< November 1 November 3 >
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. NawlinWiki 05:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Franklin Coverup[edit]

One paragraph article about a non-notable conspiracy theory book. Something about satanist child-abusing politicians in Nebraska. The book gets 13,000 google hits, of which about 260 are unique. [1], Amazon rank is about 31,500, worldcat has it in 127 libraries out of 10,000. Google scholar has nine citations, none of them seem significant. [2] I can't find any mainstream reviews or press coverage that would speak to notability. GabrielF 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been linked to at User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Catchpole 07:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Freedom Caucus[edit]

Non-notable political activist group. No mentions in searches of major media sources. They seem to get talked about a little in blogs, but seem to not have any actual influence or mainstream recognition. Andrew Levine 00:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No-one has actually expressed an opinion that this article should be deleted, not even the nominator. The nominator wants the article merged. This is Articles for deletion. Don't come here unless having an administrator hit a delete button is what you want. Article merger does not involve deletion or administrator tools at any stage. Uncle G 13:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupted Blood[edit]

WP:NN. Should be merged into World of Warcraft. By the standard of this article, every event in the game would be an article. Has very few references. Many articles have been deleted for much less. --Fandyllic 4:29 PM PST 1 Nov 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. Nishkid64 19:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patton Creek Shopping Center[edit]

Shopping centers/malls are generally not notable, nothing in the article states why this particular shopping center is notable Justinmeister 00:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Naconkantari 23:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFur[edit]

WikiFur was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-21. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiFur.

WP:NN Many fan wikis have been deleted for much less. Only one of the references is not from wikia.com. --Fandyllic 4:46 PM PST 1 Nov 2006

Hmm, it seems WoWiki got deleted already. Seems a bit hasty to me, but whatever. FrozenPurpleCube 03:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideomanifestationalism[edit]

Unsourced WP:OR (which the talk page even admits), zero ghits for the term. Prod and prod2 removed. Jamoche 00:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is exactly the sort of thing that the people who killed Socrates would have said. Wavy G 03:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can remember coming up with stuff like this in college, sitting with friends late at night after a few too many, and a little too much reading in Philosophy 1. Fan-1967 14:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild beasts[edit]

Disputed prod. Non-notable band. -- RHaworth 01:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sociology Behind the Diagnostic Model of Mental Illness[edit]

Nomination: I came across this because it was in the category of pages needing their neutrality checked. My evaluation is that the page appeared to be biased because it is a personal essay (albeit a short, formatted, and wikified one), which violates Section 1.3.3 of the WP:NOT policy. Furthermore, I have concerns that the essay is violating the "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" provision of WP:NOR, although the article may not be presenting a synthesis of the arguments advanced in the two books listed as "sources" and may instead simply be a case of presenting unchanged arguments from the books without attributing them correctly. Nonetheless, I think this entry is an essay and on that ground alone ought to be deleted. The Literate Engineer 01:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

blanked as a courtesy measure.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomanganitalk 11:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriandustrial[edit]

This is obviously SPAM by the person that created the Emilie Autumn article. FACT50 01:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize that now. Still annoyed by the claim that the author was someone who he was not. -Amarkov babble 02:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is another genre that is being more widely used to refer to this type of music, and under a broader range of sub-genres than just Goth/Industrial. It is called Sepiachord. The only reason I have not created a stub, or even mentioned it on wikipedia at all as of yet, is because it is approximately two months old. Even though it is quickly being recognized as a reputable term by various performers creating old world inspired music. So if this new genre which isn't quite validated yet doesn't have an article, I see no reason why a solo artist who has made up a new spin on a previous genre has any notability. Btw - if you look at the user who created the Victoriandustrial page, it is Batteredrose. A reference to a website hosting EA's lyrics. This is obviously a fan made page to try and sell EA's music to others. Many bands are doing this these days. The Dresden Dolls are notorious for using their fanbase to advertise for them. Though at least they do it in a civilized manner. --FACT50 02:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Okay, apparently this has already been deleted once. I'm unsure of what procedure to follow. Renominating because "Victoriandustrial" is just a buzzword used to promote one artist (Emilie Autumn). I don't see any other artists at all being described with the term, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. "Victoriandustrial" is the new "goth'n'roll" is the new "love metal" is the new "hellektro" is the new...you get the idea. --Halloween jack 14:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, reliving my history on Wikipedia here. Anyway, I apologize for my behavior last AfD, and I've tagged this as a recreation, which it is. Should be deleted soon. -Amarkov moo! 21:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a partial aside, the factual basis for the term appears to be spurious. Apparently they call it "Victoriandustrial" because Autumn uses a harpsichord; the harpsichord page says that the harpsichord had fallen into disuse in the 19th century. --Halloween jack 02:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No Consensus, Speedy Keep. Nishkid64 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Jones[edit]

Likely fails WP:BIO. No sources. Hardly any notability to justify inclusion. Húsönd 02:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The NY Times reference is inacessible to non-subscribers, content cannot be evaluated. The campus paper I wouldn't qualify as an independent third party source.--Húsönd 02:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even the free preview of that NY Times article shows he's the main subject of it and it also confirms the main assertation of him being the president of those two universities. --Oakshade 06:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being available on the internet has never been a prerequisite for being a source. Also, let me be more specific and note that it's a student newspaper and these are generally free of control by (and frequently critical of) the institution's administration. JChap2007 17:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not a prerequisite but if I cannot verify then I cannot confirm as well. As for the student paper, I do agree that they're usually independent, but as local, NN publications I wouldn't consider them as valid to assert notability.--Húsönd 17:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your requirement that the source itself and not merely the subject be notable is something I've never heard of. In addition WP:BIO does not exclude local newspapers from the list of sources that can be used to establish notability. Indeed the vast majority of daily newspapers are local. WP:V requires only that the source be verifiable, not that it be verifiable sitting at your computer. JChap2007 18:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the other hand, WP:V does make clear references to the usage of sources of dubious reliability.--Húsönd 19:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm guessing your verifiability concerns relate to the fact that one of the sources is a student newspaper rather than that you cannot access the NYT article online. Whether student newspapers are reliable is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. Ones at good schools are probably reliable concerning topics that you don't exactly have to be Woodward and Bernstein to report on. JChap2007 20:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not convinced. While it's good that you provided an extra source for the article, I am reluctant to accept that being the president of the college asserts notability per se. College presidents come and go, I would rather prefer to see some of his achievements documented in an easily accessible, third party source.--Húsönd 16:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's not notable because "presidents come and go"?? Well, that's a POV disagreement. Besides, he was president of Kalamazoo College for 8 years, not a "come and go" tenure. And that he's the primary subject of a NY Times article shows notability from a reliable source. --Oakshade 16:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is not what I meant with "presidents come and go". What I meant is that there's thousands of people who are and have been presidents of colleges, and notability should be asserted beyond that simple fact. Unless third-party sources document his notable achievements while president, I cannot deem this person as notable enough to justify an encyclopedic article about him.--Húsönd 17:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's your POV. I think alot of people think that being the president of a prestigious college (actually 2 in this case) is a notablie acheivement in itself (the NY Times thought so) and easily worthy of an encyclopedic article. --Oakshade 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - inclusion of other articles isn't a basis for arguing for the inclusion of this one, and the consensus is that this company doesn't meet the requirements of WP:CORP. Yomanganitalk 11:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ad-Up[edit]

Incomplete nomination. This article was nominated and deleted on October 28th and then recreated on October 31st. . The original nominator (the 2nd nomination) only posted the AfD on the article page so no reason was given, but it appears the article still has the same problems from the first AfD. Scottmsg 02:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legitimate article about a 10 year old company with relevance to the history of web advertising. Several well-known publications and historical industry references are cited including Entrepreneur magazine, Yahoo, and the online section of the Wall Street Journal.

Many other accepted and uncontested Wikipedia articles about other companies often have even fewer references, yet none these have been questioned at all:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where's all the fuss about those articles? Not a single one of those have ANY references AT ALL!

