< July 28 July 30 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete all individual books, and redirect them to the series. Grandmasterka 03:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Idiot's Guide... books[edit]

All of these are books in the "Complete Idiot's Guide to" series (like "Windows for Dummies"). Though they are good books, obviously none of them are in the caliber of From Beirut to Jerusalem and don't deserve articles on wikipedia. There is already an article on the series generally at The Complete Idiot's Guide to....

--Chaser T 00:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional entries added by TenOfAllTrades:

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also utterly pointless for Wikipedia to have any business keeping track of book editions. Sheesh. --Dhartung | Talk 01:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all except edition-specific. Merge editions into a single article for each title. Create a category to make it easy for readers to find the books. Fg2 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are the non-edition-specific ones really notable enough by themselves to justify having articles, though? Currently they're just a couple of sentences explaining what the book is about - which the title of the article tends to be able to do adequately. BigHaz 02:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Grandmasterka 03:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tarrant[edit]

Candidate for the Republican nomination for US Senator from Vermont. Prod was removed to the talk page with the comment "I removed the proposal to delete the Article on Richard Tarrant. The delete proposal is most likely a "HACK"." I don't know the meaning of the word "hack" in that context so I don't know how to respond. Anyway, four reaons were offered for why the article should be kept. My comments appear in parentheses:

#"Richard founded one of Vermonts most important companies." (see third point for reason why this isn't all that impressive) #"Richard is running for US Senante in 2006." (Candidates aren't notable in and of themselves per WP:BIO #"Richard's campagin is one of the leading advertisers in Vermont." (Maybe the article should be merged to Advertising in Vermont?)#"Richard was involved in Vermont's largest accounting scandal." (He testified and wrote an op-ed piece about it. The article does not claim he was charged.) JChap (talk • contribs) 00:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 21:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe galambos[edit]

Not notable auto-biography of a musician Jmatt1122 00:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Yanksox 07:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getbroadband.ie[edit]

Not Notable. Attic Owl 00:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 03:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Zest Solutions[edit]

Non notable company with non noticeable products. There is no mention of the company in indian media. Ageo020 00:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 03:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TatvaSoft[edit]

Another non notable software company with NN products. Just has 30 employees. No mention of the company in Indian media.Reads like an ad 'safest player in business outsourcing' Ageo020 00:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete its only shred of "viral" spreading through the internet. Grandmasterka 04:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Hats Only Productions[edit]

prod removed. Not seeing any notability - claims to have shown locally, and be "viral" throughout the internet, but google and yahoo yield 0 hits for the name. (note that removing "productions", of course, yields something else entirely). As far as I can find, their films are only around on youtube. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was: I have speedily deleted this page. It was an empty page. A CSD tag was removed four days ago and replaced with ((hangon)), but despite the promise to write "an explanation of the grounds for contesting the speedy deletion", neither such an explanation nor any attempt to add even a word's worth of content has been made in these last 4 days. The title appears to indicate this German film, but in a quick search I was unable to find any sources that may be used to write an article of encyclopedic value. Should the page's creator (or anyone else) be able to do so, they are welcome to try. In the meantime, however, the encyclopedia is under no obligation to hold non-encyclopedic article pages. —Encephalon 04:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Peters (film)[edit]

No content in original; was flagged for speedy deleting, then speedy tag was removed but no content was added... Valrith 01:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 04:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 2006 Hawaiian Earthquake[edit]

Approximately six thousand earthquakes of this magnitude occur each year (~ sixteen per day). The author indicates that the source states most earthquakes near Hawaii occur near the Big Hawaii Island instead of Oahu, but that alone shouldn't make the quake worthy of its own article. With no damage and no injuries resulting from this earthquake, it's not significantly more notable than other quakes. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If you wish to preserve the POV in amber somewhere, I'll copy that part of the text for you. Grandmasterka 04:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ricci[edit]

Vanity. Started and mostly written by Bob Ricci. Fails WP:MUSIC, I think. This might be the second nomination. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 01:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Whether or not we all agree with their inclusion, there are a significant number of TV-episode articles on Wikipedia. The consensus of the community, thus far, has been to include Family Guy related articles. alphaChimp laudare 00:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Has a Shadow[edit]

Cruft. Is entirely original research (no refrences or links). The opening paragraph is mostly made up of incomplete sentences. Among other things, which I will add as the AFD goes along. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, where is the policy saying this must stay? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 02:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Baranov[edit]

Obscure biographical stub - no other page references this one, and the details provided are scant, uncertain and unsourced. Either someone can make it relevant to other pages on Wikipedia, or make it valuable as an article that stands by itself, otherwise I think it is a good candidate to be deleted. Moonshiner 01:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 05:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Grass Don't Grow On White Snow[edit]

poetry book written last year by redlinked poet. Ingvaldsen+"Green grass" gives six non wiki google hits none of them about this book. only things linking here are two redirects with different capitalisations - otherwise an orphan. delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted by UninvitedCompany through WP:OTRS, author request. SynergeticMaggot 00:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)br>[reply]


Gallery North Carmel[edit]

Vanity/advertisement article of a questionably notable art gallery with detailed bios for every featured artist (whom are also questionably notable). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. These can easily be mentioned in the main article, if notable enough, or in individual articles per SliceNYC, if you wish to recreate this info. Grandmasterka 05:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Daytona 500 broadcasters[edit]

Carcruft. As neato as the tabled charts are, this list would be just as easily served by a category. In fact, there is already a Category for Motorsport announcers.Crabapplecove 02:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indianapolis 500 winning numbers[edit]

While I appreciate the great effort of original research someone went to in compiling this indiscriminate list of numbers, is it notable to anyone but the numerologically obsessed? And how do we know any of it is true without sources? Crabapplecove 02:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of automobile model nameplates with a discontiguous timeline[edit]

Carcruft. Does not establish notability of subject or reason for existence. Crabapplecove 02:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No Guru 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2008 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament and 2009 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament[edit]

I do not see how a sporting event to be held two years into the future deserves a page. The ((future sport)) template is all very well, but this is ridiculous. ViridaeTalk 02:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is not true. We have many, many articles on future events. This is entirely appropriate and WP:Not even states: Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. --JJay 18:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but it's wrong to say that. An article on a future event like the 2008 election should and could only be about current campaigning for it (which is in-the-news and therefore not appropriate) or a line saying, "We in the US plan to have one" (which is empty). Otherwise, we ask authors to decide for themselves the difference between sure-things and possibles, and the youngster can swear that a mention on aint-it-cool-news.com of a Rug Rats IV movie is sufficient for a full article. Geogre 20:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was merely pointing out that we have hundreds if not thousands of articles on the issues surrounding future events. The topic is authorized by policy. You are certainly entitled to want to delete these articles. But your original statement regarding "predictions" was misleading. --JJay 20:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't trying to pick a fight, and I'm sorry if I seemed belligerant. I won't make appeals to "I remember when we used to delete all these things" or anything like that, and I do bow to precedent when it's strong enough, but I think this one was wrongheaded. We can't blame authors for violating the crystal ball stricture when we allow so many things like this. I'm more absolutist than others, I suppose, but I'm just one "vote." Geogre 01:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having the venues set is not a prediction. It is verifiable fact. --DarkAudit 01:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOt to be picky, but it is still a prediction. It amounts to an agreement, and it is very likely to be honored, but there were events scheduled for spring of 2006 in the Superdome, too. Geogre 01:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that argument, the entire notion of 'future sporting events' should be null and void as crystalballism. The Giants have an agreement to play the Pirates tomorrow afternoon, but who's to say what may happen in the intervening hours beforehand? --DarkAudit 03:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. alphaChimp laudare 01:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2008 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament[edit]

I do not see how a sporting event to be held two years into the future deserves a page. The ((future sport)) template is all very well, but this is ridiculous. ViridaeTalk 02:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2009 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament[edit]

I do not see how a sporting event to be held three years into the future deserves a page. The ((future sport)) template is all very well, but this is ridiculous. They have even copied the first line (at least) from the 2008 article including the same dates! ViridaeTalk 02:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shogyo[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article will not expand past its current length, and use of the word "vocational high school" would be much better than using a foreign language term. Belongs in a J-E dictionary, not an English encyclopaedia. Bueller 007 02:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.. The Japanese article is on ja.wikipedia.org. It's not plausable to rename/redirect. --Kunzite 22:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Before you start to sharpen your knives, I will explain: the only valid deletion reason I see here in WP:NOR and on that there is no consensus. I find that the information is mostly verifiable if not now verified. As such, the lists are not beyond salvage, and any POV could be cured with effort. Overall, I find that WP is better off having this than having nothing at all. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of automobile model and marque oddities[edit]

