< August 19	August 21 >

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

The result was Withdrawn. AfD template was removed, and this deletion discussion is dormant. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Construction (RuneScape)[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construction (RuneScape)/Archive1 for other AFD nomination.

Page is a game guide, non notable. Ed^{talk c E} 16:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want this page deleted or just redirected to RuneScape skills? Hyenaste ^(tell) 16:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if everyone wanted it deleted or redirected. See RuneScape's talk page, and go near the bottom. As you can see, there are others to be deleted.--Ed^{talk c E} 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Want to just withdraw this nomination and work with me for the next fifteen or so minutes on this article? We just have to get the useful information out of the article, put it in RuneScape skills, and make a redirect like in all the other individual skills articles. Hyenaste ^(tell) 16:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw this nomination--Ed^{talk c E} 17:18, 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 speedy delete by Wknight94.--Andeh 00:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetah Girls 3[edit]

This article is tall an claims and short on actual material. Which of course also makes it unverifiable. Blood red sandman 00:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; unsourced, unverifiable, OR, low content, etc. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:23, 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 Merged with Dalhousie Law School.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domus Legis Society[edit]

College social clubs are not inherently notable and this one has no particulalry notable features. Delete. BlueValour 00:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The fact that it is Canada's oldest law student social society makes it sufficiently notable, in my opinion. Aplomado ^talk 00:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If it were 1865 not 1965 I might agree with you. I would argue that the oldest of something not notable is still not notable unless there is a lot of history which there isn't here. BlueValour 00:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Hmm. I usually vote delete on single school clubs, but this basically the first social society for law students in Canada. Forty years history, complete references. Teke 01:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I missed that pesky one liner in there about operating without university administration, and I can't find evidence on their website of official administrative approval. That is necessary for legitimacy. Teke 01:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Social clubs shouldn't be kept unless they have a large mebership/ have done notable works/ mentioned in the media. --Ageo020 01:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Social clubs should not be as Wikipedia's article per Wikipedia policies. Daniel's page ☎ 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. --Daniel Olsen 02:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge not sufficiently noteworthy as a stand-alone article but could be a section in the Dalhousie Law School article. --PullUpYourSocks 03:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable social club. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 10:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Dalhousie Law School, as this, like all other student life facets, should be discussed where it can be most reasonably sought. The article itself looks well done enough, but not as a solo entry. Geogre 12:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Dalhousie Law School, as per Geogre. --Nishkid64 18:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Geogre. Jon Cates 02:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Two marginal articles will become one adequate article by combining the material. StuffOfInterest 19:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and perhaps reduce somewhat. Heimstern Läufer 04:15, 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 delete (no contest). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GAKwich[edit]

Was PRODed by me with, 'Non-notable sandwich. 2 Google hits.' PROD was removed by anonymous user. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 00:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, tagged as nonsense.--Andeh 00:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but I don't see how this meets the criteria for patent nonsense. Aplomado ^talk 00:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Dr. Knutson created this sandwich when he was a hungry college student with only the above ingredients in his refrigerator.--Andeh 00:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is that nonsense? The criteria reads thusly: "Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." While the sandwich is clearly non-notable, the article is still coherent. Aplomado ^talk 00:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional/hoaxish.--Andeh 01:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly that is not a critera for speedy deletion. --Edgelord 02:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Aplomado is right - while it's silly, it isn't patent nonsense by the WP definition. Yomangani^talk 01:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — 1) This sounds like advertising. 2) Is this sandwich well known? Probably not. 3) No references whatsoever - not even a company website. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 01:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, absolutely non-sense, and sounds like advertisement. Daniel's page ☎ 01:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; we need to add sandwiches to CSD A7. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not worthy of comment. --Dennette 03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, good thing I didn't invent a sandwich with just the ingredients in my college refrigerator. NawlinWiki 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as if there was really any other option. It's a sandwich, and not a notable one at that. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 10:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--schgooda 15:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not a notable sandwich. Google it and you get just 2 hits. --Nishkid64 18:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per neologism. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Faster the better. - Corporal Tunnel 21:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete muy rapido. will381796 21:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete this sandwich is tasty!!! This sounds like a good article.

Delete While I may agree on the potential tastiness of said sandwich, there is no WP:TASTY guideline we can apply here. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFT or WP:NEO It's not like a club sandwich or a caesar's salad, or even a BLT. Ohconfucius 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not something I made up in school. It's not my creation. It's a sandwich that is becoming quite popular, especially in Indiana. It's no different than a pb&J or a BLT or whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.136 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 21 August 2006

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ungai the eel[edit]

This page is the exact same as Unagi (Super Mario 64) except this one is a spelling error. guitarhero777777 00:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. guitarhero777777 01:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - housekeeping. Yomangani^talk 01:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete — Yup, it's already explained (in quite some detail) in the other article. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 01:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Per above. Daniel's page ☎ 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyNetSpot.org[edit]

Non-notable website. Previously deleted at AfD, subsequently re-created, de-speedied and de-prod'd. ~ PseudoSudo 01:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's grounds for Speedy G4, I'm tagging it as such Teke 01:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it has already been de-speedied after being speedied under g4, so don't do that (content is different so doesn't meet the criterion). Yomangani^talk 01:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aye, I just checked on that and reverted myself. Teke 01:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete — Does not meet WP:WEB - alexa.com ranking of 5,315,586th most popular website^[1] - definite non-notable. Kill it :) - GIen 02:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an ad. Aplomado ^talk 02:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - If ever, if ever an ad there was ... --Dennette 03:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Let this AfD run its course. If this AfD results in 'delete', then future recreations ought to be speedied. - Richardcavell 04:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If there were some non-Internet independently published references to this site, then maybe it could be saved. Until then, fails WP:CORP. -- MyWikiBiz 14:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Speedy Delete. It's already been deleted once, and this version is just as WP:SPAM as before. wikipediatrix 16:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above, especially Alexa ranking of over five million. --Czj 18:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, This fails WP:CORP Daniel's page ☎ 18:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails to satisfy WP:WEB, but unless it is the actual content from the previously deleted article, it does not satisfy WP:CSD.-- danntm ^T _C 19:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Corporal Tunnel 21:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jon Cates 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:WEB...enough said. StuffOfInterest 19:09, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhard Opitz[edit]

Total rewrite needed, therefore delete. Most of the page is an advert for an essay from an essay mill, in truly horrendous prose. Sample:

"Reinard Opitz was never invited to an academic position or convened as chair holder [...] a 51 year old German egg-head who had (in the sense of J.W. Goethe) attempted striving to solve one of the still undetected mysteries of social sciences named genesis and prevention of fascism."

• Commentary: Beware of pickpockets, tricksters, and academic swindlers, whether they may have got a Ph.D. or not, name themselves today Leibniz or Keks [[2]]], tomorrow Nietzsche or Bahlsen. Moreover, please, look at [[3]], [[4]], and tell me whether this man should be a representative of the en-wikipedia-community any longer, or not; su, ma.beauty1atgmx.net 80.136.127.41 22:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page

Wolfgang Abendroth

"Dr.iur. Wolfgang Abendroth (1906-1985) was in fact as a Marxist scholar a good red herring, and that's why there is no reason at all either to fish him when stylising him [...]"

for the same reason. They have a certain comedy value, though.