The referecnes in this Ad-Up article provide the evidence that the company has survived since the early days of the Internet. That in itself is notable. It is also clear Ad-Up has their own AdServing system as early as 1996, which is also important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.7.156.14 (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2006

Note to closing admin: this editor made his/her 1st edit to Wikipedia on 4 Nov and has only made 4 edits - all to this discussion and to the article. — Moondyne 01:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE to closing admin & Moondyne who if he was really interested in exposing annonymity would reveal his/her real name and connections with the Internet Advertising & SEO industry. Clearly this user has a bias against Ad-Up for no reason other than it must be a competitor of some company he/she has an interest in. Anyway, what's the difference if I sometimes I take the time to log in as chez37 (my ID) and someimes I don't bother because for a quick entry or edit its not worth the hassle so the ID shows up as my IP address -- surely the powers that be can tell it's the same IP and my account so I'm obviously not trying to hide that fact. And why should it matter when I first logged in under any given IP address. This has absolutely ZERO relevance whatsover to the legitimacy of this article. Get a clue folks. Get on the really truly important issues and real spam, not articles with 8 legitimate citations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Chez37, for the record I have no involvement in either Ad-Up or any of its competitors or the SEO industry. I had never even heard of the SEO industry until about 2 weeks ago and certainly had never heard of Ad-Up. Rather than make accusations of foul play, you would do well to assume good faith when a number of other editors give reasons that this article does not meet the notability criteria for Wikipedia. No-one is suggesting the company does not exist - that issue is not being discussed here. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and must set parameters as to what is relevant content. Hundreds (possibly thousands) of articles get deleted every day for these very reasons. I've had several of my own deleted so I understand that you may be upset. My advice is to chill out and have a read of some Wikipedia policies and essays like Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic. I was going to ask you to declare your own association with Ad-Up but that would be rude and none of my business. — Moondyne 02:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When people have a blatent, even self-admitted bias against any new, small stub article, or just make lame comments "this reads like an ad" which is purely subjective, unsubstaniated, biased opinion and has absolutely nothing to do with the bottom line, which is this: according to criteria the article need only be the 'subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself' to be admitted. I've already clearly explained that all three (that's multiple) cited publications are legitimate, non-trivial and that they are obviously not from press releases (since the articles are each about several different companies, and each article is about different aspects of the industry, each article is from a different author, and came out at very different times over a period of years. Nor is their source Ad-Up. Quoting an executive of the company within those references doesn't mean the source of the article is the company -- people are quoted all the time by periodical authors who have done their own research. The sources (Wall Street Journal, Entrepreneur Magazine, and NASE Magazine all are hard-copy published magazines with circulations above 6 figures, and all have currently active online accessible versions for easy verification. Since several Wikipedians had previously questioned some of the facts, such as the company's start date and corporate status, citations have also being included which reference very well known and respected industry indicies, such as Alexa, ClickZ, Yahoo, and the California Secretary of State. A total of 8 relevant, legitimate and independant sources have been cited for this Ad-Up article, while numerous other articles for other companies in the same industry with NO REFERENCES at all (see the list above) have been admitted and unquestioned for quite a long time, so clearly there is some BAD FAITH going on with the delete-happy attack here -- it is not assumed, it is obvious. 61.7.156.244 21:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC) (Chez37)[reply]
Bad faith? Look, I think we need to all take a clear look at the article again so we can GET ON THE SAME PAGE.
  1. The Alexa link is worth zero. It shows that the site has been around a while. That does not make it notable. That is "Works carrying merely trivial coverage".
The WP:CORP requires the valid articles are listed in industry indicies. Alexa is exactly such an industry indici. You'll note that many new companies, as well as old companies with no current activity are not listed. Therefore, Alexa is a useful, valid, a respectable guide. 61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ditto for Archive.org. What is this supposed to show? That it survived since 1996? That is "Works carrying merely trivial coverage".
this is one of 8 references, which ad to the overall coverage showing that the company was established very early in the pioneering days of web advertising (which is in itself notable) and yet has also survived this entire time. Name 10 other web ad companies that can match that description. There are VERY few. 61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ditto for State of California. Why did you even include these? The question is not "has the company been around a while" but , according to WP:CORP, has anyone noted the company AND has the company DONE anything worth noting.
These citations are included, again, because "industry indicies" are a requirement of WP;CORP -- read it -- it is useful, good info. The State of California is probably the single most reliable and trustworthy source cited. It further establishes that not only was the company started back in July of 1996, but also that it is a California C-Corporation -- NOT a trival LLC, or some small DBA, it is an established, governmentally recognized corporate entity. That alone doesn't make it notable, but it does make it non-trivial. 61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. With ClickZ, again -- read the actual cite. All it's saying is the exact same thing as the Ad-Up Media Kit . The media kit is available [6]. Odd, the titles and gist of what the media kit says matchs ClickZ pretty closely. As stated above, the ClickZ cite is hardly more than a press release.
All this proves is that ClickZ did good research and verified that the company's services matched what the company indeed offers -- this shows honesty on the part of both parties, not a press release. Note that ClickZ does not provide a phone number or email, or even a contact name -- all things one would expect from a press release quote. But anyway, this citation is provided only to show that Ad-Up had evolved at a point before the Internet crash (1999) in a multi-service agency, rather than a simple banner ad network -- and that, even if it did come from a press release is notable, because it is clearly what made that company survive. This is history folks. Don't deny it. Read it. Understand it. Learn from it.
  1. WP:CORP says the company must be the subject of multiple non trivial work whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. Now, the Economist cite, is rather flimsy in that regard. But I'll let it slide, even though it does nothing but quote him, and site some figures. We'll say that is a source. Importantly -- the article is from 1998. EIGHT YEARS AGO. I'll come back to that point in a minute.
Clearly you are not alert nor paying attention at all. There is no 'economist cite' -- perhaps you are too busy reading some different entry while poping oxycotins and writing nonsense.61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The WSJ is the infamous furnature quotation. I think people are being unfair on this one. It is actually a good cite, in my opinion. However, it's from 2000.
Please read the entire cited article. It is not about furniture. You kids are missing the whole point. Internet and eBusiness history is built by radical companies that start in strange and different ways. The models of how their businesses succeded are extremely important to the future. If you can only see the furniture in that article, you my poor friend, need to learn to read braile.61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My main point, now, is that all of these articles are six to eight years old, before the collapse of the big 'internet' bubble in toto. There is nothing recent. The company hasn't gotten any coverage over what it's done, over it's partnerships, over opening any new markets, or for new technology. Reading the article, one can't see WHY it's notable. Saying 'it is notable because the cites are relevant' is disinginuous becuase they aren't.

To answer your question: Ad-Up is notable because of at least four reasons: 1) Ad-Up started very early in the web ad business 2) Ad-Up developed its own propreitary AdServer (at a time when Doubleclick was likely it's only competitor) 3) They evolved in advance of the Internet bubble by expanding their services 4) They have survived over 10 years and continue to operate in the present day despite litterally thousands of other similar companies having come and gone.61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is 3 things. You need at least one source from independant media saying something the company has done, and you need to add cites and sources about what they've done. The article claims that the company has bought up and absorbed several other companies -- cites for those?

Those things are not what makes it notable, those are merely facts of interest.61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's very easy to say "you're AfDing my article in bad faith blah blah blah". Saying Moondyne is bad faith voting delete is . . . well . . . bad faith. As for the other articles you mentioned, SOME actually have *gasp* cites about things they DID that were noteworthy. The rest, well, I've already got a speedy template on one....more to follow. Adcruft. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 21:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this entry is incomprehensible. 61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Left comments on user's talk page. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 23:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basis please. Merely opining that coverage is trivial is trivial. Be specific. Read the comments above; there is significant evidence the coverage above is NON-trivial -- refute it or save your posts for /dev/null —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.7.156.24 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2006
Thank you for the thoughts. As is pointed out the article has eight references. References 1, 3, 4, and 5 indicate that Ad-Up is in Marina Del Rey that has had a web site for about 10 years. This does not meet criteria at WP:CORP. These are not published works (such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations), ranking indices of important companies, or show it on a stock market index. The other four references 2, 6, 7, and 8 are articles with trivial coverage of Ad-up. These are my thoughts but I could be wrong. On separate note I think your comments above about poping oxycotins and learn to read braile are inappropriate. Do you have a vested interest in the article or Ad-up? -Bogsat 03:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yum Domains[edit]

Company is non-notable except in the context of it's owner Brad Hines whose article has already been AFD'd several times. wtfunkymonkey 01:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.
2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications
3. The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.
The sources cited make it look like the company might satisfy #1. However, reading the articles it becomes clear that the company is not "the subject" of any articles in notable publications. For example, in the USAToday article, the only mention of the company comes when the company's founder is cited. Apart from that, the article does not discuss Yum Domains at all. As for the other criteria, I could find no ranking produced by any publisher listing Yum Domains, nor can I find any refernce to its shares being used to calculate a major stock index (I'm not even talking about the DOW here, I'm talking about any major index). Hence, my proposal for deletion based on non-notability. -bobby 14:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 06:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Jihad[edit]

Delete, conspiracycruft. Fails WP:BK, Amazon.com Sales Rank: #495,645 in Books, multiple unsourced claims. Was proded, deproded on the grounds of “deprod, seems to be a non-vanity book” Brimba 03:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 06:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Epsilon Chi[edit]

Contested PROD. Small casual group, not a "real" fraternity. Article is basically an in-joke. Joyous! | Talk 03:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently several people and our University heard about our little episodes. They claim people transferring to our University were putting our name down on applications for clubs. We started growing so fast that it got out of our hands. We were eventually brought to justice by our University and had to serve probation. Since then we do not throw parties and are pretty much gone except with this website. We tried to take a new direction by getting rid of the frat but keeping the website to have something to share with everyone. Now any reference to Sigma Epsilon Chi is only parody. We are not a frat nor do we have anymore members. We are a way of life!