This is actually several different lists masquerading as one, bundled under a POV title: there's actually really nothing "odd" about most of the vehicles listed here, nor is there anything really odd about the section concepts, like the fact that some cars are not produced for the open retail market. Crabapplecove 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is all well and good, but not a reason to keep this specific collection of "interesting facts" by itself. I freely admit to knowing almost precisely nothing about cars, but would it be worthwhile to move the interesting facts to articles on the relevant cars or their manufacturers? BigHaz 13:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a specific reason to delete; it breaches WP policy. This is policy and not a guideline. It is a fundamental principle on which this encyclopeadia is being built. On AfD we are expected to uphold WP policies or there is no point in having them. BlueValour 22:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it is kept any editor may delete most of the content anyway as OR. BlueValour 22:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. BlueValour 22:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, it can. The multi-marque models, unrelated models and identical models in the same market can be verified by the various yearly Automobil Revue Katalogs (published by Swiss publication Automobil Revue and distributed at the Geneva Auto Show, as well as through the Auto Motor und Sport annuals, Global Auto Index and Histomobile. The racing homologation specials require more digging to find the articles published in various automotive publications throughout Europe and the information therein regarding limited production models and the entry of those models in international motorsport competitions, as well as older FIA yearbooks where regulations mention the minimum number of cars required for granting them homologation. --Pc13 07:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree, the information is 100% verifiable, though there are always some doubts as to the completeness of the lists. The valid reason for deletion is WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Bravada, talk - 07:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the info can be salvaged in the respective articles. The homologation specials list can be moved to Homologation. I've moved the homologation list to my personal page's subpage. --Pc13 10:35, 4 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 a verifiable future event. Turnstep 06:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2010 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament[edit]

I do not see how a sporting event to be held four years into the future deserves a page. The ((future sport)) template is all very well, but this is ridiculous. ViridaeTalk 02:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep as valid future sporting event with verifiable information. Turnstep 06:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2011 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament[edit]

I do not see how a sporting event to be held five years into the future deserves a page. The ((future sport)) template is all very well, but this is ridiculous. ViridaeTalk 02:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep the cleaned up version, as it addresses the earlier concerns. Turnstep 06:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential third party candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election[edit]

Even without invoking the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this article is nothing but unsourced speculation, opinions, POV and OR, and at this early stage, that's all it really can ever be. Delete until there's actually something to report here. Crabapplecove 02:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as speculation. Ace of Sevens 14:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which I just did. The page is now Third party primary candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election, and lists only those people with actual campaign pages. A small paragraph detailing a bit of speculation is still there, but can be removed.SargeAbernathy 17:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also added "these people are actively" in the first paragraph to disassociate the page from crystalball predictions. These are current campaigns, not rumored ones. SargeAbernathy 17:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This argument has been used before, that it's POV or "unfair" to only cover the parties and candidates that are well-known, but let's face it: Wikipedia is not the League of Women Voters candidate guide, and does not exist to publicize or promote unknown parties and candidates. Of the five parties listed, most people have only even heard of two, and very few have heard of the candidates even for those two. The independent candidates are even more obscure. This looks to me like a list of non-notable people, in addition to the crystalballism of guessing whether they'll matter at all. Fan-1967 13:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for that. I should have asked for consensus. However, I feel that "potential" alludes to much to rumor and specualtion and that a clear definition about what the article is and what is going on NOW is needed for the title. If people want to change it back, go ahead. It should have been discussed, but since no one was acting on editing it ... I went after it. SargeAbernathy 01:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I restored it to its original location - pending the end of the AfD and a concensus on the name/location of this article AND its companion articles: Potential Republican candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election and Potential Democratic candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. --Tim4christ17 11:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the POV? I don't see any opinions being expressed, only facts. Though they could use a little more sourcing... --Tim4christ17 19:53, 3 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. alphaChimp laudare 05:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agnostic Theism[edit]

This is a neologism and is subsequently a logical fallicy. Agnostics take no position on religion. it is not cited Somerset219 02:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the old days, many believed that the world was flat, despite the fact that they didn't know it for sure. Hence, the page Flat Earth. The point it, while it's logical fallacy, it's a belief and logical fallacy itselt is not a reason fro deletion. __earth (Talk) 06:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You need knowledge of the concept of God, which is entirely different to knowledge that God exists. I know about concepts such as God and unicorns, but I don't know that they exist. I might still believe in them, anyway. Also, you are confusing different meanings of "Agnostic" - the sort who withholds belief is only one meaning of the term. Mdwh 11:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment please see belief; if you believe in something then you know it's true. If you don't know they exsist, then you don't believe in them. You are making a state of doubt, then stating that it's a positive assertion; that makes no sense. Somerset219 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's your POV. Many people disagree. Many people have beliefs about things, even though they do not know it is true. Mdwh 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - agreed; for purposes of this AfD, the focus should be on whether or not the term exists, and it seems that it does so verifiably. Debate over any possible inherent fallacies in the term and its use should be saved for philosophy forums. If anything, more sources could be added, but I'd guess that some philosophy-oriented Wikipedians will have a pretty easy time coming up with some print sources. . Also see this Google Book search[10] which has T. H. Huxley attributing the term to first-century Jewish philosopher Philo. -- H·G (words/works) 05:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - George H. Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God, this book is used as a criticism against the term, he actually states the term does not make sense. Somerset219 21:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment please define agnostic theist on google. all articles of agnostic theist are from blogs and Wikipedia's own sources. This term is used as an accurate philisophical term, and it's not. If its a religion or pop culture thing than it should be defined that way. Somerset219 21:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, google scholar gives 8 hits for this term, including one from the Journal of Religion. If academia has accepted this concept then who are we to question it? Btyner 22:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Peer Group[edit]

Seems to fail WP:BAND. The article admits they only ever released one song. Quite happy to be corrected on this though. ViridaeTalk 03:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick cameron[edit]

County judges are below the notability bar. Fails Geogre's law. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Sir, I respectfully request that the word Kuatagh will not be deleted. It's term firstly used to describe the alumni of MRSM Kuantan, an elite school in Malaysia but the term is also used as an adejective to decribe coolness of intellect.

Thank you.

Kuatagh = cool, calm intellectual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajim61 (talk • contribs)


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 10:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kuatagh[edit]

Notability/importance in question. Article has been A7'd before, however the author disputes this as it is a translation from another wiki. The original article is just as short, so I'm sending here for wider consensus. Ghits: [11] — NMChico24 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete as reposted content. Yanksox 07:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wario the Quario[edit]

Supposedly an internet meme, "popular" and "circulated on myspace". Generates 3 unique GHits, 11 total outside Wikipedia. I generate more hits than that. Fan-1967 03:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy close. Let me count the ways ...

  1. AfD is not the place to go if you want to propose a merge.
  2. You can perform a merge yourself, anyway. Be bold!
  3. Once the article has been merged, it cannot be deleted. No, really, it can't. Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL; using content without performing the bare minimum that Wikipedia's guidelines require (in this case, redirecting to the merged article) is theft.

In summary: don't nominate an article for deletion because you want it merged, and don't ask for the deletion of the source of a merged article's content. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sotsugyou[edit]

Wikipedia is not a (Japanese-English) dictionary. Article merely translates the word sotsugyou and goes on to describe (in detail) its use in a Japanese TV program that is little known in the English-speaking community. Suggest merging the TV-related info into the show's page itself and deleting this article. Bueller 007 03:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but I'm not sure that that justifies having this article separate to the show it relates to. I'd suggest a merge of any non-duplicate content to the article on the show and the deletion of this article. BigHaz 03:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - there were two sides saying non-notable and notable. I didn't see any attempt documented in the article to substantiate notability, which I feel tipped the balance.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for your life[edit]

Prodded for non-notability, de-prodded without any explanation. So little content that I'm tempted to use ((db-empty)), but just enough that I'm not sure if it qualifies for speedy. It is, however, pretty much just a glorified external link. There's nothing here that would be any kind of loss if someone wanted to re-create the article later with some actual content. --Icarus (Hi!) 03:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the phrases we should never hear on AfD is "de-prodded without any explanation". It doesn't have any relevance to your rationale for deletion, and only serves to increase the perception in the minds of other Wikipedians that de-prodding articles is a Bad Thing, when in fact it's one of the cornerstones of the process. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But deprodding without addressing the concerns felt by the user who prodded it is never going to achieve anything. ViridaeTalk 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it will. For the person who thought the article wasn't worth deleting ... it won't be deleted (at least, not by PRODding). Voila! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While a lack of explanation is not reason enough to go ahead and delete something, I don't agree that it shouldn't even be mentioned. I see "failed prod" in AfD nominations on a regular basis. If an article was de-prodded, then I want to know why so I can take that into account when "voting" in the AfD. It's easier if the nominator gives me that info here so I don't have to dig through the history (which, depending on the article and the edit summaries, might take plenty of digging indeed). If an article is de-prodded for a stated reason, I'll include that in my AfD nomination, too. --Icarus (Hi!) 21:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we see it in AfD nominations all the time — and that's a Bad Thing. The general atmosphere is not so much, "I think other AfDers would be interested to know why the PROD tag was removed, so they can share in the de-prodder's indignance", but more along the lines of, "some utter PRICK removed the tag, so I'm forced to waste all y'all's time with an AfD nomination. If we delete this article, we'll teach him a lesson!" I appreciate your bone fides here, and I agree with you that if the de-PRODder gave a reason for removing the tag it should be noted somewhere in the AfD discussion. However, if it's removed without discussion then it's not particularly relevant — and we see far too many annoyed nominations complaining about de-PRODders. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. I think it's pretty clear what the end result is; let's save the eventual closer (and any bandwagon-jumpers) a bit of work, eh? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 90[edit]

