redirected by Hydraton31.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runnin' With The Devil[edit]

There is absolutely nothing in the article and there is nothing to be merged into the much better Runnin' With the Devil which contains all of the information already. --Hydraton31 14:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The lack of participation makes this more of a case of editors thinking "too long; didn't read" than being actually representative of an issue with equal merits one way or the other. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John McGinness[edit]

This is a vanity article by Peter Proctor aka Pproctor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not about himself but about his colleague. All the references are to his own website, where you can buy hair loss shampoo for $109.95. The article claims no real notability; he has held no positions, been elected to scientific societies, won awards, and so on. I strongly suspect that the inbound links were also added by Pproctor (talk · contribs) who has been promiting himself incessently particularly by adding spam to Baldness treatments [24] and his cranky self-admitting whine that he was not awarded a Nobel Prize to the Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize controversies page. This users arrogance and contempt for Wikipedia policies is evident on his talk page where he insists that he is superior to everyone else because he has a Phd (apparently without consideration that others might too). — Dunc|☺ 15:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Should have known better. Anyway, Ducharis and I clashed over on Raymond Damadian and I made the error of revealing my true ID. Bad mistake, as events proved. Ever since he has been vandalizing pretty much everything I have posted on wiki that he can find. Erasiers, reversions, the whole bit. No good reasons and of stuff that nobody else has objected to. This last one just tears it. BTW, Ducharris in his rant missed the fact that I also am an MD, FWIW. Apparently others have had difficulty with Duch's erratic behavior. See: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture.
Anyway, it is difficult to see how a bio of a researcher I published a few papers with three decades ago is a "vanity article". The article is cited and linked ad nauseum. John McGinness PhD, MD is a major figure in organic electronics and arguably produced the first nanotech device. As if we need more endorsement-- This device is now in the Smithsonian instutions "Smithsonian chips" collection of early electronic devices. John's role in this field is generally acknowledged, e.g., in "An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics" by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003). All completely in accord with the rules. Pproctor 16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll confirm that the Ann NY Acad Sci article referenced above refers to McGinness, for those who don't have access, although it only references the McGinness, Corry, and Proctor paper (reference 2 in the McGinness article). It's not clear to me that this researcher passes WP:PROF. No vote. bikeable (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF Criteria If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on verifiability.

The person is regarded as a significant expert in their area by independent sources.
The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.
The person has published a significant and well-known academic work.
The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.
The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.
The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student.
The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
The Nobel business is a straw argument. If being angry because you didn't win a Nobel (actually he never promoted himself or his work, which is the problem) is a good reason, lets delete the Raymond Damadian and Herman Carr entries, to name just a couple that come to mind. The only issue at hand is whether John did what the record clearly indicates. Pproctor 22:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not properly a vote, but in any case, please do not vote multiple times -- it gives the appearance of ballot stuffing. thanks. bikeable (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am by no means qualified to make any type of determination as to whether his work is of Nobel quality or not. However, being nominated for a Nobel Prize is enough to be considered notable. Let me rephrase the above statement in that he is angry that he was not nominated for a Nobel. Every research scientists loves their work and feels that it is very important; otherwise, why do it? But the wonderful thing about science is the entire peer-review process. He could think his research is wonderful, etc. But that doesn't matter. We need to see multiple, verifiable sources say that this individual is a "Pioneer" in organic electronics. Most textbooks give a history of those scientists that played an important role in their field. A google book search shows zero quotes for "'John McGinness' + organics." If he was truly a pioneer, then he would certainly be more notable and discussed a great deal more. will381796 23:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, after the 2000 Nobel business, John was nominated for a Nobel. By pioneering Melanin researcher Roberto Nicolaus, Head of the Accademia Pontanian in Naples. If memory serves, he is ex-officio a Noble nominator.

Second, John is like Herman Carr and figures making a fuss about "discovery credit" is, well, tacky. But even Carr finally came foreward, not to complain about the Nobel, but about getting deprived of credit for his discovery. I'm the pushy culprit here-- for years, I watched others take credit for stuff he had originally done and bugged him to step foreward, at least a little. When people he had a patent issue with won the 2000 Noble, I finally took matters in hand. Similarly, the issue is not the Nobel, but discovery credit. How would you like to discover something really important and then see somebody else grab credit for it?

Second, Hush in his PNYAS history of molecular electronics specifies it well. John was too early. BTW, this is not unknown--Gregor Mendel's work in classical genetics took 30 years to be recognized and Peyton Raus' 1910 discovery of a cancer virus in chickens waited even longer. This does not mean their discoveries were unimportant, Just too early.

Another major problem was Shirakawa et al, who came along three years later, rediscovered the high conductivity potential of the oxidized polyacetylenes and then proceeded to produce over 400 papers and patents with out a single reference to John's work. Under such circumstances, how could anybody coming later have known there was something prior to them? Also see Dulbecco's law. BTW, when I asked one of the Nobel winners about this situation and noted that we had sent them several letters, his dismissive reply was "Well, there's always history". Right about that.

The real problem was not missing a Nobel. As I keep being correctly reminded, that is just a matter of luck. The real issue was being completely stripped of any credit at all for an important discovery. Who gets the Nobel is a subjective judgement. However, here the 2000 Nobel citation is obviously factually incorrect. When I asked for a slight correction, noting our "prior art", I got the usual stony silence. The reputation for infallibility of the Nobel is more important to them than the true history of discovery.