Caknuck 07:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 06:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Prospector[edit]

I don't feel this newspaper is notable enough. Yes, it won a high school newspaper award. But the analogy given is the equivalent of a school sports team winning a state championship. We don't have articles of every school sports team that wins the championship. I could not find any other sources per WP:RS. Crystallina 03:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 06:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Keating[edit]

This discussion has been linked to at User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Catchpole 07:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being the author of a published work does not establish notability if the author has no notability outside of the work. Beyond that, said published work is also up for AfD.--Rosicrucian 16:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not a chance this will be kept; unencyclopedic and original research. kingboyk 12:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Google Bombs[edit]

This is a weird one. If we allow a page on Wikipedia called List of Google Bombs with clickable links to the bombs in question, each Wikipedian clicking those links actually strengthens the bomb if they go to the link (which parses the bomb title to google) and clicks on the first link they see. This is the same sort of problem (although clearly to a lesser extent) as if we were to allow "list of clickable links that try to exploit your browser", by the very technical nature of the article, it poses a problem. Secondly, this Wikipedia article would be essentially adding to it's own notability by directly influencing the phenomenon on which it commentates; consider a page with a simple hit counter on it that Wikipedia links to in an article called "This Page Receives a Lot of Hits", the same technical theory applies in that the existence of the article makes it more true. I added subst:prod to this page and it was seconded, the author of the page essentially told me to go away and leave it alone, removing the tags, which while not against any policy shows a poor dismissive understanding of someone else's point of view. I believe this page is not catered for in existing policies but all the same, it's not an encyclopedia article. Elomis 03:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • BJAODN is not an essay, guideline, or policy, let alone a criteria for speedy deletion. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 20:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 06:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opera build releases[edit]

Deproded with a explanation in the talk page.[8] However, what the most recent weekly is and what build they are using, to know what they are using. and This article was intended to make it easier for weekly testers. is not really a good inclusion threshold for Wikipedia. Prod reason was This list is not encyclopedic. Per Wikipedia is not a directory, [...] there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. There is nothing famous about each of these entries. We are basically replicating the information found at snapshot.opera.com/windows Even if the article could include information about each of the build to convert it into an article, I still doubt the entry would be encyclopedic. Requesting comments from the community. -- ReyBrujo 03:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addenum: As this can be considered the article creator's first big good faithed contribution, I would appreciate the community to give insight about other guidelines or policies this article may not be respecting, and precedents if possible. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 04:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 06:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan neiwert[edit]

Article about a non-notable person. Prod was removed from article by anonymous editor without comment. Only possible claim to notability is a book published by a vanity press by the name of PublishAmerica (see Washington Post article). Current Amazon sales rank into 7 digits. Google search for '"gentleman of leisure" +neiwert' gets just 44 hits, none of which appears to be a review of the book. So this article appears to contravene WP:VAIN, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, etc., etc. Valrith 04:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
2. The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
I cannot find any (let alone multiple) non-trivial works for which Neiwert was the "primary subject". Nor could I find any source suggesting Neiwert has made a widely recognized contribution to his field (whatever that may be). As always, if someone can provide sources demonstrating the individual satisfies either of the above two criteria, I will rethink my suggestion. -bobby 15:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is already at least one president http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Dolce

She has gained virtually all her notarity from MySpace. Says so in the bio. (yoshikwan)

There is already at least one president that proves that MYSPACE fame isn't trival. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Dolce She has gained virtually all her notarity from MySpace. Says so in the bio. (yoshikwan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshikwan (talk • contribs) 02:51, November 5, 2006

In his defense...

Although it is true that anyone can post a blog on a site such as Myspace.com, not everyone can be in their top ten rankings, which is based on total amount of unique hit's per day. If Neiwert's blog registered number one, which it has, and been confirmed to be, then he's got more popularity, meanstream popularity, than most people who are "notable bloggers." Each day on MYSPACE over 600,000 blogs are posted , on average. Neiwert consistantly makes the top 10 every time he writes something. Top 10 in blogs, out of 600,000. That's pretty notable. He has done numerous radio shows as a guest to talk about not only his book, but his blog.

Also, he is known more for his blog, than he is his book. But he is a published author, so that's why that notation was put in his description. That can be taken out if it has to be, but it is what it is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshikwan (talk • contribs) 22:25, November 2, 2006

Yes, should have singed previous comment. I appologize. As you can now see, his page has now been vandalized by 2 different people already. A sure sign that he is very well known, although not liked by some. YOSHIKWAN

He is popular. -The James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.74 (talk • contribs) 03:04, November 5, 2006

Will no longer fight deletion in anyway, but all you guys seriously need to look at the history of this page, and do something about the vandalizers. I am to new to this site to know what can be done, but just read the "edits" by a few of these people. It's classless (yoshikwan).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 19:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Cameron[edit]

No verifiability established. 684 hits on Google. She won a local award. The ebook thing might be notable but it gets 1 Google hit for her name plus "wordclix". Doesn't seem like much else in there that could even be borderline notable. Metros232 04:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, Alex Glinka is Cynthia Cameron's husband, which (if he's Aglinka, as it seems) makes this a contravention of section 1.3 of the WP:COI guideline. See [9]. --Charlene 12:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, Charlene. But I'll bet that her husband worked on her campaign, which would make me technically correct :) Caknuck 14:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direct-deliberative e-democracy[edit]

Apparently non-notable book. Would likely fail proposed Wikipedia:Notability (books) and page appears to have been created by one of the book's authors. --Dgies 04:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SNOW, nomination withdrawn - Smerdis of Tlön 05:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Drechsler[edit]

*Delete Article doesn't establish notability of the individual. Yes, he was a German POW, but clearly not the only one. I don't see why his story is notable or encyclopedic. He does, however, get interesting google hits yet I still don't think his story is important for any reason - I think this is a good one to put up for discussion. Strothra 05:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC) withdrawn nom. --Strothra 03:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he was one of a very few, and what makes it even more notable is that the people who killed him were also executed, in fact that became the last mass execution in United States History, this is a well known story and there was even a recent one hour long history channel special about the whole event. I should also enlighten people by letting them know that this particular editor has nominated every single article I have ever created for deletion (which were some of his first actions as a wikipedian) after I reverted him on a completely unrelated topic (none of those afds stood which may be why he is trying again 6 months later).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."
Two quick hits for published works can be found here, or here if you want to read a book about it to name a few, and I saw many more in German. As to suggestions of a bad faith nom, lets just assume good faith and wrap up the discussion without trying to get anyone in trouble. -bobby 15:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a copyright violation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ripple Infants School[edit]

Vanity article, asserts long and colorful history, but not importance of subject. If this were a US school, it would have been speedied, I think. Delete SarekOfVulcan 05:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 19:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With Anger[edit]

Nomination This entry fails the WP:MUSIC criteria for establishing notability for a band, and is therefore arguably advertising in violation of WP:NOT Section 1.4.3. Depending on how you interpret "had immediate success" and "playing with" the likes of Dying Fetus and Napalm Death, it may even fail WP:CSD 1.2.7 for failing to claim notability, since the claim is the (true) claim simply to have played at least once at the same venue as Dying Fetus and Napalm Death, not the (false) claim to have toured with them. The Literate Engineer 05:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\talk 08:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cathode Ray Tube Beef Curry[edit]

Non-notable Delete! Is this serious? The only reference is myspace and livejournal. Those sources are useless to establish notability. And WHY did I find this when I clicked the Royal Anthems category? Green hornet 05:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta and Fulton County[edit]

Nomination: This mixes elements of speculation ("Most have not yet been widely discussed, though the idea of consolidation has recently been mentioned by at least one state legislator" indicates in my opinion that a sizeable chunk is speculation), a violation of WP:NOT Section 1.9.3, with an unsourcedness that suggests WP:NOR violations. Smerging strikes me as unneccessary, given that the articles for Fulton County, Georgia and three municipalities (Sandy Springs, Milton, and Johns Creek) already contain whatever could be salvaged from the "Secession" and "Municipalization" sections. Thus, I think deletion is the appropriate course of action for this entry. The Literate Engineer 05:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ships in the FreeSpace universe[edit]

