< November 2 November 4 >
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. Dakota 00:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Doncaster Cricket Club[edit]

Well, if Wiki adminers have determined precedent for like sporting clubs, any retort I can offer appears to be a waste of time. However, a couple for your consideration...

Links to the area (Doncaster or East Doncaster) discuss schools, community groups & sporting clubs based throughout the area. Is it not logical for these clubs to then have a wiki presence??

The club has a significant history in the area, which has been documented extensively, and is currently being prepared for release in book format.

The club effects hundreds of individuals & families on a weekly basis.

I don't see the point in ignoring sporting associations that play a prominent part in a local community, and limiting a wiki presence to those that reach a specific "grade". It's easy to state that a club is "Not notable", but by whose reckoning does this apply??

Other than following wiki guideliness that have already been established, I don't think the arguments noted for deletion so far, are at all contructive.

Kind regards, Heater

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 00:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Huemer[edit]

Associate professor; the article makes strong claims of notability which I'm unable to confirm. An ISI citation search puts his most-cited paper at 15 citations. Everything else is in the single digits. ~ trialsanderrors 20:00, 24 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, Trialsanderrors 00:30, 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 keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jingle Networks[edit]

Contested speedy deletion candidate. Listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 00:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Wisniewski. Will you tolerate ads for free 411 dialing?: New companies put heat on $1-plus fees big players charge, The Chicago Sun-Times, March 20, 2006.
Robert Weisman. Free 411 service has a nice ring, but Jingle's comes with a catch, Boston Globe, December 7, 2005.
Bruce Meyerson. Goldman, Hearst Lead Jingle Investors, Associated Press Online, October 22, 2006.
Carolyn Shapiro. You could pay for directory assistance or you could let advertisers, The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, VA.), October 9, 2005.
Deborah Kolben. New Yorkers Giving Jingle Networks a Jingle for Some Free 411, The New York Sun, January 23, 2006.
There are some more, but they are all essentially the same. Some of those stories above were copied by multiple papers. It is important to note that these articles are only about 200-500 words each. I would personally count them as trivial, but I suppose I'm not completely sure. This company does have a novel business plan and did receive a little money from important investors, but that is their only claim to notability whatsoever. Their stock was listed as a hot buy some time ago, but there is nothing else concerning this company other than the investment and business plan. shotwell 16:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 200-500 words, though small, isn't "trivial" to me since the whole of the article concerns the company in question. I do have to ask whether the five articles contain substantial similarities in content; if that's the case, then it should pass. ColourBurst 17:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are all about the large amount of investment money or the novel business idea, and yes, their content is pretty similar. The sources given below by J did not all show up in the LexisNexis search, but the articles I presented have highly similar content. I guess that these all constitute multiple non-trivial sources? shotwell 18:05, 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 12:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhard Hetze[edit]

Claim to notability is was the first man in all South America who held in 1890 the Sabbath of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and kept the Sabbath day holy as the church teaches. I don't know if that is notable enough or even verifiable; searches forReinhardt or Reynaldo yield mostly WP mirrors. ~ trialsanderrors 00:28, 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.


whay dont you go to the church history in south america and check it for yourselves insteat of automaticly delete what you guess... you fools.!!

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 userfy, a brief Google indicates that poethical is associated with Earwood, as if it were ever in doubt. Guy 15:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Earwood[edit]

An article on a self-published nn poet. "Timothy Earwood" results in fewer than 30 unique ghits. Likely runs against WP:VAIN: ten of first editor Poethical's 15 Wikipedia contributions have concerned Timothy Earwood. Four of the remaining five contributions have been to Peter Urban and Goju-Ryu, two interestes identified in the article. Victoriagirl 00:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to a WP:COI or WP:SPA the subject fails WP:BIO and is not notable. Cbrown1023 00:59, 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 all. Alex (Talk) 17:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Pfligler[edit]

NN hockey player, fails sportspeople guidelines set in WP:BIO, precedent set with discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jovica Zelenbaba Tony fanta 00:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also former/current Saginaw Spirit players that do not meet WP:BIO and have not been drafted by the NHL or show any notability (although being drafted isn't an instant factor of notability either, I just want to bundle those of similar ilk, others can check the list later):

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in South Africa[edit]

tagged db-empty but does not really apply to list articles. South Africa is rather a large country and has more than a few schools... Guy 00:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That part has been removed from the article. FrozenPurpleCube 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like List of schools? FrozenPurpleCube 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's pretty much an example of the worthlessness these lists may generate.--Húsönd 19:41, 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 Speedy delete as G1 and A7. Guy 10:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Festival (with bubbles)[edit]

I have no idea what event this is describing, but it appears to be some local school event and surely is not notable. Calliopejen 00:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond this request, I will address the specific reasons for recommending deletion. Cbrown1023’s request for a total-rewrite in which the author can explain the subject better is well received. The idea was for one participant to provide the skeleton of the article such that various other participants could more readily add to the substance of the article and clarify it. However, I respect the need to put a limit on such efforts, given the prevalence of lazy communities that start projects on the Wikipedia and are not committed to maintaining them. This is why I recommend the 30 day moratorium on the discussion about whether or not the article should be deleted. If after 30 days the article is not fleshed out, then I too will recommend deletion. With regard to Masamage’s request to send the article to WP:BJAODN, this, again, might seem appropriate to those who do not, for obvious reasons, understand the article, but again I urge a 30 day period during which the article may be fleshed out by the entire Festival community. This article was created in order that those who participated would have an easier time adding content. Although the wiki format is easy to use, if there is an article already created then it is easier to edit. OfficeGirl suggests what may seem like the most appropriate critique of the article with the suggestion that it violates WP:NFT. I was concerned about this particular guideline myself while creating the article and this is why I created the history sub-heading. I do not think that Festival is a violation of these guidelines, and I know several other Festival participants who have read the guidelines themselves and still agree. Furthermore, because I did not want to waste the time of the Wikipedia community, I requested assurance of those Festival participants in the creation of the article prior to their participation in the creation of this article. I have been assured by several participants that, if the article itself were created, they would be happy to add content in order to clarify it. For this reason I request a 30 day period during which Festival participants are allowed to contribute to the article prior to its consideration for deletion. There were several complaints about the lack of sources. I feel very redundant at this point in my request, but I think it best to allow a 30 period in order to list the sources. This is, perhaps, the most tedious task, although one of the more important, or any wikipedian and at times takes more than six hours to perform if it is do be done correctly. Having just read the the wikipedia guidline on verifiability I can assure the Wikipedia editors, whose commitment to the integrity of this project is evident by the number who have turned out to pass judgment on this single article, that two legitimate sources have published articles about Festival and one is in the works, and that if the 30 day wait period is suggested that these publications will be linked to the website. We will verify it, although we do appreciatability Metropolitan90’s link to the page with the verifiability criteria. The fact that Mikeblas cannot find the soundtrack on Allmusic or Amazon seems entirely irrelevant, and the suggestion that this is “Something made up at break one day” is both insulting and unsupported. I take great offense that the conclusions jumped to by this particular Wikipedia-editor. I will assume for the time being that they have been reached by the lack of respect for the wikipedia project that Mikeblas has encountered in the past and a general embitterment to those whose actions undermine the integrity of the project. Consequently I will not make further comment on this ill founded suggestion to delete the article. • I cannot understand Arbusto’s request to delete (without bubbles) unless it is just a suggestion in an overall vote. If so, the vote is respected. If ‘(without bubbles)’ is supposed to provide some reason for this vote, I am left in a state this perplexing by another’s reasoning since I stopped teaching introductory logic courses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festwoman (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 speedy delete. —Mets501 (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Masters[edit]

Non notable fansite for The Sims. The prod was contested a while back but this one could almost be speedied under A7. Note that the article has been built entirely by anonymous IPs and VampireX13 (talk · contribs). Perhaps not unrelated is the fact that one of the main moderators of the website is a user called Vampire. In any case, the content is mostly unverifiable and most clearly of no encyclopedic value. Pascal.Tesson 01:03, 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 12:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Capezzone[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. Punkmorten 20:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Twinkle of an Eye[edit]

Non-notable book published by vanity press AuthorHouse. "In the Twinkle of an Eye" "Linda Sterling" produces 11 unique Google hits. The book has an amazon.com SalesRank of 356,183. -Elmer Clark 05:31, 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, Whispering 01:14, 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 12:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal experience curricula[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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Bellemore[edit]

NN hockey player, fails sportspeople guidelines set in WP:BIO, precedent set with discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jovica Zelenbaba Tony fanta 00:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also former/current Plymouth Whalers players that do not meet WP:BIO and have not been drafted by the NHL or show any notability:

Excerpt from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 8#CHL alumni categories
Quote from ccwaters

Clarification: the guideline at WP:BIO states Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles. So for hockey players, they are wiki notable if they have played professionally. Of course there are always exceptions like hot prospects (Jordan Staal, Phil Kessel, etc)... ccwaters 20:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

With the OHL being considered a professional league, it would mean that all players could be up. Don't get me wrong, I don't really consider there to be entirely bright hockey futures for all of them, but I can promise that at least 4 will be playing in higher leagues in the next 3 years, at least one of them next year. 35.11.236.45 00:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Update: upon further research into the matter, I would make a suggestion as to players to save, from this list, as long other OHL teams are given similar chances to get their prospects "wikiworthy". I would suggest leaving Steve Ward, Andrew Fournier, Vern Cooper, and A.J. Jenks. Among players in the list above, there may be fringe NHL draft picks, but the four I have mentioned will move on. 35.11.236.45 01:03, 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 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Waldman[edit]

An article on a self-published non-notable writer in clear violation with WP:COI guidelines. Original editor Mitchwaldman has contributed to this article exclusively. Subject fails WP:BIO Victoriagirl 02:39, 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 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miramonte Department of Choral Studies[edit]

This article does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, is without context, and violates WP:NPOV. "Miramonte Department of Choral Studies" scores precisely 12 unique Ghits, and "Heritage International Choral Festival" scores 3 unique Ghits. It refers to, and could be a part of, Miramonte High School, but gets no mention whatsoever in latter article, where this article may be suitably be merged in part, if any editor judges content worthy of keeping. Ohconfucius 02:55, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norelle Van Herk[edit]

prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who asserted that relaity show contestants are inherently notable. After losing this reality show, this contestant has done nothing more notable than failing to win on the show. Mikeblas 03:28, 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 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Land Far Away[edit]

This is a non-notable community and fails WP:WEB. It is apparently the most well-known community for the Neverwinter Nights game, but this is far from being notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Currently has an incredibly low Alexa ranking (and has for many years) and very few relevant Google hits. Prod was removed by User:Avraham, saying the community has "hundreds of members" and some screennames of members were used in later games, though this at best is trivia that should be listed on the related game pages.--- RockMFR 03:38, 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. Dakota 22:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catie Anderson[edit]

prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who asserted that "reality contestants are inherently notable". After losing on this game show, this contestant went on to have a couple of bit parts on a soap opera, appearing in only two epsiodes. She is more notable than an extra in a movie. Mikeblas 03:34, 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 all as obvious hoaxes per WP:SNOW and the several pairs of eyes, below. NawlinWiki 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 FIFA "D" World Cup[edit]

Hoax, there was no 2005 FIFA World Cup, info taken from 2002 World Cup, user that create this article talk page shows he has created several other hoaxes. Coasttocoast 03:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for same reason:

Yeah, I do recall the Vatican and its actual football team! :-) Anyway the modus operandi here is quite similar, England is once again unbeatable and if this hoax isn't deleted soon enough then I can foresee Portugal losing miserably against Mali. --Húsönd 05:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's really sad about all of this is that I've done the same kind of thing with other countries and other sports. Offline, of course, but I've done it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:28, 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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Hernández[edit]

prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff, who did so because "reality contestants are inherently notable". This losing contestant has done nothing notable after the show. Has just less than 1000 hits on Google. [4] Mikeblas 03:42, 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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony Taylor[edit]

prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who assert that realtiy show contestants are inherently notable. After losing on the show, this contestant has done some modelling, but nothing that sets her apart from others. About 1600 hits on Google. [5]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 22:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Maxwell[edit]

The article is not written very well, but I would like it to be improved on, rather than deleted. Jordan Maxwell's work is very important to the 'research community' (aka conspiracy theorists), and he is cited and quoted by many other writers and lecturers, including Michael Tsarion, David Ike and others. To delete his entry would be to start a trend of removing entries for anyone who dares to question the status quo. Just because the complainant hasn't heard of him, doesn't mean that he is not notable.

Unnotable conspriacy theorist with three books "published" from a PO Box in San Diego, California.[6] Fails notability. Arbusto 03:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete _him_ then that's a good precedent to "nominate and destroy" most of those christian preachers, bible colleges and other such organizations that have cropped up on WP as of late; few of these pass the same litmus test. There is too much of Maxwell's work in circulation for him to be dismissed like that. What's more, and most telling is that Arbustoo chose to forget to mention the many documentaries for television Mr. Maxwell has worked on and at times appeared therein in person as well as the many events Mr. Maxwell has been a featured speaker at many venues and has been invited as a guest to many radio shows such as Art Bell / George Noory's Coast to Coast etc. etc.

Many are available on |http://video.google.com&q=jordan+maxwell :

... ...

Just looking at this website at [[7]] it's therefore not just "three books" "published by a PO Box".

I can imagine his work does not sit well with (christian) religionists and other such related organizations and cults, however as I stated in the beginning, as far as notability is concerned, once you delve into subjects such as secret societies and the inner workings of organized religion then there is no way past Jordan Maxwell. Reader 13:02, 3 November 2006(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.230.65 (talk • contribs)

The main issue is whether he meets WP:BIO. If you can show that he meets that guideline you have a much better chance of the article getting kept. The above does not help in that regardJoshuaZ 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Has NOT been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
  2. has ONE published work that can be easily found. Hardly notable, Wikipedia is not a library.
  3. The only possible field that this person could be widely recognized as contributing to is whackaloonery, but even then I find little evidence of that (aside from his personal website, which is worth reading for sheer entertainment value. Maybe move it to BJAODN?)
  4. Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. FAILED.
  5. Under alternative tests, expandability is very low.