More recently, my efforts have made people aware of this earlier work. Which is why you are now starting to see it referenced. BTW, if you want to see the references to Johns work, use "melanin" as a key word. The pigment cell people always knew about John. Same with people who work with the toxicity of adriamycin, cisplatin, or bleomycin. Use those as keywords. Pproctor 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paper in Science linked in this article, when you access it it on the Science website has at the end "This article has been cited by other articles" and goes on to list 3 articles from the past 5 years (of course, the Science website provides only a partial citation index). Robotforaday 01:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of publications, the paper was also the subject of a Nature News and Views article. Here. There is also Nobel Physics prize winner Nevill Mott'sletter to John. It should be obvious that the work was pretty well-known at the time. But it disappeared from view when Shirakawa et al came on the scene. How they missed several prior key papers in Science and Nature I do not understand.

Use "melanin", adriamycin, cisplatinum (cisplatin) and bleomycin as keywords. Also see my comment above. Again, see Dulbecco's law-- Citations do not always correlate with priority of discovery. Which is what John unquestionably has.Pproctor 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pubmed cites 96 articles related to Dr Mcginness' 1974 paper in Science, showing the first molecular electronic device.
  • Pubmed cites 101 references related to Dr Mcginness' paper "Effect of dose schedule of vitamin E and hydroxethylruticide on intestinal toxicity induced by adriamycin", cite below.

Could give similar examples, ad nauseum.

  • Comment The process is not silly. It has a very important purpose of preventing Wikipedia from becoming a collection of worthless or incorrect or biased information. Because of the initial lack of sources and the very little information that could be found via google and other search engines, I can see why it was nominated. It is now clear that the article belongs, thanks to your providing additional sources as well as the digging deeper of other editors. This artile should be kept as long as it maintains NPOV and is based upon completely verifiable information, not just information that you know about because you work with him. will381796 16:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry the info was not complete and yes, I know about the importance of the vetting process. I was hit by this deletion petition only three-four days after initiating the entry and had only barely begun setting it up--not a lot of time to get it into shape. This petition is just harassment from somebody I got crosswise with and who has been systematically vandalizing whatever posts of mine he can find in some sort of sick game of retribution.
  • IIRC, John has about 40-50 publications. I have only tracked down some of them. Hopefully the additional (if rather jumbled) information has been helpful. I will move it to the site ASAP. At least this got me organizing it. Also, uniquely with bios, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons allows some limited use of personal communications from the subject. Pproctor 23:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and give the two mud wrestlers a 24-hour block for disruption. Edit wars should not be brought here. VivianDarkbloom 19:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: *Since when is a thorough debate "mud wrestling?" And what happened to assuming WP:Good_faith and don't WP:BITE the newcomers? Both of us have been completely respectful to the other's point of view, thank you. will381796 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More reply[edit]

The exact exerpt from Hush's ANYAS article reads:

"Also in 1974 came the first experimental demonstration of an operating molecular electronic device (emphasis-added) that functions along the lines of the biopolymer conduction ideas of Szent-Gyorgi. This advance was made by McGinness, Corry, and Proctor57 who examined conduction through artificial and biological melanin oligomers. They observed semiconductor properties of the organic material and demonstrated strong negative differential resistance, a hallmark of modern advances in molecular electronics.58 Like many early advances, the significance of the results obtained was not fully appreciated until decades later...(p 14)"

Similarly, the abstract of the review article "The Function of Melanins" says:

" Aside from camouflage, its (melanins) other roles can be brought together by a unifying hypothesis as first proposed by .... and 'McGinness nearly 20 years ago."

WP:PROF likes multiple accomplishments. Remember, besides characterizing the electronic and physical properties of the melanins in these and later papers, John did two things WRT the gadget at issue. The first was to define conduction mechanisms in polyacetylene-like compounds (ref. 1). This is a large part of what Shirakawa et al got the Nobel for. BTW, they claim not to have seen John's previous analysis in Science. So these were independent developments.

The other was, as Hish notes, "the first experimental demonstration of an operating molecular electronic device". That is, John occupies the same position in the history of organic electronics as the guys who built the first transistor. Nothing analogous showed up for a decade or two. John also got two patents for solid-state organic polymer batteries, at roughly the same time as did the Nobel winners. Interestingly, the description of the material they ended up using in their batteries is essentially identical to the one John started with in 1972.

Similarly, I haven't listed this yet, but John was also the first researcher to demonstrate that the toxicity of the anticancer drug cisplatin is due to generation of reactive oxygen species ROS, as well as the fact that the toxicity of adriamycin, cisplatin, and bleomycin has an important extracellular component involving ROS. All avery big deals these days and by itself enough to qualify any researcher for WP:PROF. Similarly, John did signicant work on structured water (the basis of most MRI}, and the toxicity of certain psychiatric medications. Not bad for a solid-state physicist.

Also see the review article "The Function of melanin".

Additional Sample papers:

McGinness J, Kishimoto A, Hollister LE. Avoiding neurotoxicity with lithium-carbamazepine combinations. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1990;26(2):181-4.