Just a long list of redlinks and some original research paragraphs regarding how people tend to use the ships. Delete as unenecyclopedic and unnecessary. Wickethewok 06:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that this is an encyclopedia, I think "unencyclopedic" is perfectly valid.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I did not perform the delete, but the article no longer exists. -bobby 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda Farkas[edit]

I've tried to mark this for a speedy (first for being a test page, secondly for no assertion of notability), which has resulted in a scattershot series of claims turning up to assert notability. Google's never heard of the gentleman in relation to his film/TV credits, which is perhaps unsurprising since he was 11 at the time of Home Alone 2 coming out and I can only recall the one cute child star. I should also add that I checked IMDB as well as doing a standard Google. What Google does throw up, though, is a personal homepage which is under construction and not much else, which makes the descent claims more than just a little iffy, and likewise the "promising scientist" claim. In terms of the medal he apparently received, I couldn't find any evidence of that either, but I'd almost have to wonder whether that's sufficient notability given the number of people who've been honoured for their roles in the aftermath of 9/11. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (feel free to move it now). Yomanganitalk 11:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Office Holdings[edit]

Text is a little confusing, but to me, this seems like an advertisement that slipped through. --Czj 06:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. W.marsh 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan 176°[edit]

No information was given at all as to why this particular vodka is notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:48, 22 October 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, KrakatoaKatie 08:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomanganitalk 11:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katamine[edit]

Contains insufficient indicia of notability, other than uncorroborated WP:PEACOCK words. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC) (Then redirect to Ketamine per Zetawoof.) --Nlu (talk) 05:36, 23 October 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, KrakatoaKatie 08:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 06:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOHell[edit]

non-notable AOL add-on, hacking program, etc. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 09:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 20:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trim Road (Ottawa)[edit]

I tagged this for proposed deletion; this was removed as, apparently, not being from Ottawa, I am unqualified to comment on whether or not a three line article about a wholly unremarkable road deserves to be in Wikipedia. Refraining from expressing my opinion on that comment, this article fails WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It also has no worth whatsoever to an encyclopaedia, it's of the form 'road X is a road in Y, and goes through places A, B, and C.' There are many articles of this nature on Category:Ottawa roads, this is just one of them. Oh, and it's unreferenced, too. Delete. Proto::type 09:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you assume provincial highways are notable, other roads are not. Frankly, if this sort of thing is deleted, we should also be deleting many of the provincial highway articles -- some of those highways really just are not significant. Skeezix1000 12:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. This isn't Portage and Main, Yonge Street, Bank Street or even the 174, it's a local suburban road. Kirjtc2 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 20:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Panos Armenakas[edit]

Seven year old child who is allegedly being courted by all manner of top football clubs. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it will be approximately ten years before he plays a professional match assuming he even makes it that far.... ChrisTheDude 09:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. There are no citations in the article at all. --ElKevbo 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would be inclined to change my "vote" to "Weak keep" if someone, anyone, were to show the least bit of initiative and add the above-cited references to the article. That no one has done so bodes ill for the future of this article and its maintenance. --ElKevbo 01:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adequate (but very poorly formatted) sources have been added to convince me this meets WP:BIO. --ElKevbo 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply because theres no citations? its obvious that theres mainstream sources so theoretically the article can be improved. User:Portillo
  • My "vote" to delete was not based on the lack of citations. Rather, it was based on a lack of any assertions of noteability (as evidenced by a complete lack of citations). I note with interest that despite this discussion there are still no references in the article. I agree with those who assert that the youth of the subject is a non-issue and an extremely poor reason to delete the article. Lack of noteability is a very valid reason, however, and the one on which I have based my "vote." --ElKevbo 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I simply dont see the logic. Football players on wikipedia do not neccesarily have to be professionals, think about it, the article list of child prodigys contains panos and juan carlos chera why? because they are sporting prodigys simple as that [17] portillo
  • Showing early skills doesn't make him a child prodigy in football - succesful footballers have much more - stamina, positioning, tactical awareness, speed etc. It is only in years to come that we will know if he also has these. BlueValour 03:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the reason he is a child football prodigy is because HE IS a child football prodigy, what do you think man u, barcelona and all these did with the video of juan chera? they obviously showed it to their high performance staff, or their youth development staff, its already been proven that he is a prodigy and i think its wrong for wiki to go against this, as you know the times, guardian, usa today and lots of other mainstream articles have mentioned already. portillo

^ No because maldinis son is not famous for being a good player, he is famous for he is maldinis son. Maradona has a son playing for napoli, doesnt mean he is notable. juan chera and panos is not the same situation as maldini jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portillo (talk • contribs)

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brighton and Hove buses named after famous people[edit]

An astonishing example of...erm...buscruft. I've no objection to this being merged into the main article on the bus company if people feel it's worth saving, but - to be honest - I don't really think it is. The title has a whiff of WP:DAFTness, too. Grutness...wha? 09:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 20:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shared Wisdom[edit]

Delete this as advertising masquerading as neologism dressed up as a dicdef of a common expression Ohconfucius 10:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FlexSnap[edit]

Tagged G11 (spam) but contested. Reads like advertorial and fails to make the case for significance, creator has contributed little else, but that does not necessarily mean much. Still looks like a press release, though. Guy 10:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 11:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis schaeffer[edit]

Appears to fall below WP:BIO notability requirements. Only claims to notability are to have played a season in a minor rugby team, and worked as a presenter on a local radio station. Google searches for his name in combination with "rugby" and "radio" return no relevant results. Possibly speedyable under CSD-A7, but decided to open it up to fair debate. ~Matticus TC 10:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Schaeffer is a quite notable Sydney identity and has a significant following in media circles. He has recieved a number of local business awards and has stood for election as a member for federal parliament.

Hey one brave monkey you are a very brave non notable guy yourself. You don't seem to come up on a google search either in the first twenty hits. It seems that this particular dennis schaeffer is now number six on google hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.11.110 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 03:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tummy Trouble[edit]

This page has no substantial content. jlao 04 10:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Soundtech[edit]

Notability disputed Dweller 11:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have created the article and listed it here for deletion in an attempt to resolve a dispute (here). Given this background, please try as hard as possible to keep this Afd civil. --Dweller 11:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. What's the background? - jlao 04 11:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the background. - jlao 04 11:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, now I've seen the background. - jlao 04 11:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - As an informal, self-appointed, interfering old wannabe mediator, it seems to me that I should not voice an opinion on this Afd. --Dweller 11:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that I've seen the claims of notability, I'm even more convinced they are not important enough to be covered in an encyclopedia article. Lets get all the Fortune 1000 covered before we write articles on mom and pops. I suggest a 100 million revenue minimum for corps to cover. - Taxman Talk 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CORP: "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" — one passing mention of the company's existence in a lengthy Ofcom report does not in my opinion qualify the company as "the subject of a non-trivial published work". "casually mentionned like all readers in this biz already know them" is a bit of an extrapolation, to put it mildly. Catalogue entries and sales brochures are not admissible under WP:CORP, and mailing lists are inadmissible under WP:RS. Demiurge 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 necrosis. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead tissue[edit]

No google hits at all for Radicaldelousious, likely hoax Seraphimblade 11:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABS-CBN Stars[edit]

This is "list" highly irregular, Wikipedia doesn't have a List of NBC personalities (guess what, Kappa created it on November 3. What's next, List of BBC personalities? --Howard the Duck 11:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)). The list is unencyclopedic importance and should be left for blogs and fansites.[reply]

Note that this list was formerly at "List of ABS-CBN personalities", which was prodded and deleted. Then it was transferred to the present article name. This was previously prodded and deleted. Then it was recreated and was slapped by PROD again by Desertsky85451, which I added with a prod2. Kappa removed the prod templates. --Howard the Duck 11:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A notice of discussion is posted at Tambayan Philippines. --Howard the Duck 11:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamersfire.net[edit]

Contested PROD; does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Joyous! | Talk 11:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons of Eve Online[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide. No other useful content otherwise. MER-C 11:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airviolence[edit]

dictionary definition, contested prod QuiteUnusual 12:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, possibly merge pending discussion. Despite the numbers !voting delete, I don't think I've ignored consensus closing this AfD the way I have. Around the 5th/6th November the original research essay was removed, and replaced with the beginnings of an encyclopedic article. Many of the earlier !votes were based on the OR essay which no longer exists. There appears to be agreement that this is a subject worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia, and the article may need to be reduced to a stub and built up again with the content from Philosophy of probability/temp, or merged into Philosophy of mathematics or elsewhere. But that's a discussion best left to the article's talk page. -- Steel 01:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of probability[edit]

Essay / original research. I am prepared to accept the claim on the talk page that this is not a copyvio. Also would need a lot of work simply removing the HTML markup. -- RHaworth 12:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have started a very brief proposal for a text to replace this one at Philosophy of probability/temp. I would happily invite Infarom and any others to continue to work on this. Not really my field, so others' contributions are most welcome. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

infarom Guys, I made a brief from the article in question, I tried to put it in encyclopedic style. What else?