I think Guy hit it on the head by calling him a self-professed and self-published "expert". --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 17:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(2) is wrong: proof: [8]
(3) an insult does not qualify as a reason to delete his article
(4) but relevance is: [9]
--John.constantine 19:02, 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 12:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Black[edit]

prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who commented that "reality contestants are inherently notable". This contestant lost on the show, then went on to do nothing that set her apart from others in her field. About 700 hits on Google [10]. Mikeblas 03:51, 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 12:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Deighton[edit]

prod tag was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who commented that "reality contestants are inherently notable". This contestant lost on the show, then went on to do nothing to set herself apart from her peers. Less than 600 hits on Google [11]. Mikeblas 03:56, 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. --Ezeu 18:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Open University[edit]

Unnotable unaccredited "university." I get 2,300 yahoo hits including wikipedia and spam. Should be redirected to the New York Institute of Technology per the more famous program of the accredited school. According to the NY IT article, "the college launched American Open University of NYIT in November 1984." This Virgina unaccredited "school" has nothing to do with the NY accredited program. Arbusto 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this "university" is recognised by other universities, not accredited by them. Accreditation is a formal process with a specific meaning, and the article clearly states that this "university" is wholly unaccredited.


(UTC)

Please ensure those claims pass WP:V. Arbusto 08:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up a good point. The articles (the three post articles) you cited is in direct contradiction with how the article currently presents itself. Thus, this should be deleted for WP:V issues.
Perhaps if the person named in the articles you mentioned is notable enough for his own wikipedia article, currently he is not, this article could be merged with him. Yet, clearly this minor news event didn't spark enough interest on the people mentioned, and doesn't warrant a separate article on the school. This isnt wikinews. Arbusto 08:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to misunderstand WP:V. As I stated with my first comment, the article needs expansion from someone who knows the subject. There are clearly a lot of sources available for that expansion. Hence, WP:V can be easily satisfied. Finally, your comment about wikinews is not relevant to this discussion. A school of higher learning that has been newsworthy enough to garner attention from major sources such as the Washington Post more than qualifies for an article here. --JJay 22:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very similiar argument you made at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Council of Private Colleges and Universities, which you were the only one to vote keep. If anything ever came of these three 2004 mentions it should be included. However, all you have is three sources that MENTION the "school", but don't devote any space to the school itself. Arbusto 04:05, 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 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Murphy[edit]

prod tag was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who wrote that "reality contestants are inherently notable". This contestant lost on the show, then went on to do nothing to set herself apart from her peers. About 600 hits on Google [14]. Mikeblas 04:04, 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 and redirect to America's Next Top Model.  Glen  01:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Richardson[edit]

prod tag was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who wrote that "reality contestants are inherently notable". This contestant lost on the show, then went on to do nothing to set herself apart from her peers. About 600 hits on Google [15]. Mikeblas 04:12, 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 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Epley[edit]

prod tag was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who wrote that "reality contestants are inherently notable". This contestant lost on the show, then went on to do nothing to set herself apart from her peers. About 1100 hits on Google [17]. Mikeblas 04:15, 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 12:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standing In The Rain[edit]

Non-notable song with no claims of notability. I have tried repeatedly to redirect it to the album page, but the article's creator insists on unredirecting, therefore it's time to get the thing deleted altogether. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:28, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous addresses[edit]

Prodded and Prod lifted by creator. I fail to see the point of this list. It is always likely to be incomplete. In my view a category structure would do a better job and be much easier to maintain. Delete. BlueValour 04:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the talk page? You seem to have completely missed the point. It is not a list of famous people's address. Would you recognize oprah's address as her address? Would the average person know? Doubtful. How many [americans] recognize "1600 pennsylvania avenue" as the white house? The talk page explains this and gives two litmus tests for this and I explained it above. The criteria is not arbitrary as you believe it to be.
I welcome any input (perhaps this could have been done before AFDing it) on how to make this more clear: the addresses here are recognizable when they stand alone. I think 10 downing street, 221B Baker Street, 1600 pennsylvania ave, and 30 rockefeller plaza are excellent examples that demonstrate this. Would you know oprah's address from jay leno's from tom clancy's from leonard nemoy's?
As for "As it stands I see no reason why Oprah's address couldn't be added here". People move and people change addresses. Wikipedia is not a phone book. When was the last time the white house moved? Or the PM of the UK? Did Sherlock Holmes ever move? Cburnett 17:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read the talk page and I commented there as well. Your point about celebrity addresses is well taken. The problem I still see though is that the addresses you've cited as examples are not sourced as famous, specifically it is not verified in the article that these addresses are famous or well known. I think it is an assumption on your part (albeit perhaps a correct one) that most Americans would recognize "1600 pennsylvania avenue", but what of wider notability? How many people in the world would recognize that as the White House? Does the fact that the White House have an article qualify it as a notable address? What about WP:LOCAL locations that might have significance to the populace of a city and be referred to with their address but are not perhaps generally known by the larger public? I still don't think your litmus test for inclusion is well enough defined.--Isotope23 18:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue exists as a dab page (and the name of a movie) and 30 Rockefeller Plaza is a redirect while both 10 Downing Street and 221B Baker Street are actual articles. I'm not a heavy AFD/IFD/etc. participant but "notability" seems to be thrown around a lot in such discussions so I think the existance of an article would be sufficient to say the address is notable. A redirect, to me, says that the address is well known enough to trouble someone to create said redirect (please don't go creating a bunch of redirects to dilute my point :).
I initially set the bar to "famous" to make it a more exclusive list but I, like you, recognized the trouble in labelling them as "famous". If lowering the bar to notability presumed by the existance of a WP article is required then so be it. On looking around 40 Wall Street should probably be added being that it claimed the world's tallest building (albiet for ~1 month). I'm more than willing to "lower the bar" and rename to list of notable addresses and discuss how to make this article work but I still think it's doable. Cburnett 19:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who cares to chime in, I've started it off at Talk:List of famous addresses#Notability. Cburnett 19:58, 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 keep; nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crocker Middle School[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable middle school. Absolutely nothing sets this one apart from thousands of other middle schools Resolute 04:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC) *Delete There is nothing notable about this school. It has no well known alumni, nor is it particularly old. It has no succesful sports teams or clubs that have performed at a notable level. The school has recieved no notable awards. JoshuaZ 07:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to Keep The blue ribbon awards are sufficient claim to notability. JoshuaZ 02:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per Alansohn's research. Turns out this is one of a very small number of schools that is notable. I'll go vandalize and destroy some other article now.... Resolute 01:08, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stage Crew[edit]

Unsigned band with no sign of passing WP:MUSIC. Two previous attempt by User:Fan-1967 to speedy it were blocked by suspected sock puppets, Planetispluto and ADE5715 - two first-time editors with no other edits to their name. The band has apparently one self-released album, (no sign on Amazon, and no sign of reviews). They and are scheduled to play their first live gig in their home town at the Thanksgiving break 2006 per their website. 442 unique Ghits for "Stage crew" + celtic, all but about 5 return links for the generic usage of stage crew. Ohconfucius 04:59, 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 Nomination withdrawn - Yomanganitalk 13:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albophobia[edit]

Dictionary definition; recreation of previously deleted article; non-notable term (139 ghits, one of which is my user page where I list pages that I have deleted.) Prod removed. Brianyoumans 05:05, 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 12:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Forums[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Relatively small Internet forum/website, no assertion of notability outside of its own community. --- RockMFR 05:46, 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 12:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board[edit]

Unnotable accreditation mill with no recognition or connection to any respected academic group. Arbusto 05:51, 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 I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the press coverage that was claimed but never shown. Normally a closer doesn't search, but normally people provide evidence rather than just vague claims of it. On a News search, I get one result and it's a simple mention that isn't very informative. On a regular google search, everything seems to be various random webpages either of credential check sites or other schools / practitioners. Gillian McKeith cites at least 2 articles from newspapers... this article cites nothing, none of the "news coverage" of McKeith mentions this group, let alone gives useful information on it. If anyone wants to present a reliable source on this topic, I'll undelete. W.marsh 15:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Drugless Practitioners[edit]

Unnotable accreditation mill with no recognition or connection to any respected academic group. Arbusto 05:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Check the coverage on McKeith." As for now you haven't supplied anything to prove notability for this group. Does it even still exist as a group or is it just a internet front? WP:CORP states we need several non-trival sources. Arbusto 22:55, 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 Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense. "Little known fact, the lead singer of Scenegrind Pop-Thrash band "Shovel" was the first man to deny nine eleven actually happened. Oddly enough "Shovel" broke up before 1985." Ha ha ha. NawlinWiki 19:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scenegrind pop-thrash[edit]

Non-notable or made up musical style. Unsourced, article title gets no google hits outside Wikipedia[18]. Deprodded without comment. Weregerbil 06:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm guessing that it's talking about this. ergot 19:37, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenverse[edit]

Endorsed prod removed. No verification nor assertion of notability/significance. Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 06:04, 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 redirect. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creation vs. Evolution[edit]

POV fork of Creation-evolution controversy, at best would make sense to be a redirect. JoshuaZ 06:20, 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 Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense/obvious hoax. "Several I-131 bombs have been sucessfully tested at the defense contractor NeuroToxin's test pits. At least one has been badly damaged. It is believed that NeuroToxin is covering up these tests to sell the technology to rogue countries such as the DPRK." Give me a freakin' break. NawlinWiki 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iodine bomb[edit]

Hoax. I-131 is a product from a nuclear fission. Its fusion would be a reverse reaction requiring additional energy, not producing it. No ghits on such a novel weapon Alex Bakharev 06:31, 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 Speedy delete a7. "As of November 3, 2006, the movement hadn't done anything." Sounds like a failure to assert notability to me. NawlinWiki 19:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-Vegetarianism[edit]

Not notable movement Alex Bakharev 06:49, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape random events[edit]

Nominated for deletion for a third time. This article seems much more like part of a game guide than an encyclopedia article. The notability of the article isnt asserted in any way. There are no third parties references. I'd propose it be deleted MidgleyDJ 07:07, 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 12:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Caradja[edit]

Lack of notability, lack of relevancy, dubious claim to Dracula lineage (or, in case, one shared with thousands of other people) Dahn 07:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coment - 1. Is every descendant of Ţepeş' notable for being his descendant? 2. The claim of direct lineage is highly unlikely, as anyone vaguely familiar with Romanian history knows (ie: no direct lineage was necessary to become prince, all boyar familes were related to the prince, and something called the Phanariotes came about at some point - Brianna is a descendant, more or less direct, of the Caragea family, who were not "descendants of Dracula" more than hundreds of other families); even the sources you mention indicate that she is an [indirect] descendant of the 27th generation! Caradja has never made that claim inside Romania, arguably because she knows it is refutable for the said reasons. 3. And what else has she done, pray tell? A Google glance over Romanian journals says that she has: married an American, paid reporters to photograph her (!), married (re-married with?) a man who was supposed to be the son-in-law of Michael I of Romania. Dahn 08:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you at least provide your "Google" sources? You're only asserting things here without actually providing sources for your claims. EliasAlucard|Talk 09:10, 03 Nov, 2006 (UTC)
[20], [21], [22]. All tabloids. Dahn 08:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, tabloids are extremely reliable. If tabloids write something, it must be true. Seriously, I take the word of Discovery any day over tabloids. As for the Caragea family, it seems they have history with Wallachia and that makes it more probable that she's a descendant of Dracula, and there's an article about Catherine Caradja too (could be family). Either way, to me, she seems notable whether or not she actually is a descendant of Dracula. EliasAlucard|Talk 09:20, 03 Nov, 2006 (UTC)
Let me explain som things. I was using tabloids precisely because they are the only Romanian sources on Brianna Cardja you will bump into on the entire internet, and with this kind of topics (in fact, there are two sites or so, with the same news, the odd English-language chat, and then that's it!). If you did not see the point about the Caradjas being a Phanariote family and how that relates to their descendants and their kinship with Dracula, then perhaps you should refrain from commenting on issues having to do with Romanian hisory. Dahn 08:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable. You are ASSUMING that she's 100% from the Caragea family because of her surname. You haven't done serious research on her family lineage, YOU DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHAT HER FAMILY LINEAGE IS OR ISN'T. A surname is a surname. It doesn't prove anything. You can have an Arab surname, but that doesn't make you an Arab. You're basing her entire lineage on her surname. And don't tell me to not comment on things. EliasAlucard|Talk 09:48, 18 Nov, 2006 (UTC)
Let me make it even more clear. Aside from the fact that it is very unlikely to be named Caradja and not be a Caradja in Romania, especially when you also say you're a princess, I will say that she'd better be a Caradja at the very least. Because, you see, Vlad Ţepeş' last direct male descendant, Petru cel Tânăr, died without heirs in 1568. Dahn 08:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why the fuck didn't you mention this from the beginning? You could've saved me lots of time. EliasAlucard|Talk 16:48, 03 Nov, 2006 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but I believe I have told you several times already that Caradja (with or without the name) cannot be a direct descendant. Moreover, I have also mentioned that succession rules in yesteryear Wallachia were absurd (one of all male children, legitimate and illegimate alike, could inherit a title), and direct lineage was a non sequitur (in general, all such claims are dubious). Dahn 16:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what her surname is. Surnames change throughout the years. You can't expect a family lineage to have the same surname for 600 years. So a surname isn't really that important. But if his last male descendant died without heirs, that's another thing (I'd like to have a source for this if possible). EliasAlucard|Talk 22:53, 03 Nov, 2006 (UTC)
1) "Caradja"/"Caragea" is not "Johnson", you know? It's more like "there might have been more than one families named House of Hannover in England". I'd wager that the name was not held by any family other than descendants of the original Carageas, who were Greek and came to Romania in the 1700s (300 years after Dracula died). This would imply that, since a princely claim is involved, Caradja is, at best, a descendant of those people. 2) Turns out I was wrong - I had forgotten that Petru and Alexandru II were brothers. Which leads us to Alexandru Coconul (the Child-Prince), who left no inheritors after his 1627 rule (Mihnea III was, possibly, his brother - he died without inheritors after getting whoopass from the Ottomans in 1659) - see here. With Matei Basarab, princes were no longer nominated after any real hereditary criteria, and all boyar families claimed to descend from the legendary rulers of the 1300s (which, if anything, would make them collateral).
Since it is highly unlikely that non-Caradjas could bear both the name Caradja and the "title" of prince (I should warn you that nobody was exactly a prince or princess after the 1870s), Dracula "blood" could only have come to them through a collateral branch; since the male line was extinguished before the 1630s (while parallel branches from Dracula's various brothers and uncles continued to exist) the very probability is ridiculous; since clear rules of succession were never really the case in medieval Wallachia, and women did not have the right to inherit, all such "genealogies" are merely shiny beads for the gullible. Dahn 22:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but please tell me, if she's not a descendant of Dracula, then why is she claiming to be a descendant of Dracula and how is it that the Discovery channel presents it as a fact? They're putting their credibility at stake by doing so, and I doubt they would want to screw up their credibility for a documentary about Dracula. EliasAlucard|Talk 23:49, 03 Nov, 2006 (UTC)
"Why is she claiming to be a descendent of Dracula?" Why do people claim to be descendents of anyone famous? It makes people think of you differently. "Why does the Discovery Channel present it as fact?" Presumably because they were hoodwinked as well - not every documentary maker is able to check every single fact thoroughly (every time I see documentaries about areas I'm interested in, I spot mistakes). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And so it was decided that Brianna Caradja is not a descendant of Dracula by the infallible Wikipedia community. Now, it has become a fact. EliasAlucard|Talk 00:43, 04 Nov, 2006 (UTC)
No, she may be a descendent of Dracula (if she is, she's still non-notable because she's 27 generations removed from someone notable). What I'm saying is that there are perfectly sensible reasons why she might claim to be one if she wasn't, and equally sensible reasons why a documentary might say that she was even if she wasn't. You asked two questions and were given two answers. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Alucard, you will watch your language, or else. Biruitorul 22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shut the fuck up fat boy. EliasAlucard|Talk 00:43, 04 Nov, 2006 (UTC)
I think you've said more than enough on this AfD. Tone down your language, or you will be blocked -- Samir धर्म 00:37, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Hait[edit]