Leibniz 18:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The articles themselves are junk, but a look at the links inside seem to show that these were both authors of many many books. Someone who could read german would be able to better analyze them. No vote for now. --Daniel Olsen 02:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the notability of Wolfgang Abendroth is actually pretty obvious judging from his article on the German Wikipedia and the hits I get for his name in an online library catalogue (held professorial chairs at several German universities, finally at Marburg; there are at least two festschrifts dedicated to him, one of them proceedings from a symposium in his name). Opitz (and especially his two-volume work Faschismus und Neofaschismus from 1988) seems to be somewhat important in left-wing German historiography. Regardless of the quality of the current articles, I can't see how these would be less valuable as subjects of articles than the thousands of insignificant baseball and cricket players we have. up+l+and 07:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about the notability of Abendroth. From the article, however, I got the opposite impression. Leibniz 12:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Opitz as a fine social scientist and intellectual. But, rewrite the article, this should be done! -- €pa 19:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added a link to Reinhard Opitz in the German National Library Catalogue into the article. Dlyons493 Talk 11:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Total rewrite is fine by me. Dlyons493 Talk 18:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Total rewrite needed and therefore it should be "delete": The bulk of this article is a copyvio. The header was by one hand, it seems, and the body by another. The header struggles from non-native idiom, but the body is fairly useless as a recreation of the lead page/review of a book. The author deserves discussion, but the article is wretched. If anyone closes this as "no consensus" or "keep," I urge him or her to get in there and do some editing to at least remove the fishy chunk. Geogre 12:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio (now removed by User_talk:Dlyons493) concerns material attributed to Richard Albrecht, which I have nominated for vanity. Leibniz

• Keep: The Leibniz-spoors, Aug. 19, 2006, show a personal annihilation policy of Mr. Leibniz against these three entries: Wolfgang Abendroth, Richard Albrecht, and Reinhard Opitz - all of them German social scientist & left-wing scholars … M. Falke, Aug. 20, 2006 — Possible single purpose account: 80.136.97.247 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep and Rewrite. It is written in a decent amount on the German wikipedia, so we can definitely expand on the article in the English wikipedia. A total rewrite is needed for the article, and whoever's doing the rewrite should at least know a bit of German, as it seems like 90% of the 200,000+ Google hits on Reinhard Opitz that one could use for research are written in German or in other foreign languages. --Nishkid64 18:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Strip it back to a stub if needed, and then get some German speakers to help. Also, really needs a few incoming links. StuffOfInterest 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The German article on Abendroth looks fine, and could be the basis for a total rewrite. No fishing of Marxist scholar red herrings over there, thankfully. The one on Opitz is not that great, and does not establish his academic notability that well, though he seems to have a cult. Leibniz 20:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Often the afd process can be quite helpful in drawing attention to an inadequate article and motivating constructive people to work on improving the it. Sounds like this is the case here. GBYork 15:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So then, if we have some German speakers interested in dead Marxists, we can close. A problem that remains, though, is that not many people in WP are interested in dead Marxists (unlike baseball players and anime characters). What may happen is that the same crud that nobody here much likes gets reinserted by the same anons as before. Leibniz 11:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Abendroth. Keep Opitz If User:Dlyons493 feels able to rewrite, perhaps a look on these contributions might be useful: 1.1. Reinhard Opitz: Liberalismus - Faschismus - Integration; Edition in drei Bänden (Bd.1: Liberalismus - Integration, Bd.2: Faschismus; Bd.3: Die »Röhm-Affäre«). BdWi-Verlag, Marburg 2000, 1 450 pp.; 1.2. reviewed by Jean Cremet in: Jungle World 29. Maerz 2000 [[5]]; 2. Georg Biemann, Kinderbilder für einen Weggefährten: Zur Biographie des Publizisten and Politikwissenschaftlers Reinhard Opitz; in: Forum Wissenschaft, 1/1998, pp. 50-54 (a short biographical sketch); 3.1. Richard Albrecht, Reinhard Opitz´ These von der Bewußtseinsfalsifikation - 30 Jahre später; in: Topos. Internationale Beiträge zur dialektischen Theorie, Novembre 2005, No. 24, pp. 123-146; 3.2. the enlarged online-version, with English summary, is completely free of charge publ. by GRIN Verlag Munich, 2004 [[6]]; 3.3. the abridged version in: junge Welt, 26. Novembre 2004, pp. 10-11; 4.1. Richard Albrecht, „...denkt immer an den ´mittleren Funktionär´... Wolfgang Abendroth (2. Mai 1906 bis 15. September 1985); publ. by GRIN-Verlag Munich 2005, completely free of charge: [[7]]; 4.2. abridged printed version: Internationale wissenschaftliche Korrespondenz zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung (iwk), 4/2004, pp. 465-487; 4.3. second printed version: Wolfgang Abendroth für Einsteiger und Fortgeschrittene, ed. Friedrich-Martin Balzer. CD-Rom; 2nd, enlarged ed.; Bonn: Pahl-Rugenstein, 2006 [ISBN 3-89144-371-4]. Aug. 23, 2006, M. Eser

Keep Abendroth, an outstanding political scientist. He has been much more important than either Opitz or Albrecht, anyhow. -- €pa 19:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Abendroth was also respected by political opponents. His personal integrety is e. g. documented by beeing a member of the constitutional courts of the German states of Bremen (1949) and Hesse (1959-1963). It seems there is a rough consence on the notability of Abendroth and that the article should be improved on the basis of the German article. Therefore I would like to ask Leibniz to withdraw that the page is deleted. I have no account and sign with 4 tildes, which will be converted to my IP. 85.167.175.70 12:54, 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 13:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verity Keays[edit]

Individual does not appear to be notable outside of an 8th place finish on X-Factor. No other albums have been recorded no other Television appearances. I believe it Fails WP:BIO. DrunkenSmurf 01:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Acording to the History, there was more meat on this at one time, but now it's just a bare shell. 8th place in a field of 10? Not even worth mentioning. --Dennette 03:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 8th? Heh. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 10:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A G1 speedy and a reality show contestant. One assumes that the show already has her name mentioned? Toss in there "she sings" and you've about covered her. Geogre 12:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I was Googling her name and I came upon Answers.com profile of her which was taken from Wikipedia. Apparently, the article ([8]) was written in much more context there (I guess someone just deleted most of the article and left it at what it is right now). I don't know if she'll be any more famous than she was in 2004, but she does have an album out, and someone could write about that. I would have voted to delete had I not seen this Answers.com bio taken from Wikipedia. --Nishkid64 18:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something odd is going on there. My suspicion is that the original form (which got mirrored) was copyvio or something of the like, because it got chopped down (too much, I suppose) this month. No change in vote for me, as I still regard her as rather routine. Geogre 19:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here. That's the article that is on Answers.com. However, on May 20, 2006, 81.151.222.11 vandalized the page as seen here. After that, no one noticed that a lot of information had been removed from the article, and so it stayed as a very short article until DrunkenSmurf tagged it for Afd. --Nishkid64 20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Before attaching the Afd I made sure to check the history of the article to make sure it had not been vandalized. Previous versions of the article state she recorded some type of album before the show, but there is no source for that that I can find. The prior version of the article did not establish notability and neither does the current version IMO. DrunkenSmurf 02:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No allmusic.com entry, no indication of notable status. - Corporal Tunnel 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. will381796 21:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. 50 year old voice coach from Grimsby who performed on a TV competition. 1100 Ghits, mostly Xfactor related or wiki mirror sites. Ohconfucius 02:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 19:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. If her album(s) ever become successful we can write a new article. RFerreira 21:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per good research done above in checking out the sources of article changes as well as of notability. GBYork 15:17, 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 merge verifiable information with Beck -- Samir धर्म 05:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Banjo Story[edit]

(1st nomination) Despite it's fluffy language, this article is about a bootleg (unofficial) album. As far as I am concerned the article makes no great claim to notability for this bootleg; bootlegs are ten a penny and we generally choose not to document them. (Note, for example, the near-emptiness of Category:The Beatles bootlegs despite the existence of literally hundreds of Beatle bootlegs). Delete. kingboyk 12:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Beck, the links in the previous afd show that it's verifiable, but notable enough for a seperate article it is not. --Eivind^t@c 21:11, 12 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} 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Bootlegs don't chart, don't get tracked, don't get reviewed, can't be discussed encyclopedically on their own. The most famous bootlegs of all time were The Basement Tapes (later official) and Warsaw (by Joy Division, later officially released). When this is official, it will get references, and when it gets references, it will be possible for someone like us to discuss it. Geogre 12:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Geogre. wikipediatrix 16:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Eivind. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Eivind. Mike Christie (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per above. StuffOfInterest 19:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep same as Girlysound. ~ trialsanderrors 07:35, 27 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 13:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Me This[edit]