McGinness JE, Grossie B Jr, Proctor PH, Benjamin RS, Gulati OP, Hokanson JA. Effect of dose schedule of vitamin E and hydroxethylruticide on intestinal toxicity induced by adriamycin. Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR. 1986;18(1):17-24.

McGinness J. A new view of pigmented neurons. J Theor Biol. 1985 Aug 7;115(3):475-6.

Gulati OP, Nordmann H, Aellig A, Maignan MF, McGinness J. Protective effects of O-(beta-hydroxyethyl)-rutosides (HR) against adriamycin-induced toxicity in rats. Arch Int Pharmacodyn Ther. 1985 Feb;273(2):323-34.

Schrauzer GN, McGinness JE, Ishmael D, Bell LJ. Alcoholism and cancer. I. Effects of long-term exposure to alcohol on spontaneous mammary adenocarcinoma and prolactin levels in C3H/St mice. J Stud Alcohol. 1979 Mar;40(3):240-6.

Pietronigro DD, McGinness JE, Koren MJ, Crippa R, Seligman ML, Demopoulos HB. Spontaneous generation of adriamycin semiquinone radicals at physiologic pH. Physiol Chem Phys. 1979;11(5):405-14.

McGinness JE, Crippa PR, Kirkpatrick DS, Proctor PH. Reversible and irreversible changes in hydrogen ion titration curves of melanins. Physiol Chem Phys. 1979;11(3):217-23.

Kirkpatrick DS, McGinness JE, Moorhead WD, Corry PM, Proctor PH. High-frequency dielectric spectroscopy of concentrated membrane suspensions. Biophys J. 1978 Oct;24(1):243-5.

I vote yes, to keep the entry Pproctor 22:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

)

John McGinness Bio[edit]

Don't understand your objection. John meets most, if not all of the WP:PROF criteria. To give one example among many-- As I hopefully have made clear, Dr McGinness plays essentially the same role in organic electronics (e.g.) as Shockley, Bardeen, etc. play in the invention of the transistor. That is, he built the first device. This is well-documented in a recent definitive history of organic electronics, which I cite at length. Nobody doubts it, well-established.

If you have any reason to question this assertion in the face of such documentation, please cite it so I can give proper credit to the real inventor of the "plastic transistor". This device is the parent of (e.g.) most color displays on cell phones. Similarly, few researchers have their work the subject of a Nature "News and Views" article.

If such does not meet the definition of "notability", it is unclear to me what does. Please list your criteria so we can discuss this issue. Also, I am not sure where you get the notion that John's work has been uncited. Please cite your sources, which are almost certainly incomplete. I suggest "Citation Index". John is cited extensively in both the pigment cell literature and the literature on the toxicity of anticancer drugs.

BTW, ever since defending Raymond Damadian, I have been getting flack from people who seem to be anticreationists and apparently have gotten the wrong idea. Just in case this colors your view-- I am the author of a major paper in the journal Nature on classic human evolution which was part of an on-going issue raised by JBS Haldane. Details on request. Similarly, see Dr McGinness' Website at www.organicmetals.com. The second line is ""Here is a more curious case: white cats, if they have blue eyes, are almost always deaf.", Charles Darwin. Please don't feed the creationist's paranoia any more. Pproctor 19:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on this diff alone [25]. Proctor, an AFD is not for you to air your grievances with the system or with particular editors. You have cluttered this page with self-serving garbage because your article about a non-notable person that appears to be written more for self-aggrandisement is up for deletion. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this AFD only occurred because I offended certain people over on Raymond Damadian by defending Dr Damadian, an avowed creationist. Check it out on talk:Raymond V. Damadian.
The tremendous irony is that I am reasonably well known in human evolutionary biology. E.g., I published a paper in the journal Nature on one of few known examples of classic Darwinian natural selection in human evolution-- Nature , vol 228, 1970, p 868 "Similar Functions of Uric Acid and Ascorbate in Man". Likewise, Dr. McGinness' work pertains to the other significant example of natural-selection in humans, skin pigmentation and latitude.
One reason I supported Dr. Damadian's claims to be one of the originators of MRI was to elevate the discussion and provide NPOV by showing that we board-certified, card-carrying "Darwinists" call things as we see them, even with creationists. Next thing you know, I am accused of vandalism and promoting "creationism"--obviously, somebody had not a clue. Similarly, my posts on other pages are getting deleted under spurious "vanity" objections and this Bio gets an RFD. Pointing this out is not "clutter" and it is quite relevant to this RFD.
Back to the subject at hand. Citing WP:NOR-- You are merely expression "opinion". Not allowed here. Do you have any cite, evidence, etc., that Dr McGinness did not do exactly as the definitive documentary evidence shows. Similarly, how can you claim with a straight face that the inventor of the "Plastic Transistor" is not "notable". If you have a new color cell phone or a color display on your car radio, you are probably looking at the ultimate descendent of Dr McGinness' device. Pproctor 14:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collector magazine[edit]

Local antiques newspaper, lacks notability Dsreyn 15:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidester[edit]

Spamvertising for nonnotable company; 201 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 15:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --CharlotteWebb 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Moreland[edit]

While the Tom Moreland Interchange is notable, I gave this a couple weeks to become not a resume, and it's pretty much stay'd the same. I support cleanup and NPOVing first, but that didn't seem to happen. I nominated for AfD as the article really doesn't provide much useful information, and hasn't been improved. i kan reed 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KDCalc[edit]