This page makes some very doubtful claims about its subjects achievements. The article claims subject is responsible for significant scientific advances, with no verification - it seems a lot like a hoax. --Swpb 01:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was made by User:24.117.205.50 (User talk:24.117.205.50) at 17:30, 3 November 2006 --Swpb 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact to judge by the description on Image:John hait.jpg, the article was written by his son - but it is still vam and spanity. -- RHaworth 08:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment was made by User:24.117.205.50 (User talk:24.117.205.50) at 17:30, 3 November 2006 --Swpb 21:54, 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 12:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passive Annual Heat Storage[edit]

Pure advert created by the inventor of this process - see John Hait who also has this AfD discussion. -- RHaworth 07:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was posted at 17:47, 3 November 2006 by User:24.117.205.50 (User talk:24.117.205.50). --Swpb 23:03, 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 Speedy deleted by Pgk. Whispering 00:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxpayer's holiday[edit]

Unknown and unsigned band with no sign of passing WP:MUSIC. The band has apparently no album, (no sign on Amazon, and no sign of reviews); exactly 5 unique Ghits for "Taxpayer's holiday" + nebraska Ohconfucius 08:08, 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 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kramer[edit]

This article is blatantly self-publicity and seems to being continually altered and updated, quite possibly by the subject themselves. I fail to see how a very minor presenter of a gaming quiz programme primarily on non-terrestrial television is a suitable subject for Wikipedia. This undoubtable falls short of theWP:VAIN criteria.

Any edits and changes which cast doubt on the credance of the entry are immediately reverted with juvenile spin. Wiki is not a CV page for desperate wannabee starlets. This is a serious encyclopedia project and should be treated as such.

Forgive me if I have done this incorrectly. I am relatively new to Wiki, but have become passionate about what it stands for, and find this to be beneath the standards it should rightly quest for.

James — James Leftovic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The result was delete.  Glen  11:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Controversy of Zion[edit]

A non-critical advertisement for a book promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories. If the subject is really worth a WP article, it should be rewritten from scratch. Also this is probably a copyvio. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In particular the Amazon.com page on the book says that
In this dispassionate yet opinionated history, which sweeps from Theodore Herzl's Zionist dream to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's assassination in 1995, Wheatcroft condemns the 1975 United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism as gravely malicious, a reflection of the Arab states' malignancy. While praising Israel as "a unique island of constitutional government in the Levant," he echoes the observation of U.S. journalist I.F. Stone that Zionism involved a psychological act of denial along with a physical act of displacement of Palestine's Arab population.
This article is clearly not that. In addition to a completely different POV from the way the book is described, the most obvious problem is that the article sweeps back much earlier than that, tracing things back to Talmudic times etc., something the book is reported not to do. It would be reasonable to infer that only the title, not the content, is taken from the book, that the use of the book as a source may be misleading and a misrepresentation of the article's source and reliability/credibility, and that this article appears to be, instead, completely unsourced personal polemic. See generally WP:CB. Delete. --Shirahadasha 13:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI edit conflicted. There's apparently two books, one by Wheatcroft (the one with the amazon entry), the other, first published in 1956 by Reed. Dina 13:33, 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 to delete. Article name seems a bit nonstandard, suggest reviewing WP:NAME. W.marsh 16:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John "Kat" Brooks[edit]

Random guy who was injured during a shooting, with no other claim to fame. The incident itself is well covered at Dimebag Darrell. Dtcdthingy 22:48, 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 08:14, 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 (it was close to merge but a single merge target hasn't been identified). Yomanganitalk 18:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bunker[edit]

Some guy whose only reason for being here is that he hates Scientology and has a website which also has an unnecessary Wikipedia article. Crabapplecove 23:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per Montco, while I'd personally rather have an article about this guy as one more little poke at the scientology asses, he doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. If someone can comb through the google hits on the guy to see if they can get him to meet WP:BIO I'd be more than happy to change this to keep. In any case, his website and he should be in the same article. JoshuaZ 03:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Changing to Weak keep or barring that merge due to the regional Emmy mentioned below. JoshuaZ 07:41, 3 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, KrakatoaKatie 08:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... and pro-Scientology circles, for different reasons. The circles altogether have a large population. --Oakshade 06:12, 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 speedy keep per WP:CSK #1, nomination withdrawn and no other deletion opinions present. (Merge is a variant on keep, not on delete.) GRBerry 03:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathmandu University High School[edit]

High school. No reliable outside sources listed, and none found by a media search, so apparently non-noteworthy. Article consists of the name, location, and founding date (1997) of the school, and it apparently cannot be expanded beyond perhaps demographic information; that means it's a directory entry. Prod disputed on the grounds that it's a school. Shimeru 10:09, 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 Speedy redirect to Fukuoka Softbank Hawks. Guy 12:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SoftBank Hawks[edit]

Already exists in more detail under Fukuoka Softbank Hawks Neoyamaneko 10:14, 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 12:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pie Factory[edit]

Non notable public house Quentin X 10:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete as above WikiGull 12:34, 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 16:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helmi Technologies[edit]

Article was speedily deleted as a non-notable company article, then as a recreation of deleted material. The original author believes that the article is notable enough for inclusion, so I am putting this up on Afd. Tangotango 10:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please provide references for the published material in indepdendent, respected publications. This will clearly resolve the notability question in favour of the article. Add the references to the article rather than here. Rich257 10:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found the report from The 451 Group, it requires user ID, but is still there, I didn't find online version of the report from Rober Francis Group. Jrisku 11:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Finland there has been several printed articles about Helmi Technologies, for instance one of the most respected economic magazines of finland "Talouselämä" had an interview of three entepreneurs from Oulu, Helmi had coverage of over one full color page. "Talouselämä" is such news paper, that frequently intervies for instance CEO's of companies like Nokia. There has also been several other printed articles, not related to press releases, for instance in news paper called "Kaleva" (published in Oulu, Finland, about 200 000 readers). I don't know all the US and English language sources, but I know that there has been articles also in English printed press. Helmi has also been several times, among press and other sources, refered as one of the most promising startups in Oulu, Finland (which is one of the most important software hubs in Finland). I would also say, that since helmi is mentioned in several US analyst reports (definately an independent source), it also makes the case rather strong. Personally, I feel that informative and objective content about some company shouldn't constitute article to be deleted. In that way only big companies end up in to wikipedia, which is shame. Additionally I would like to make a note that there are allready few editors who has edited the article and outsiders from Helmi's stand point. Please also note that the link to the 451 group "protected" content is a full report only focused on Helmi, it goes trough in detailled manner Helmi's product and it's strenghts and weaknesses. Helmi doesn't have any client relationship to the 451 group. I added few references to the article page. Jrisku 18:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above note is correct, just thought, that for credibility shake (so that there will be no "hidden agendas" discussion"), I should place my background on user page as well so that everybody know that I'm part of the source (original page was entered by some one else, propably by some one of our US employees). I feel that there could be links from other articles to this one, and I'm quite sure that there will bee soon enough. The thing though is that article is so new, that there hasn't been too much time for links to appear. We're putting significant resources in to use of Open Source community. Obiously, Helmi is a small company compared to IBM and ohter large contributors, but compared the overall resources of Helmi it's very significant, there are 6-8 full time employees involved in to Open Source development all the time (and it's going to grow significantly).Jrisku 11:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As said, I'm part of the source and obiously parts of the content / wording is the same as on the web site. The content is provided as a starting point. If it's not objective, please give advice how to change the article and it will be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Jrisku (talk • contribs)
I have edited the lead and history section, though the same information is provided its presented differently now. please revisit the article and offer any suggestion/comments I'll endeavour to include. Gnangarra 13:17, 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 16:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agile Project Management with Scrum[edit]

This is a book review for a Microsoft Press book. There being no Cliff's Notes for Microsoft books, the contents of the article is pretty much guaranteed to be original research, and in any case there is not much to be said which is not already on the publisher's website. Guy 14:45, 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 10:30, 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 12:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfield-King[edit]

A small company, $5m turnover, a couple of hundred Googles only [27], no evidence of meeting WP:CORP, no sources independent of the subject. Guy 15:06, 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 10:31, 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. Punkmorten 20:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Component-based paradigm[edit]

A one-paragraph stub on what appears to be a neologism; not much evidence of this definition being used outside of the cited source. Around 500 ghits excluding Wikipedia. Guy 15:00, 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 10:32, 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 12:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Toyota Way[edit]

Publisher's blurb for a management book. Guy 15:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 25 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 10:40, 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 12:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames Chris Berman mentions[edit]

I would say that this is the perfect example of listcruft. Is there an encyclopaedic topic nicknames mentioned by Chris Berman? Doesn't look like it. A list of terms of an arbitrary type uttered by an arbitrarily selected presenter. And guess how many of them are cited? What was that? None at all, you guessed? Well done, bang on the money. Guy 10:55, 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 - Yomanganitalk 13:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Independence Party[edit]

`RJohnson, can you please let the rest of us know your role in this party? It seems to me you are using Wikipedia to create the impression that a virtually non-existent political party is in fact active and notable, which it clearly isn't.

Wikipedia should be about things that are already notable - it should be used as a tool to promote things that aren't.`

Fine. Nominate that for deletion too then.
Wikipedia guidelines are clear on this kind of thing - if something isn't notable enough to have been written about by third parties, it isn't notable enough to be on here. This isn't a directory. --SandyDancer 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I won't be drawn into a slanging match about this. If you have any argument why this page is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article - and if you think verifiable content can be written - bearing in mind that it has never been mentioned once by third party source - please do present it. If not just accept the inevitable. I am not in favour of deleting notable minor political parties, even extremely small or unsuccessful ones. This one just isn't notable. --SandyDancer 19:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I expressed no opinion on that party and I am not interested in discussing it. If you have no arguments as to why this article should not be deleted, you are wasting your time posting. --SandyDancer 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
((:tl:unreferenced)) All the reasons you've given me to delete this article can be used to delete half of Wikipedia. You could delete half of the articles of Wikipedia for a lack of referances. You could easily delete 50% of articles about British political parties that have articles of Wikipedia. At least the EIP has a history. Until you provide a reason i'm unconvinced. I do not make it my business to accuse people but I believe you purely want to delete this article as a ((POV)) not a nuetral stance. R johnson 11:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the paranoia. Please especially stop with the "I don't like to accuse people" stuff, when your very first response to this deletion debate was to accuse User:SandyDancer of wanting to delete the party because supposedly User:SandyDancer disagrees with the party (of which you provided no evidence).
The fact is there are NO independent sources about this party - and you keep removing bits you don't like or find embarrasing - repeatedly over and over abusing the minor edit feature and refusing to supply a reason. If anyone is using the article to POV push it is you.
The policies of the party in question have nothing to do with it. Other political party articles may not have references right now, but they are generally sourceable - the sources actually exist, and only remain to be added. This article has no good sources. Because there ARE NO GOOD SOURCES. You seem to have been adding information based on email with Nickerson, which is NOT AN ACCEPTABLE SOURCE, as I have told you on your talk page. Morwen - Talk 12:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notice he has removed the reference to the bad election result yet again[29]. However I am not inclined to revert because either way, this article needs to be deleted for all the reasons above. A proper article is impossible because there are no third party sources. --SandyDancer 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that we now have a consensus to delete and that since the 5 days has expired someone should be along soon to do so. Morwen - Talk 10:01, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Product (project management)[edit]