An unreleased album about which, the article itself and the external link provided both make clear, very little verifiable information is available. Delete. kingboyk 12:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without predudice. I am not a fan of album pages, but this article is about an unrelased album. Should this be released in the future, it would be notable as his last album.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:17, 12 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} 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: Even though I bought Frank Zappa's first three albums as soon as they were released back in the 1960s, this one never made it to the shelves, so it does not belong in the Wiki. --Dennette 03:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 10:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not official, so not reviewed or released, so not appropriate for a tertiary source. Geogre 12:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unofficial, little vertifitable informations. Daniel's page ☎ 18:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. --Nishkid64 20:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per no reliable sources. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A mention under the artist's article would be plenty. StuffOfInterest 19:18, 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 13:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hayze[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion, CSD-A7, but I'm not sure so it comes here instead. Anyone familiar enough with the band and/or WP:BAND to judge one against the other? ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BAND and has no significance or notability KnightLago 15:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Some information on Hayze ... Hayze supported the Stranglers (at 2004's Halesworth gig in the park in Suffolk UK) and The Seers (the new band from ex Oasis member Paul "Bonehead" Arthurs). Hayze also appeared on a TV spot on Anglia news in 2004 when they performed a live track. Hayze album appears on iTunes, HMV and Virgin download sites. Hayze are due to appear at the Edinburgh International Festival later this year 2006. Martin Rondell 15:56, 12 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} 01:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete despite the above comment from the article creator they still seem non-notable at the moment though that might soon change. BlueValour 02:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looking at WP:BAND, they don't quite make the cut. --Daniel Olsen 03:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: We cannot borrow against the future for an article. They might make it huge, and we will then want an article, but we can't now. Geogre 12:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete According to WP:BAND, they have not been featured in any multiple non-trivial published works in any reliable and reputable media. Moreover, the release of only one album is a maor concern here. Perhaps later. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BAND. *drew 03:36, 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 Merged with Cox Models.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cox gas engine toys[edit]

Pretty much invisible per the Google test, no evidence of sales numbers or anything else per WP:CORP, no sign of any reliable sources or significant third-party coverage Just zis Guy you know? 16:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you try "Cox" and ".049"? About 332,000 Google hits. Cox gas engine toys were on every storeshelf from Wal-Mart to K-Mart and of course in all hobby stores when I was a kid. I owned several model cars and airplanes that used engines as small as .010 and as large as .35. Mugaliens 17:49, 13 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} 01:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - At the time of writing there are over a hundred Cox 049s for sale on eBay so they seem perfectly collectable. Factual articles on historic collectable toys are entirely encyclopaedic. BlueValour 02:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the two comments above. --Daniel Olsen 03:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Cox Models same topic much more complete. Dimitrii 03:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect with Cox Models, as these are absolutely cultural touchstones for a large (physically, at least) segment of the population (look for the self-tinting glasses and walrus moustaches). Geogre 12:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge — with Cox Models as per above. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:08, 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 13:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borgen Project (2nd nomination)[edit]

• And right after doing some minor cleanup on this page and adding a fair use directive, I'm nominating this for deletion, mainly on the basis of its last VfD, which resulted in a consensus of delete as a non-notable think tank. It's been a year, though. Has anything changed since then? theProject 16:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a think tank, but a global campaign to bring political attention to poverty. The organization gets meetings with all of the top congressional offices see here http://bproject.wordpress.com/. They're also aligned with the United Nations Volunteer Program http://onlinevolunteering.org/groups/group_home.php?source=self&gp_id=7593.

• To address the concern of theProject, quite a bit has changed with the Borgen Project since last year. They've launched a massive public awareness campaign by distributing their PSA across the nation (currently 25 whole states). As the previous user noted, they also got meetings with over 40 key congressional offices in July of 2006. Again, it's not a think tank but a player in the process of increasing political attention on international poverty. Please also notice that Clint Borgen (President) is mentioned on the United Nations page and the Borgen Project is cited on the Millennium Goals page. Wikiusa 19:06, 16 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} 01:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article as it stands is entirely self-promotion. Gazpacho 06:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if no references from outside media can be found: We don't allow promotion/advertising even of worthy and non-partisan organizations unless there is some outside reference to the group's significance/effectiveness. If you ask not "how can I tell people about this organization" and ask, instead, "Who will want to know what this organization is because of curiosity," you get nearer to an article standard. Geogre 13:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Until multiple independent publications feel it worthy to write about it, it fails WP:CORP. -- MyWikiBiz 14:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. will381796 21:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gazpacho, Geogre, MyWikiBiz. GBYork 12:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it's a very noteable organisation, even if no-one else seems to. - Blood red sandman 13:15, 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 13:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Marshall[edit]

Non-notable actress, doesn't appear to come close to satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 16:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AgentPeppermint 23:48, 17 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} 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable. BlueValour 01:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - less notable than any of the characters she has portrayed. Dennette 03:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. - Richardcavell 04:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — For good. SynergeticMaggot 12:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not notable. --Nishkid64 18:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom. Angelbo 21:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above will381796 21:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Her profile is listed on Amber Marshall at IMDb. Moreover, the subject in question has a solid case of verifiablility. A search on google shows quite a number of websites asserting her importance. The article in question has the potential for expansion as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first Google link is "Teacher's Aide Allegedly Had Sexual Contact With Students", about a different woman with the same name (look at the picture!) ... there are many people listed on IMDb who are not noteable enough to be listed in Wikipedia, and most of those Google links are for Other People with the same name. Dennette 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Subject does not yet satisfy criteria per WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 02:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet notability requirements for Wikipedia. Transwikied to Film-Flam. dryguy 02:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 19:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. RFerreira 21:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep apears to be noteable enough, just a very short article that will need work done to it - that doesn't mean it doesn't have potential. - Blood red sandman 13:19, 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. Punkmorten 12:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airline Empires[edit]

Non notable browser game, fails WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Additional info: Alexa ranking is 114,928. Peephole 16:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — per nom. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Peephole 14:57, 14 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} 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — per nom. BlueValour 01:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Dont forget it fails WP:OR and reads like a game guide (WP:NOT). Cruft per nom. SynergeticMaggot 12:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia is neither GameFAQs nor Freshmeat.org, and reviews are disallowed anyway. This is in addition to the fact that the game is not mentioned in outside media. Geogre 13:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not notable, and fairs poorly according to WP:GOOGLE. --Nishkid64 20:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Angelbo 21:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable and reads like a game guide. Fairs poorly on WP:GOOGLE too. All these compelling cases point that this article should be deleted. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. StuffOfInterest 19:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom. --Cooper-42 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a page of helpful information for new players to the game. Its what made me the AE player I am today - Alex Stankevitch, CEO of Metroline Airways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.5.250.47 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17823 Bartels[edit]

There are 100s of thousands of asteroids (and this is not a notable one) and Wikipedia already has a perfectly good system for cataloguing them and adding encyclopaedic material. This one is here. The author can add the telescope bit and link to his website if required. A redirect is not correct because it is illogical to redirect a small number of them when there is a full index here. Delete BlueValour 01:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Delete per nom, unless more information is added, in which case my vote is Keep. --Daniel Olsen 03:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: Already listed in Meanings of asteroid names (17001-18000)#801 with other NN honorees. Dennette 03:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—If you look at List of asteroids you'll find that the standard format has slots for discussion of each and every asteroid including a name that is red linked. We've provided numerous red links that invite folks to add items like 17823 Bartels; perhaps our deletion shold should include discussion with members the community that created List of asteroids. Otherwise this is likely to be the beginning of such debates and decisions rather than the end. We can fix the asteriod entries one at a time, or agree on a principled approach for the general asteroid listing. Williamborg (Bill) 05:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Redundant, and useless. SynergeticMaggot 12:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as G1 even if we don't settle the issue of the lists: The "article" is a sentence fragment. One of the reasons that people will delete lists is that they indiscriminately promise article space to thousands of items that might be so unknown by the general world as to be impossible to write about. The secondary issue here is that the List of asteroids article links every single rock. That is a mistake...a huge mistake...but it is an editorial mistake. Geogre 13:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per Geogre. Besides, as one of my favorite quotes from WP:NOT says, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". wikipediatrix 16:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with user bluValor. Angelbo 21:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The "Meaning of asteroid names..." article can contain everything in this article. Should it later become The Hammer of God, then it will certainly deserve an article of its own. StuffOfInterest 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn rock. Carlossuarez46 18:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't see why anyone could ever have thought it necessary to create the article in the first place. -- Blood red sandman 12:33, 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Converium Holding AG[edit]