Try to set out the basic different philosophies. Start either with the oldest (Classical definition of probability) or with the one usually encountered first, which I think is now Frequency Probability, then discuss the others (like Bayesian probability) in some logical fashion. Wikilink generously, to build the web, and make use of existing content. GRBerry 04:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Merge - perhaps the content ought to be put into this page (Probability_theory#Philosophy_of_application_of_probability) or be the method to expand upon that topic. jmswtlk 18:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 'deletes' and 'userfys' are growing. I haven't seen anything about what 'userfy' means or how this might be done. However, I do see that GRBerry has a link to a recent essay that seems pertinent. Is the stub and develop method now not in vogue? I thought that one great characteristic of the 'wiki' way was collaboration and its potential. Will that benefit carry over to the 'userfy' mode? jmswtlk 14:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote summary[edit]

I've not participated before in a deletion process, however I have experienced the 'deletion' event. Is it a simple majority vote? If we take 'userfy' as stronger than delete and allow that comment content overrides a 'delete' vote (meaning, the vote is dependent upon changes being made to the page), then the count (at the time of the time-stamp of this comment) is 7 deletes and 6 nots. Who mediates the controversy? This suggestion (Philosophy of probability/temp) by Smerdis of Tlön would be a very good starting article. jmswtlk 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of administrators who close AFD discussions. Sometimes they get closed early, if the article is shown to meet a criteria for speedy deletion or a criteria for speedy keeping, or the outcome just becomes totally obvious.
AFD is not a vote, although it sometimes gets treated as one. AFD is meant to be a discussion to measure consensus as to whether an article adheres to our policies and guidelines, or could be cleaned up to do so, or if instead it is unsalvagable and needs to be deleted. If everything was running on time, the clear closes would happen on the sixth day after the AFD discussion began, so November 8 in this case. AFD closure is a process that is normally backlogged, and it isn't unusual for the discussion to run a few days extra. This article is definitely evolving to be better.
Both the temp page and the current draft of the article have their points; they ought to be combined. I'd now say that this is far from being original research. It does need further work, but so does almost every article here. GRBerry 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to administrators - The /temp page could be altered with content from the main page and be of value. Comments related to 'original research' may have applied to the initial contents; they cannot apply to the concept or its importance. Adding to my remark from above, I've noticed that 'wiki' now doesn't seem to allow time for evolution. No page, that I know of, manifested itself with 1 edit for which there was never a change. I can see jumping on vandalism. Why jump on someone proposing a topic even if the approach seems self-serving initially? By the way, when something is deleted, are the contents gone or are they still accessible in some log? jmswtlk 21:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators can review deleted articles and/or undelete them. Regular users can't, except by making a request, the central spot for which is at deletion review. (Minor caveat; a few super admins can remove specific edits from the deleted history; it it is intended for use to eliminate visibility of private information such as home phone numbers, etc... In this special case even admins can't see the deleted history.) GRBerry 20:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funky J[edit]

Been tagged as unsourced with notability issues for over 2 weeks. Name pops up a few times on Google, but as far as I can tell, the hits are for a blog and an active forum member of the same name. I haven't been able to verify any of the information that would make him notable. --Onorem 12:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Parekh[edit]

Nikil Parekh looks at first glance to be notable, what with the many awards and 120,000 Google hits. However, looking through the many links from the page, it's noticeable that they are all to paid-for groups, blogs, the poet's own website, vanity presses and so forth. In other words, though a strenuous and successful self-promoter, there are no sources meeting WP:BIO that substantiate the poet's notability. The record book mentioned is run by Coca-Cola in India as a promotional gimmick and does not check the "world records" it prints. Equally, it is noticeable that the poet's website lists his Wikipedia article as an achievement. Taken together with the article creator's work on Only as Life (also up for deletion), and his contributions to other articles and debate, I think there is some evidence of a walled garden being created. Vizjim 12:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep of this great article on Nikhil Parekh- I really dont understand what's all this debate about Nikhil Parekh. People here who are trying to remove him from Wiki, are downright jealous , nothing else. Parekh, conforms with all WIKI guidelines, and he is indeed India's most famous poet. The Limca Book of Records is ranked only 2nd to Guinness Book. How can you say that its a mockery or something illegitimate. Its the biggest record book of its kind in India representing more than 1 billion Indians across the world. Parekh has entered it twice in a year. His other records are truly international. For instance, his awards at Preditors and Editors, Poemhunter, the EPPIE award which again is the highest honor given to ebooks today, are all noteworthy and to International standards. I think we must divert our energies to other people here at Wiki, rather than get after Parekh, after all what he's achieved. Wiki is not a ramification of enviousness for a particular person or in this case a notable poet. And how many times should I reiterate that I'm not Parekh, this is really outrageous and invokes some action against those who are saying so. I'm just doing my best to create and edit wiki pages, as per wiki standards. My aim is not to promote Parekh, but to ensure that the best stays here at Wiki. Before you comment please research. Atleast research Limca Book of Records in India, and you would find that its the biggest record book of its kind in India and only 2nd to guinness book in the World. And again as I'm iterating above, all of Parekh's other international awards and acclaim are truly prestigious. He's published in the Commonwealth Magazine, now would you call that a gimmick too. This is really outrageous and a downright mockery, an envious interpretation of a world famous poet, simply to tarnish his image here. I would implore Wiki people themselves to carry out extensive researches on Parekh before thinking of removing this wonderful wiki article on him. After all the success that he's attained has really done India proud and so the world. There's no point deliberating about his awards and acclaim, as research would show that its truly noteworthy. I feel its a situation as absurd as this, that next people would start challenging the credibility of the Booker or Pulitzer prize and then say that those who've won it are self promoting themselves , and should be removed from Wikipedia. Truly and irately preposterous. Coolkeg908 13:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - Coolkeg908's contribution history shows only contributions to debate on the name Parekh, creation of article on Nikhil Parekh, creation of article on poems by Nikhil Parekh, and insertion of Nikhil Parekh's name into various other articles, including one on the film Titanic. Vizjim 13:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Delete and Comment Actually, we're not here to do the research for you. If certain editors want a page to exist, it's up to them to make sure that page meets the criteria for existing. This guy may be a great poet and you (and many others) may love his work, but all of that is 100% irrelevant. The question is simply: does his page contain enough information that is verifiable from reliable sources to prove his notability. As it stands, even the notability of the Limca_Book_of_Records is in question. Without something outside this house of cards to support notability, delete. DMacks 05:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Yes, Nikhil Pareh gets twice as many Google hits as, say, Yannis Ritsos. However, they appear to be mainly the result of self-promotion on a staggering, mind-bogging scale. There may be an achievement of sorts here, but it does not make him a notable poet. Stammer 17:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well. I didn't name any names - but if you do not want to be called a promotion department, it would probably help if your contributions also included at least some edits not related to the promotion of Nikhil Parekh. Sandstein 21:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think this article is fine...i enjoyed it throughly...