This was previously deleted per WP:PROD, but was contested. it is a non-notable software product and reads like an advertisement. Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nom withdrew, confirmed on my talk page here. SynergeticMaggot 19:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston, Ontario[edit]

I believe it's a hoax. The creator is known to have created many hoaxes over wikipedia. See report for vandalism Verified. Apologies-- Szvest 15:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't have enough time to correct that. I've speedied a few articles created by this user and blocked him indefinitely. -- Szvest 16:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Unblocked after verification[reply]
Only Canada Post considers it part of Waterford, as Boston is serviced by a rural route. The Grand Erie District School Board acknowledges it (as evidenced by the name of the public school), as well as Norfolk County as a hamlet [27]. CODOR 22:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Ferrara[edit]

No claim of notability Dsreyn 16:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only Greg Ferrara I see listed on that page you cited is listed as a "boom operator". I doubt that this is the same person, though even if it is, I doubt that even the world's best boom operator really needs a Wikipedia entry (no offense to any boom operators who may read this). Dsreyn 00:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Electronics[edit]

I decided to skip prod, because the author appears to be acting out of bad faith(i.e. removing templates without addressing their concerns). The proposed reason for deletion is failure of WP:WEB and an article that doesn't follow NPOV guidelines. i kan reed 16:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was AfD withdrawn by nominator.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Levitt[edit]

No claim of notability - just a series of insignificant facts about this person Dsreyn 16:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie christian[edit]

An E-Wrestler (a person who writes roleplay pretending to be a wrestler), thus none notable. Englishrose 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Englishrose 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carebear[edit]

This article is original research, and it doesn't have any sources. Whispering(talk/c) 16:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Tag Team List[edit]

Similar content already exists as List of professional wrestling stables and tag teams; no need for a duplicate list Dsreyn 17:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --james(talk) 13:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Leo Tolstoy[edit]

The list on the page is already mentioned in the main Leo Tolstoy article. Gray Porpoise 17:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the list has been removed from the main article. I say, merge back in. --Gray Porpoise 17:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley Man[edit]

Non-notable web cartoon. Gray Porpoise 17:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obviously. Would have been a valid speedy. Friday (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Gordon[edit]

Non-notable actress/model. Doing a Google search for "Tia Gordon" + model yields 0 hits for this person. Speedy removed by author and another editor. Wildthing61476 18:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The use of "good enough" in Seeing all the other models abusing drugs and suffering from eating disorders Gordon started to question if she was good enough for this industry. In the early 200s Tia soon developed an illness known as anorexia, is sad, but none of this is notable. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Puerto[edit]

Nonnotable recently declared micronation. Prod removed without reason by author Wildthing61476 18:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMCHL[edit]

Semiprofessional street hockey league in Hamburg, NY. Nonnotable. NawlinWiki 20:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --CharlotteWebb 20:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Homan[edit]

Not sure of the worthyness of a page like this and infact any other oldest person in a State. Oldest in the USA or UK or Germany or any other country fair enough. Oldest in the World fine. But oldest in a area of a country no matter how large that area or country is not worthy of a article.Jimmmmmmmmm 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Consider this not just about Florence Homan but about articles on persons famous for age).

I categorized Florence Homan as a 'supercentenarian' (persons aged 110+). My general policy is to give every verified person an article who reaches 112.5 (halfway between 112 and 115). Why? Consider the current 'top 10' oldest people, the 9th and 10th-oldest are 112 (but closer to 113). To be more specific, Florence Homan was 112.73 years old.

News-worthiness is also decided by a number of other non-numerical factors, including a person's history, family, and personality. Clearly, this woman had no remaining family and so got only weak media coverage, while someone like Virginia Muise (aged 111), more than a year younger as 'New Hampshire's oldest person,' got multi-state news coverage. In fairness, Florence deserved more. In another state, it was claimed that Olive Dubay, 110, was Michigan's oldest person:

http://www.petoskeynews.com/articles/2006/08/11/news/local_regional/n ews01.txt

But I didn't do an article on her. At the time, she ranked 58th-oldest in the world. So, while I think this article clearly should stay (and the 'keep' is winning), a real question should not be whether to keep this but what standards should be employed.

I totally disagree with User Jimmm's comments. I wasn't saying that Ohioans were more important than Scots because they were superior or better. I was saying that, given the population of Ohio is over twice that of Scotland, and given Ohio's economic and political strength, it is unwise to simply dismiss a US state. The US is a Federal, not unitary, system. In Russia, governors are often selected by Vladimir Putin. Subdivisions are often just a matter of geographic convenience. Most recognize that, traditionally, national subdivisions of the USA, Canada, and Australia are shown on the map. Anglo-centric? Perhaps. But that's what map-makers do.