Non-notable corporation; fails WP:CORP. Valrith 17:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Noted reinsurer, listed on Swiss and New York stock exchanges Catchpole 18:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being listed on a stock exchange isn't a notability criterion. Being a component of a share price index (that doesn't simply cover the whole market) is. See WP:CORP. And to support your statement that this company has been "noted", please point to where it has been noted. Please cite sources to support that currently unsupported assertion. Neither you nor the article have cited any. Uncle G 12:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take your pick from the 35,000 pages on 'coverium holdings reinsurers' in google. They are rated by Standard and Poor's. Catchpole 12:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, "converium holdings reinsurers" returns 0 ghits. You can only get past 35,000 by leaving off the quotes altogether. `"converium holdings" +reinsurers` only returns 128 ghits. Valrith 13:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Counting Google hits is not research. One must actually read the pages that Google locates. If you find anything about this company beyond simple business directory listings and re-prints of corporate press releases, please cite it, as you've already been asked. Please demonstrate that the assertion that you made above is actually true. Uncle G 13:36, 20 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} 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Until the author(s) realize how to cite multiple, independent sources discussing the company, and to do it without violating copyright, this should be a delete. Marginally humorous remark expunged>. -- MyWikiBiz 14:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't you think it's inappropriate to advertise in AfD? JChap2007 16:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate to this discussion, that was a clearly blatant piece of advertising by MyWikiBiz and such I have blocked them for seven days whilst RfA process takes place. This is also related to earlier agreement that MyWikiBiz would not carry out this type of activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlisonW (talk • contribs)

• Keep The Google test works especially badly when you don't spell the name of the company right. "Converium Holding AG" (no "s") gets 66,100 hits. "Converium Holding" gets 78,000. It's a huge reinsurer that is widely covered in the financial press and so meets the "multiple articles" requirement of WP:CORP. I'm going to resist the urge toward argumentum ad Pokemon here. JChap2007 16:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, fairly obvious large global corporation. I've re-written the article to remove the terrible cut&paste corporate adcopy. It should pass most WP:CORP criteria; it is a member of several indexes; it has many, many mentions in independent articles. Take your pick - I've only added a handful as references in the article and noted the index componenet membership. Kuru ^talk 03:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They seem to meet WP:CORP. However I slapped a Cleanup tag on there since the article could use more work if kept. Lack of quality is not a reason to delete as far as I know. Vegaswikian 05:41, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copa Telehit[edit]

Non Notable, no information at all, seems like the user created the page for an internal championship sponsored by a TV Channel. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:40, 12 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} 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 03:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gimme a break ... not even dates?? Dennette 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: We are not Telehit, and so we needn't host their pages. Geogre 14:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Nishkid64 20:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above will381796 21:40, 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 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection (Michael Jackson album)[edit]

An orphan article full of speculation about an unreleased album. Seems to be an opinion piece/fancruft rather than a serious article. kingboyk 17:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no references, first 50 Google Hits for Michael Jackson Resurrection give nothing creditable, this is somewhere between WP:V & WP:NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitaphane (talk • contribs)

 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} 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with fire. I've never seen an article that contained the word "rumor" this many times. I think the only thing verifiable in the entire article is that there is, in fact, a singer named Michael Jackson. Fan-1967 02:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How did this go unnoticed for so long? Dennette 03:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mitaphane and Fan. Joe 04:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone. hateless 06:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. On Wikipedia, you need valid sources in articles. This is not some gossip column in People Magazine. (or whatever people read these days) --Nishkid64 21:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The words "crystal ball" come to mind. Molerat 17:10, 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)  16:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darais Kemp, Sweet Sweet[edit]

WP:MUSIC (artist and sole unreleased album) kingboyk 17:56, 12 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} 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the artist, Delete the unreleased album. Dennette 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, as the artist's page itself says that "Kemp's music is virtually unknown." -Elmer Clark 07:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: More specifically, the record didn't get a label release. The artist is known to file sharing traders, which puts the artist beyond the realm of mainstream commentary, and that means V and cite requirements can't be satisfied, so delete both. Geogre 14:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Artist and Delete the album. --Nishkid64 21:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Geogre, and I would note to those who vote Keep, that the closing admin will probably ignore your "votes" if you don't give us an explanation as to why you think the article should be kept. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Singer does not appear to meet WP:MUS. In any event, a brief mention on the BBC does not constitute "multiple non-trivial published works". Sweet, Sweet should also fall, NN non-issued album by NN artist. Ohconfucius 02:39, 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. Redirect is optional. - Mailer Diablo 13:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Want Fun[edit]

More unreleased-album fancruft. kingboyk 18:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Gracenote says it was released as a single in 2002. Looking at Gracenote, this musician has 21 CDs listed, but they mostly seem to contain the same fifteen or so songs in different combinations. So yet another unreleased packaging option isn't notable. --John Nagle 18:33, 12 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} 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete — does not meet WP:MUSIC/SONG nor even come close. Fancruft per nom - GIen 03:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then Rewrite - This article is completely unverified, but "We Want Fun" was the name of a single he released, it became the theme song for Jackass the movie. Even if WP:MUSIC/SONG was policy or guideline, the song would pass. --Daniel Olsen 04:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - This page has the information about the single. When this article is deleted, the page should be moved to We Want Fun. --Daniel Olsen 04:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect only to We Want Fun (Jackass the Movie Soundtrack) should do the trick. Geogre 14:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect — per Geogre Computerjoe's talk 18:40, 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)  16:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Targets and Utility[edit]

Original research essay, fails WP:OR. Google search of "Targets and Utility" brings up six completely unrelated links. --Wafulz 21:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The Woman Who Sold The World 16:53, 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, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rapid Delete: Gives original research a Bad Name ... cannot figure out how title relates to subject under discussion ... "utility" appears beaucoup times in nearly every paragraph, but "targets" only appears in the title! Dennette 04:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—This article apparently relates to utility theory in game theory. It is rather poorly written—it may not be original research—but probably deserves to be deleted based on clumsy writing. I'll not vote to delete for a couple of days in hope that someone literate in the topics can give us a more intelligent comment on whether a serious revision can save it, or whether it deserves to vanish. Williamborg (Bill) 05:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but tag it "verify" and "sources" Essentially agree with Bill. poorly elaborated article, unsourced and unclear as to its origins, but probably not OR (see article on utility and game theory. I suspect the author may not have had time to refine it before it has AfD slapped on it the same day. Ohconfucius 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left comment at User talk:Bordley requesting he get in touch so we figure out how to improve this article to avoid a delete. New editors should be saved when possible; and not discouraged. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 04:20, 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 no consensus. Uncle G makes an exceptional argument for this being a verifiable theory that is being presented almost as OR here. I will tag it for merger with evolutionary musicology -- Samir धर्म 05:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musilanguage[edit]