In project management, a product is functionally uindistinguishable from a product, whatever Eli Goldratt might say. Guy 15:31, 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 10:53, 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 keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Durand[edit]

Bottom half is pretty much a copy from IMDB [30], and if he's most famous for a bit part in an unsuccessful TV show, then he fails WP:BIO. SteveLamacq43 16:03, 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 11:22, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Techlogix[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. —Scott5114↗ 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. A PC-world article on Jezba.
  2. A research paper on its product Maestro Evaluation of Advanced Automotive Electrical System Architectures Using MAESTrO
  3. Another research paper on Maestro MAESTrO - A Software Tool for the Design and Evaluation of advanced Automotive Electrical Power Systems
  4. Another Newspaper article TECHLOGIX: BUILDING THE e-FUTURE
  5. and another article Developers Unite Behind FlashPoint's Digita to Bridge Digital Imaging into Business Workflow
Hence may vote is ...
Keep: based on above. --- ابراهيم 11:06, 24 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 11:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is not written in a good way then we improve it instead of deleting it. We delete an article when its subject is not at all encyclopaedic. I have given list of some publications that are not published by the company itself and I can find many more. That is sufficient to qualify for WP:CORP standards. --- ابراهيم 13:54, 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 Speedy delete WP:CSD criterion G10 (attack). I am not sure I can find a version which does not egregiously violate WP:LIVING, but feel free to put one up if you can find it. Guy 12:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Hoogewerf[edit]

This article has been edited many times since it was first created, but has never risen above what appears to malicious attacks on it subject. I have had difficulty in establishing whether Hoogewerf is a notable journalist. Two of the links in the article are to Chinese website which I can't read. Perhaps others will be able to attest to his notability, but so far this article hasn't. Emeraude 21:33, 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 11:57, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Rios[edit]

nn physician for wrestling promotion. A search for ("Ferdinand Rios" wwe) gets around 800 gits, but most of those are just repostings of stories where he explains the injuries (like "According to WWE physician Dr. Ferdinand Rios, Kennedy required more than 20 stitches to close the wound."). Has appeared briefly on camera a few times, but appears to fail WP:BIO Tony fanta 00:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment He isn't really a character, but he does appear on tv for brief periods on occasion if there is a medical issue that weaves into the storylines. I think the magazine analogy that you use is total crap as well. Tony fanta 07:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's a character. He appears on the show when it's appropriate. Fits my definition of wrestling character. That he's not on all the time means he is a minor character, which isn't surprising since he's not a wrestler, let alone a big name one. But is he any different from any of the other minor entries on World_Wrestling Entertainment roster ? I can't see how. Oh, and calling another editor's reasoning "total crap" is inappropriate as well. You can disagree without being uncivil. FrozenPurpleCube 14:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm right, and you're wrong, deal with it. They just have him on screen once in awhile if someones injury plays into a storyline, like stiching them up or giving a shot, for instance. On that roster page, I know for sure that 2 of the writers, Chris Dejoseph and Brian Gerwirtz have had their pages deleted, and they are probably more notable than this person. Being employed by the WWE does not garner instant notability. Tony fanta 15:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm right and you're wrong? That's not a convincing argument. Sorry. You might wish to leave such outbursts out of your replies. And while certainly being employed by the WWE doesn't garner notability, being on-screen in front of millions of people is another matter. It's be one thing if he was only on once, but the article itself indicates he's been on several times. That's more than enough notability for me. FrozenPurpleCube 22:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, please remember WP:CIVIL. As FrozenPurpleCube said, you can disagree while remaining civil. - JNighthawk 16:07, 4 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, KrakatoaKatie 11:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, all of those points are useful information, and should be included in the article. However, lacking sources on them, all we could do is say we don't know. This doesn't mean nobody knows, as it is quite possible that the community of professional wrestling afficiandos (of which there are many) may well have a great deal of knowledge on him, from reliable sources. At the least, I'd expect somebody with at least some established authority to say "No, that sort of thing doesn't exist at all" before I'd agree with deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 05:27, 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. Dakota 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shenmue III[edit]

Shenmue III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was already deleted on February: [35] and the situation has not improved since then. There have been no concrete evidence that the development of this game has begun. Mika1h 12:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shenmue Dojo is a fansite hosted by Gamespy. Gamespy editors got nothing do with the site. As for the Kikizo article, as pointed above, is old and obsolete. --Mika1h 08:41, 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 article no longer exists. Housekeeping. -bobby 16:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Hawaii: FAL says Aloha[edit]

I found this whilst reviewing Special:Contributions/I is leo. It appears to be another hoax from this editor. It cites no sources. AllMusic Guide turns up no album with this title and no artist named "FAL". The title garners the magic one Google Web hit: this very article. Uncle G 12:28, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seema Aarella[edit]

Tagged for sources and verification since October 14. No sources/references provided. The only place where I could find her name is an ezine: SAWF. Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 12:41, 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 keep per rewrite. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Pariente[edit]

Laurent Pariente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Violates WP:AUTO, creator was Laurent Pariente (talk · contribs). Contested prod. MER-C 12:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep I want to reply to Officegirl and MichaelCurtis: First Guitemie Maldonado and i wrote the presentation in my article. To my knowledge I don't see why this article is not encyclopedic. It's a very good introduction about my work which as all visual work is not easy to describe. Second there are a good deal of visual artists in the entire history who have been both tremendous visual artist and exceptional writers. I have myself written numerous articles on my work as well on other artists. Being a visual artist doesn't make me illiterate. Third, again if you consider the work worthwile as Truthbringer seemed to have understoond, you should give it a chance instead of trimming it like a bonzaï (I'm currently working in Japan), and be happy to have one more interesting creator becoming part of Wikipedia. Thanks.

keep Hello, I'm Laurent Pariente and I only put the information I had in hands right now. If you go to my website you would see I have done a lot of personal and creative work so far and all the information I put on Wikipedia is just mine and will grow with time. Deleting my article won't help growing the article. Thanks for your understanding.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special moments of Hungary's 1956 uprising[edit]

Special moments of Hungary's 1956 uprising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Osman El-Rayis[edit]

Osman El-Rayis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable bio Tamer Maged 12:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Which google are you using? "Prof. El-Rayis" returns 3 unique pages, and one of them is the article in question. Even if the number was 70, that still isn't very many hits. --Onorem 16:11, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reyner, Lord of Burgh Castle[edit]

Reyner, Lord of Burgh Castle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The only source offered for this article is a book which the editor concerned (User:Burkem) says is unpublished; it is therefore not WP:V verifiable. Many (if not all) of this user's edits rely on genealogical material from discredited sources, and the user has now been blocked. This nomination follows the removal by Burkem of an earlier PROD; see the discussion at User talk:Burkem#Undoing_the_damage, where a major cleanup is underway. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 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 12:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Seeton[edit]

Jeff Seeton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nothing more than an advertorial for a candidate in an upcoming municipal election. Does not meet the minimum standards in WP:BIO. Candidates for local office are not notable, and Mr. Seeton does not appear to be notable enough for other reasons to merit an encyclopedia entry. Skeezix1000 13:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that any deletion should be without prejudice to the recreation of the article should Mr. Seeton do something that meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Skeezix1000 18:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Of course. We would just want to make sure that the recreated article is not biased. -bobby 19:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. The current article (even if it met WP:BIO) is unsourced and violates WP:NPOV. Skeezix1000 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still full of POV ("well known in political circles for his forward thinking", "Seeton is campaigning on bringing new ideas to Kanata North", "He will garner allot of support from those who are concerned with the environment, transit, as well as their bottom line", etc.), not to mention unsourced statements. BTW, Mr. Seeton's own web site likely does not constitute the verifiable, reliable source that is required (see WP:V). I'm not sure how www.wikipedia.org, or the intro page of the City's own website, constitute sources for any of the statements in this article. Finally, the criteria in WP:BIO has not been addressed. Skeezix1000 15:24, 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 if anyone needs content from this article for a merge, let me know. W.marsh 16:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BUECU[edit]

BUECU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Empowerment[edit]

Teen Empowerment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Was ((prod))'d as nn-org, but the talk page indicates it survived an AFD. Let's see what the flagpole says now. UtherSRG (talk) 13:46, 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 12:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people predominantly seen wearing sunglasses[edit]

List of people predominantly seen wearing sunglasses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A list, of which two entries are cited (and one more is probably unambiguous given that Roy Orbison's biographers tell the story of the sunglasses). But really, is the topic of people who are ususally seen wearing shades encyclopaedic? If so, is it encyclopaedic enough to support a list? Anyway, what constitutes sunglasses? Any tinted spectacles? If so tha Galaghers are in, but so are half the people who achieved fame in the 70s. In the end I think this is too random a subject. Guy 14:54, 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 Speedy delete. Glen 12:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky (Spongebob Squarepants character)[edit]

Rocky (Spongebob Squarepants character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Critical analysis of a running gag from a single Spongebob episode. Useless even as a redirect. Delete. JayMars 15:00, 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 - Yomanganitalk 13:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bourdela.com[edit]

Article was nominated for speedy deletion for a lack of context, but that doesn't apply. The notability of this site is asserted, but not (yet?) referenced. It is pov, promotional, but too soft for spam. Basically, none of the speedy tags apply for this article, so I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further information: the site has a global Alexa ranking of 17,020 and a Greek Alexa ranking of 73. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not created to promote the website. I do not have a reason to create a english-language article to promote a greek website. Please do not delete this article. My intentions are to provide a entry about this website to Wikipedia for informational purposes.

The text of the article will be soon updated with more info about paid-sex and information on whore-houses from the ancient times of Greece. Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sectoras (talk • contribs)

Ok, should I add this in the Greek wikipedia?
Also, the website has also international visitors (people who are looking for information in Greece). Also, I have seen tons of other english-language articles, about greek websites/celebrities/people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sectoras (talk • contribs)
Please sign your comments, using four ~'s, like so: ~~~~. Thank you, Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, testing Sectoras 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should keep the article in order to provide informantion and link source as a guide to paid sex services and, of course, as a complete walkthrough to greek adult life style and market. (Kostas) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sectoras (talk • contribs)

As above stated from Kostas, this website provides a general walk-through to the visitors coming to Greece. We have seen tons of people visiting the website to find information about Greece. It Wikipedia's purpose is to have useful information, then i think this article is directly related.

Other than that, i will be soon updating this article and provide *complete* information about one of the world's earliers profession (prostitutes), and how that influenced ancient Greece and their people. bourdela.com is the ONLY website related to that. You mentioned some other websites, but i did not understand, please explain. Thanx. Sectoras 16:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is inaccurate. This comment WAS made by another person, who did not know how to post a comment in here and did post his comment on the bourdela.com article, i just did a copy/paste to include his commment in this history. Sectoras 16:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be serious - there is an edit history so it's clear who posted what -and you have signed you replies on this page in four different ways. You are not being honest.

Revision as of 2006-11-03T12:15:43 - you add the word comments signed (Kostas) Revision as of 2006-11-03T12:21:52 - you add (copy-paste)

I have since amended them to clarify your posts 

--ArmadilloFromHell 16:59, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Christian Socialist Party[edit]

British Christian Socialist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As User:SmokeyTheFatCat notes on his userpage. "I have even thought of founding a British Christian Socialist Party". He then creates, a few months later, this article, which asks people to join it. Wikipedia is not a recruiting tool. If I need continue, then I shall note that the only two google hits for the name of the party are his userpage and a reference to an apparently unrelated historic political party in 1837. Furthermore, the party has not (yet) been registered with the Electoral Commission. If this party gets off the ground and we can find secondary sources about it, great, we can have an article about it. But no sources exist at all at present. Morwen - Talk 15:36, 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 16:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interference.com[edit]

Interference.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:WEB. No awards, no well-known distributer, and I'm not able to find any stories about this site from independent reliable sources, let alone multiple. The author seems to be asserting its notability on the basis of the number of registered users, which is not a valid criterion. Kafziel Talk 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assertion of notability is only valid for avoiding speedy deletion, not AfD. AfD requires proof of notability. Even if they can prove it's the biggest, superlatives aren't part of the criteria for notability of websites; someone might have the only fan club for some incredibly obscure actor, but the site doesn't get its own article just because it's the biggest. Kafziel Talk 17:03, 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 00:44, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Ranch[edit]

Adams Ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This artice was speedy deleted under CSD A7. At DRV, the deleting admin consented to a listing at AfD to resolve the question. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - per modifications made. I'm still not entirely sure about the notability, but since people are making an effort I see no reason to send it away just yet. →bobby← 20:34, 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 - no reason it can't be recreated if reliable sources can be provided. Yomanganitalk 13:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Portland (Lost)[edit]

Article is for a rumored future episode of Lost (TV series). It contains no referenced information, only unsubstantiated rumors. Violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Milo H Minderbinder 16:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are certainly websites saying this, but are they reliable sources? One seems to be a fansite with no documentation on where the got the info, and the other is a blog that doesn't even say the title came from the Ausiello Report (which is a rumor column, not a reliable source either). This title certainly is rumored, but I don't see how it can be seen as encyclopediac fact, especially when rumors from these kinds of sites is often wrong. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's the point: If it's "pretty well known to be fact" then it should be simple to verify -- yet there are no "reliable and available sources" for this rumoured episode title. Wikipedia does not publish articles on rumours or speculation. --LeflymanTalk 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If "this information can be substantiated on external links", just provide those links. And the question isn't whether there will be an episode 307 of Lost, but whether this title (and other facts) are verifiable. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep, if references can be found. Riverbend 19:29, 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 MERGE into Manhunt, as no objections to this were offered. Herostratus 06:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Jonsson[edit]