As for Florence and Australia, she was in fact older than anyone in Australia at the time (by more than a year). Jimm's comments are like saying the USA can't have the bronze medal because they have the silver. Look at the U.S. Congress. The big state/small state compromise let equal represenation in the Senate, proportional representation in the House. Clearly, it's a split-the difference solution, but each side gave some ground. The bottom line: there is something to be said that '5th-oldest of country X' may not sound like a lot, but look at the other side. The USA is #1 in the world in the 110+ population. Giving the USA more articles thus serves as somewhat proportional representation to reflect this reality. At the same time, no one did an article on Olive Dubay, even though she was older than Switzerland's oldest person (someone did an article on that one). So, like the big state/small state compromise, I believe there is a sensible line here. We are giving the USA a few more articles than 'one country, one article' but in reality, the USA is not getting its due. If anything, the INORDINATE number of British/UK centenarian and supercentenarian articles betray a UK bias. We see among 'Surviving Veterans of WWI' that far more UK soldiers have an article, even if their age were younger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Cummins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Newcombe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Roberts_%28veteran%29

Meanwhile, check out Americans, Italians, Germans, Poles, etc without articles.

Living in the USA - 18 veterans Name DOB Nationality Force Served Notes Anderson, Homer 1897 24 December American USA-Balloon Corps Resides in Florida Babcock, John F. 1900 23 July Canadian Canadian Resides in Spokane, Washington Brown, Lloyd 1901 7 October American USA-Navy Resides in Maryland Buchanan, Russell 1900 24 January American USA-Navy Resides in Watertown, Massachusetts, and is also a WWII veteran Buckles, Frank Woodroff 1901 February 1 American USA-Army Resides in West Virginia Coffey, J. Russell 1898 1 September American USA-Army Resides in Ohio

So, 'oldcruft' is OK for the UK, even when not the oldest living veteran, while non-UK veterans get ignored, even if they are older?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surviving_veterans_of_the_First_World_War

Look at the other lists. Italy NO articles, France 13%, Germany 11%, USA 39% coverage, UK 71% (5 of 7) coverage. Clearly, the UK is getting more than its fair share.

But, you might say, that's because the UK Wikipedians have taken the initiative to do more articles. The same might be said for the USA. If you want to start deleting articles, do we really need to know who is a 105-year-old non-combat WWI veteran? And if yes, why not for all the nations, not just one? 68.219.137.224 14:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One comment from Jimmm...about Ohio not having a 'parliament'...is totally ridiculous. The USA has a Congress, and Ohio DOES have a legislature. Wow. It's amazing how little people really know about places outside their area.

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

The result was keep. - Bobet 13:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Bryan[edit]

The subject matter is someone who is quite obscure. Though I understand certain colleges may like to showcase their alumni in order to enhance institutional prestige, some of these entries resemble press releases. Gold Gloves? Cad to a fashion magazine editor? Worked for Ralph Nader? Good grief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardG (talk • contribs)

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

The result was Delete. Yanksox 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom El Fuego[edit]

Non-notable show. Google search turns up no results for this show or TCUDG. Prod removed without reason by author Wildthing61476 20:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the nomination for deletion, the Tom El Fuego article has been cleaned up. There is no longer any mention of "TCUDG" in the article. All facts are correct.Tomelfuego 21:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorealism[edit]

Yet another "new philosophy"; original research and unverifiable, if not hoax. NawlinWiki 21:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Wrestling Roster[edit]

As with Historic Wrestling Roster and Historical Tag Team List, unneccessary listcruft. Recommend deletion and possible severe warning of author to stop creating these lists Wildthing61476 21:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Black[edit]

Internet television show with 1 episode in production, others in pre-production. It hasn't generated any independent coverage, so it fails under WP:V and WP:RS. There's a bit of crystal balling going on too. This Google search and this Yahoo! search bring up no independent sources. I'd also like to point out the AfD for Into The Black, which was deleted on the same grounds. The content is almost identical in both articles. However, please note that this is not a recreation- I just forgot to look up "Into the Black" in addition to "Into The Black". --Wafulz 21:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Bob[edit]

Character/gag from a radio show. Must be kept in parent page. Medico80 21:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ECB precipitated the remarks by Michael Savage on the "Savage Nation" which led to his removal from MSNBC. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/08/1510241 this clearly makes him more significant than just KiddChris's flunky.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_%28commentator%29#MSNBC The Bob being referred to is ECB. Vargob 03:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 21:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page has been blanked. Sam Blanning(talk) 13:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 'Speedy delete' per A7; encyclopedic notability not shown in article.. Shell babelfish 23:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Hathaway[edit]

Unsourced, unverifiable, may be hoax. Prodded, prod removed (and article changed into yet another kind of nonsense) by anon. May even be G1 speedy candidate, but the previous version looked more coherent. Delete --Huon 21:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is keep Martinp23 22:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KO·MO·RE·BI[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article is welcome when the album exists, or when it has some more concrete release information.(IMHO) SweetNeo85 22:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Varol Akman[edit]

Blatant vanity article of non-notable academic. Created by User:Akman and is almost identical to his user page, and identical to since-reverted changes he made to Template:Philosopher-stub. Prod was attempted, but removed by anonymous editor along with autobiography and potential-vanity templates so beginning AfD Wingsandsword 22:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri bellwether[edit]

I think we have WP:OR issues here, as well as this being questionably encyclopedic and probably at best deserves one line in the Missouri article. (The page seems to have been created in response to similar information being excluded by other editors at the Missouri article). Peyna 22:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have rewritten the article to answer some of the nominator's concerns. I believe upon review you will find the article well sourced (to alleviate any OR concerns) with several national news outlets highlighting the notability of the term. I also included references to those, like the nom, who disagree with Missouri's bellwether status for the benefit of NPOV. I hope the nom will review the article and consider withdrawing the AfD. Agne 10:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James H. Fetzer[edit]