This is an article which has been around for a while, without ever being fixed up. The term was coined by one man, and the sources which refer to it all appear to mention it as being his term. Of the 100-odd unique Googles, Wikipedia is the leading resource on this subject. This has all the appearances of a one-man neologism, and in the time since I originally tagged it for cleanup it seems to have become less prevalent not more. Just zis Guy you know? 21:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The Woman Who Sold The World 16:52, 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, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This appears to be a non notable term, possible Hoax. doktorb _words^deeds 09:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is, as its first paragraph states, about "a theory that music and language have a common ancestor". The article had several references discussing and analysing the co-evolution of music and language from sources other than Steven Brown, including a detailed discussion in a second book by a different author, until JzG removed them immediately before nominating the article for deletion. The problem with the article is that it only currently includes material from the first source, not that the theory that it discusses is original research. Deletion is not the way to fix that, nor is removing from the article the sources that can be used to improve it. The objection to this article appears to be based solely upon its use of Steven Brown's word for the theory as its title, rather than upon reading the sources to see whether the co-evolution of language and music has been discussed by people other than Brown. That's a simple matter of article naming conventions. The way to fix the article is to round it out with the discussions from the other sources on the relationship between music and language, including the New Scientist article, not to delete it. Keep. Uncle G 12:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, if one looks at the references section of Chase's book, one will find that there's an awful lot of source material in the field of Biomusicology on the subject of the evolution of language and music. There are works by Bickerton, Cross, Dissanayake, Falk, Fernald, Geissmann, Hauser & McDermott, Huron, Miller, and Todd that all appear to have relevance to the subject. Uncle G 12:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the ones which were not reliable sources, and having found that what was left was not much I nominated it for deletion. There is no credible evidence of widespread currency of this term. Just zis Guy you know? 15:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you didn't. You removed two articles from New Scientist, some university degree course material, an article by Bob Fink, and a book.

        It may or may not be the most common name for an article about a theory of the co-evolution of music and language, but that is a simple matter of naming conventions, not deletion. To warrant deletion, it would have to be established either that this article is unverifiable or that such a theory has not progressed beyond its creators. The many works on this subject from several authors, both in the article and in the references section that I point to earlier, belie both of those. Uncle G 16:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        • I certainly don't want to pick a fight with you here. I am happy to concede that the concept may be significant, but the title gives undue weight to one man's name for it. What should it be called, and how widely is the theory accepted among subject experts? Just zis Guy you know? 23:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't think that you were trying to pick a fight. ☺ We're having a perfectly fine discussion about the provenances and depths of sources — the proper study of encyclopaedists. I've actually been thinking along the same lines as you appear to be. This article is clearly too narrowly focussed, including material from only one source. (One of my motivations for adding the other sources to the article in the first place was the hope that an editor would expand its scope.) But we don't need to delete it to fix that. A merger, along with The Origins of Music (another article that really is too narrow in scope to stand alone) into evolutionary musicology seems to be the best course of action. Uncle G 11:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sounds good to me. Just zis Guy you know? 17:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 1 hit on JSTOR, which contains 38 music journals. (The hit is a review of the book.) Zero hits on ScienceDirect, but since SD doesn't include music journal this isn't quite as telling. No evidence of widespread usage. ~ trialsanderrors 17:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet: The Novel[edit]

Non-notable book. Author keeps spamming it and himself all over Wikipedia. Speedy deletion was removed because this instance is not "substantially similar" to the deleted version (AfD here). An anon (presumably the author) removed the PROD tag without explanation. This book is published by vanity press AuthorHouse. amazon.com SalesRank of 253,537. 50 unique Google hits for "Michael Szymczyk" Toilet. Author's page has been deleted and protected. This is at least the third time this page has been created, consider protecting it against re-creation as well -Elmer Clark 02:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Is this what happens when someone's only childhood book was Everybody Poops? ;) NawlinWiki 03:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect. I think this is more a consequence of reading "You're a Naughty Child and That's Concentrated Evil Coming out the Back of You". Opabinia regalis 03:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect ... just like the with author. --Dennette 04:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Flush it into the Toilet Spam --Ageo020 06:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect it this time. This is getting ridiculous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom will381796 21:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect. Delete also Image:Toilet The Novel.jpg Ohconfucius 03:05, 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 Keep as the article has been cleaned up.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmette Public Library[edit]

• Delete: Non-notable public library. I haven't found any notability guidelines for libraries but, from searching on Google, this appears to be no different than any other public library. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep — It's not necessarily un-notable, but it would definitely need some expansion by the person who started the article. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 05:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Any institution that merely fulfills its institutional goals and does so in an ordinary way is one that is not noted in its field, is not "notable." This came from 1901, and there are thousands with Carnegie grants. Although the article is written well enough, the institution isn't of a high enough profile. Geogre 14:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A library is like a school - it can have a profound effect on thousands of people who pass through it. Disk space is cheap. Markb 16:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Not notable. We would have over 100,000 more articles if we made an article on every random library. --Nishkid64 21:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I agree that libraries are very important, and if this is the only library that serves that city, then I agree it should be included. However, if it is one branch of all the city's libraries, I do not think that if a library is just one branch out of several in a city that every branch should be included (see San Antonio Public Library). will381796 21:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: By this logic, should we also have an article for the post office of each town that has only one? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment That's a good point that you make. A post office is also very important to a community, and yet, not every one has an article. It seems to me as though its a bit of hypocrisy within the wikipedia community in that schools merely need to be verified as existing in order to get an article, while everything else has to be verified and notable. I do not think that being verifiable also confers notability, which is apparently what many people believe. I have a big problem with the inclusion of every school just as long as you can verify that it exists. I believe that schools should only be included if they are notable for some reason. See WP:SCHOOLS. But concensus among wikipedians and apparent precedent states that all schools are notable. While I strongly disagree with that, I alone cannot change wikipedian policy or guidelines. If all schools deserve an article, then at least the main library serving a city is important enough to deserve an article. And maybe even the post office serving the community... will381796 22:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SCHOOLS is not an accepted policy and schools are frequently deleted for being non-notable. JChap2007 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Typical suburban library. Nothing notable. JChap2007 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article contains no assertion of notability. That the community is currently making the wrong decisions and keeping school articles not worthy of inclusion is no reason to expand that to town halls, mayors, libraries, post offices, and all the other ordinary local institutions of daily life. GRBerry 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Architecturally notable building, citizens apparently willing to pass bond issues for any needed improvements or expansions, extremely high 94% of residents have library cards, per capita circulation is very high 23. They are a far above average library. This is the only library in the Village of Wilmette, and with its cultural programs it appears to be a vital part of the community. Edison 22:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep primarily per Edison, not to mention the fallcious statements made by JChap2007 are not helpful. Silensor 00:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Edison. Vegaswikian 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Edison, but strongly disagree with the all libraries are notable crowd, and particularly with Markb, by whose definition of notability every billboard advertisement would be notable so we could have Chivas Regal billboard on the corner of 3rd and Main and other similarly "notable" articles. Carlossuarez46 18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Well I'm glad this article was fleshed out but it's too bad it took an AFD to make it happen. It didn't sound any more notable than the corner bookstore when I first ran across it. Nice job fixing it up... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was created at 22:12 on Aug 19 and the AfD was 02:00 on Aug 20. Many articles start as a mere stub and get expanded by the original or other editors. The alternative is to create the article in a word processor, then import it "full grown," which sometimes makes readers suspect it is copied from some other (copyrighted) source if it reads too well and is too long when newborn. Edison 19:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edit in user-area sandbox areas and initiate pages full-grown all the time and have never been accused of copyvio. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:04, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timo Connor[edit]

Google search for Timo Connor or T Crew + Connor turn up nothing. The "links" to sources don't point where they claim to. Utterly non notable. Nscheffey^(T/C) 02:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As this is most likely a hoax. I have removed the links in question since they pointed to sites that had nothing to do with the article and were clearly put there just to make things look legit. DrunkenSmurf 03:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, claims of Conan O'Brien appearance and critical acclaim are unsourced, rest is nonnotable. NawlinWiki 03:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Try again after he's released an album, and it's been at least nominated for a Grammy -- Dennette 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above will381796 21:46, 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)  16:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kaplan[edit]