Every case in volume 90 is a red link. This is listcruft. TrackerTV 03:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Urgh. On second thoughts, change mine to keep in light of the precedent (I'd strike it out, but can't figure out how to do that quickly). BigHaz 06:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Click "edit this page" to see what I did. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I thought I'd tried that myself, but knowing me I must've stuffed up the syntax somewhere in there. BigHaz 12:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete by NawlinWiki. Srose (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Smith[edit]

No indication given of notability. "Underground" is a key word in the article. Google returns nothing relevant. Crystallina 03:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Molerat 09:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahim Hatamikia[edit]

This page has been listed on articles needing translation for seven days now, but it's still in Arabic. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please don't use the phrase "process must be followed". It makes experienced Wikipedians' teeth itch. One of the things about process on Wikipedia is that, if there is a good reason to ignore process, then following process is actually the Wrong Thing. Let's not fetishise it, eh? Instead explain why the result you want should be the result attained. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll use it that phrase if I like, thanks very much. It's an entirely reasonable position. I'm a deletionist who tries to be fair, and upholding process is one of the things which keep the more strident aspects of my views and other different strident views of other people in check. I'm modestly experienced at Wikipedia, there's no need to condescend and dismiss me as a newbie either. My explanation of my reasons is good enough in this case, as the nomination clearly states that it is specifically about the grace period for translation. I don't know what you think the nomination is about. As for as I can tell, you're suggesting that for unexplained reasons, this untranslated page doesn't deserve the full amount of grace period suggested by guidelines, and so we should apply WP:IAR and WP:SNOW arbitrarily. Bwithh 16:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not suggested anything of the sort. All I've said is that "process must be followed" is the Wrong Thing to say: it's anti-Wikipedia and anti-common sense and profoundly silly. That doesn't mean I disagree with your view, that the article should not have been nominated so early. It just means that I think a better argument than "Process says X, and I am a fan of process" should have been provided. Process is good only when there is a good reason to follow it; in such cases (and I don't make a claim either way as to whether or not this is such a case), it's better to state that reason rather than simply rely on the magic word "process", which, as I said, makes people's teeth itch. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fetal rights[edit]

Article is original research. Factual content is skeletal and unsourced. The remainder is an unencyclopedic essay. Severa (!!!) 04:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as an attack page. Although, strictly speaking, the article does not constitute solely an attack, I am exercising a little discretion in light of the unanimous delete opinions below. The article starts by grossly insulting several groups of people and then descends into an scatological essay written in the first-person about a "unique and somewhat unprecedented philosophy". The attacks combined with the explicit admisssion that what isn't an attack is original research make this something that simply isn't an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 10:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerbilism[edit]

Original research Fg2 04:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as basically OR and because it's impossible to pin down what is a comedy song. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of comedy songs[edit]

For one thing, this is a pretty subjective list and possibly OR. For another, there's not a page on comedy songs, and it's generally considered bad form to have a "list of..." page when there's no subject page to reference. Third, even if this isn't considered subjective or OR, a category would work just as well here, if not better. I'll admit this isn't one of my more certain nominations, but it really doesn't seem to fit WP. So consider this a weak delete vote. -- H·G (words/works) 04:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I should've thought of novelty songs; that might be a good destination for merge and redirect? Or are some of these entries distinctly "comedy" but not novelty? -- H·G (words/works) 08:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't merge them all in, in my opinion. Some of them wouldn't be novelty songs as far as I can tell (I Wanna Talk About Me, the very presence of which shows the unclear criteria, isn't really a novelty song, and neither is "The Bad Touch," to name two. If somebody felt like sorting through them all there might be a few, but there're already a lot of examples at the article to which you linked. GassyGuy 04:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do we determine if some thing is comedy or novelty? I just found Category:Novelty songs, which some seem to feel is a distinct genre. -MrFizyx 02:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlanetMalaysia[edit]

non-notable, spam, advertisement, vanity. Choose your favorite reason. __earth (Talk) 04:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since AfD is not a vote, I'm at a loss as to why you felt it necessary to add this. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote? __earth (Talk) 12:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
beat ya to it =p __earth (Talk) 05:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm boogrrs[edit]

Notability in question. ghits: [18]. Alexa rank 5,872,017 — NMChico24 05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy close; inappropriate to nominate an article for deletion because it's been merged. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 12 2006 incident[edit]

POV fork which has already been merged TewfikTalk 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Incomplete nomination, I am completing nomination now. I will also remove the prod & prod2a tags from the page as an AFD nomination trumps a prod (per WP:PROD). Prod concern was "Article content is already in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict page". My prod 2a concern was "Title also represents a POV fork problem. This whole situation is too recent and should be confined to a minimal number of comprehensive articles until some persepctive is possible." The title issue has been fixed by moving, but if this page goes the redirect at Ayta al-Sha`b incident needs to be attended to and the half dozen pages that point at it (including a template) also need attending to. GRBerry 05:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Access Information Technology[edit]

no other notability other than being recognised by Indian Govt. and Reserve Bank of India. Every It company in India has to be registered and approved. Also no notable products. Ageo020 06:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. Access Information Technology is too general of a term to apply a google test. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laser Soft Infosystems[edit]

Very small company.non notable really. Revenue is around $3.2 million. It does have 500 employees which is not verified. Article looks likeit has been copied from the company website. Ageo020 06:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bigel Entertainment[edit]

A little known production company which has very little history (founded in 2004). The article lists movies prior to that which are acually produced by Bigel/Mailer Films. Note that each of these almost unquestionnably falls in the B-movie class and none of them have any independent notability. Furthermore, the article was created by Jordanbigel (talk · contribs) which raises suspicion of vanity. As a company I think it's safe to say it fails WP:CORP and the google test returns 306 hits, although only 93 unique hits which is not a whole lot for a Hollywood based production company. Pascal.Tesson 06:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? The production company is new but in the film industry the banner you work under is less important then the credits you have to your name. In this case Daniel has produced 10 full length feature films and has just become a voting member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (a fact which I do intend to add to the article). The fact that I am related to Daniel should in no way bear on the decision to remove the article.

If the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia rests on some evaluation of the quality of the films then I would refer to Daniel's most recent release, the Kevin Bacon film Loverboy which is also Mr. Bacon's directorial debut. This film as well as several other films produced by Daniel Bigel already have entries in Wikipedia. For example Harvard Man, Empire and Black and White (1999 film) are all included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanbigel (talk • contribs)

Comment The requirements are not really on the quality of the films although that would not hurt. Of course a production company with a long history of films would be notable enough but in the case such as this one where the company is very young (even including the Bigel/Mailer era) then the quality, impact and success of the movies is important. Loverboy has gotten mostly bad reviews [19] and has been a commercial flop. The same can be said of Empire [20] and Harvard man [21] (which went essentially straight to DVD).
As for the fact that you are related to Daniel Bigel, it in fact does matter. Please refer to WP:VAIN for a detailed explanation. Pascal.Tesson 07:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you might as well change your vote right now. The company undeniably exists and even IMDb should have it somewhere (or maybe only Bigel/Mailer). The google search I posted in the nomination will give you decent sources. Pascal.Tesson 07:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Removed that part - I seem to be blind this evening. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of signature phrases[edit]

This article was deleted before as part of an AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of catch phrases. It was re-created, and I tagged it with ((db-repost)), which was removed, so now it's here. This is a potentially limitless and unmaintainable list, with no criteria for inclusion (anything could be construed as a "signature" phrase). Some of these are obvious, yes, but the list is completely unsourced. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Gunderson[edit]

non-notable conspiracy theorist, fails WP:V —Hanuman Das 16:56, 23 July 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, Yanksox 06:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FPSBANANA[edit]

I can only see a lot of biased (POV) unencyclopedic blabla.--Jestix 06:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Transit Commission subway map[edit]

I don't think a ASCII of the TTC Subway map is really needed Selmo 07:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! The ASCII version was a help to me. If you want to get rid of it, post an image of it. Until then, leave a version on this website. I don't have PDF viewer either, so it really came in handy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PlanetBoredom (talk • contribs) July 31.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 to Meg Cabot. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Cabot Book Club[edit]

Alexa rank of 826,000. It does not appear to meet the criteria set in WP:WEB. Hbdragon88 07:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy A1. Roy A.A. 21:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar the Last Airbender:Conqueror from the other world[edit]

Patent unverified nonsense Mystyc1 07:47, 29 July 2006
AFD nomination was not complete; fixed afd2 segment. -- H·G (words/works) 08:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walden West[edit]

There has been a notability warning on this page for some time now, but in spite of that no-one has managed to find a single independent source, nor even simply to allege notability. Plenty of time has elapsed for the page to be fixed up, and it should now go. MichaelMaggs 08:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Hordes of single purpose accounts noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Loy[edit]

Non-notable and reads as a vanity entry Stevenscollege 19:32, 17 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 19:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reflexive user interface[edit]

A Google test reveals that the term "Reflexive user interface" is almost universally used to refer to IBM Reflexive User Interface Builder (which generates the majority of the 805 Google hits). Overall, the article lacks clarity and context, does not cite sources (with the exception of a link to the aforementioned builder, which does not use the term itself), and resembles original research. - Sikon 09:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Technolabs[edit]

Advertisment for non-notable company. Created by editor with the same username as the company name. Lurker your words/my deeds 09:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an advertisement purpose. I am a customer of it. And i feel that it is worth notable & emerging company in india. So, i have started this article.