Jon Jonsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails notability Otto4711 16:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating these related articles also for failing notability.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barouh Berkovits[edit]

Barouh Berkovits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Creating deletion discussion page for Barouh Berkovits because there are a lot of people involved in the development of pacemakers and ICDs (Many of whom are more notable than Barouh Berkovits), and they should be mentioned in the history sections of those articles. Ksheka 16:39, 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 keep. W.marsh 16:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music of South Florida[edit]

Music of South Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Creator of article keeps restoring unsourced and off-topic information, but when you remove the cruft, this non-notable article is nothing but a one-sentence stub. "Music of South Florida" hasn't been demonstrated to deserve an article all its own, and the creator seems intent on making this a vanity article that promotes persons, styles, slang, etc. which do not fall under the topic. wikipediatrix 16:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Above comment modified to remove proposed deletion in favor of giving the article time. -bobby 17:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the small amount of investigation I’ve been able to pursue over the past few days while I recover from surgery, it looks like South Florida, specifically Miami, is a major, innovative and unique hotspot for music from the State of Florida. I think I understand what User talk:Patience561 was trying to say and I don’t think Music of Florida quite does the southern region of Florida justice. I believe there may be sufficient material for “Music of South Florida” to have its own article. With the heavy influence of Cuban and Latino music added to the innovative and unique Rap style of the area, further mixing in southern rock, and a country heritage that brings a unique blend of sounds out of the southern Florida region, it looks like a “Music of South Florida” article could be rich with interesting and unique information.
But I can’t do it in five (or less) days, so I must concede the deletion of the article. I just ask that it not be a “permanent” delete so that the article can be re-created if I or others eventually expand and source it.
With this in mind, I’ve moved the “Donk” related material (or “cruft” as Wikipediatrix so eloquently calls it!) to Donk (automobile) and connected the bits of the South Florida music scene between Southern rap and Donk, so the resultant one-liner-content article “Music of South Florida” can now be deleted without my further objection – unless Bobby or Junebug52 have found anything of value to add – I’d be happy to join them in expanding the article! Dreadstar ☥ 15:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now that Captaintruth has begun expanding and sourcing the article, I think we should take the suggested course of action, keep the article, give it a stub tag and allow it time to grow. South Florida is an amazingly rich and unique musical environment. Give it time! Dreadstar ☥ 16:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep and apply stub tag. South Florida has made outsized musical contributions (Jimmy Buffett, the Miami Bass sound, hub for latin music to provide a few examples). Thus, there is plenty of good content with which to populate this page. Let's not delete this page, tag it as a stub, and let it achieve its potential. Captaintruth 14:21, 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 transwiki. W.marsh 16:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snoof[edit]

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

Dictionary definition. Not sure how to transwiki this to Wiktionary, which might accept it. EVula 17:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm also including Snoofing in this AfD, as it too is a dictionary definition page. EVula 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Snoofing is not just a word it is an encyclopedia article and should remain as it is a robust new concept, that give a supporting verb (doing word) to new events, that have only become available and are doable due to changes in a capitalist society since Adam Smith, Fordism, Taylorism, Thatcherism, Reaganomics, etc. and wireless technology (WiFi). Snoofing is a process, outcome and product of changing and evolving capitalism and technology based society, which is global. This single word sums up a culture of change and is common to all cultures and societies, which move in a capitalist and technological state of progress.

Luddites would do no “Snoofing” as they would not use WiFi or aspire to capitalist and technological change as a snoof. (Snoof (Selfish New Object Orientated Flirtation) (Noun) to analyse resources and be questioning with the objective of critical evaluation and / or personal gain (Noun) one who snoofs For example Consultants’ may use Snoofing techniques to find out information which may be used against Luddite thinking for critical evaluation and gain of the Consultant. Therefore, this is a concept and not a mere dictionary word.

This Snoofing concept is commonly regarded as a correct reflection of a changing society, which has been summed up in a single word. Therefore the concept of Snoofing has a rightful life outside of a dictionary as it is a growing culture, of greed, envy and critical review, which has been defined in a word for a changing society. The Snoofing concept is defined in the Urban Dictionary. See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snoofing

Rather than mark for deletion Snoofing should be expanded and deeper embedded in other concepts of Economics and Technology that reflect our changing societies.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per my comments below, clearly passes WP:Bio. -bobby 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Pierce Bush[edit]

Barbara Pierce Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete non notable individual who doesn't meet WP:BIO or notablity guidelines WP:NN. Article does not provide evidence of notability other than that she is a sitting president's daughter. That, however does not make her encyclopedic or even make her merit her own article Strothra 17:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not part of a content dispute, rather I was reading the article and said, "Wait, this doesn't meet notability guidelines." Although I do also have a content dispute with the article, this was not an attempt to solve that. Please see WP:AGF. Thanks. I don't think that there's been considerable discussion over whether or not being the child of a president automatically creates encyclopedic notability. It's an important topic to be discussed. I'm not co-nominating the articles, only this one in order to see where this discussion goes first. Regarding the content issue, I have already sought an WP:3O. --Strothra 17:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You sought WP:3O, then immediately submitted the article for deletion; while I'm trying to assume good faith, that double-sided action implies otherwise. If you mean well, then I'm sure you can understand my skepticism. --Mhking 17:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it, I'm just saying that it's not to "resolve" a content dispute. The realization that it doesn't meet bio standards came after I sought 3O - ie realizing that people seem to automatically assume encyclopedic notability simply by being the child of a president. If it were a monarchial society where the children had governing roles then I would say ok they're notable. I think that it merits a discussion, as I've said. I didn't rescind my 3O figuring that I might as well get a comment regarding the content dispute. That should actually point to the fact that see the AfD and the 3O as two separate issues. --Strothra 17:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria for Notability (must satisfy one):
The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage.5 Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated.
Bush satisfies all three of these. Here are sources to multiple published works of which she is the subject: 1, 2, 3, and 4. More are all over the place. I would also classify a president's adult daughter as a major political figure for the same reason the first lady is a major political figure. She satisfies the third criterion for her participation in the 2000 and 2004 campaigns (pretty newsworthy events). I'm going to close the AfD now. -bobby 17:57, 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 12:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J money beats[edit]

J money beats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could have probably been speedied, but I'm being generous and reading the claim of having a "discography" as an assertion of notability and bringing it here. No signs of meeting WP:MUSIC, no sources, no label, only link is a myspace page. ergot 18:15, 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 Speedy Delete. I didn't delete the page, but it's gone now so I'm closing the discussion. -bobby 20:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B&N writers[edit]

B&N writers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Wikipedia is not a blog...or social networking site." Nor is it a place to complain about net drama from them, or advertise for another one. mordicai. 18:29, 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 to delete. W.marsh 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abhas Mitra[edit]

Abhas Mitra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person is not notable EMS | Talk 18:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more research, and I don't believe he meets WP:BIO. I've heard of the theory, but never connected to him. I would have gone with weak delete, except for the aforementioned "black holes can't have magnetic fields" assertion. Before anyone complains, I don't think it should be deleted because I believe that is wrong (which it IS), the fact that the assertion is made just casts doubt on the rest. -Amarkov babble 00:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that black holes can have magnetic fields. They are known to retain both the angular momentum and the electrical charge of the object that created the black hole. Any rotating electrically chrged object will have a magnetic field. --EMS | Talk 03:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we follow the principle of The standard for whether something is significant in a field is whether people in the field have found it significant for all AFDs. Is this an official policy. I follow this. I never comment on areas where I know little. But I find many people (including few Indians) who does not even have an iota of knowledge about India or India related fields, say delete without even reading the full debate or caring to look for references  Doctor Bruno  01:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His field is not "India". His field is science. If notability were claimed based on something like being an Indian figure, your comment would have some merit. But notability is claimed based on a scientific theory. Thus, it is SCIENTISTS who must find him significant. -Amarkov babble 02:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not for this AFD alone. It for everything. For example see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India.  Doctor Bruno  05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, there is a problem. To meet notability standards, anyone should be able to find information on a person, not just certain people. To say delete for non-notability without trying to find references is bad, but specialists shouldn't be the only ones who can find some information. -Amarkov babble 05:21, 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 speedy deleted by Eagle 101. —Cryptic 10:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VNYX[edit]

Page is unreferenced, doesn't give notability, reads like an ad. If there's material for a valid article then it's not in this page. ben 18:43, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GigPig[edit]

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

Lack of verifiable links for this and seems hardly notable. The only really notable link is the actual article. Seems a vanity article. Spartaz 19:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question Sorry - what does COI mean? --Spartaz 16:55, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Businessbib[edit]

Blatant product promotion. Author rmvd my prod tag. Two sentences in NYT could be devoted to any kind of oddball product. Remember Sea Monkey ads? This is similar, but far more expensive. Also see Photoshopped picture in history of this "article." Ling.Nut 12:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for offending the rules of Wikipedia, but I have nothing to do with the company that creates the product and do not intend on advertising it.Head-doctor 12:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. "Corporate vanity policy enforcement:shoot on sight" doesn't mean that we are supposed to delete articles about demonstrably notable topics. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:38, 3 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, Ezeu 19:12, 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 12:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 Days (Wings)[edit]

10,000 Days (Wings) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of this article is about a song that is not notable (not even a single) off of Tool's record 10,000 Days. It was clearly made in an effort to subvert the page 10,000 Days (Wings Pt 2), which is the actual title of the song, and which currently redirects to the album's main page. I tried to send the article through the proposed deletion process, but the prod tag was removed by an anonymous user with no justification whatsoever. King Bee 19:48, 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 12:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Car Forums[edit]

Beyond Car Forums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Doesn't seem to be covered by any independent reliable sources. Looks like it fails WP:V/WP:RS. Article editors have failed to provide any useful sourcing despite a couple editors requests. Wickethewok 20:07, 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 Speedily deleted, CSD:A1. --MCB 21:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany bridge[edit]

This article is an orphan, as well as having no content and being unotable NauticaShades 20:14, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosforth High School[edit]

Gosforth High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested PROD. Yanksox 20:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Nothing particularly notable about this school. No notable alumni. No athletes of clubs performing at a national level. No other claims that assert notability. JoshuaZ 22:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to keep per presence of notable alumni that I failed to notice. JoshuaZ 02:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC) changing back to delete per GRBerry's argument below. Unless the article can be sourced, notability of alumns isn't relevant. JoshuaZ 03:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Ok, back to keep since the items about the alumni are verifiable so it can stay as a stub with that for now. JoshuaZ 05:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

***Comment Yes I know, by my personal notability criteria can't overide WP:V. In the words of Jimbo "WP:V is non-negotiable" If we can't get enough to verify anything then we can't do much. JoshuaZ 05:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I changed my mind again.JoshuaZ 05:56, 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 - Yomanganitalk 13:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allodoxaphobia[edit]

del nonnotable coinage of yet another phobias, circulating in the web in various pohobia lists without a single reputable reference, with notable exception of unscrupulous psychiatric websites that will heal you from any phobia (including Russophobia and prostitutephobia), and they keep inventing names to increase number of website hits. See -phob-#Phobia lists. `'mikkanarxi 20:54, 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. W.marsh 16:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sturt Mall[edit]

Sturt Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Malls aren't automatically notable, and the article doesn't seem to assert this one's notability. Also, less than 2000 ghits. It has been prodded and deprodded. Picaroon9288 21:08, 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 - arguments that he fails WP:BIO haven't been countered. Yomanganitalk 18:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Sledd[edit]

disputed PROD for NN-youtube 'celebrity' delete DesertSky85451 21:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem now is that this article will temp be deleted only to be reposted as soon as some media outlets document his rise to fame. I therefore suggest to prolong the deletion discussion. Your thoughts please. Chavatshimshon 01:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't anything "documenting his rise to fame" now, then there can't be an article now. WarpstarRider 01:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now hold on a minute. I've been following the thread closely here. I'm the guy that started of this trend by creating the renetto article. As I understand from what you have written above, the veracity of his notability is disputed since there is a lack of third party (media) coverage, of his fame. What is not in question is his fame, there is certainly no need for documentation of that point. On the other hand, he is rising to fame on only on YouTube and similar vlogging sites, which arguably is not a comparison to an independent media body yet. But yet again, the fact has it that he is in class of his own, in that he is the fastest rising subscribed member since Geriatric1927 whose article here is well written and received a high visitor count. So he is famous now, but we are trying to establish how and why. Dont confuse your own points as put above by yourself in discrediting his notability. Yes we are waiting for sources outside of YouTube to write it up so we can attach them as sources at the end of this article, but no, there is no need to delete him speedily just because we cant wait a few days or a week. The bottom line is, YouTube is unique phenomenon in that it is a media body in itself, that Google have now bought that out is making this hard to see, since its going to be a monopoly, but if there would be a few popular vlogging sites, it would be more clear to us how their users are both independently and by being featured (as in media bodies) becoming notable. Chavatshimshon 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His "fame" is exactly what is in question; a high hit count can not solely determine fame or notability, as this is not the Youtube directory. You clearly need to get more acquainted with WP policies; once again, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Without any reliable sources to verify this guy's supposed notability or any of the information in this article at this moment, there can not be an article about him at this moment. That is not in question by anyone who knows the policies. WarpstarRider 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His fame according to standards for a wikipedia article is being questioned, not his fame as a celeb. He has accumulated 1000 new subscriptions in less than one week. People are coming here, reading the article, leaving and wikipedia lives on. Quite clearly this is not a cheap add and the article is a service. Agreed that there must be a source to link to the article with in the week. Until then what we have here is a bunch of new wiki editors, a new generation, bringing YouTube with them, and they are most welcome. I'm one of them. The guidelines on Internet memes will slowly evolve with our influx. Chavatshimshon 02:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia policies are not going to be changed because of people who want to write worthless articles on non-notable subjects. If your arguments have no basis in policy, then you have no real argument for keeping this article here. WarpstarRider 02:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're misinterpreting the word "third-party", WarpstarRider. Third-party sources are sources other than the editor himself. In this context, YouTube.com itself is surely a third-party source: the issue is verifiability, and statements which can be verified from youtube.com are verifiable. The statements in this article fall into that category. Some of them (i.e. information about hit count on a specific date) may no longer be verifiable; but when written were verifiable; those are debatable, but I think that if something is included legitimately, it should be valid, even if the source is no longer available. JudahH 20:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the thousandth time, no, YouTube stats do not count. The big box at the top of WP:V clarifies what that passage means: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." YouTube stats are not reliable, published sources. An entire article can not be included simply on the basis of a hit count; there have to be reliable sources verifying any claims of notability and any other information in the article. Until that exists, there can not be an article. WarpstarRider 22:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please define what is meant by "reliable, third-party sources"? And please quote your authority. In addition, any precedent or examples? --DavidRWilson 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RS. JoshuaZ 22:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, YouTube is a primary source. WP:RS talks about information from blogs on YouTube—that's not at all the same as the statistics that YouTube itself publishes about the views, subscribers, etc. of its videos. It's ridiculous to think that YouTube, the primary source for this information, is unreliable about it, but if a newspaper would republish the same information, it would become reliable. JudahH 05:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're still not getting it. See WP:V again where it specifically says that reliable, third-party, published sources are absolutely required for an article's existence. Anything can be a primary source about itself; the very idea of verifiability is that there must be outside sources backing them up. The existence of enough such sources is what establishes a subject as notable. Now stop waving around the guy's YouTube stats, because that's not what we're looking for here. WarpstarRider 06:04, 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 no consensus to delete. Giving this article the benefit of the doubt... but if references can't be found by a third afd... it really needs to go (the first afd was so long ago it's not really relevent) W.marsh 16:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Golden Forum[edit]