Professor Fetzer is not a notable person. Morton devonshire 22:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the request of my Wiki-friend SkeenaR, and in deference to Professor Fetzer, I withdraw the nomination. I bid you peace. Morton devonshire 17:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never said [reference to attack removed] was a criteria. Maybe read the comments. Wikipedia's mission is to document, not influence. Nothing unencyclopedic here. SkeenaR 03:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [reference to attack removed] but he does believe that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon: Draw your own conclusion (of course that's not reason to delete the article, but notability is). Morton devonshire 19:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because you accept as gospel truth everything that mainstream media and the official reports said about 9/11 doesn't mean that other people can't become notable because they beg to differ. PizzaMargherita 22:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This page is not a biography. How you apply Biography rules to a discussion page is beyond my ability to comprehend. If that were the case, there would be no histories of articles or talk pages where negative material is discussed. WP:BLP applies to the current revision of articles, not discussions, talk pages or previous versions of pages. [attack removed] and that's my opinion and we are allowed to give our opinions in discussions. --Tbeatty 21:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to that... --Striver 20:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I nominated the article for Afd. No, I have not been changing your titles. Yes, there is a corrosive force at work on Wikipedia, and that's people trying to use it to soapbox their views -- Wikipedia is not a place of first publication, its role is to gather other information from reliable sources (and that doesn't include blogs and other self-published sources), and deliver it in a neutral manner. That means no advocacy of theories or ideas, just straight reporting of facts. Many of your supporters come here to advocate, and that's just not allowed on Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you've been brought into this mess. I wish you the best. Morton devonshire 22:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate you contributing you call into question the contents of the article now as you are editing it yourself. Further you should read up on policy such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. We take things items very seriously and appreciate if you browse them before proceeding in commenting here. You have called you fellow editors "incompetent" and assumed bad faith by stating you "infer that it is a deliberate attempt to perform a subtle smear". So feel free to contribute but please do not assume people are attempting to portray you negatively or sabotage anything and please refrain from insulting your fellow editors. Thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Na'ama Yehuda[edit]

Non-notable alternative medicine practitioner. Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Possible advert. -AED 22:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Factor Zero[edit]

"The book has yet to be picked up through traditional publishing but wil be released soon on a self-publishing basis by the author himself." see WP:Not a crystal ball, WP:Notability Camillus (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radiative Primarism[edit]

Possible vanity. Created by User:Esteban, who also created the Stephen Goodfellow article, which has twice been deleted as vanity. "Radiative Primarism" is credited as being "conceived of by artist Stephen Goodfellow". Majority of google hits are Wikipedia mirrors and artists own website. Infrogmation 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this does not satisfy, I can scan a plethora of reviews on the subject from a wide verity of publications.
Esteban 01:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abe&Kroenen[edit]

Non-notable Livejournal webcomic, fails WP:WEB. Prod removed without comment. Peripitus (Talk) 23:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SmartWare[edit]

fails WP:CORP; non-notable software; the name "SmartWare" applies to a lot of companies and products including cookware, so Google counts are misleading; Alexa has no rating for the corporate website and counts only 16 other sites that link to it. If one removes the article's cruft, there's nothing in it to indicate notability - not that any of it is sourced... Rklawton 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I would take issue with this decision establishing a consensus as to whether to keep or delete individual song articles by this or other artists. My personal opinion is that they should be decided on a case-by-case basis.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Lover[edit]