This person isn't particularly article worthy. The only reason he has an article now is that YTMND has latched onto him and made him a quasi fad. Until he does something noticeable/recognizable, I feel this page should be deleted. StvnLunsford 02:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• De-Lee-te so it can fly free tenaciously. Danny Lilithborne 02:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Jared Hunt August 20, 2006, 15:44 (UTC)
• Keep Google return thouthands links on him. Very notable. Nomination for deletion looks like POV to me. TestPilot 23:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you tell me what search terms you used? "Lee Kaplan" seems to mostly return other people. Also, throwing out spurious, conclusory allegations is most unwelcome.JChap2007 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I used "Lee Kaplan DAFKA" - Google return 22 000 hits. I actually did not tryed any other search. I belive there is not so many Lee Kaplan's associated with DAFKA. And 22000 is A LOT of web pages, way more than enough to say that guy notable enough to have article on him. TestPilot 14:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, throwing out spurious, conclusory allegations is most unwelcome. WHAAT??? I just saying that saying something like The only reason he has an article now is that YTMND has latched onto him is a POV. POV stand for "point of view". This is fact, not a "conclusory allegations".TestPilot 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I misread you. I thought you were accusing the nominator of bad faith. I probably need to brush up on WP:AGF myself! JChap2007 23:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as copyvio. [9] JChap2007 14:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lee Kaplan himself here, I think he might want to clarify that. At least he left msg on my page. TestPilot 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone clarify this? The article looks like a cut-and-paste from his FrontPageMag.com bio. Was this content in fact released under GFDL? JChap2007 23:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, calling us anti-Semites. I'll agree, I did let POV sneak into my deletion nomination, but I still haven't seen anything to make him truly

notable.StvnLunsford 15:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV and spite is never a reason to VFD something, for future reference. I've had to deal with such VFDs in the past, one of which was kept. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lee Kaplan's DAFKA is a commonly-cited reference in debates on the Middle East. In fact, Google shows that more than 12,000 Web sites contain the link dafka.org. Kaplan's other work has also been cited very frequently in debates on the Middle East. --Bill Levinson 16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm a YTMNDer myself and don't think he's notable even within the context of YTMND. If we want to talk about what YTMND fads are popular, and which we can merge with the YTMND article, we can. But this certainly isn't one of them. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:15, 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 redirect to Live action. Anyone who wants to tackle categorization is welcome to. -- Samir धर्म 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live Action Anime[edit]

Contested prod. The previous version was mostly a POV rant against live-action versions and general information about one forthcoming live actions movie. An anon tried to clean this up, but the article as it currently is can easily be converted into a category. Any information the article could contain should (theoreticallly) either be placed in Tokusatsu or Japanese television drama or Live action.--Kunzite 00:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Categorize and redirect to Live action per my reasons above. --Kunzite 00:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind deleteing and categorizing, but live action remakes of anime and manga isn't confined only to Japan, City Hunter and Initial D are examples of official live action remakes that are not Japanese. --ColourBurst 01:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I suggested Live action as the redirect point. --Kunzite 03:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, when I opened the article I wondered if it was a category I was looking at. --HResearcher 06:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Isn't anime, by definition animated? By your definition, the recent cinematic release of the Lord of the Rings should then be live action animation, since it was originally animated. --Xrblsnggt 02:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could be fixed by changing the name to something like live action adaptions of anime. --Edgelord 02:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(It's not my definition. --Kunzite 03:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to a better title or simply categorize per above. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve: The page seems consistent with the relevant list guidelines. It's not a page I would personally read, but I can't think of a policy or guideline against it, and it seems to fit in with the other anime lists. TheronJ 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Categorize - Wickning1 14:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve, if it hasn't been improved by end of August re-list for deletion. Daniel.Bryant 06:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Live action. There seems to be fairly little sense in having two articles on almost the entire same subject.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 08:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Categorize it is already a low tech version of a cat. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Categorize per comments above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:39, 18 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, TheFarix (Talk) 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment relist? It looks like there already is consensus. 132.205.93.88 04:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, but the AFD was already over 16 days old when I relisted it. Either the closing admins do not know exactly what the consensus is or they just overlooked it. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think this is a topic that is alright to be kept. There is a difference between live action anime and say live action comic book adaptations or live action cartoon movies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfezfilms (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 redirect. Petros471 16:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaguya Katemaro[edit]

A minor fictional character in, uh, something (Naruto?) Not clear exactly what this about. Google search in both English turns up little, not sure what the Japanese name would be. I will stay out of this discussion for now. Andrew Levine 16:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of characters in Naruto. Yes, he is from Naruto, but looks pretty minor. They have a section on him there but some of the info from this article could be moved there. Redirect per some guy below. Recury 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Dark Shikari. Don't ever remember any Kaguya other than Kimimaro Kaguya. Rather, redirect given Someguy0830's comments. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 19:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Source before Merge. I'm not sure how acurate the information on that page is, so it should be sourced first before a merge can take place. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Since Someguy0830 states that none of the information can be verified other then the character exists, Redirect to List of characters in Naruto. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, the only part of that page that is accurate is the fact that he's Kimimaro's father. The rest is just guessing or nonsense. For example, he died in a war with the Mist Village, not Haku's clan. He never exhibited any sign of that bone-growing ability. Etc, etc. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, in deference to Someguy0830's expertise. Andrew Levine 20:16, 11 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, TheFarix (Talk) 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Someguy0830. Danny Lilithborne 20:12, 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)  16:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of science fiction anime[edit]

Obsolete, entire list has been categorized into either Category:Science fiction anime or Category:Mecha anime. Deproded by Kappa with no reason given. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, allows users to look for alternate names and is better structured than the categories. Kappa 13:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Redirects should be used for alternate names so people can search using the built-in site search function. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, most things that have "list of" can be catgorized by category. This list is no different. It is a NPOV list so I see no problem with keeping it. Valoem ^talk 13:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, there was a lot of anime that are not Sci-fi, such as Haibane Renmei and Peacemaker Kurogane, or may contain minor Sci-fi elements, such as ToHeart. To put it bluntly, the list was never really sourced and even when I was categorizing the list based on Anime News Network's database, there were disputes about ANN's accuracy and whether it was a reliable source. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "entire list" is not in the catagory - I counted 12 red links. As with all lists, it could be improved to better take advantage of the list format, but that's another matter. LinaMishima 17:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Redlinks were moved to the centralized Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga as part of the categorization process. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - For a structured list we have List of anime. For redlinks we have List of anime and Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga. Since there are categories that duplicate the purpose of this list there is no need to have to maintain multiple> lists. Shiroi Hane 22:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, List of anime has been deleted (just a few days ago, in fact) and the various sub-categories of Category:Anime have taken over where the list left off. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, genre lists tend to fail behind easily and are more easily managed as categories. --SeizureDog 01:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Lists and categories are complementary, not mutually exclusive. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of anime & manga deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as much more manageable and likely to be used than List of anime. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Changed, see below.[reply]
• Delete as much less manageable than Category:Science fiction anime. What does this do that the category doesn't? Two things that I can see: hold redlinks (which are not supposed to be here, per the introduction), and contain cross-references for a handful of entries. I don't see that either justifies keeping a list that's even formatted to look like a category, largely duplicates a category, contains no additional information not present in the category for the vast majority of entries, and must be laboriously maintained, all the more so because the page's two-column design must be organised by hand. — Haeleth Talk 15:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Haeleth stole my answer and reformatted it in a way that makes perfect sense. --Kunzite 01:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lists are only justified if they add real value to a category - this doesn't. BlueValour 23:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I take that back. Delete per various arguments on this page (especially Haeleth's, above). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment The 'parent' list, List of anime, has actually been deleted now. Shiroi Hane 01:15, 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, TheFarix (Talk) 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I frequently see that "red link" argument in favor of keeping lists. But the red links could just as easily be added to the category page as a bulleted list, and they're already on the list of requested articles page. Anything that links to this list can then be redirected to the category. — RJH (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Haeleth's excellent argument. This is both redundant with the category and more difficult to maintain properly. Nandesuka 16:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Haeleth. ~ trialsanderrors 00:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 12:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Parent category deleted, and as pointed by Haeleth, there already is a category for such anime. No need for a redundant list. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 20:03, 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. Nandesuka 16:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of manga published in English by Tokyopop[edit]