Hong Kong Golden Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:WEB/WP:V. Probably should have been deleted the first time it was nominated here. No sources given in the article and only 12 google hits. Wickethewok 21:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • So there's systemic bias against websites? I'm gonna have to go and disagree there. Anyways, is there a specific policy to follow if the information can't be verified by an English speaker and no speaker of the subject's language steps forward? Wickethewok 06:54, 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 Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Note that the existence of other articles that meet the speedy deletion does not excuse the existence of this one. Gwernol 17:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Speed of Thought Players (SOTP)[edit]

The Speed of Thought Players (SOTP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since the article gives no claims of notability it should go under ((db-bio)), but let's discuss it. There are 10's of thousands of similar troupes in the world, this one gives no hints why it is notable. Wikipedia is not a free forum to advertise your company. Googling the troupe gives no special hints at notability. IMO delete. feydey 21:22, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova national rugby league team[edit]

Moldova national rugby league team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Strong delete - rugby league is no longer played in Moldova and hasn't been for some time. I also feel that there is little justification for minor nations at a sport to have their own page James Bowes 21:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Firstly, it's the national team of a country in a notable sport, which seems like a reasonable basis for an article in an of itself. Further this site implies that there is at least some rugby league activity going on in Moldova at present. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is several years out of date, likely from when rugby league was played in Moldova. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Bowes (talk • contribs)
For "several years out of date", read "2003", with the site itself being copyright last year. I'm not saying that things mightn't have changed drastically in 12 months, but calling it "several years out of date" is false. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A sub-section of rugby league fans seem convinced that rugby league is more widespread than it is, I don't think the article's very accurate. I'll try find sources later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by James Bowes (talk • contribs)
Comment - I don't want to go calling names, but a check of this user's [43] contributions makes for odd reading. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Once notable, always notable. A national team is notable, even if it no longer exists. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk |

contribs) 00:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per TruthbringerToronto. Notability on national teams does not have an expiry date. Resolute 04:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TruthbringerToronto, and given the completely incorrect assertion made regarding the Canadian rugby article nominated, below, I call into question the nom's assertion that it isn't played in Moldova. 23skidoo 04:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was actually an entirely accurate assertion that rugby league is not played in Canada. Someone used a rugby union competition that had league in its name to show that there was rugby league there, think of it as using the NFL Europe to prove the existence of Canadian football in Germany if you're not aware of what rugby league is.James Bowes 15:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a note that rugby league is no longer played in Moldova. The consensus is that this should remain for history purposes. My comment about Canada was correct, but some people are ignorant of the difference between rugby union and rugby league.
There's no proof that it isn't played in Moldova. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no proof it is either. It is known on rugby league sites that the game's no longer played there. I suggest keeping the article for history, but I've heard strong evidence that the game's been dead there years. In the last few years all European nations have been active, but nothing from Moldova who are not registered with the RLEF (www.rlef.eu) or anything.James Bowes 11:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The site I've cited above talks about games which were scheduled for 2003, which would suggest that if it's died then the death occurred sometime in the last 3 years. Anything's possible in Eastern Europe, but it surely would've been reported somewhere. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those games never went ahead, despite being planned. I believe they were to be based on Moldovans playing and living in Russia. Like I said check the www.rlef.eu page, if a country plays any internationals or has a single club they get mentioned there. Now I know Wikipedia better, I know that a national team, current or active deserves a page, but I know for a fact that there is not a single rugby league club in Moldova, and that the national side has not played since 1995. I suggest we conclude this as keep and then discuss on the talk page what to include in the article?James Bowes 14:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This link shows people discussing Moldova no longer playing rugby league:http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=142393&highlight=moldova Not sure whether it's a valid source but it's more valid than the above article. It shows that there are Moldovans playing in Russia, but suggests there is no activity in the country itself. James Bowes 14:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The people at that forum may have more evidence than we can find, but without it all we have is a group of people saying that the game isn't played in that country, which is largely what we have here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that the www.rlef.eu.com site doesn't mention them would suggest that it's unlikely that there's any rugby league in Moldova, due to the fact that that site lists countries where even a few schools play. However, the article does seem to suggest that the national team's inactive and has no mention of domestic rugby league.James Bowes 16:41, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium buddy[edit]

Stadium buddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

seems to be an advertisement. I could not locate any independant references for it. Justinmeister 21:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, spam. hateless 00:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know Rick Reilly mentioned it in a column, but that doesn't make it notable, nor does its ~600 Google hits. SliceNYC 22:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If kept, move to a more medical term like "external male catheter" and then redirect as needed. My vote is still delete, though. SliceNYC 03:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've been using this as a generic term throughout Canada for a decade, as have my pilot friends and my wheelchair-riding friends. I do not believe this to be a brand name. Google will return an additional 500 or so hits if searching for the "external male catheter" technical name, or the other slang term "texas condom". Russ0035 02:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To clarify, the Stadium Buddy is the complete apparatus, including the tubing and collection bag; not just the Texas Condom. The PZL_PW-5 that I fly has a tube under the seat cusion that lets me use just the Texas Condom and not the complete Stadium Buddy. Russ0035 04:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And in the interests of full disclosure, I made the edits to this page on 2 Nov. I've signed up for a wikipedia account because, while I was comfortable making edits anonymously, I am not comfortable with defending them anonymously. I have never heard of a Stadium Buddy for sale, they're something I've assembled after buying the components in medical stores. (Interestingly, Texas Condoms are sized in colours instead of "S/M/L/XL" so that you don't have to ask for a Small one at the counter. I'm a size Blue.) Really old pilots told me what store to go to and what to ask for in parts, but they always called it a Stadium Buddy. Cheers, Russ0035 05:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Russ0035. It seems like a good-faith article (stub) and contains no links to places the thing can be bought, nor does it seem to be an actual trademark or brand-name. --Arvedui 02:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Russ0035. I agree that it looks like a good-faith stub and it appears to be pretty common among small aircraft flyers. Agne 00:14, 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 of the debate was Keep. --Titoxd(?!?) 03:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby league in Canada[edit]

Speedy delete. This is a hoax article. RL is not played in Canada. GeorgeWilliams 10:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You're quite wrong, according to this. Have you actually checked up on all of these nominations? - Randwicked 15:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You should stop by Canada one afternoon. Of bloody course we play rugby here.

Denni ☯ 01:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Work in progress pages, plenty of information available.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closing. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rugby league in Canada[edit]

Rugby league in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete - While rugby league once was played in Canada it no longer is, so I don't think something virtually nonexistant merits its own page. James Bowes 21:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*keep - I refer the nominator to this site, which clearly demonstrates that rugby league is still played in Canada. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for historical value at the very least. The site I referred to above (and which was used in the previous AfD) is in fact about rugby union, a mistake which was made due to my browser being unable to load the entire page first off. That said, the nominator and I are both unable to find any evidence later than 2003 dealing with the sport in Canada - things can change drastically in 3 years, but at the very least we know it was played that recently. Importantly, there is no reliable evidence that the game is not played still
Comment - If you read the source you'd realise it was a rugby union competition and thus irrelevent to this rugby league article.James Bowes 17:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't want to go calling names, but a check of this user's contributions makes for odd reading. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - even if it was not currently played in Canada, a major sport in a major nation would still be article-worthy.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but it's not at me, maybe at people who think a rugby union competition is a rugby league one.James Bowes 17:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. History is a key component in an encyclopedia. Resolute 01:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd like the nom to give his source for the assertion that rugby isn't played in Canada. Since when? If that's the case, there's a rather active rugby club near where I live that never got the message. (All this said, the article needs work, but that's not grounds for deletion). 23skidoo 04:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • -Check the articles for rugby union and rugby league. The rugby you know is a different sport to the rugby league of the article. James Bowes 17:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete That webpage is quite clearly rugby union. Rugby union is a semi-major sport in Canada, rugby league there is dead. Can you check the sources carefully before making claims. I refer people to this article rugby union in Canada and this one Rugby Canada Super League James Bowes 10:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You get one "vote" to delete, not two or more. There's no sources indicating a dearth of rugby league. Additionally, remember WP:NPA and cease calling people "ignorant". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I shouldn't name call but using a rugby union site as evidence for rugby league in a country is clearly wrong. The only site I can find for rugby league in Canada is this one:http://www.angelfire.com/ab7/canadianrl/. Despite being an active site there is no mention of seasons post 2003, and the guestbook has loads of people asking about rugby league in Canada, but no replies suggesting there is. It's quite clear that the sport is dead in the country but I'll try find better sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by James Bowes (talk • contribs)
I'm impressed you can get anything at all out of that site. I've tried it a couple of times and the best result I got was a series of links with broken pictures (which were thankfully still clickable). Sort of a feeling-your-way-in-the-dark thing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you move your cursor over the boxes to the left there are still open links, but that site, with no matches played since 2003 is the only page concerning rugby league (as opposed to the rugby union played in the Canada Rugby Super League) suggests that the sport is at best dormant in Canada.James Bowes 14:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; even if something is defunct, it still has historical value. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not just a directory of "things that are current in 2006". Bearcat 20:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; article needs work but no need to delete it. Also I'm pretty sure Canada had two competitions at one point, either a East/West split or a split because of Superleague. Need to do some more research but that should be included in the article. Mattlore 07:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were Ontario and Manitoba 9-a-side leagues up til 2003 as evidenced by this site http://www.angelfire.com/ab7/canadianrl/ (you need to run the cursor over the left hand boxes for the link). However, all evidence suggests that rugby league in Canada has been dormant since 2003 (at least on an organised level, who knows if there have been ad hoc matches). I think the article needs heavy improvement as to describe rugby league as an emerging sport there is both inaccurate and a non-NPOV as there's no evidence it will ever emerge there. Not sure of the split but I would assume all rugby league in Canada was allied to Super League, as it was in most countries, with the ARL largely being localised.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Casey[edit]

Was originally speedy-tagged, but author protested. However, he did not give a reason for his protest. I'm not sure the article meets speedy criteria. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 21:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Jack of all trades" in supporting roles in the local music scene in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Some of his instrumental recordings have been used as background music in advertising campaigns and radio shows, but not featured in a way that would have listeners going out to buy a CD of the music. He has worked for notable musicians but hasn't done much of note on his own. The press clippings that he has re-printed on his personal website are underwhelming. This is about the same as having an article posted about someone who worked as the "Key Grip" on five or six well-known movies. Not encyclopedic material. OfficeGirl 23:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not assert notability adequately. A Randy Casey has an AMG page, but it's unclear if it's the same person. And how do you record with a member of John Fogerty? (On second thought, don't answer that question). Caknuck 21:46, 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 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EGullet[edit]

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

Doesn't look like its been covered by any reliable sources. Admitted vanity article created by site owner. Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB and fails WP:V. Delete. Wickethewok 21:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Its always nice when the authors fess up to stuff. :-) EVula 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So wait, you cant be the founder of said organization and write the original article? Its a not for profit charity! (jperlow)

(Jperlow) There is no conflict of interest because I am no longer involved in the organization. There is no vanity because it is a short article that simply lists factual information based on data from publically avaliable sources, including the site's 501c3 determination filings with the Federal Government and at Guidestar. --Perlow 04:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anyways, conflict of interest isn't the primary reason for deletion - there are still the issues of sourcing and failing WP:V and WP:WEB. Wickethewok 04:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(jperlow) the eG Forums site meets -all- the criteria for internet content under WP:WEB and it should be noted that the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts and Letters is NOT a website and its a non-for-profit charity which has 501c3 status with the United States Government. eG Forums, the forum site that it hosts is a website. The material by which the article is based is can by publically accessed on Guidestar, therfore the entire content is verifyable --Perlow 01:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait, I'm not sure I understand how this meets WP:WEB/WP:CORP... what are your sources exactly...? According to Guidestar, they list 1.5 million non-profit organizations - what makes yours any more notable than any of those? Wickethewok 02:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be mentioned often in news articles [44]. I have a gut feeling that reliable sources can be found for this one. Or maybe I'm just hungry. --- RockMFR 05:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mukadderat 16:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Perlow and RockMFR --Arvedui 01:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Independent verification of notability still not provided during this discussion, although the author/owner is active here. `'mikkanarxi 21:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life Fallout[edit]