Don't delete -It should not be that creating article has anything related to name. It is good to notify about such company with user name like it. So it is not a promotion. Not any advertisement. It is injustice that anybody won't able to post article about site which one author doesn't know about.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 11:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Stollar[edit]

Yet another election candidation/local councillor Timrollpickering 10:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Strike 1.6 Guide[edit]

Delete per guidelines: Wikipedia is not the place for tutorials, manuals and how-tos Lurker talk 10:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Bennett[edit]

Non notable person. Lots of people are in talent shows Pally01 10:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most relevant thing I could find (and it's Google's first hit, too). I think that page makes a clear case for Ms Bennett being insufficiently notable at this stage (see also WP:MUSIC). However, I wish her luck in her career; perhaps one day she will prove to be the Britney Spears of the West Midlands area. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close. I wish all who want to argue about the matter good luck in their proposed merge; but that's not what AfD is for. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dormston Centre[edit]

This is already dealt with at Dormston School. Maybe merge? Pally01 10:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tekken 7[edit]

Was prodded as crystal balling (since nothing has been officially announced, and even Tekken 6 isn't completed yet), was deprodded without addressing the issues raised in the prod, and has since only had the assertion that "a friend of a friend of a friend knows this is going to be made" added since. While I'm sure there will eventually be a Tekken 7, this article does not belong on Wikipedia just yet, especially in its current form which reads entirely as a hoax (claiming it to be a dancing game in development by Nintendo for the Atari 2900, due out "tomorrow"). Even if made into a serious article there is nothing at all that can be verified about the game yet. ~Matticus TC 11:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia haruyama[edit]

Vanity article on non-notable person by booster of organization she heads. Katr67 11:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She's already on there. Delete and delink the entry on the arboretum article. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No Guru 15:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DatingHall[edit]

Advertisement. Fails WP:WEB Alexa rank 400,000+. All google hits self published promos. BigE1977 11:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was left by the article's creator. Srose (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Jones[edit]

The most notable thing in this person's career appears to be that he has testified before a commission and a committee. Is that enough to satisfy notability? Weregerbil 12:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tepa x3[edit]

Does this famous notable gang exist? The article claims a 50-year history, hundreds of members in prison — but apart from a MySpace page[30] and a few incoherent chat posts[31] google doesn't seem to know them. The two books cited as sources aren't on google either. Weregerbil 12:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's a gang, it may be hard to establish notability, but given the research of the nom I smell something hoaxy. Delete. BigHaz 13:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:BIO apply to groups or purported groups? Just curious, more than anything else. BigHaz 13:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it a perfect fit, but in this case I'd say it gets the same points across. For some discussions, WP:ORG would be more appropriate. That's my opinion, anyway. Good question. :) Luna Santin 13:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Smallman[edit]

Yet another election candidation/local councillor. Timrollpickering 12:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Fox[edit]

Yet another election candidation/local councillor Timrollpickering 13:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

User:Xn4

But we can fairly ask who this deletion is requested by. It seems to be by a political opponent called Martin Tiedemann, a former Labour Party councillor from the London Borough of Croydon.

My suggestion would be to keep the article but to delete the more barbed comments in it, which no doubt were entered by another political opponent. Bridget Fox is still a leading London Liberal Democrat. —The preceding comment was added by Xn4 (talk • contribs) 31 July 2006.

  • Comments
Firstly, I did not propose this AfD - Timrollpickering did. I just support it.
Secondly, evidence of POV outside Wikipedia is not evidence of POV inside; you'll have noticed from my profile and contributions pages about my extensive work creating, improving and categorising politicians from all parties in three countries. And no, I don't think it is legitimate to 'fairly ask' or make a judgement based on who proposes AFD, unless there is a history of abuse of process, etc, inside WP.
Thirdly, I have frequently proposed and supported deletion about Labour councillor articles too (e.g Melanie Smallman, because I believe that being a councillor alone is not grounds for notability, nor being a run of the mill losing parliamentary candidate. If she had been Leader of the Council, or ALG Lib Dem group leader, I may have supported her retention. Having been a councillor myself for eight years only confirms non-notability for me. Martín (saying/doing) 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed this deletion along with several others as part of a process of clearing up articles on candidates. Numerous articles on people who've been election candidates/local councillors from all parties have been nominated for deletion for insufficient notability - you'll note that on the same day I nominated this article I also nominated past candidates/councillors from the Conservatives, Labour and Alliance, and I've also nominated Greens for deletion in the past. Many others have also nominated AFDs on candidate articles - indeed Wikipedia:Candidates and elections emerged precisely because of the deluge of candidate articles. Timrollpickering 13:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Borough councillors fail WP:BIO. BlueValour 04:01, 3 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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)  19:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Cleverly[edit]

Yet another election candidation/blogger Timrollpickering 13:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am not sure how this works. Mr Cleverly is now running to become the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London - http://www.jamescleverly4london.com/

  1. As a candidate for Mayor of London, Cleverly is in the public eye and as such, an article on him will be of interest to a relatively large number of people. If anything, we should be expanding this article, not deleting it.
  2. Cleverly is one of the very few non-white Tory politicians, surely adding to his notability.
  3. Wiki is not paper

Soobrickay 23:01, 1 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)  19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Whitbread[edit]

Yet another election candidation/local councillor Timrollpickering 13:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  13:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margot James[edit]

Yet another election candidation/local councillor/internal party office holder. Timrollpickering 13:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - local councillors are most definitely not notable. The guidelines are, national, state, provincial etc but not municipal. BlueValour 04:14, 3 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)  13:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Father Physics[edit]

Uncommon neologism [34]. See talk page for rationale given for removing prod. Note that many of the Google hits do not refer to this concept (Liberatore, 2006). 13:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this case the article is introducing a new idea (clearly covered by WP:NEO#Articles_on_neologisms) so must be supported by reputable primary or secondary sources. The source is not reputable under WP:RS since it is a web forum, and even if it was, it is a source for the usage of the term, not the accompanying opinion. Yomangani 23:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  13:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravityball[edit]

This article appears to be a vanity page created by Max Magoonian or by someone on his behalf.

The only such person I could find in Google is a fraternity member at Michigan State University. There is precious little about any pitch called a Gravityball on Google, and what there is is recent and links to this article.

--Cassavau 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, but tag for cleanup. alphaChimp laudare 23:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Tech (philosophy)[edit]

neo tech is a scam sent through the mail and this article promotes it this article should be deleted fully and forever never to plauge wikipedia again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grogyboy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 July 2006

Note: There was a previous AfD of this article, under a previous title, at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Neo-Tech. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I've tagged the article for wikification because of the absence of links. alphaChimp laudare 00:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British winter of 1946-1947[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article adds nothing to its primary external source, which was easily substituted for it where appropriate in articles that link there. I don't think we want articles on every "notable" meteorological season in history. Tcatts 13:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we do - if appropriately referenced and construed encyclopedically. In any case, inline linking in this manner is not the preferred style. — Zanaq (?) 14:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Keep arguments are in the main from unregistered users, users with very few edits and unregistered users masquerading as accounts via fake signatures, while the arguments for deletion are very well grounded in Wikipedia:No original research. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xbox 360 games without region encoding[edit]

wow this is bullshit. People like you are eventually going to run down wikipedia's ubiquity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.64.90 (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole modus operandi of the page seems to be for the editors to check these games in their Xboxen, then update the chart accordingly. That's clearly orginal research. Ace of Sevens 13:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i like to check this list every other day or so!!!! KEEP IT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.149.234.228 (talk • contribs) .

en·cy·clo·pe·di·a (n-skl-pd-) n. 

   A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.

this is just that, whats not encyclopedic about it? if wikipedia starts deleting things like this that i reference daily then to he!! with wikipedia i say.