Obsolete, entire list has been categorized into Category:Tokyopop. Deproded by Kappa with no reason given. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC) I've added the similarly categorized: List of manga published by VIZ Media that was also de-prodded to this AfD. (Same list, same topic, different company.) --Kunzite 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a plain, unstructured list does not render an annotated, structured list obsolete. Kappa 13:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list is neither annotated nor structured any differently from the category. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both lists are annotated, and the Viz list is currently well-structured. The other list previously had some structure [10], I think I'll go put it back. Kappa 23:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What on this list could not be represented by a category? I see nothing. --Kunzite 15:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - between List of manga and Category:Tokyopop this page is fairly redundant. Shiroi Hane 15:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note:List of manga published by VIZ Media added at this point. --Kunzite 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Red links are possible on a list, "entire list" is not on in the catagory as there are red links. This is an advantage of lists. The list could be improved to better take advantage of the list format, but that's another matter LinaMishima 17:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what this page is for: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga. Secondly-- are they all notable? Some of them are perhaps sequels or related works that are covered in main articles. Others may be name variations which are unlinked. --Kunzite 18:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You asked what on this list could not be represented by a category, "sequels and related works", and "name variations" are exactly the kind of thing lists do well and categories do badly. Kappa 18:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now, I remember where I've seen your name... You're the editor who de-prods everything. Lists do them just as badly. There was a redlink on the Anime list for Cyber City Oedo. The article was named Cyber City Oedo 808. Most name variations are not important--they'll come up in a search as name variations are supposed to be linked and require redirects to be made. Entries are often made to these lists with no research or searching of the wiki for prior articles what-so-ever. If there is something particularly in need of a variation, the redirect can be categorized. Anime is an extraordinarily well covered topic on Wikipedia--converting these vanilla lists in to categories is no detriment to the wikipedia. --Kunzite 19:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Surely making them less vanilla then would be far better than simply deleting them? The topic page system uses lists, and lists can feature a brief one-sentance description of a subject (whereas currently, catagories cannot - something to change?) LinaMishima 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • And? These are list of things publsihed by someone. Do we keep a list of book published by Random House? List of academic journals published by Elsevier? Notable anime and Notable names in anime which are two lists which serve thier purposes well. These two are nothing but list cruft. --Kunzite 22:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Many name variations are important because someone might know a title under only one of those names, eg. English/Japanese, or Tenchi Muyo vs No Need For Tenchi. Categorizing a redirect is an obscure trick and means that the the target will show up twice in the category. Kappa 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Redlinks were moved to the centralized Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga as part of the categorization process. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Valrith 17:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but comment, should the category simply be "Tokyopop"? I would feel more comfortable with something along the lines of "Works published (or maybe licensed) by Tokyopop" as the category.--SeizureDog 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional delete (changed vote). Between redlinks on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga and categories, these two lists are seem to be redundant. --GunnarRene 03:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ADV releases category was deleted, but we have Tokyopop and VIZ media categories. Why? Should these not be consistent with each other? My opinion here is Either released-by lists or categories, not both. --GunnarRene 14:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Look, we have plenty of lists like this. List of Square Enix games, List of ADV releases are just 2 examples. I categorized all the items on the list. The list itself it nowhere near complete, TOKOPOP has 404 print titles. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Request pages are TOOLS. Once an article is created, they are removed from the listing. Lists such as this are more permanent, well, listing of the subject. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, once an article is created, it is removed from the request page listing -- and automatically added to the category listing. Manually-maintained lists of articles are thus redundant. — Haeleth Talk 15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ADV releases should be removed and categorized. And they would be categorized into the various sub categories.. Including publisher. Why do we need a list of books published by a company? What purpose does it serve? It's having lists for the point of having lists. --Kunzite 19:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of anime & manga deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant to a category. — Haeleth Talk 15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant to a category. BlueValour 23:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per various discussions above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This category would have never been populated without a list like this (that's exactly what happened by the way). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the list served its purpose and now must move on to a higher existence. Wikipedia is constantly changing, and articles that were useful once are superceded by other articles, categories, and so on. This isn't the first article to have this happen, and it likely won't be the last. As for whether or not a Tokyopop category could have been populated without this list, that's just absurd. Plenty of categories haave been populated without a list existing beforehand. Certainly, the list made it easier to populate the category, but that doesn't mean it would have been impossible to do so without the list. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not entirely. I went through Category:Manhwa and added Tokyopop to the correct entries. There are also other ways to get the list of items by a certain publisher: OCLC amazon.com or the publisher's website. --Kunzite 23:37, 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, TheFarix (Talk) 02:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete surprised to see this much discussion for something that's obviously redundant listcruft. Opabinia regalis 04:36, 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 13:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of clubs in Buenos Aires[edit]

This is an indiscriminate list mixing clubs of various types, not saying what type of club they are or adding annotations. The exisiting categories by topic do a better job. This list has been around for over a year so if anyone was going to give it TLC they would have by now. It is simply pointless. Delete. BlueValour 02:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Alias Flood 03:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Resolute 05:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Brat32 08:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alias Flood. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:04, 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 13:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3Kingdoms[edit]

A non-notable MUD that fails WP:WEB with no outside sources and an Alexa ranking in the 1 millions. Crystallina 02:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Valrith 04:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 08:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per nom. SynergeticMaggot 12:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nothing else to be said, it's simply not notable. RandyWang (^chat/_patch) 14:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Angelbo 21:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom.--Peephole 13:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Percy Snoodle 12:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cooper-42 00:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' per nom - Blood red sandman 12:48, 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 13:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alldaydrive[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Every one of their albums is self-released and the only links given are their site and their Myspace. Crystallina 02:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nonnotable band, 56 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 03:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC as non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per nom and above. SynergeticMaggot 12:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom. Angelbo 21:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. 1ne 21:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Michael Hays 17:05, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Day[edit]

Unnotable political candidate in Toronto municipal election. Never been elected nor held office. Nothing otherwise to distinguish this person. Doesn't meet criteria for WP:BIO. Delete. Suttungr 03:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Green Party candidate for municipal council, nonnotable unless/until he wins. NawlinWiki 03:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Unelected candidates for municipal office are not notable. Wikipedia doesn't even really have universal agreement that elected city councillors are notable enough (although councillors in major metropolitan cities like Toronto generally have cleared the bar in AFD precedent.) So...delete for now; he can come back if he wins. Bearcat 04:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat. Joe 04:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 11:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above will381796 21:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Bearcat. Skeezix1000 20:06, 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. Dakota 03:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gugo Veles[edit]

Non-notable writer. Only claim of notability is a book published by Booksurge, a vanity press. 133 Google hits (52 unique) for "Gugo Veles." His book has an amazon.com SalesRank of 1,547,068. -Elmer Clark 03:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sounds interesting, but has only one self-published book for now. Dlyons493 Talk 11:24, 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 13:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dead ReBoot characters[edit]

Non-notable. I'm a fan of the show, but this list is ridiculous. Virogtheconq 03:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I am also a fan, but just merge this information as footnotes in List of ReBoot characters. --Dennette 04:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article, and merge any relevent info into List of ReBoot characters. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete List of colours of socks worn by Buffy the Vampire Slayer. --IslaySolomon 12:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 20:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Dennette's suggestion sounds good. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 03:34, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Bastian[edit]

Non-notable author. His five books (only indications of notability) are all published by vanity presses Booksurge and PublishAmerica. Their amazon.com SalesRanks are 2,073,833; 2,604,926; 3,236,665; 2,191,489; and one is unranked. 406 Google hits (212 unique) for "Josef Bastian," many are not relevant. -Elmer Clark 03:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the redirect:

• Josef bastian -Elmer Clark 03:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• You have do that next door at WP:RFD. I'll take care of it. Daniel Case 04:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Shamelessly sloppy self-promotion ... not even a birth date and location! --Dennette 04:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN author. Resolute 05:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-traditional publishing! Dlyons493 Talk 11:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.Victoriagirl 18:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity. Leibniz 18:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. NN author, also challenged per WP:NPOV and WP:AUTO (author is Jbastian67). Ohconfucius 03:13, 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 13:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tower Demon Claw (book)[edit]