Half-Life Fallout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like a non-notable forum, failing WP:V. I was about to speedy and but saw it had a long history and was formerly PROD'd and removed. Delete, as I think it fails WP:V/WP:WEB. Wickethewok 21:20, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada national rugby league team[edit]

  • Delete - See above, I'm actually a fan of rugby league, but am trying to clean up these pages to stop people kidding themselves that countries that had a limited competition a few years ago deserve their own page James Bowes 21:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Assuming sources can be found (something I'll turn my mind to shortly if nobody else does), this is a team in a notable sport representing a country. The amount of game time its seen is the only concern, but I remind the nominator that there hasn't been much international league (with the exception of Australia, NZ and the UK) in several years anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree with the above rugby league has been non-existant in Canada for two or three years since the regional 9-a-side competitions folded and thus this is now a defunct national team. If they were still in existence I'd support the inclusion, but the fact that they didn't even consider entering the world cup qualifiers and haven't played internationals for years suggests that the team is dead. Maybe the results can be merged into a past international results section?James Bowes 22:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing: Making the comment that "rugby league has been non-existent in Canada" doesn't actually make that the case. Indeed the reverse would appear to be true. A merger may end up being the best solution, but the way I read the whole thing is that the Canadian team is essentially on hiatus and may well return to the fold sometime soon - much like a football/soccer team which doesn't opt to qualify for a particular world cup. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't want to go calling names, but a check of this user's contributions makes for odd reading. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the fact that I've left thirty other countries with a rugby league presence and just focused on two suggests something?James Bowes 14:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might do, yes, but it's always suspicious when a new user appears and immediately starts nominating articles for deletion and has a reasonable understanding of the process. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do think you have a point here. I've only just got my own computer, so the times I've edited pages (mostly rugby league ones) I've not thought to log in, as it was not my computer so it wasn't set up to log me in, and it wasn't necessary. I can see why it would look suspicious to you though. To be fair though, the reasonable understanding of the process is from the clear set out page on it.James Bowes 11:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. A national team of a major nation in a major sport has zero chance of being deleted, no matter how limited the history is, and for good reason. Resolute 01:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course, a national sports team is definitely notable, so this should not ever get deleted. --Terence Ong (T | C) 04:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I know that defunct national teams are notable, I will remove the deletion, but put a note that rugby league (as opposed to rugby union, which is fairly big there) is no longer played in Canada
Not a good idea. AfD tags are meant to stay until the debate itself is closed (chances are that this one will be soon enough, but still). Additionally, league is still played in Canada per the source I provided earlier, so adding erroneous information to an article doesn't help matters. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please check your sources very carefully before making assertions. The above link proves that rugby union is played in Canada. You may not know the difference I gather, but rugby union (the form sometimes simply called rugby) is the type played in about 100 countries and is the type played in Canada and in the confusingly named Canada Rugby Super League. Rugby league is a sport played in about thirty countries, mostly in Europe and Oceania and is no longer played in Canada, there having been no domestic competition since 2003.James Bowes 14:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link hadn't been working perfectly for me at the time I posted it, so all I had to go on was that it was used in a previous AfD around the same topic and that it contained the words "Rugby", "League" and "Canada". On closer inspection, you're right there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 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 deleted twice; once on 3 November by User:Merope as CSD A3 and again on 4 November by User:Slowking Man as CSD G11. GRBerry 03:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cybo[edit]

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

Non-notable game developer with no evidence of passing WP:CORP; two Google hits for "Cybo Studios" [45] - own website (empty) and one blog entry. No relevant GHits for "James the Marble" [46] or Pinbey [47]. Contested prod and prod2. ~Matticus TC 21:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This Should Remain Up As This Is Based On A Fan Making Game Company Who Do NOT Make Money Out Of The Games We Make, The Company is very small and not well known, only recently have we set up a site *hint the google detection*— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybo studios (talk • contribs)
    • Note Please see WP:NN and WP:CORP. Your admission that you are "very small and not well known" is one of the reasons your company does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. Best of luck, and I hope your company creates some amazing games. -- Kicking222 22:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Very small and not well known" is precisely why this article has been nominated - to meet Notability (companies and corporations), the business needs to have "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" so that information can be verified. While you're right that the Google test is not definitive in establishing notability, two hits for a video game developer is a very poor showing, even for a non-profit amateur group. I wish you all the luck in making and marketing your games, but you're a long way away from being notable enough for a Wikipedia article just yet. ~Matticus TC 22:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN. Palfrey 22:03, 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maryscott O'Connor[edit]

Brazen self-promotion by User:MaryscottOConnor - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Delete. She is also the author of the My Left Wing Wiki page. - Corporal Tunnel 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Under what CSD? I thought things were harder to speedy-delete than people, generally speaking. But see my new suggestion below. —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy Speedy delete. I suppose if she wants to keep it as her user page, no harm there. The autobiographical angle isn't my main concern: it's that she doesn't meet the criteria at WP:BIO. (By contrast, the blog does meet WP:WEB criteria.) Author of non-notable blog implies no notability. Blog was strongest assertion, so speedy candidate now. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC); revised 22:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:COI violation and per Cfred. --Aaron 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Changing vote, see below.[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient media coverage to warrant inclusion. Gamaliel 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Cfred. --Aaron 22:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any assertion of importance negates speedy deletion. CSD A7, doesn't apply in the sense since it stresses her importance, it's easier to use deletion process instead of circular logic. Yanksox 22:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but by precedent, the blog's article was deleted, and I saw more importance asserted there than in the O'Connor article, so by that logic, insufficient importance is asserted. Prior to MLW's speedy deletion, the assertion of importance here was that she created a notable blog. If the blog is non-notable, then what's the assertion of importance here? I still think speedy delete is merited, but I am not opposed to letting the AfD run its course. Besides, if I changed my opinion one more time, I'd be obliged to run for Congress and start getting written about in blogs. :) —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"there's nothing wrong with having a partially open mind"
  • Cute, but you really should know better than that. Speedy deletion is not a domino effect, based upon "notability," it's based upon a lack of stressed importance. The article attempts to stress/assert importance. Also, there's nothing wrong with having a partially open mind, staying the course no matter what is why George Bush appointed Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court candidate. Yanksox 11:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is my point: there is no stressed importance, or else the deletion of MLW should be reconsidered as an invalid speedy due to assertion of importance, because there was a stronger assertion of importance in MLW's article than in O'Connor's. (Do I think the deletion should be reconsidered? No, based on the discussion here and WP:SNOW.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if subject prefers, or in the alternative delete (but not speedily, she merits a full AfD) as autobiographical and failing to satisfy WP:BIO. The article's sources consist of a Washington Post article in which she was mentioned as an example of a trend, as opposed to being the subject in her own right, and links to her own blog. --Metropolitan90 23:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think, per Metropolitan90. I noted the Alexa and Technorati rankings for My Left Wing on that article's talk page were unimpressive, although MLW does rate #81 on the TTLB blogging ecosystem ranking of political blogs, so maybe it's up-and-coming. Maryscott O'Connor does rate a brief mention (cited to the article) on Daily Kos, which I think is appropriate at this time. --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When you're the primary subject of a front-page Washington Post feature article, you are almost by definition notable. I'd say that they are _quite_ a bit more selective than we. Derex 23:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Not a speedy candidate though. Also it is a self-promotional bio. --Tbeatty 05:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gamaliel and Derex. JamesMLane t c 09:04, 30 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, Ezeu 22:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but IMPROVE, darnit! There's enough notability to warrant a brief and tasteful article about this person when written with NPOV. Pity she created the article herself. Pity that the article doesn't actually tell us anything that the media coverage said about her. I still think that a number of people would look for information on this person and want to learn briefly who she is, what she has done and her background. When I look at articles on AfD I ask "What is this article supposed to do, as created?" If it serves or is capable of serving to inform (not advertise) in the way I always relied on Wikipedia for knowledge before joining as an editor, then I am inclined to keep. OfficeGirl 22:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meets WP:BIO and her blog meets WP:WEB. However, the should be handled in the same article. I would suggest making My left wing a redirect to her.JoshuaZ 03:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self promotion. If meets WP:BIO someone could write the article, but I don't think the editor should be the same person. --MaNeMeBasat 14:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Washington Post article about her shows notability. I hope people here aren't voting delete for political reasons. --Oakshade 06:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you know that a much higher percentage of deletionists are Republican/Tory as compared with the enwiki population at large? [citation needed] Food for thought! - crz crztalk 06:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cute. At least one of the users who voted delete has identified themselves as a Republican on their user page. --Oakshade 07:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' and redirect My left wing, per JoshuaZ's suggestion. Self-promotion, maybe, but seems notable enough, as Derex points out. riana_dzasta 06:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet any criteria of WP:BIO, so far as I can see. 1) Multiple independent published works from reliable sources about her? We've got one, which is not multiple. 2) Enduring historic record? Not yet. 3) Elected official - nope. 4) Local elected official with significant press coverage - nope, and none visible. 5) Widely recognized entertainment figures and opinion makers (Hollywood walk of fame level) - no evidence presented. 6) Sportspeople - nope. 7) Actor/TV personality - nope. 8) Published author with multiple independent reviews of their work - no published reviews seen 9) Professionals whose work is likely to enter the enduring record - nope, not a professional, and no evidence yet that her blog entries will still be known in 10 years, let alone a generation. 10) Renown or notoriety for involvement in newsworthy events - 1 article in the press does not constitute renown; that is when the press just uses the name and everyone is expected to know who it is. As all WP:BIO criteria are failed, the article should be deleted. GRBerry 03:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You left some important chunks of WP:BIO out. Here are a couple:
This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious).
This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.
And besides, alot of people highly value her appearances on Fox News Channel and Fox Radio in addition to the Washington Post story on her and consider those notability confirmations. --Oakshade 04:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not american but she looks pretty notable to me ... --SandyDancer 18:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo Mukadderat 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SandyDancer and Oakshade. A feature-article in the WaPo plus multiple television appearances suggests she's a good deal more notable than most. By all means, add to it to make it less promo-ish, but don't delete. --Arvedui 01:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sokol[edit]

Dan Sokol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The individual appears only to be known for an exceedingly tenuous connection to Bill Gates in 1978

  • Delete "Tenuous" is right. Mention his name in the Open Letter to Hobbyists article but, since he has no notability outside that incident (and not that much within it) I don't see any reason for a separate article on him. Fan-1967 00:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while Sokol continues to work in the Valley and has been involved in a few startups, I don't think he quite meets WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mukadderat 16:17, 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. --Ezeu 00:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airboat World Magazine[edit]

Too specialised to be encyclopaedic; reads like an advert. Firien § 10:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a notable magazine. Circulation figures not available but number of ghits is small suggesting low penetration. Reads like WP:SPAM. QuiteUnusual 12:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yanksox
  • Delete no notable. Cbrown1023 22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Too much of a niche market to be notable for WP. Also, agree with QuiteUnusual that it reads like WP:SPAM Martinp23 23:19, 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 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LisaNova[edit]