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Dex Award[edit]

Sorry... I must nominate this article, even though I love Eurovision to bits. This is non-notable, and not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopædia - at least, not as its own separate article. Nothing against eurovisionhouse.nl, but.. even that itself would not be suitable, as per WP:WEB (not even eurosong.net (my own site) or esctoday.com need encyclopædia articles). This "award" given by the website is certainly even less encyclopædic. Delete EuroSong talk 13:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Oh, has it? First I heard of it having gained publicity! Well Bravada, you're the one fixed on references :)) - therefore this article needs appropriate references which show the fact that the award has had publicity. I guess this is offline publicity, because a Google search returns little beyond what is written on fan websites. As it stands, the article does not assert the importance or significance of the topic, so currently fails WP guidelines. How's your hand? EuroSong talk 14:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB and general notability policy. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 30/07/06, which in your star-time is merely the twenty-ninth. Try to catch up! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Zacharia[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, tagged for Speedy but tag removed. They guy is a CTO for a non-notable company, few Google hits, etc. Rklawton 14:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zidane-Hsu Investments[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, adverSPAM, etc. Rklawton 14:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Anderson[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Bayes[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Brace[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Civil[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Corazzo[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Freer[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Groome[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Lamb[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Parker (politician)[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Smith-Haynes[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Titcombe[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Whyte[edit]

Yet another local councillor, non-notable Timrollpickering 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Varos[edit]

This has been prodded by two different editors and removed twice by by the same editor. So I am bringing it here for discussion. My opinion is still Will O'The Wisp although a re-write is definately necessary, together with some classification.--Richhoncho 14:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lip Smacker[edit]

Unsourced, unverifiable list of lip gloss flavors. A lot of the ones on here I can't find anywhere, like the arctic flavors. Delete as unverifiable. The article Lip gloss has a decent enough summary on Lip Smackers already. Metros232 14:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info:it had a wikify tag put on it nearly as soon as it was created and hasn't been touched since (admittedly that was only 10 days ago but that's nearly a lifetime on WP), so I don't see much interest from anybody cleaning it up. Yomangani 16:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On that basis it seems this article is wrongly named. Also, it appears to be an inferior version of the article that was merged without opposition. Yomangani 23:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the contents of this article don't form a decent base for improvement. Nothing to salvage. Delete and start again if anybody wants to try. -- Whpq 22:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected to Emmerdale until he performs in something more notable.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Webb (Emmerdale actor)[edit]

Non-notable actor, article innapropriate for an encyclopaedia Skinmeister 15:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Starblind should be commended for his superb job improving the article. alphaChimp laudare 00:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axhandle hound[edit]

Utter lack of citations, no evidence for existence of creature given. The drawing is from 'a friend', and the statement that it is thought to survive on "axe handles that had been left unattended" is biologically infeasible. In addition, the author lists it as a "Fearsome Critter", which is not a recognized category of creatures. Interested2 14:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Darn good rewrite! This is the type of thing we should see more of in the Afds. Well done! Williamborg (Bill) 22:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death penalty paradox[edit]

Pure original research essay that cites no sources. Was originally created as a POV fork and then abandoned when the creator left the project. Nandesuka 16:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make Socialism History[edit]

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

The result was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 21:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attero silicis[edit]

Nonnotable 14-year-old unsigned, aspiring dance musician; three unique Ghits (2 from Wikipedia, and his homepage). NawlinWiki 16:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X3m games[edit]

Non-notable game company Em-jay-es 17:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Userfied and deleted.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celia pleete[edit]

Reads like a vanity page and was written by the user Celiapleete. Has been proded, but the tag was removed without explanation. Also, it's unsourced. - Bootstoots 17:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted by Freakofnurture.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PulpBits.com[edit]

Electronic commerce company, founded in 2002 - and their website has no Alexa rank. No evidence of notability - delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newtown Weather[edit]

Non-notable local interest web site. No claim per WP:WEB. Deprodded without comment. Weregerbil 17:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AmberNet[edit]

Small IRC network. Prod tag removed by creator without explanations. Fails WP:WEB. The google search for ambernet + IRC gives 103 unique hits and most pages seem to be just listings or advertisements. Pascal.Tesson 18:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mm Let's try again to edit this page and add my comment.
I wonder why the AmberNet page should be deleted if an EFnet, an undernet or an Afternet do can have there page on Wikipedia?
Is this because AmberNet is just a small network? And if so .. wow .. speak about discrimination.
Isn't wikipedia all about getting as much information to visitors? And why I removed the Prod tag? The second after I submitted the basic page you put that comment up. I was still working on the page!! --Alcately 18:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it's nothing personnal and you should not feel attacked by this proposed deletion. Yes Wikipedia is open to a lot of content but it is not an Internet guide. It's not about discrimination against smaller networks, it's about recognizing the encyclopedic value of large ones. Pascal.Tesson 04:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New nsider[edit]

On a free web host, so its Alexa rank of 683 would be misleading. Seems to be pretty new, thus article is promotional. Daniel Case 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted by Yanksox as G4/A7. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New nsider[edit]

Article is about a non-notable website, and the subject is similar to another article that was recently deleted. JD[don't talk|email] 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There is already a term "hood rich" in the transwiki queue, which refers in its text to "nigger rich". I've put the text from this article on the talk page for that transwiki'd article. Nandesuka 14:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigger rich[edit]

The only reference is to the Chapelle show and it's wrong, in that show the family's last name was "niggar" and they were white so it was "niggar rich" and not "nigger rich," which the article's title is so the Chapelle reference doesn't count. "Nigger rich" sounds like a neologism. It should get merged at the very least. Vanity article, not notable. Stronglightzeoe 19:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per consensus between registered and unregistered users. alphaChimp laudare 00:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Dynamics Engine[edit]

The article has a link to a wikipedia article and some company page, but that's it--no see alsos. It needs a newspaper article before it can pass wikipedia's requirements. Vanity article, not notable. Stronglightzeoe 19:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose : (I have nothing to do with the ODE team - and my only contribution to the article was a bit of trivial Wikilinking about a month ago). Open Dynamics Engine is a well respected and widely used software library. It is at least as worthy of a Wikipedia entry as (for example) OpenGL and OpenAL - which are comparable libraries in related fields. OpenAL in particular is at a comparable level of development to ODE and is used about as widely - it's article is vigerous and useful - there is no reason to presume that Open Dynamics Engine will not also become so once someone with the right knowledge takes an interest in developing it. It certainly isn't a 'company page' - ODE is an OpenSourced effort with no significant commercial ties. If everything in Wikipedia needed a newspaper article - we'd be down to a few thousand articles and this would be a much less useful service. The worst this article is guilty of is being a stub - but we don't go around deleting articles just because they are stubs. In fact there is actually some useful content here. This AdD needs to 'go away' - I move for a speedy dismissal. SteveBaker 22:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript: I just mentioned this to a colleague and he recalls a couple of print magazine articles on ODE - one (we believe) was in Gamasutra (a well respected game developer magazine) less than two years ago. SteveBaker 22:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ODE has very wide use and it's default way of doing collision detection and physics in OGRE engine so please keep it.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 in to Code Lyoko and deleted.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time travel (Code Lyoko)[edit]

Time Travel already has its own page, as does Code Lyoko. The information in this article should be included in one of those. This concept of time travel is not significant enough to warrant its own page. The reverend 19:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshopmajic[edit]

Simply put, use of a word by "two to three people" counts as a non-notable neologism. Meanwhile, no hits on Google. Delete per WP:N. —Whomp t/c 19:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as the consensus appears to be after relisting. Mailer Diablo 08:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Majesty[edit]