Non-notable book, published by vanity press Booksurge. Does not have an amazon.com SalesRank. 13 Google hits (5 unique) for "The Tower Demon Claw" "Pete Macias." -Elmer Clark 03:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity. Leibniz 18:08, 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 13:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Wasik[edit]

Non-notable author. His only claim to fame is publication by Poetry.com, a vanity press. Nothing by him is listed on amazon.com, and "Gareth Wasik" produces only Wikipedia and one other irrelevant Google hit. -Elmer Clark 03:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. When you're citing Jeffrey Archer in support of your literary merit, you're not notable. Daniel Case 04:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverifiable (hoax ?) Dlyons493 Talk 11:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Victoriagirl 17:54, 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 both. Xoloz 16:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Growing Up In Tier 3000[edit]

"Obscure novel" per article, by unknown author, Amazon sales rating below 2.2 million. NawlinWiki 03:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Adding to this AFD author Felix C. Gotschalk, who apparently only ever published this one novel, and had about three stories anthologized in the 1970s.[11]. 99 unique Ghits for "Felix C. Gotschalk". NawlinWiki 03:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. The book has no assertion of notability, other than it tried to copy the stlye of A Clockwork Orange. Felix C. Gotschalk fails WP:BIO. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete book as per nom. Unecided re its author. Dlyons493 Talk 11:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a claim of 23 novellas at [12] - a small number of these seem verifiable via Google. If he were actually the author of a book, and many short stories as well, then that would seem enough to keep him - verifiability is an issue though. But I don't see his single book as intrinsically notable enough to keep it. Dlyons493 Talk 18:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Not sure about this one but the arguments given here are way too weak to convince me. 99 unique Ghits strikes me as not so bad for an author who wrote in the 1970s. Similarly, the Amazon rank is of course extremely low since it relates to current sales (which are naturally horribly low for a 30 year old sci-fi book). The fact that the author's short stories are indeed part of anthologies sounds to me like an indication of (arguably limited) notoriety. 82.231.209.148 18:10, 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. Dakota 04:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pocket and the pendant[edit]

Non-notable book published by vanity press Lulu.com. amazon.com SalesRank of 448,514. "the pocket and the pendant" "mark jeffrey" produces 14,700 hits, but only 199 are unique. Elmer Clark 03:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:31, 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 13:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobifusion[edit]

WP:CORP; adspamcruftvertisment Rklawton 03:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CORP. Accurizer 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT a corporate directory. Daniel Case 04:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wiki has better articles about companies that no longer exist, like my former employer, Computervision. (WTF is a "mobile content redistribution business" anyway?) Dennette 04:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmmm. Well, it's content that must be mobile, and that is redistributed. My guess is that it is a second-hand car dealership. ☺ Uncle G 13:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete self-promotion that fails WP:CORP.--Jersey Devil 06:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:VSCA. Fails WP:CORP. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Non notable corp ans no notability asserted. Fails WP:CORP. Company formed in 2005 which "received funding in February of 2006 from a few investors in the US and in India". So what??? A company which does not receive sufficient funding is a non-starter by definition. WP:NOT a webspace host. Ohconfucius 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sadly, neither corp nor notability are grounds for a speedy. Trust me, I would have tagged it as such had this not been the case. Rklawton 03:53, 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 13:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherie Priest[edit]

Non-notable author. Only claim to notability is the book (apparently based on a blog) "Four and Twenty Blackbirds," which has an amazon.com SalesRank of 292,540. Claims to have been shortlisted for a prize for books based on blogs, but the competition was sponsored by vanity press Lulu.com, and blog-based books aren't exactly a big enough genre (in my opinion) that being recognized within it means terribly much. "cherie priest" "four and twenty blackbirds" produces 268 unique Google hits. -Elmer Clark 03:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice. Where are all these vanity books and authors coming from all of a sudden? Daniel Case 04:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment They're easily found just by looking at "what links here" for the various presses listed at vanity press. If only finding non-notable bands was so easy... :\ -Elmer Clark 04:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per nom. SynergeticMaggot 12:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.Victoriagirl 17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep FOUR AND TWENTY BLACKBIRDS is published by Tor Books, which is not a vanity press. The author has two more books in the series forthcoming from Tor as well as inclusion in anthologies and forthcoming work from publishers such as Subterranean Press. FOUR AND TWENTY BLACKBIRDS was not "based on" a blog; rather, the author used a blog as a working tool in its composition. The author is a known and up-and-coming presence in the speculative fiction field. elizabethgenco 06:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Dvorkin[edit]

Sounds like a nice lady, but basically, she's a local librarian. Speedy tag removed by author w/o explanation. NawlinWiki 03:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Adding article by same author on Ms. Dvorkin's husband Daniel Dvorkin, a dermatologist who also appears nonnotable. I'm concerned that this user seems to be creating articles about all her friends. NawlinWiki 04:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is not a good idea - See my "Strong Keep" below. Daniel is completely different from Brenda and I think they need to be dealt with seperately. MxM Peace 04:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think this can be speedied, there are numerous attempts in the article to claim notability, but being a librarian isn't enough. Doesn't meet WP:WEB, violates WP:NOT. --Xyzzyplugh 04:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vanity. Gazpacho 06:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete extremely silly article topic (a local librarian!!) only claim-to-fame is a "librarian of the year" award shared with 30+ other people. Utterly absurd and completely unenyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not at all encyclopedic, fails WP:BIO. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 20:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nom. Angelbo 21:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.Brian 19:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

• Delete both, per nom and The Halo points on WP:BIO and notability. - David Oberst 07:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep on "Daniel Dvorkin" has a Google hit of 22,600; has book written by him and his father David Dvorkin author of Star Trek. So I think we MUST keep Daniel Dvorkin and also add David Dvorkin. I think the Brenda and Daniel Dvorkin link must be broken because they are completely different cases. By the way David gives a Google hit of 13,400. So it shows that Daniel has a better web presence. WP:BIO quotes inclusion for: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" MxM Peace 04:20, 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 14:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Gordon-Rae[edit]

non-notable author. Only claim of notability is a book published by vanity press Lulu.com, which does not have a SalesRank on amazon.com. 19 unique Google hits for "Alistair Gordon-Rae." -Elmer Clark 03:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. That picture says it all about how seriously we should take this page. Daniel Case 04:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vanity press author. - Richardcavell 04:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per WP:VAIN. SynergeticMaggot 12:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Victoriagirl 18:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom. Angelbo 21:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have to agree. I did tell a1octopus that I didn't feel I warranted a wikipedia page on the basis of my current renown. I must say that I disagree that Lulu is a vanity press as I have thus far made a small profit from publishing my book there, but that is not an argument to be played out here. By all means remove the page. AlistairGordonRae 22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - I think that perhaps my friendship with the subject of this article clouded my judgement in creating it. On the basis of what he's written (above) I will not therefore defend it. Having said that I would ask that it is removed sooner rather than later so that his name does not appear on the same web page (this one) as "vanity press author" for any period of time as this is borderline libelous to both him and Lulu.com A1octopus 01:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, this page will remain as an archive forever. However, Lulu.com is also listed at vanity press. If this is libelous, then that's certainly a bigger deal. However, they do indeed appear to fulfill the critera for being a vanity press. -Elmer Clark 09:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what Alistair explained to me, Lulu.com is capbale of being used as a vanity press but (being expensive for bulk orders) they coudln't possibly be making the majority of their profits in that manner. They should therefore be considered a self-publisher. (a1Octopus - sorry didn't realise I wasn't logged in).

Comment Vanity presses and self-publishers are essentially the same thing. -Elmer Clark 21:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's definitely a view that could be argued over at length - but this is not the correct environment. A1octopus 22:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator and the creator of the original article. Yamaguchi先生 00:53, 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.