We have enlisted a couple of claims of Nikhil Parekh. Longest Poem is not one of them. He has formidable competition in John Milton's Paradise Lost and our own Mahabharata. However, he has written to many heads of state and has received replies but not from the head of state but the secretary or executive assistant. He is is the first from India to feature on Eppie. We checked with them. Regards Vijaya Ghose. So Parekh, though probably not notable as a poet, is indeed an Indian world record holder. I suspect that this changes the balance on his notability, though the article would still require a great deal of clear-up. I will notify everyone who took part in this vote and ask admins to extend debate a little. Sorry. Vizjim 05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhadharma and other Indian Dharmas[edit]

Delete: The article contains original research, flamebait material, NPOV violation and one sided quotes. Buddhism and Hinduism and Dharmic religions already cover this in detail. Freedom skies 12:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Title connotes superiority of Buddhadharma in comparison to other Dharmas. Merge relevant content (if any) to Buddhism and Hinduism, Dharmic religions and/or Jainism and Hinduism. Sfacets 14:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wouldn't envisage anyone looking for information on this subject would type in this title so the redirect isn't very useful and there are Buddha Dharma and Buddhadharma redirects already. Most of the useful information has been copied to other articles, so I don't think we are deleting useful content. Addhoc 15:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ishi Yama Ryu[edit]

Non-notable - a single school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRehse (talk • contribs)

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

The result was Delete. kingboyk 18:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Tye Pratt[edit]

I have proposed that this article should be deleted for failure to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. --TommyBoy 00:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. W.marsh 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of autological words[edit]

List of autological words was nominated for deletion on 2006-02-28. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of autological words.
If the list is kept and revised, I think that the whole "depending on context" section should go; it's just as trivial (Sung-if sung) and doesn't really say much about the words themselves.JudahH 06:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC) revised JudahH 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no. the "depending on context" section is good. in that context, they are then autological, they are valid examples. but i dont really see how "non-human" qualifies as a discription of a word. thats like saying "gill-less" is a description of a human. so then non-human also cannot be selfdescriptive. "Maybe limit to those for which the opposite could conceivably be true for a word", suggested by Lecontejohn should do, since only that is effectively discriptive--Lygophile 14:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's exactly what I mean--the plethora of valid but trivial examples is exactly what I think is the problem with this list. JudahH 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-human is currently an actual word on the list, as is inanimate. If you wanted to exclude the infinite trivial examples of that sort, that might make the list more interesting, but it would be hard to justify that, since they do conform to the definition of autological, despite being utterly trivial.JudahH 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the suggestion that the list as it stands is composed mainly of trivial examples, or that it will inevitably come to be dominated by them, despite the fact that virtually infinite trivial examples may exist. If you're concerned about the latter happening, then it would be enough to add a single-line entry to cover something like "all negative adjectives, such as non-purple, etc..." or perhaps add a short intro suggesting that people try to keep the entries "interesting". Currently the list is a concise, useful, effective and perfectly harmless demonstration of an obscure linguistic phenomenon, which is composed of far more interesting examples than not, and I think killing the article to save it from potential triviality is like killing a patient to save him from possibly catching the flu. --Arvedui 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this list is any less encyclopedic than, say, the Lists of career and job titles (and no I'm not calling for that one to be deleted either!). Lists in general can always be argued to be "un-encyclopedic" by themselves, but they still serve some useful functions (or why would people want to write them?), for example in collecting illustrative examples of a phenomenon without bogging down the actual article on the topic. --Arvedui 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you can't possibly know what all people would or wouldn't search for (or link to!). --Arvedui 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, there is a link to it from Grelling-Nelson paradox.JudahH 00:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, you may be giving the act of nomination too much credit here... While the first nomination was made pre-emptively, it still resulted in a virtually unanimous vote to Keep, and I doubt it was the lack of a preamble calling the list pointless and trivial that determined that outcome--indeed many of the reasons people have voted Delete in this round were explicitly refuted in the last (listcruft, pointlessness, no-search, etc). Again, I grant that there are many trivial examples to be found, but it's easy enough (trivial, even!) to include them in general terms so as not to bog down the list as a whole while keeping the interesting part available for those who might want it. While this round of voting looks to me like No Concensus leaning towards Delete, I'm disappointed by how little weight is being given to the really overwhelming Keep vote granted earlier to what is essentially the identical list. --Arvedui 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you may have a point about including them in general terms. That might actually be a good way to solve it. I'll change me vote. (Let just add, though, that it's not only negatives that are trivial. Practically the whole "depending on contexts" is, as well.) If you take out all the trivial examples, there isn't much left of the list... JudahH 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NawlinWiki (a7) - Yomanganitalk 13:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madis Pink[edit]

Non notable bio. Zero Google hits GilliamJF 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PARANOiA[edit]

When proposing the article for a merge, there was no response. This article seems to get very little attention, and is otherwise uninformative in WikiPedia. Therefore, I am putting this article up for deletion. Such things may only be known by people in the Dance Dance Revolution world, and not necessarily for the common WikiPedian.WaltCip 13:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Omar Faruk[edit]

Violates WP:AUTO, creator was Omarfaruk (talk · contribs). Contested prod. MER-C 12:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Mohammed Omar Faruk, 17, a high school junior who participated in one of NFTE's summer camp programs in Bedford-Stuyvesant, has since established several Internet businesses, including BlueStream Corp. , a Web services firm, and DesiFlames, a music site targeting the South Asian market.... Mohammed says he and a business partner have netted about $4,000 from their sites. He hopes to attend Babson College and thinks his experience with NFTE will help him achieve his dreams."
Just not notable for purposes of Wikipedia. Maybe in ten or twenty years. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. OfficeGirl 23:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Steel 00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT characters on The Simpsons[edit]

POV list mostly consists of unfounded claims and wild speculation, finding all sorts of obscure references to support the claim; see Akbar and Jeff section SteveLamacq43 14:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Ragan[edit]

csd/a7 vanity page Tengwarian 14:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O, no harm done, but I'm disappointed that you continue to suggest I might know the subject. Please assume good faith when I have here twice, once on the article's discussion page, and once on your own discussion page professed I do not know the subject, and that I do not even know the subject's gender (though I would guess male given the ratio of type designers), or where s/he is geographically located (NY is my best guess, though Seattle comes up in some online returns). What I am more familiar with is the subject's work, which is what I based my article upon. Agree there should be a host of other articles: Robert Granjon, a longer bio for Anton Janson, more on Tschichold, and yes, I suppose Cyrus may have achieved more thus far, etc. But I don't see any precedence for thresholds (writing the big guys before the lessers). Wikipedians write about what they are more familiar with. In my own case here typfaces I have seen and worked with. Neil Macmillan's An A-Z of Type Designers, though not giving Ragan a full, separate entry mentions him as a co-creator of several typefaces. I will add that to the refs. The AIGA is not a commercial organization, this isn't an industry publication or award, pardon me if you already know that the AIGA is more akin to the American Institute of Architects than a commercial trade organization like Printing Industries of America, where the organization has a not very oblique reason for citing and awarding professionals: business. best, Jim CApitol3 14:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Name-dropping. Yomanganitalk 16:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Namechecking[edit]

Procedural. Paul Cyr (talk · contribs) proposed deletion with the ((prod)) template, but this article has had a previous nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namechecking; full disclosure: the original AfD was started by me, again after Paul Cyr's proposed deletion was reverted) and shouldn't be deleted via the prod mechanism. Notwithstanding the procedural nature of this nomination, I recommend Delete as a nonnotable neologism with no sources or references. Powers T 14:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Witchel[edit]

Non-notable. The flash mob computing article mentions John but there is not much more that needs to be said, doesn't justify its own Wikipedia bio on those grounds alone. Stbalbach 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Grimaldi[edit]

disputed PROD and speedy deletion. bio for NN-trader, featured in who's who delete DesertSky85451 15:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bio for NN-trader?????????? he is a member of the royal family of monaco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gheinz01 (talk • contribs) at 00:36 on 3 November 2006.

david a. grimaldi is a member of the monaco royals!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.174.163.153 (talk • contribs) at 13:31 on 6 November 2006, and who keeps removing the AFD notice.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 17:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Informational management[edit]

Topic appears to be non-notable, original research, produced almost entirely by one editor who has provided no references. Ronz 16:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...it is very topical in the UK and SA and has academic acceptance. The references are public domain. Prof 7 09:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...poor wording since corrected. Prof 7 09:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...12,900 hits/articles show the term is entering common use.Prof 7 09:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google search of "Serebriakoff 'Informational management'" returns no results. --Ronz 16:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...this term coined after the books were published although the books had the subject as their main theme. See discussion over suitable terms. Prof 7 09:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomanganitalk 16:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R Valdez[edit]

A blatant piece of public relations/advertising about a politician. Peter O. (Talk) 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the articles Undecided Party and Valdezian {strike edit by Satori Son} are added to this nomination. The former should redirect to Swing vote if necessary. Peter O. (Talk) 19:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Valdezian was nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valdezian and has been deleted. -- Satori Son 18:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reason it can't be recreated if reliable sources are found to prove notability, but since no attempt to add references has been made during the course of the AFD it currently doesn't make the grade. Yomanganitalk 14:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Sai Premananda[edit]

Seems to be a promotional piece. No independent sources given, nothing much in incoming links. Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Swami Sai Premananda. Delete kingboyk 15:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should edit the article to show why he meets the standards of WP:BIO by providing reliable sources. Sandstein 21:49, 2 November 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, kingboyk 16:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, so kept by default - Yomanganitalk 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autocunnilingus[edit]

del since first nomination a year ago nothing has been done to prove that this is not original research. `'mikkanarxi 16:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your voting is an excellent reflection on your seriousness about Wikipedia. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 14:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That suggests we need to get more references, not delete the article. Sockatume 12:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (half notable?) - Yomanganitalk 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valdezian[edit]

del nonnotable political neologism. `'mikkanarxi 16:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomanganitalk 15:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra-Renaissance art movement and related articles[edit]

A group of articles started by User:Sowff.