Non-notable cable access show.--Crossmr 07:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a stub for a Dungeons and Dragons TV Show that airs on public access television in New York and LA. That's awesome, but there's no assertion of any sort of notability (per WP:NN, I guess, I don't know the particular standard for this). The author removed my prod (and the reprod by another). Alphachimp talk 07:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as far as WP:NN goes, it mightn't actually be a policy or guideline but it certainly tends to be followed a fair bit. BigHaz 07:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By sheep, maybe, but not by people committed to Wikipeida policy. Carfiend 07:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
watch your tone many people find that an offensive term.--Crossmr 07:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chill. Read WP:NPA and think about what you're going to say before you say it. Insulting other contributors is not allowed on Wikipedia, period. Captainktainer * Talk 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
policy?? They should chill. Carfiend 07:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as pointed out about, the concept of notability is not notable. Or, erm, what was the word? Deletion policy, that's it. Notability is not part of deletion policy. Trollderella 17:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't point that out, Bighaz did. He also pointed out that regardless of whether or not its a policy or guideline people do tend to follow it quite a bit. They apply it to subjects that aren't already covered by guidelines like WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and other notability guidelines. Lets also not forget its got a total of 3 episodes, which again would make it fail any kind of notability test. With such little exposure, this could be seen by many as just a way to try and advertise the show or gain notability.--Crossmr 17:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a pernicious myth. Let's follow policy - there is no reason to delete this useful information. Trollderella 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats your opinion. Others don't find it to be such a myth. In addition advertising is covered by policy. Were notability not considered, everyone could create a wikipedia article about thier pet project.--Crossmr 18:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "my opinion" that notabilty isn't policy, it's a fact. Trollderella 19:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its your opinion that its a pernicious myth. Not that its not policy. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a collection of all human knowledge, therefore there must be guidelines on what can and can't be included. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox (Self-promotion) (which is policy) directly links to the Notability page. Policy or not, its relevant per that policy.--Crossmr 19:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN is an extension of WP:NOT, which is policy. A very large number of editors vote along lines of notability -- without notability, it becomes increasingly difficult to find reliable sources, at which point the articles are far more likely to contain original research, and fail to pass verifiability tests. Notability guidelines are the only thing between Wikipedia and a vanity article (or six) for every man, woman and child on this earth -- they're important. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; if we include an article for every club, ever, the whole system breaks. So there has to be a filter, there has to be a line. We can debate all day about where the line should be placed, and whether this article is above or beneath that line, but I feel the line itself is necessary. How many hundreds or thousands of public access shows are there, in the US, past and present? The whole world? Can we afford to list them all? What's unique about this one? What sets it above the rest? I'm not saying there's nothing unique, I'm just saying I and a few others need a little more convincing. My delete vote isn't a vote against the show; I'm sure it's great, and I'm sure people enjoy it, and I hope they do. Luna Santin 20:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is well intended, but wrong. If an article is not properly sourced, then we should delete it. I see no reason to delete this public access show simply because you have issues imagining how we would deal with articles about other shows. Can we afford to list them? The simple answer is yes, if they are well sourced, verfied, and neutral. WP is not paper. Carfiend 20:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could just as easily say the same of you -- well-intentioned, but wrong. :) Ad hominem proves little. In my eyes, this is one of the "other" shows. Well-sourced? The only source I see used is the group's own website -- the only claim to notability I can find in the article is itself an apparently unsourced statement. There's almost no content in this article, "this is a show, these are the five cast members' names. Trust me, it's notable. Here's some links!" Three sentences and a five-bullet list. Are you honestly proposing that a few hundred thousand articles like that are a good idea? Luna Santin 20:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Let it be, and it will grow. I'm not judging those other articles until I see them. Again, notability has nothing to do with deletion policy. Carfiend 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has everything to do with deletion policy. The connection has already been made twice for you. As for telling us to let it be, see WP:OWN. The article isn't yours to control. Its not being deleted because its a stub. Its being put up for deletion because other than a mention in a year and a half old tv show, its not even on the radar. One common theme for notability is being published in multiple non-trivial credible publications. You've got one with G4techtv. Blogspot, myspace and earthlink don't fit that criteria.--Crossmr 22:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your points in order - notability is not part of deletion policy. There's no way to make it sound like it is. Someone above listed it being very short as a reason to delete it. I am not claiming to control the article. "I don't like it" is not a reason to delete it either. Carfiend 06:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So WP:SPEEDY and specifically this part "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages." has nothing to do with notability? It has everything to do with notability, and this [38] which clearly states: "This category is a collection of possible criteria/policies/guidelines for inclusion or deletion of articles". Deletion is closely tied with notability. Whether or not its stated in full bold letters on the deletion policy page. In addition to that as someone pointed out there aren't enough reliable sources to build an article on becuase this is so far off the radar. --Crossmr 15:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I thought that this was AFD, not Speedy deletion. I was under the impression that Speedy applied only to speedy deletions. Carfiend 00:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy is part of the deletion process here, and notability is part of that. Thus your connection between deletion and notability that you were seeking. Also the second link I provided had nothing to do with speedy and all to do with deletion and inclusion and notability is mentioned throughout. --Crossmr 01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy is part of the speedy deletion process, but not, actually, AFD. That's quite clear. There are many things that apply in Speedy but not AFD. That's why there are separate policies. The second link you provided does not, unfortunately, provide a link to any AFD policy that says anything about notability. Carfiend 06:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that, not notability. Which, as has been pointed out, is not part of AFD policy. Carfiend 00:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the notability connection to Deletion has already been pointed out twice and in several places. The fact of the matter is notability is often used to decide whether or not articles get to stay here and this fails terribly.--Crossmr 01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, people have pointed to things that are not policy, claiming that they behave as if they are policy, but frankly, the fact that you made a mistake before doesn't mean that you have to make a mistake again. Time to mend your ways! Carfiend 03:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mend my ways? People have pointed to several things that are policy that reference notability. WP:NN also references a long standing precedent of articles being removed on the grounds of notability. As such notability is a perfectly acceptable reason to put an article up for deletion. If you'd care to address the issue of notability, I welcome it.--Crossmr 03:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 'issue with notability'. It's not part of AFD policy. WP:NN is an essay, not even a guideline. Carfiend 05:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. That is why its here. Others have other opinions.--Crossmr 05:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 'my opinion'. Notability is not part of AFD policy. WP:NN is an essay, not even a guideline. Whether policy matters may, in your mind, be a matter of opinion, but that's as far as the room for argument goes. Carfiend 05:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've been shown numerous examples of notability being tied to inclusion and deletion as well as policy, so no its not.--Crossmr 05:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told that it crops up in essays, in other policy that does not apply to AFD, and that people think that it should be, but I have not been shown that it is actually in AFD policy. To me, that means something. Carfiend 06:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to cut in late, but you still didn't address how this is not in breach of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm not sure you understand the boundaries standing between someone and creating a public access tv show (none). Are you advocating having an article for every single little thing that ever appears on a television? αChimp laudare 06:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about this article, which seems to me to be neutral and verifiable, and not to have offended against any wikipedia policy. Please remember that WP is not paper. Carfiend 06:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. its also not a directory. One thing to differentiate an article between being encyclopedic and being part of a general directory is notability. That is also part of WP:NOT. Almost anything can be neutral and verifiable (and no it wasn't neutral with statements like ...and Riley Swift - the dungeon master! it read exactly like a vanity page or ad. Which is what it is.). Neutral and verifiable are not the only criteria for inclusion. Some people feel that way, some people feel the other way and that is why were here. --Crossmr 06:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why "...and" is not neutral, but hey. It's odd that some people don't think that policy is important, but you're right, that's why we're here. Carfiend 06:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because its not the proper tone for an encyclopedia. It reads like an ad or sounds like someone announcing something flashy. And yes policy IS important. There are more policies than WP:V and WP:NPOV. You just took the time to quote WP:NOT by saying its not paper, read the whole policy. You can't use part of it to justify the existence of the article then turn around and ignore 2 other parts of the same policy that would say it doesn't belong here.--Crossmr 07:15, 27 July 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,--Crossmr 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gilbert[edit]

Teenage rapper recording albums at his home studio, unsigned, no indication of notability at all - I'd say he fails WP:MUSIC by quite a bit. Prod removed; some attempt at establishing the artist's notability on the talk page, but still doesn't appear to make it. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I doubt the speediable aspect of this as this does attempt to assert importance. It is up to AfD disscussion to figure out that it is or is not important. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, as Eagle 101 (sort of) points out, it does count as an assertion of notability. Silly billy! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:55, 1 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)  07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bum Runner[edit]

Is a 9-minute film notable? On the plus side they apparently had a $7000 budget[41]; apart from that is this anything more than some guys with a camcorder? Weregerbil 19:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies[edit]

Vanity: the page author seems to be involved in the comic book, and it doesn't meet notability reqs. The movies aren't Buffy parodies (and the article even says that about one of them). Most of the text about the movies is cut&pasted from the sources listed, so the article is mostly a copyvio. Pornspam, too, do we really care about the umpteen other "Buffy" movies that have nothing to do with the TV show? "Parody" means more than alluding to something in the title, and these movies aren't parodies. VivianDarkbloom 20:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Vanity: Please do not mislead voters Vivian:
(1) I am the author of the article, and am not involved in the comic book, I simply named my login name after the comic.
(2) The comic, Boffy the Vampire Layer is an adult parody of Buffy (TV series), and the movies Buffy the Vampire Layer, and Muffy the Vampire Layer are both parodies of Buffy (TV series/movie). All of these three parodies contain young teenage slayers obviously parodying the character Buffy Summers. Muffy the Vampire Slayer is the only movie which in its content does not parody Buffy (TV/movie), simply it's title does.
(3) The text is not cut and pasted.. The sources listed were used for the story descriptions, but there was no copy & paste involved and comparisons between the wiki-article and the sources will result in noticing there is complete rewording.
(4) Because of the points above, I do not see any genuine justification for nominating this article other than a dislike of adult content, but please review WP:Not#Wikipedia is not censored —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boffy Layer (talk • contribs) .
Actually you won't find that over at 'What Wikipedia is not'. You will instead find the official policy, Wikipedia is not censored. It includes this text: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive.. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography.." -- Buffyverse 12:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if it is porn or not, its the fact it is a crufty list. The buffy editors need to get their own wiki like the star wars and star trek guys did - this kind of stuff is not encyclopedic.--Peta 12:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that interested in many of the science articles on Wikipedia, but I'm not gonna suggest the Science editors get their own Wiki instead. In its ambitious mission of documenting the sum of all human knowledge, what is 'not encyclopedic'? My understanding of Wiki is that non-encyclopdic articles are the ones that do not follow the 3 core policies (verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view), or articles that are listed on WP:Not; the deletion policy says as much: "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules covering criteria for articles (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research), editorial approach (neutral point of view), as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing" and advises that articles that are not fulfilling these official policies are instead deleted. Also the deletion guidelines for admins advises that "the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines".
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia meaning it doesn't have the same kind of practical limits but, also that it does not have have to cover topics that are tradiationally seen as 'academic'. Wikipedia does not rely on peer-reviewing, and it is not made just for academics, that's why it can cover almost anything including popular culture and even pornography (in this case the article draws from both). That's why the front page can even feature an article about a fictional food product made from alien worm-like creatures. Yet so many continue to look down upon popular culture here trying to believe that Wikipedia is a professional encyclopedia that shouldn't be dealing with such matters of 'cruft'. However IMO part of the appeal of this encyclopedia is that it has the ability to overcome the idea that knowledge can be monopolised (by religious orders, governments, academia..). Having read the article and through the comments on this page, I see only 3 reasons people have voted 'delete': First, because they were influenced by the nominator's accusations before I responded to such accusations. Second, because the article references pornography. Third, because the article is not of interest to them because they are uninterested in Buffy. In conclusion, there is no real basis for the deletion. And IMHO it's actually better-cited and better-written than most articles here. -- Boffy Layer 19:15, 3 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)  07:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Earth Center[edit]

Nonnotable website, not to mention original research. NawlinWiki 20:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most famous female rulers in history[edit]

Inherently subjective and entirely a matter of opinion. Impossible to measure "fame", let alone relative fame between two famous people. Other subjective criteria are "ruled effectively", "influential" and "deemed important". Absolutely no objective criteria presented, or even possible. Agent 86 20:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merged in to La Salle University and deleted.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Basil Court[edit]

This is a dormitory with no claim to notability. Geoffrey Spear 20:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorin Cerin[edit]

Was prodded but users objected on talk page so I'm listing it for deletion. My argument on the proposal was that, as an author, his work from two year has a sales rank around 2 million and his more recent work just published still doesn't have a ranking. On the talk page, an argument was made that he was notable due to his mention on the deleted (admittedly, by me as nonsense) Neo-ontology article and there were concerns that Amazon sales rankings are useless in determining notability for a philosopher. However, a Google search on him shows little information. I don't read Romanian so somebody who does maybe sees something on his page there that will help determine verifiability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 Google book references referring to his own book [44]. He comes up empty on Google Scholar [45] and Google News [46]. In short, he fails to meet our verifiability guidelines as there are no reliable third-party sources available to write an article about him. Capitalistroadster 00:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I am adding the following, which was posted to my user talk page; I think, however, that the Clujeanul article cited above casts enormous doubt on this. Also, the idiosyncratic punctuation somewhat resembles that shared by "Alicia ,Yale University", so sockpuppetry is a possibility, though by no means a certainty.