We've got LOADS of articles on individual AC/DC album tracks that have no other claim for notability. I'm listing this one to establish some kind of community consensus as to whether individual album tracks deserve individual articles. The articles generally repeat info from the album page and not much else besides. DELETE exolon 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but remove any and all unsourced or poorly sourced entries as per WP:LIVING (if such is the case), and don't put them back until you find adequate references. The arguments presented for deleting this list are accompanied by the suggestion of dumping everything into a category, which would darken the situation from imperfect to incurable. Remember that it is not possible to add footnotes to an automatically generated category page, which, in isolation and at face value, may be interpreted as libelous. Controversial classifications, especially of people, should be handled by properly cited lists, rather than by categories. --CharlotteWebb 19:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay porn stars[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion. Most of listed names are not sourced and listing them does not meet WP:V. Jimbo has said that calling someone a "porn star" without providing a source is something that should be removed from Wikipedia articles. Everyone who should be on a list like this and meets the sourcing rules for WP:BIO for living persons should be listed in the gay porn stars category which already has many more verified names than this list. WP doesn't need two different lists on the same subject (even if one is called a category). The category is better. So it is the one that should be kept. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 00:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The veracity of the names on the list can be checked against the reference sources listed on the Talk:List of gay porn stars page. That list of sources can be moved to an "External links" or "References" section at the bottom of the main article if need be.
Most of the names on the list are familiar to those who are interested in gay pornography. While organizing and reformatting the list recently, I searched on several names that I didn't recognize and deleted them from the list if I couldn't find videographies or reliable information for them. This is ongoing work; the article is closely monitored by several different editors and attempts at vandalism are reverted.
This nomination may establish an unwanted precedent. If this succeeds, other articles in the same vein will need to be deleted as well, among the likely candidates are:
List of bisexual porn stars
List of female porn stars
List of female porn stars by decade
List of hispanic porn stars
List of Jewish pornographic actors
List of porn stars who are lesbians
List of porn stars who appeared in mainstream films
List of transsexual porn stars
—Chidom talk  04:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC) [ Updated recommendation to clarify difference between lists of names (articles) and lists of articles (categories) 03:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
Comment - one of the reasons for having the list is to show articles that need to be written; removing the names that don't have already have entries defeats the purpose of the list. Check out Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Advantages of lists:
"3.  Lists can include items for which there are no articles (red links); categories can only list things for which there are articles, unless stubs are created."
If you check the Talk:List of gay porn stars page, you'll see that the consensus was to de-wikilink names for which articles didn't exist to remove all the red links, but leave the names to show which articles were still needed.
Creating stubs isn't the solution, either; they get deleted before they have a chance to be developed. In the case of Manuel Torres (porn star), the page was tagged with an AfD (never mind a ProD) 1 hour and 12 minutes after it was started (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Torres (porn star)).
Bottom line. It's either "Keep" or "Delete"; removing the names from the list that don't already have articles duplicates the category and renders the list useless.—Chidom talk  03:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. For the record I am not against names appearing in the list without Wikipedia links, and I totally understand that the purpose of the list is to give a pointer to articles which need creating. I now vote keep. Rhyddfrydol 23:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete names that don't have IMDB entries. That is not a valid resource for gay pornography; it's barely tenable for mainstream films—there's a page there for me, for example. I'm listed as "Other crew" in a documentary that won an Academy Award; I was on staff at the company that was the subject of the documentary.—Chidom talk  00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right, point well taken. My boyfriend's porn collection would've made a much better source. I regret I made him get rid of it. Having said that, we still need to find some way of gauging which of these actors are notable enough. Augurr 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A guideline for porn stars is developing at WP:PORN BIO; however, bear in mind that notability is not required by any Wikipedia policy.—Chidom talk  00:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The problem with this argument is simple. To fix the policy violations we have to remove all the names that aren't verified by the list's article. Right now that's all the names if you read the policy strictly. If you read the policy in a looser way, the blue-linked names can be kept because the articles should be verified. But that leaves a list that's either the same as the category, or it has even fewer names. If we fix the list to meet the WP:BIO policy it's redundant with the category. If we're not going to fix the list, the article can't stay. So either way it should be deleted. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What exactly would "fix" the list? The list explicitly defines who is listed: "male pornographic actors who appear in gay films". The header goes on to say that no claim is being made about the sexual orientation of anyone on the list. If the actor is listed in the cast of a movie and has sex with another man in that movie, he qualifies for the list. Cast lists are available at the links that are provided in the "See also" section of the page. I've copied two of the sites that were listed on the talk page to this section. Some of the sites allow you to search by an actor's name and retrieve a list of films that he is in; a commercial site may only list films that they have in stock. (tlavideo also lists films that are not available.) So where's the verifiability problem?—Chidom talk  00:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment. Again, how is it not in compliance with WP:V? Sources are listed and reliable.—Chidom talk  09:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the names must be individually sourced. Just listing outside sites and saying "look him up there" isn't good enough. Jimbo Wales has said solid sourcing for claiming somebody is a porn star (gay or straight) is "absolutely imperative." That's why I say WP should keep the category and delete the list. The category names are supposed to be verified already since they're in articles. All those unlinked names in the list aren't WP:verified -- they need specific, reliable citations. At least one of those outside sites is useless -- it just gives a not-alphabetized list of names. (All the As are together, but not in order, etc.) Another links to semispam sites with no way of proving that the names match the pictures. I get spam all the time about porn with Jennifer Lopez, Allysa Milano, etc. The pages are there, the porn pix are there -- but the pictures aren't JLo or Milano. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, discounting single purpose-accounts. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Thomas Dunn[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username)).

Vanity page, non-notable subject Tsimshatsui 00:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: Tsimshatsui (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTD Studios
— Possible single purpose account: Jennyangel97 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Well, I don't know about all this. It seems that both sides are spamming to me. But I don't think that any rules are being broken and don't see what would be gained from deletion. Honestly, Wiki lists porn stars -- many of which are pretty obscure, too. Whatever. Don't like a show, change the channel. Don't like a web site, don't read it.

I don't recall reading anything on Wiki that stated that I couldn't invite my friends to partipate in discussions. I have many contributions over the past year to Wiki (I am no where near a single user account) -- a large portion were the articles mentioned on the AFD, but I have also contributed to content regarding Florida history, theme parks, automobiles, video games, heavy trucks and other topics I am familar with. I will make any changes that are suggested. But so far, no suggestions have been made. I will break it down: A. These Pages meet Wiki's Reliable Sources: I have cited several newspaper articles (New York Times/Orlando Business Journal/Central Florida Future) confirm the info. B. Wiki's Non-Notable Subject: the Subject is also listed on many other entertainment web sites. C. "Delete per well documented nom" - Not a single user has once tried to rebute any of the facts I have listed. DodgeM4S