  • User:Sowff, who self-identifies as Mike Wrathell, has provided some references about the article on himself. I will check these references and if necessary, create a separate AfD. For now, I withdraw the article Mike Wrathell from this list. However, nomination for other articles remains. utcursch | talk 13:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to this "art movement" being mentioned in an "award winning documentary" is found only on the website of the movement. The "few other places on the web" include blogs (some of which belong to these "ultra-renaissance" artists[45]), forums where these artists introduce themselves asking people to visit their website[46] and websites, where anybody can register and create a profile[47][48]. Also, many of the results are not related to this particular movement[49], [50] (If I am wrong, please correct me by providing some credible links). The "no one asked for the article to be improved" argument is baseless, as the article was taggged for want of references[51], but the tag was removed by the author, who has provided only one source: the website of the "art movement". Also, may I please ask you to explain what do you mean by "using irony of a sort to make themselves look less than they might be"? utcursch | talk 09:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wrathell references of some note added to Ultra-Renaissance and his entry, including favorable review of "the king of pluto" on FilmThreat.com, cast member of a new film called "W," and Juror's Statement from an international art contest, with art elsewhere on the site of Upstream People Gallery.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowff (talk • contribs) (creator of the articles)

Hi! Mike, None of the references provided by you have any information about Ultra-Renaissance art movement. Some of them are about the documentary film The King of Pluto, which according to you mentions the movement. Since you've provided some references about Mike Wrathell, I've removed from the list of articles nominated for deletion for now. utcursch | talk 13:06, 1 November 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, kingboyk 16:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Dyall[edit]

Non-notable Australian student in a relationship with actor Gary Sweet. -- Longhair\talk 12:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please provide a source for your claim that this person is a "well known Australian celebrity" because there are several Australians here who have never heard of her. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 There seems to be no support for deletion of this jazz singer from the 1920's. Capitalistroadster 00:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Terry[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 Keep - Yomanganitalk 15:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wookieepedia[edit]

Delete per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third nomination) Havok (T/C/c) 09:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Equaliser 11:17 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, Wookiepedia won't be deleted by this proposal, merely its article on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 04:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 06:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and Hinduism[edit]

Reason Green23 12:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Delete, this article has too much original work WP:OR, the entire section from Siddhartha to idol worship is UNSOURCED ORIGINAL WORK....the rest is grossly POV, although POV is not a criteria for deletion. But it will be tagged as such.--Green23 12:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is clearly in violation of WIKIPEDIA OFFICIAL POLICYWP:OR:

Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.--Green23 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Despite the User:Green23's bad faith nomination and acts of mindless, incessent vandalism I have cleaned up the article, used enclyclopedic language and provided more citations. The only task remaining is to check the article for repeated internal links, which I plan to get to ASAP. I hope a decision according to the required norms will be reached. Freedom skies 08:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rewrite searching comparisons section signed up for this, and find this... very dubious sources, poor historical analysis, facts are incorrect. POV. --Saavak123 16:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was above users 5th edit, all of which were on Buddhism's relationships to other religions

Yes, Buddhism does have a comparison section right on the template, which is easier to edit all Buddhism sections... Your attempts to call people editing your edits "vandalism" has been reported. I research people thoroughly and have noted that you keep calling edits and dispute tags as vandalism in the History section.--Saavak123 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Green23, User:Saavak123 and User:216.254.121.169 are sockpuppets of the same person. They have the same patterns (see here and here) and what's worse is that this person has started voting in AfD debates (You'll notice that the only two delete votes are given by Green23 and Savak123 here). This is in addition to them having the number 23 common in their ID and the same contribution patterns. Please protect the article from excessive abuse by a user who is charged of sockpuppetery and guilty of violent, incessent vandalism.
Freedom skies 17:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomanganitalk 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Coulter[edit]

It's unclear that Lynn Coulter is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article yet. Furthermore, the article has at various times read like a resume or an advertisement. I have noted the issues on the talk page previously but there still seem to be problems. The primary author may be Lynn Coulter herself, editing via a user name and an IP account. A. B. 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 17:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Council[edit]

non-notable student group Cornell Rockey 17:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As some one who has participated in this group, I will tell you: its freaking useless, no matter who the alumni are. Cornell Rockey 05:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

definitely not useless. The organization's work is more challenging and more innovative than most of what the Ivy universities see.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomanganitalk 16:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMCO Sports Personality Of The Year[edit]

Contested prod. Completely non-notable event made up by some friends. Zero G hits other than Wikipedia. Fang Aili talk 18:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't won the title - that alone makes it worthy for AfD! --tgheretford (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have sent an email to AMCO to see whether they have any affiliation with the event. --tgheretford (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitcham Baptist Church[edit]

Non-notable church, and no assertion of notability. 72 unique G hits. Fang Aili talk 18:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M Feezy[edit]

Editor removed ((db-bio)), listed on AFD. Seems like a pretty standard nn self-bio. SnurksTC 18:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 17:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anax Imperator (band)[edit]

Obscure defunct Norwegian electrogoth band; album self-produced/released, an EP and some festival compilation appearances about it; music by most accounts pretty horrible. May have survived an AFD somewhere back in the mists of early Wikipedia time. Time to get rid of them? Brianyoumans 18:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Parks[edit]

About a musician, written by Daveparks23. Does that seem like an advert to you?

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 06:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott M. Rodell[edit]

Not nearly notable enough. {rubbish; Tashi James} Quite possibly a vanity page or even an autobiography.{Poorly sourced; this is a misinformed statement; Tashi James} Also poorly sourced and churlishly written.Policratus 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This rubbish was tagged for speedy delete as soon as it was written. Why do you think this is a bad faith nomination? I suggest you retract that an apologize. I'm trying to write this project up. Policratus 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the speedy keep criteria? "Has been the subject of multiple nontrivial sources of coverage" is not an allowed rationale for speedy keep. -Amarkov babble 00:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK Thrash[edit]

Contested speedy deletion candidate; listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 20:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die Klangschau[edit]

A radio show with doubtful notability claims. This article is also being proposed for deletion in the German Wikipedia. Peter O. (Talk) 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (kept by default) - Yomanganitalk 11:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from evolution[edit]