Again, despite the Clujeanul article, if he is being taught in the curriculum of at least one major university, if there is a review of one of his books in some reputable publication, or even a review in a significant newspaper, I would consider. However, it is clear that any article on him would have to include Clujeanul's accusation of bogus self-publicity.

Va scriem din partea unui grup de intelectuali romani din America de Nord si Europa care va multumesc.Am urmarit cu frenezie fenomenul Cerin .Era cat pe ce sa-i fie stearsa pagina din enciclopedia engleza daca nu a-ti fi intervenit dumneavoastra.Motivele invocate erau pe cat de puerile pe atat de banale.Numar de carti vandute ,etc.Mai trist este ca tocmai un roman a sarit sa afirme ca despre Cerin nu se afla in enciclopedia romaneasca decat episodul Australia.Daca noi ne batem joc in fata strainilor mintind numai de rau despre valorile noastre cine sa le apere,tot strainii?Mai ales ca un filozof nu este mare prin numarul de carti vandute cu toate ca Cerin a vandut destule in anii trecuti avand alte sales rankuri pe Amazon,[www.sorincerindestiny.go.ro]ci prin propria sa teorie unde introduce termenul de neo-ontologie.Putem fi contactati prin comunitatea romana din Sacramento California.R.Vidu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.104.189.107 (talk • contribs) 30 July 2006.

I'll do my best to translate the above. If I get anything wrong, someone can feel free to correct me.

Attempted translation:

Mr. or Madame Jmabel
We write you on the part of a group of Romanian intelectuals in North America who thank you. We have finished with the wild phenomenon Cerin. The page in the English encyclopedia would have been stearsa [sorry, don't know this word & cannot find it in the dictionary, I presume "erased"] if you had not intervened. The motives invoked were the most puerile and banal as well. The number of books sold , etc. The saddest is that a Romanian in particular has leapt to affirm that there is nothing about Cerin in the Romanian Encyclopedia other that the Australian episode. If we mock ourselves in fron to foreigners meaning only bad about our values, who sa le apere [again not sure of this "will appear" or some such?], all foreigners? [I may have misunderstood that; correction welcomed.] Besides that a philosopher is not big through the number of books he has sold, with all that Cerin has sold just in the last year having a high sales rank on Amazon, [www.sorincerindestiny.go.ro] but through his own his own theory where he introduces the term neo-ontology. We can be contacted through the Romanian community in Sacramento, California. R.Vidu

End translation. - Jmabel | Talk 17:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sa le apere="to defend them". The following two words translate as "[are] the foreigners yet again [to defend them]?".Dahn 18:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete by William M. Connolley. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 21:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freya Smith[edit]

Non-notable person, vanity article PresN 20:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as such William M. Connolley 20:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relyna[edit]

Appears to be fancruft/vanity. I can find no mention of this character in any related Avatar: The Last Airbender resources. Same for the "First Appearence" entry in the article's infobox:No such episode exists. A Google search leads only to this article. Colonial One 20:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pug-Club[edit]

Delete as it is a vanity article and does not meet WP:WEB. The forum has 580 registered users with about 1/2 having posted any messages. the prod tag was removed by the authour/major contributor without comment. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National stereotypes[edit]

This article seems to be very biased, totally uncited and rather offensive to a lot of people. Tawker 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not an open internet forum for the ignorant-minded people from around the world. Bwithh 20:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A large group of people hold these opinions, is that not a fact? And this is not much different then Criticism pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.165.90 (talk • contribs)
* As I understand you, you're seriously suggesting that the article should stay as it is. As it is, the article dramatically fails WP:OR and WP:V, and only gives lip service to WP:NPOV ("racism is bad, but now we're going to go through a long detailed list of offensive stereotypes just so everyone knows what they are, but we're going to barely give any context or serious commentary at all."). Bwithh 21:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that my original opinion was Delete, Stubify and Rebuild. I'm not saying that the article subject is not worthy of an article. I'm saying that the current content is irretrievably appalling and a threat to Wikipedia's reputation. It would be easier and more effective and safer to simply blast the whole thing down and start again Bwithh 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surrender-monkey, surely?  ;-) Tonywalton  | Talk 12:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OR only if the article writer says "People from country x have typical trait so and so" But if the article says "In a scientific Harris Poll July 15, 2006, 90% of US residents expressed strong agreeement that People from country x have typical trait so and so," then it is a verifiable source AS TO THE BELIEF, not its truth. Do you see the difference?Edison 21:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How aboot (
  • Allen, Harold B. 1989. Canadian Raising in the Upper Midwest. American Speech: A Quarterly of Linguistic Usage 64.1: 74-75.
  • Chambers, J. K. 1973. Canadian Raising. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 18: 113-135.
  • Chambers, J. K. 1989. Canadian Raising: Blocking, Fronting, Etc. American Speech: A Quarterly of Linguistic Usage 64.1: 75-88.
  • Dailey-O'Cain, Jennifer. 1997. Canadian Raising in a Midwestern U.S. City. Language Variation and Change 9.1: 107-120
  • Thomas, Erik R. 1991. The Origin of Canadian Raising in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 36.2: 147-170.
  • Vance, Timothy J. 1987. 'Canadian Raising' in Some Dialects of the Northern United States. American Speech: A Quarterly of Linguistic Usage 62.3: 195-210.)

eh? (

Tonywalton  | Talk 11:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we'll only need about eleven million citations. Where do we find the citation about Africans wearing loincloths and killing people for food? Bhumiya (said/done) 19:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
National geographic?

--Planetary 08:55, 1 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)  21:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilford Island[edit]

A ROM hack with nothing but graphic changes. ANYONE can do that, and this hack does not stand above the rest. Newspaper98 20:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knuckles in Sonic the Hedgehog[edit]

A ROM hack that simply changes Sonic to Knuckles with graphic editing does NOT deserve its own article, anyone can do this. Newspaper98 20:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Strong oppose/Merge. Graphic editing? What are you talking about? Have you ever played this hack? It's so much more than graphics editing. Not many people know that hacking Knuckles into Sonic 1 was (and is still) considered one of the most difficult tasks ever in the Sonic community. For SEVEN YEARS, no one was able to do it, even though it was attempted. It is widely regarded as the "Holy Grail" of Sonic hacking. -- RattleMan 21:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you kidding me? All you have to do is copy Knuckles graphics and colors into a Sonic 1 Rom, due to the programs that are available today, and your done, I could do this in less than an hour. If it takes 7 years to do a simple task, then you need to find a new hobby. And besides, this is technically like a fanfic, and does not deserve its own article. The end. And besides, if more popular ROM hacks like Pokemon Brown (which got deleted yesterday) and Mario Adventure (Which will probably be deleted tommorow), were hacks that people actually put time in, and they get deleted, then this deserves to get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newspaper98 (talk • contribs)

I am not sure if I can bring other evidence into this, but this user just joined three days ago and went on an AfD spree, some regarded as bad-faith by other users that responded to them. -- RattleMan 21:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologized for that already, now im only putting articles that deserve to be deleted. Im just trying to help keep this site clean of worthless articles, but now i know WHICH worthless articles to nonimate. Like this one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newspaper98 (talk • contribs)

Delete - The Holy Grail of non-notability is still not notable. BoojiBoy 21:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit). --Kuroki Mio 2006 21:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nom is a bit keen on bringing articles to AFD but this fails WP:OR. Yomangani 22:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since the Sonic the Hedgehog 1 article already has a dedicated hacks section, I have been bold and merged the article into that. However, I will wait until consensus is reached in this AfD before taking further action such as redirection. -- RattleMan 22:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good call (still needs references though). Suggesting relevant merges such as this is an alternative to AFD. Yomangani 23:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper98 01:08, 1 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)  21:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Jam 6[edit]

Another Pirate/ROM hack with nothing but graphic changes. These kinds of games do not deserve their own article, because any one over the age of 4 could do this. Newspaper98 21:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DELETE IT???— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.122.135 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 30 July 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somari[edit]