Reply You might check WP:SPAM, Article #3 to make sure you are not violating that. GBYork 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thank you for pointing out the SPAM policy and I just re-read it-- but inviting friends and local newsgroup readers does not appear to violate the Wiki policy in any way. I think this debate is definitely useful -- and I'm looking to improve the quality of all the content I have submitted, not just the ones listed in the APD. Another contribution I made to a theme park was deemed a little too POV/opinionated -- so I fixed it. All I ask is you make constructive suggestions that I can use to remedy any of the content. I've put a lot of effort in all the content submitted -- and think it has made wikipedia a more complete source of information.... which has been my goal all along. I do wish I registered earlier, as I had made many earlier contributions as anonymous -- that is the reason my credited contributions seem lopsided. But I've been a contributor for about a year and a half now. By any chance, Is there a concensus of what exactly needs fixing? I'd be happy make these corrections. -DodgeM4S
  • Comment: No, there isn't any policy against inviting friends and coworkers -- they'll just be more likely ignored per the Wikipedia:Single purpose account guideline by the administrator making the final decision. So far I've only seen one source that passes the Wikipedia:Reliable source test, the Orlando Business Journal and if you provide at least two more article in the same vein, I'd be willing to change my vote altogether. I don't count the New York Times and VH1 links because they're not articles but movie synopsises that can be self-submitted to the All Movie Guide. Look, come back in a year or two's time and recreate the article if Dunn produces a film that wins a major film festival award or is distributed nation-wide. My philosophy when it comes to notability is that one is only truly notable when other people are writing about them, not when they write about themselves or have their coworkers or friends do it for them. We have to take a hard-line stance on notability because everything in an encyclopedia has to be verifiable. For example, how could any reader ever determine if Dunn really "owns a collection of performance cars and classic automobiles"? How can I accept that anything written in the Trivia section is true or made up? I can't -- because no 3rd parties are constantly providing new information that we can use to scrutinise the article's contents with. We have to take your word alone -- and that's simply unacceptable in an encyclopedia. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: userfy is Wikipedia slang for moving an article to userspace (which means it's no longer an article in an encyclopedia, but a personal page / article in progress). To do so, copy and paste the original article into a new page called User:Dodgem4s/original_article_name. This means that even if this article is deleted, you can still continue to work on it and when you believe that the article will pass a future AFD review, you are free to move it back into the encyclopedia proper. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if its more newspaper sources you need -- that really isn't a problem. They just aren't online any more (most newspapers delete their content after a few months). But I've saved lots of newspaper articles regarding the local film industry. I'm going to UCF to join the film school, but I just a sophomore still (not in the film school yet). I'd be happy to photocopy any of them and mail them to any of the editors. I've been collecting news clipping since 1998 when the Blair Witch Project came out. I've got a ton of stuff on local feature films like Blair Witch, Flora Plum, The Bros., Jurrassic Park III, Alone and Restless, Larry The Cable Guy: Health Inspector, Olive Juice, etc. I've also got articles for the TV shows: Carpocolypse, Sheena, From Earth to the Moon and the Pet Psychic. I know I've got at least 2 articles on Alone and Restless, I think I got one on Black Zone, too. I can Userfy if necessary -- but it would be a lot of work to Userfy all the submissions that are flagged. Which ones would I need to userfy and which ones already meet Wiki guidelines? As for the trivia section -- its almost all cut and pasted off of IMDb. The bio, I cut and pasted off the official site. Perhaps I should cut and paste the content to another Wiki article I've been working on Florida Film Industry. Suggestions????? DodgeM4S

I would like to point out that WP: VAIN states this: "an article about a little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, a member, or a manager, roadie, groupie, etc. Articles on very little-known subjects are often of debatable value for our readers, so if you write a new article on one it is particularly important to express the facts in a neutral way and as much as possible to cite sources that are credible, neutral, and independent." This policy does not expressly prohibit content on subjects that are considered little-known -- and how many "indie" filmmakers are considered well-known? I think his occupation puts him at a unfair disadvantage. But as per wiki guidelines, even if he is deemed little-known by an administrator that still does not prohibit the content of the above articles The articles are very credible, neutral and independent. ...and any passages to the contrary I would be happy to delete. DodgeM4S

I would also like to argue on the grounds WP: PORN BIO -- Why is it so much more difficult for an independent film maker to be considered relavent to Wikipedia than a porn star? Does a Porn Star need 3-4 third party newspaper interviews (since movie synopsis don't count) to be deemed notable and how many porn stars actually have been flagged for the lack of these newspaper articles? DodgeM4S

--DodgeM4S 21:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--DodgeM4S 21:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--DodgeM4S 07:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. law firms[edit]

A decision was recently made to delete List of law firms (see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law firms (2nd nomination)), and it seems that the logical next step is to consider for deletion each of the sub-lists that were created under that article, including this. Legis 07:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --CharlotteWebb 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest UK law firms[edit]

A decision was recently made to delete List of law firms (see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law firms (2nd nomination)), and it seems that the logical next step is to consider for deletion each of the sub-lists that were created under that article, including this one. Legis 08:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli law firms[edit]

A decision was recently made to delete List of law firms (see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law firms (2nd nomination)), and it seems that the logical next step is to consider for deletion each of the sub-lists that were created under that article, including this one. Legis 08:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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