Not encyclopedic quality, and has been for 5 months without substantial edit. Hackwrench 20:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been linked to from various places about Darwinism because someone put a link to it in the "See also" of just about every article it's even tangentally related to. There's been five months since the cleanup tag had been applied and nobody thought the article was significant enough to clean up. Hackwrench 00:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the backlog Category:Cleanup by month. It's been a little more than a year and nobody has touched Han Chinese clothing. That does not mean the article should be deleted. Pascal.Tesson 02:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the tag on this page wasn't just cleanup, but cleanup-rewrite, which says: "This article or section needs a complete rewrite for the reasons listed on the talk page.", which is a more severe state than just cleanup. Hackwrench 03:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote. You need to give a reason why it should be kept. Bad quality is a reason. That section you linked to gives reasons why an article should be deleted and then gives alternative possibilities that, if siuccessful will keep the article from being deleted. Five months is plenty of time to see if cleanup would have saved this article. Hackwrench 00:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change my vote to Neutral. While I don't think the reasons behind this AfD are valid, or that rallying others who are known critics of this article is a fair practise, I understand Silence's arguments, and it does seem that this article contains badly written versions of parts of other articles, in particular Evidence for evolution. Also, the title isn't very good. Salvageable content could easily be moved to evidence for evolution and other articles, if this one is deleted. IronChris | (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My intention wasn't to rally them. I didn't tell tem to vote against it or in any way push them to it. I saw that there were several statements of support for the article and felt that known critics needed to comment here in case I had misunderstood their criticisms or that their belief was that this article would be salvageable if their criticism were addressed. Hackwrench 05:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out in other responses, it had been flagged for attention for five months. It had not gotten attention in thse five months, which is sufficient time to illustrate it's nonimportance. It has been in other ports of calls. Hackwrench 01:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, how far did it get? If it's been sitting there with just a Cleanup or Attention tag on it for five months, it could be argued that editors simply didn't know about it (of course it would also mean that the article is seldom-visited and perhaps shouldn't be around in the first place). It needs a definite plan of action set out, and nobody's sitting down and doing so. Is there a "Wikiproject evolution" or somesuch it could go under where it would get more attention? We could try putting up requests for attention in Talk pages of the articles which link to it. I'm not convinced that deletion is the right course of action in such a situation. Of course, if the alternative's complete inaction, well, I could be persuated. Sockatume 01:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That it has been tagged for five months does not mean much. By the way, have you tried to clean it up? Before going to AfD on grounds of "impossible cleanup", you probably should have asked for help in cleaning it up by posting a note on the talk page of Darwinism, evolution and the other articles that link back to this one. Pascal.Tesson 01:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get the idea that other pages talk pages are the place for discussing cleaning up this one. There was much talk that recongnized the need for cleaning up this article on the talk page and little progress was made on a course of action to do something about it. Since it failed, what makes you think that I or anyone else would have success? Hackwrench 03:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Numerous" has many interpretations. The number of hits for evolution is 298,000,000. 4800 is a drop in the bucket in comparison. Also, "argument from evolution" is vague enough for numerous arguments to all claim to be the argument from evolution, and that's one of the problems the article encountered. See Talk:Argument from evolution#What_Happened.3F and #Some examples of use of this term.Hackwrench 01:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After 208 entries Google is omitting results.[56] Some of the results displayed on that page are spam. Hackwrench 02:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only contacted them after there was much weighing in to keep the article. Why do those who want to keep it feel such urgency to keep this that they feel it should be spedily kept and thus shorten the time to really talk about this?Hackwrench 03:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poor quality has been a rational for deletion ever since "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic" and "Patent nonsense (total gibberish)" were part of the Wikipedia: Deletion policy, This article doesn't cover one topic, but is a mishmash of things that say evolution and may mention either intelligent design or God. Hackwrench 03:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we first accept that you truly believe that the article needs cleanup and not deletion, why over the past 5 months haven't you made attempts towards that? Otherwise, it just seems to be an excuse to satisfy a fear that something bad will happen if the article gets deleted. Hackwrench 07:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, what basis are you using to determine that your assessment of the primary meaning of the phrase "argument from evolution" is correct. Hackwrench 07:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Hackwrench's points- first) I haven't gotten around to cleaning it up, but will do so now that it is on AfD. As to the second, do a google search for the phrase, one gets as some of the top hits [59][60]. JoshuaZ 07:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that those seem to be the only top hits that are not clones of the Wikipedia article or spam. It seems that the only reason it is anywhere near the top is because the wikipedia article and clones link to it and several widely linked wikipedia articles link to this article in their "see also". Also, as I noted above, the phrase "argument from evolution" isn't widely used. While Google reports about 4800 pages, you only go to 208 before Google sais that the rest are hidden due to being too similar to the ones already displayed.Hackwrench 07:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Flanagan[edit]

Footballer who has never played in a professional league. Punkmorten 20:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a fictional non-notable biography. (aeropagitica) 07:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Summers[edit]

Ms. Summers has a very fetching website but nothing much else I can confirm of her rising stardom. No Allmusic entry, no Amazon listing, an IMDb listing which might or might not be her, and from the info in the article only one album slated to be released. What I can verify does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. ~ trialsanderrors 21:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rivera[edit]

Robert Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested WP:PROD. Original PROD reason: "(1) subject of article is non-notable; (2) article is very POV; (3) article seems to basically be a rewrite of the website listed at the bottom and does not otherwise cite any sources". Someone appears to have meant to add this to AfD but didn't complete the process. No opinion. —Wrathchild (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different Spaces[edit]

The article is about an "upcoming show", but provides no references indicating that the show is even real, let alone notable. Attempts at prod were rejected, and even adding the ((unreferenced)) tag just resulted in the tag's removal by an anon user. -- Elonka 21:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was already speedily deleted by Taxman. I will salt it Taxman also salted it (just beat me to it), since this is the 14th time the article has been deleted. --Coredesat 22:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googolplexian[edit]

Delete. Not a real term. Just a term Wikipedians keep wanting to promote with Wikipedia. Georgia guy 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick or Treat[edit]

Random non-notable advertising campaign, the only reason this article exists is to amuse the backwards catchphrase induced "humour" from the YTMND crowd. Note that I have removed the YTMND link, because it's an unencyclopedic crock of crap. This is the product of a failed education system. - Hahnchen 21:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mantown[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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Morrissey[edit]

I am puzzled about this one; a long article with references, etc, but I failed to find a single Google, Yahoo, Amazon, etc, hit (except Wikipedia and related sites) about either himself or his books. He is indeed mentioned on the website of the Korean Mountaineering League (KML), but the rest of the article does not describe him as particularly notable (or even particularly non-notable sometimes, as in the last paragraph of the lead). Finally, his mountaineering experience does not look any special (and I have done one of these walks). No opinion. Schutz 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomanganitalk 15:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sequence profiling tool[edit]

This article is well-written. However, it appears to refer to a neologism, and seems mainly to be original research. The term "sequence profiling tool" does not appear in a cursory check through PubMed abstracts, the external links on this page, or Google, with the exception of articles written or co-written by one of the editors who created this page. There does not appear to be other support for the notability of this term. The author cites BLAST and Ensembl, as examples of the term, but as far as I can tell neither of these ever use the term. Grouse 23:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have indeed never heard the term in bioinformatics; the article seems to be a collection of different tools and topics grouped under a neologism (and the section on microarrays has nothing to do with the rest !) and as such, I'd be inclined to delete the page. However, it'd be a pity to loose the content, since most of it could be used on a more generic page along the line of "Bioinformatic tools". Could we integrate it somewhere else (I haven't really looked where yet) ? Schutz 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea. The Bioinformatics article has a Software tools section. If this article were renamed and reworked slightly it could be a "main article" for the section, called, say Bioinformatics software tools. I don't think referring to most of these things as "profiling tools" though fits with common usage. This would need to be changed Grouse 23:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think "sequence profiling" is a neologism as well. A quick Google reveals a similar situation--many of the top hits are to either (a) copies of this article or (b) other pages by the author of this article. Grouse 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the random anons showing up to keep this is a bit strange. Try searching for "sequence profile" and you'll have better luck (though, to be fair, 3D-1D profiles aren't covered in the article, and I agree that BLAST and the like don't really fall into the category - the more common usage refers to alignment techniques). Support a move/expansion/cleanup to Bioinformatics software or similar. Opabinia regalis 14:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Indeed, "sequence profile" is used widely, but it means something else. In one definition[66], sequence profiles are "matrices of real values, representing the probability of amino acids at each position in a corresponding multiple sequence alignment." This has very little to do with what is discussed in this article. Grouse 14:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've moved the microarray stuff to its own article, since I was the one who originally added it and I can't for the life of me remember why. (Sequence profiles are not necessarily matrices, by the way; they can be coarser than PSSMs. This content is more like "sequence representation" though.) Opabinia regalis 01:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - I was really puzzled by this microarray stuff in there. Schutz 07:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Anonymous user does not provide any verifiable support for this statement. Anonymous user's first edit to Wikipedia. Grouse 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging the article with any major topics is a good idea but given the length and content it will be too long to be included under ny one particular area. I have a list of possible such topics. Alternatively, splitting the content will also tend dilute the core concept.
  • So I would sincerely request the article to be kept since there is ample scope for input to make it a useful piece
Nattu 03:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the original summary, I reported the author's contention that BLAST and Ensembl are "sequence profiling tools." However, neither of these ever use the term "sequence profiling tool" as far as I can tell. Grouse 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Nieuwland College[edit]

Dutch school. (Closing admin: This is a procedural listing. Count me as neutral.) BanyanTree 23:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward English? It's in Dutch, not English. Arbusto 08:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reference was to the original version of the Pieter Nieuwland College article on English Wikipedia. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
English-language sources should be used whenever possible, because this is the English Wikipedia. Sources in other languages are acceptable when there are no English equivalents in terms of quality and relevance. Published translations are generally preferred to editors translating material on their own; when editors do use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, perhaps in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Padikasanathar[edit]

Hindu temple. (Closing admin: Procedural listing; count me as neutral). BanyanTree 23:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States occupation of Fallujah. - Yomanganitalk 11:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lions of Fallujah (Asad Al-Fallujah)[edit]

Iraqi insurgent song (Closing admin: Procedural listing; count me as neutral.) BanyanTree 23:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?q=asad+al+fallujah+nasheed&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian bush bands[edit]

Contents as expected, though every item is an external link. (Closing admin: procedural listing; count me as neutral.) BanyanTree 23:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talbsoun[edit]

This appears to be a complete fabrication. See article's Talk page for indications of a fabrication. Epolk 23:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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