Another Pirate/ROM hack with nothing but graphic changes. These kinds of games do not deserve their own article, because any one over the age of 4 could do this. Newspaper98 20:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do NOT delete. This article does not contain anything promoting illegal behavior, or an explanation of how to do so. Just because something is illegal doesn;t mean it's existence shouldn't be documented.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga[edit]

Proven to be a hoax. http://landofthelegend.net/?get=newsview&date=227&lan=en http://www.zeldauniverse.net/content/view/472/1/ Feel free to post other links that prove this is a hoax if you want. But this is not real. Newspaper98 21:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanpaul Ferro[edit]

This article was previously speedily deleted. I think the speedy deletion was overly hasty, since the article does make an assertion of notability, so I've undeleted and am listing it here. As currently put it may fail WP:BIO, but perhaps it can be improved. Either way, consensus is preferable to speedy deletion. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 21:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh huh. And your proof that he's published "several hundred poems in many magazines"? Not a breath of that in the article, nor for the "200-300 magazines". --Calton | Talk 04:00, 3 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)  21:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cound hall[edit]

Non-notable structure, doesn't assert its importance apart from being old, which doesn't really count on its own. Not sure if it falls under CSD A7 so listing here. Erath 21:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. Erath 22:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've already warned one contributor about a personal attack and I don't want to warn a second. I don't know the first thing about architecture, but I saw an article, it looked in a delapidated state and didn't assert any notability. Now that the article has been improved, fair enough, turns out it is notable. And we now have a better article for all the debate. Tell me, whose time was I wasting? Erath 21:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is not entirely necessary to accuse everyone of personal attacks, you know. Notwithstanding that there over 6,000 Grade I listed buildings (according to our article on listed buildings), this one is more notable than a minor railway station, irrespective of who wrote what, and it would have taken less time to wikify it than list it here.
  2. I am rather surprised that you think an article on a substiantial country house could be a candidate for speedy deletion, as a vanity article.
  3. Most articles have a habit of improving over time without being listed at AfD. In my experience, most manage to improve without being listed at AfD. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest it was a vanity article. I was suggesting that the article didn't assert its importance. Since it's not a band, group of people, or such, I didn't think the criteria applied - and I was right. Had enough of a go at me yet, or would you like to continue? Erath 23:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not having a go at you personally - I am commenting more generally. A7 refers to "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages" - I suppose an article describing the limited merits of my modest home would be vanity, but this is clearly nowhere near that. Anyway, enough said. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The article now clearly asserts the importance of the building by stating that it's a Grade 1 listed structure. This is the top listing classification used in England, and all Grade 1 buildings are notable for that reason alone. There are few enough of this quality in the country not to worry about swamping Wikipedia with large numbers of articles.--MichaelMaggs 12:37, 3 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 19:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Cat International[edit]

Magazine shop with a cafe owned by a former university professor. Umm... not important, not verifiable. Does not meet WP:CORP. -- JamesTeterenko 21:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byaaaah![edit]

Term is from a non-notable Chappelle skit. Either merge with the Chapelle show or delete Wildthing61476 21:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sims 3[edit]

Complete speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There has been no announcement that this game is under development or even that development is being considered. eaolson 21:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rev. Eric J. Freeman, MA Theological Ethics[edit]

It borders on the speedy delete criteria, but some may feel an asseration for hosting a radio show and being a pastor. Sadly, however, there are millions of of religious ministers out there, and what wikipedia is not is a collection of biographies on everyone. Last, it reads like an advertisement/publicity piece for the man in question. I apologise to The New Capernaum Church. There's nothing wrong, its just wikipedia doesn't have an article on every person. Kevin_b_er 22:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to agree. He doesn't seem all that notable. --Natalie 01:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion would be inappropriate. I'd invite the community to reconsider. Rev. Freeman is a notable minister and community activist responsible for work that has influenced thousands of lives. He is also a notable motivational speaker to include work with the South Carolina Black Family Caucus, the NFL Players Association, Keynote Speaker for Super Bowl XXXVIII pre-game worship service, etc. Perhaps his notablility needs to be more clearly stated for those who are not aware of his significant contributions to the community. I'd also suggest that we consider the guidelines for speedy deletion: "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion." In conclusion, I would suggest, if necessary, that the article be rewritten to avoid any "vain" intimations. --MINEJF1906 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greased Lightning (product)[edit]

Advertising for something that might be a fuel additive or the like. No evidence of notability in the article. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Greased lightning is a pioneering product which is unlike other products on the markert. I feel i have written it in such a tone that it does not present itself as advertising. If you disagree maybe you could improve it not delete it. ➨ Darren

Have added a second side to the story to dismiss any claims of it being advertising ➨ Darren

Just because a story has both sides doesn't mean it's not advertising. In any case, it doesn't appear that the product is notable enough to warrant a WP entry. Acyso 03:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K. Massayan Sorsor, Sr.[edit]

Apparently a non-notable politician who lost some election. Fails WP:BIO. Dreprod2'ed without comment. -- ReyBrujo 22:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Dale Cearley[edit]

Looks suspiciously like Gastroturfing; this is an author whose principal claim to fame seems to be a book which is claimed as a "historically based refutation" of one of Jack Chick's tracts. According to Weregerbil, this guy publishes through a vanity press. Oh, and he was prominent in the Hanoi darts league. Just zis Guy you know? 22:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've gone ahead and prodded it. Molerat 12:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets Hit It[edit]

WP:WEB 2+million on Alexa. Notably non-notable. Rklawton 22:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M Sarki[edit]

Non-notable poet published by print-on-demand publisher Authors Choice Press. Probable vanity page by new editor.


In rebuttal: M Sarki's book ZIMBLE ZAMBLE ZUMBLE (ISBN: 0595250920) was published in a limited-edition-handmade edition by elimae books of Dallas, TX. A paperback trade edition was published by Author's Choice Press. Authors Choice Press offers an important service to writers whose books have gone out-of-print. They are a subsidy of I-Universe.

M Sarki's book LITTLE WAR MACHINE (ISBN: 0972332979) was published in a paperback trade edition by Ravenna Press out of Edmonds, Washington.

M Sarki's MEWL HOUSE (ISBN# 0-9770377-1-1) was published in a limited-handmade edition by Rogue Literary Society.

A poet cannot be listed in Poets and Writers if the journals and book publishers do not check out. M Sarki is listed in Poets and Writers. Perhaps this person accusing M Sarki of being a vanity writer has some bone to pick with the poet.

To say that M Sarki is not a notable poet would tell me that this person does not know poetry, nor the movers in it.

Roguebooks 00:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Roguebooks 02:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Always good to see a new user taking an interest in AfD. What's a Pushcart nomination and should I AfD this self-published Whiltman guy? Dlyons493 Talk 02:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for that link. As I read it, any small press can make up to 6 nominations annually. For some small presses that'd be pretty much their annual output. Thousands of writers have received an award so I'm not sure that even receiving an award (let alone merely being nominated for one) would represent widespread notability. But it's certainly a step in that direction! Note that, as far as I can see, Sarki is an interesting poet and one who probably deserves wider recognition but the nature of Wikipedia is to record the already famous rather than the deserving. Dlyons493 Talk

"Yeats wrote, 'Words alone are certain good.' Read Sarki and experience the truth of what Yeats wrote." — Frank Lentricchia Roguebooks 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If the poems in Zimble Zamble Zumble [elimae books, 2000 had been previously published in The Paris Review or The New Yorker, M Sarki would by now have been hailed as a marvelous home-grown successor to Charles Simic and the book itself offered by Knopf or Farrar Straus. But the poems have instead appeared mostly in online magazines, such as elimae and 5_Trope, and Sarki is virtually unknown. Which may be just as well, for the time being, because the comparison to Simic would be misleading and maybe even harmful. For one thing Sarki's poems owe more to the not quite Dadaist tendencies of Wallace Stevens than to European surrealism; for another, Simic would give his third eye to write poems as wonderful and delicious as the best of these. I frequently have no idea what Sarki is talking "about," but his language both astonishes and amuses me. Zimble Zamble Zumble gives more pleasure than the last dozen Pulitzer Prize winners all together."

--B. Renner]

One other thing: The Pushcart Prize allows six nominees from each approved publication (journal), of which there can be as many as twelve issues or one per quarter. That means there can be as many as hundreds of pieces to choose from in each journal to literally thousands. (There was one poem nominated of Sarki's out of who-knows-how-many others.) Obviously this person discounting the Pushcart Prize nomination does not know what he/she is talking about. It is a fine, and very prestigious academy. It is a disservice to all writers to discount it. Roguebooks 18:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roguebooks 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note Edison's recommendation has been changed by anon 71.228.11.251

What it originally said was:Delete or major rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 00:16, 4 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)  19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solo travel[edit]

A really cute article, but... encyclopedic? Nope. --Missmarple 23:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall University Science Fiction Society[edit]

Prominently stating that a thing is notable does not make it so. Whosasking 23:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive enterprise[edit]

Brief article that seems to exist mostly as a corporatese advertisement for the Sense and Respond website and methodology. — NMChico24 23:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Yanksox. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chillin sandwich[edit]

Neologism. Zero GHits. Gogo Dodo 00:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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