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

Non-notable "Youtube celebrity". WarpstarRider 22:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or possibly Speedy Delete, no evidence of any notability off YouTube, and nothing truly spectacular within YouTube either. I suspect some of the "Other Notable YouTube Celebrities" linked to in the article should go too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Youtube doesn't make you notable. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're notable if people take notice of you, which people have done with her 644,000 times over the past 5 months. I don't see why Youtube notability would be much less valid than Google notability. (Especially since the latter recently bought out the former...) --Arvedui 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like original research to me. Unless some sources outside YouTube are provided, this should be deleted.--Transfinite 21:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are Youtube's internal user stats showing high popularity insufficient? --Arvedui 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Arvedui says: if this is original research, then any research is original--the author looked up the secondary sources himself, right? YouTube is not the author here--it's the primary source. JudahH 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Published sources are needed, not a hit counter. WarpstarRider 01:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Define "published". Here's a dictionary def. (answers.com): To bring to the public attention; announce. Something can be published online--what's so magic about print? I find the distinctions you keep drawing rather specious.
  • Strong Keep and improve. YouTube is like a media body in itself. Asserting YouTube isnt like a TV station for example is wrong, out out of times. LisaNova is a rising star, this article needs to develope along with her. I think it should remain to be seen how much traffic and edits this page recieves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.9.197 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong delete - I came across this one whilst doing my weekly speedy deletion cull of new youtube & blog 'personalities' that had slipped through the new page patrol. I nearly just speedied it anyway, but it's going through the process now, so there we go. Non notable biography, with no assertion of notability whatsoever. Proto::type 13:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails notability, no actual news stories Palfrey 18:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In twenty years YouTube will be considered a huge part of a media revolution that is going on. We are thinking about now. Think about posterity. I agree with with the unsigned user, give it time.Enjoitherhythm 00:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC) —User's first edit.[reply]
  • Delete not nonable. Mukadderat 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - Youtube's user-stats are a perfectly reliable reference, and this girl has 14,000+ people watching her, with over 600,000 pageviews over the past 5 months. Whether or not her Google-stats are comparable, she clearly occupies a spot in the collective consciousness larger than most. --Arvedui 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - YouTube popularity certainly counts as notable - David Gerard 08:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to what? There is absolutely no demonstration of notability in this article. WarpstarRider 08:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, there are a few hits in mainstream news sources on google news for LisaNova, but mostly incidental mentions. Is borderline. Morwen - Talk 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those would qualify as "trivial" coverage as defined in the guidelines, since she isn't the subject of any of those articles. WarpstarRider 22:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep No opinion on where to draw the line for notable, but I don't agree that notability from YouTube alone cannot be notability. But I don't feel like having this argument on every single "YouTube" page which is created. Isn't there a way to create a discussion page dedicated to the overall issue? JudahH 21:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Update I added an LA Times article as a refernce. --Oakshade 23:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article requires a login, and the title doesn't seem to indicate that it is about this particular user. WarpstarRider 23:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Title doesn't, but the article has a large section of it about her. Never claimed more than that. Thanks for the link note. I'll work on getting full access (LATimes.com membership is free, btw). --Oakshade 00:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She'd have to be the sole focus of the article. Just a section of one article doesn't really cut it. WarpstarRider 01:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim she was the sole focus of it. It's a reliable source that verifies material in the article. The subject doesn't</> have to be the sole focus to do that. --Oakshade 01:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. Non-trivial coverage does not necessarily mean "sole focus" of an article, it means exactly what it says: non-trivial. Yamaguchi先生 09:51, 9 November 2006
Fixed LA Times link. Found same article that's non-subscription in the Chicago Tribune (sister newspaper of LA Times). --Oakshade 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* Looks like the Chicago Tribune article has also gone subcription only. Reverted back to the LA Times version that requires a subscription to view. At least it's free. --Oakshade 05:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep YouTube keeps growing and growing in notability and importance (that's why Google is paying $1.65 billion for it and Verizon is in content talks with them [48]). Its stars are part of the reason why. --Oakshade 23:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the website does not make individual users automatically notable. WarpstarRider 23:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the stars (not just users) of that extremely notable website are. --Oakshade 00:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. I state again: Just because the website is notable does not mean that any popular user there is instantly notable by Wikipedia standards. WarpstarRider 00:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's your POV. --Oakshade 01:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One that is more supported by the existing policies and guidelines. How on earth does it follow that if a website is notable, any popular users there are considered automatically notable regardless of any lack of significant outside recognition? That has no basis in any of the notability guidelines. WarpstarRider 01:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because when you're a star of an enormously popular website, you have notability. Besides, for "outside recognition" i just found many more WP:RS that recognize this subject as notable. [49][50][51]... I remember you now. Didn't you try to delete Jessica Lee Rose and then moderators had to lock it and the following AfD consensus was Keep?... Well anyway, that's a great example of "how it follows" that a star of notbale website becomes notable. --Oakshade 01:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first two are borderline passing mentions, and the last one doesn't seem to mention this subject at all. Again, popular YouTube users are not automatically notable just because they are popular on YouTube. WarpstarRider 01:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least this one is. The 3rd source does mention her (3rd paragraph from the bottom on page 1). The 4 (including this new one from the Chicago Tribune- [52] are very relaible sources giving "significant outside recognition" as you stipulated was nessesary. I see you've avoided the Jessica Lee Rose example as an answer to your previous question. --Oakshade 02:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So that third article uses her name once; that's the very definition of trivial coverage. And I "avoided" the Jessica Rose example because it has nothing to do with this argument (and for the record, my position there was for merge and redirect to the lonelygirl article, not deletion). WarpstarRider 02:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Trivial" sources refers to things like "mentioning the person in passing" and "telephone directory listings." While that New Yorker article seems to mention her in passing, the others, particularly the Los Angeles Times one which has significant coverage, are examples of her having "significant outside recognition." The Jessica Lee Rose mention (you did delete all contents of it, btw [53]) was simply a direct answer to your question which you didn't seem to counter. I was just curious. --Oakshade 02:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please not all youtubers are notable but this one is Yuckfoo 00:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not by WP standards. WarpstarRider 01:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes even by WP standards. After performing a cursory search on LexisNexis I was able to locate five unique and non-trivial articles about LisaNova (also "Lisa Nova"), this person meets WP:BIO guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 10:19, 9 November 2006
  • Keep per several commenters above. As an example, The Los Angeles Times recently referred to two people, Lonelygirl15 and LisaNova, as "home-grown celebrities" in their October 23, 2006 article titled "CAPITALIZING ON AMATEUR VIDEO ; YouTube users keep dialogue running". Roughly half of the 26 paragraph article is devoted to Nova, and the other to Lonelygirl15. Wikipedia is the encyclopedic resource that people would expect to learn more about this person. Yamaguchi先生 09:58, 9 November 2006
  • Keep This YouTube 'celebrity' seems to be notable; and with there being sources available that are verified, deletion seems to be unwarranted. Brooke Brodack is another example of a notable meme from this site. --SunStar Net 10:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yamaguchi and several others. --Myles Long 15:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David "Fucking" Gerard ... (P.S. if you dont get the joke read his WikiTruth article.)  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:42, 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 Keep - Yomanganitalk 13:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Block of Cheese Day[edit]

This is an article about a fictional holiday that was apparently mentioned in a couple of episodes of The West Wing. I believe it is non-notable. The article looks quite long, but the majority of it is composed of information irrelevant to the subject at hand. -Big Smooth 23:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is not "well sourced"; several references are West Wing fan sites that are not reliable sources. In addition, the parts of the article that are sourced have nothing to do with "Big Block of Cheese Day"; instead, they incongruously expound on other events of the West Wing episodes in which the cheese day is mentioned. If those parts of the articles are of any value (and I'm not sure they are), they should be merged into "The Crackpots and These Women" and "Somebody's Going to Emergency, Somebody's Going to Jail". -Big Smooth 23:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ref to minor detail of The West Wing. The majority of the article sems to have been lifted from somewhere else and is utterly irrelevant to the subject. Deizio talk 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable American TV cruft. Lord Bob 03:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is relevant to the series and represents a drastic change from the Sorkin years to the later years. Worthy of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StayinAnon (talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep. The article could use some tightening up so that it doesn't look as much like info that's only interesting to fans, but I think that there's enough here, that it's a valid addition to the articles about the television show West Wing. --Elonka 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm a big fan of The West Wing and I love these episodes and the concept of Blg Block of Cheese Day. Having said that, I'm leaning towards delete. While the concept is cool, I don't think there's enough to merit its own article. The only reliable source is the passing reference to the book Real Life at the White House (ISBN 0-415-92320-4), which is what Sorkin based the idea off of. But I don't think that's enough to carry the article. I'll see if I can find some interviews with Sorkin or someone else involved with the show that might give this article some verifability. - Lex 09:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I like it. Timb0h 11:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There isn't another good place for it, and I've heard the term used a little outside of the West Wing context from time to time, so maybe it's gaining a little traction. 72.16.11.92 03:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yanksox
  • Keep as interesting and informative. This is no less notable than Better Know A District or any other number of articles about elements of fiction. Why do people want to delete well written articles? How is this harmful? This is a great example of why I oppose deleting articles based solely on the subjective issue of notability. — Reinyday, 02:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Looks like we're going to keep this, so I've cleaned it up and merged the irrelevant information into the proper episode articles. -Big Smooth 22:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Reinyday --Arvedui 01:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - When someone sees the mention of the day on the West Wing, they should be able to come to wikipedia and at least find something out about its actual history. --YbborT 04:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is certainly more interesting, informative and better reference then 99% of the fancruft articles that are lying about. The factual historical reference and its popular culture tie in are worth some encyclopedic merit. Agne 00:03, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fido man[edit]

Fido man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Individual claimed as notable only within a particular university *Dan T.* 23:25, 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 17:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 11th Pyroclastic Flows[edit]

This pertains to a conspiracy theory about the September 11, 2001 attacks. The article does not cite any sources, and focuses instead around one article hosted on a website "attempt[ing] to uncover the truth about September 11, 2001". We have a plethora of articles on the multitude of conspiracy theories surrounding that day, but the vast majority of them are on the conspiracy theory movement, instead of on the actual theories themselves. Of the few articles that we have on the actual conspiracy theories, the articles cite a multitude of sources and have established that the theories are verifiable and, at least within the conspiracy community, widespread and notable, something which this article fails to do. While a redirect to 9/11 conspiracy theories is plausible, I would advocate deletion, as the theory has not been proven to fit our criteria for inclusion, and a redirect from every conspiracy theory made regarding the events of that day would not be appropriate. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Good for a chuckle, but it should be deleted. EVula 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Without verification from reliable sources, the theory (as far as WP is concerned) does not exist, so a redirection- as stated by Flcello- would be inappropriate. -- Kicking222 00:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no verification.-- danntm T C 04:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. NawlinWiki 04:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I am the author of this article. I have never written an article before and am not good at editing for NPOV. People posted NPOV warnings on this article but posted no discussion of what was to be fixed. I don't think it is fair to post NPOV warnings without explaining yourself so I removed them. If they had left reasons on the discussion page I would have left the warning and discussed needed changes to the article. The article also is not finished as I work and cannot update it often. But the existence of pyroclastic flows in NYC on September is not deniable. You only need to look at the images from that day, from the tower being pulverised into dust (by what is the question,) to it blanketing the Island of Manhattan and going as far as New Jersey. When the article is finished please comment but do not delete the article because it is a conspiracy theory. The official story is also a conspiracy theory. 19 Arab hijackers conspired to attack the World Trade Center using airplanes. To use such an argument to justify it's exclusion is a pathetic argument, and to say that the one source posted so far is just an article is proof you have not even looked at it. It is a serious academic paper that has undergone four peer contributed revisions, and it is solid science. Not very advanced science, but correct nonetheless. The science behind this is not that hard, high school mostly. How much kinetic energy is in the buildings and jet fuel? How much energy is used in the dust clouds following the collapse? If the answer to the second question is substantially larger than the first answer, then you have a missing energy source somewhere. Couple that to the existence of red-hot metal at ground zero, 3 storeys below the ground, for 99 days after 9/11 is proof there was another, much hotter energy source present on 9/11. Please allow me to finish the article and please contribute changes to editing and format errors, or post competing science, but do not delete the article.

I have a newbie question: Is video from Youtube, even if it is from major news outlets, allowed on the site, or is it only pictures allowed on Wikipedia? WhoWillTellThePeople 09:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)WhoWillTellThePeople[reply]

  • Keep I think that the theory presented is completely and totally false. However, the article provides an explicit source for its claims. While I disagree with these claims as the ravings of the wackiest conspiracy theorists, the article is quite balanced and makes clear that it is an alternative theory, meeting all criteria of WP:NPOV and WP:V. I see no legitimate justification for deletion of this article. Considering that the article was created just days ago, the fact that no effort was made by more knowledgeable Wikipedia editors to improve the article or to seek improvements is an embarrassment to the entire project. Alansohn 23:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vsmith 00:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete The basic observation of the dust cloud clearly shows an event that nearly identically resembles a pyroclastic surge phenomenon. If you understand the sheer amount of energy required to lift and travel the pulverized materials in that way, you'd have to question how gravity and carbon fires could produce said energy. If you do the math, calculating the potential energy of the buildings prior to impact (at rest) and then measure the amount of energy required to do what we all saw happened, there is a dramatic deficit.. anywhere between a factor of 100 and 500, depending on the variables. This phenomenon must be researched and the government's denial of it must be backed up with test results. This article should stay and be improved with it's focus being the thermodynamic requirements to move that pulverized matter in the way we saw it happen. Wikipedia's policies regarding information like this is showing firmly that the interest is not to provide truth, but to cover up "dangerous" information on a governmental level.
  • weak delete. needs reputable sources and is unencyclopediatic and POV in current form. Both of these can be overcome, however; absurdity of someone's quackery is in and of itself not grounds for deletion if there are prominent and reputable sources covering the quackery. But until then... Baccyak4H 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculations. Mukadderat 16:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn --Arvedui 01:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete `'mikkanarxi 21:06, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bowles[edit]

First AfD was closed as a "no consensus" in a self-contradictory closure despite a 5/2 count for deletion and no sourced claim that the subject – a lawyer for Scientology – is notable. The best "Keep" argument (Bowles was Moxon's partner, until he messed up the Fishman/Geertz case) is not supported by any sources, and neither do the four sources establish notability. A Newsbank search for "Tim Bowles" Scientology yielded one article, for "Tim Bowles" yielded tons, but the top ten finds were about other Tim Bowleses. Absent better sourcing I recommened to delete the article or, if a notable role at Moxon & Kobrin can be established, a merge into that article. ~ trialsanderrors 20:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try "Timothy Bowles" on Newsbank, as well as "Bowles & Moxon" and "Eric Lieberman"+Bowles. wikipediatrix 00:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones would you pick for the article? Among the top 20, I can only find St. Petersburg Times - September 13, 1987, Scientology lawyer threatens lawsuit as about the subject, and that's more or less a press release. ~ trialsanderrors 22:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Bowles was Moxon's partner [54] [55] [56], until he messed up the Fishman/Geertz case. Don't know what newsbank is, but maybe you need to search for Bowles Moxon without their first names. The two separated in the 90ies. I admit, there isn't a source (per Wikipedia standards) that Bowles was ousted of the firm because of the Fishman/Geertz case. But he is still notable enough as a Moxon name partner, and who's still lawyer for scientology causes. --Tilman 06:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Absolutely nonnotable attorney. Mukadderat 18:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- Seems to be notableDr.khan 18:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable since person has not been the subject of multiple independent, non-trivial, reliable sources; see WP:BIO and WP:V. -- Satori Son 05:02, 3 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, Ezeu 00:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he's notable on several Scientology-related fronts. Needs improvement, not deletion. wikipediatrix 00:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So he's an attorney for this "church" (which is more like a cult, but thats besides the point), he dosen't seem notable. TJ Spyke 00:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Tilman, and I concur with Wikipediatrix. Orsini 07:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't see how he is notable. Agree with nom -- Samir धर्म 07:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Mukadderat 16:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you've already voted on this AfD. wikipediatrix 23:35, 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 keep.  Glen  11:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist Occupation Government[edit]

Zionist Occupation Government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Organization is not notable, and content is redundant Tarinth 17:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is not a neologism, because it is not in common use outside of certain anti-semetic groups, and fails to cite any reliable secondary sources that meet the standards of Wikipedia's "Reliable sources for neologisms." At best, the subject appears to be a protoneologism, in which case it should be deleted because this article appears to exist only to promote the use of the term (despite that the article mostly contains critical discussion of the term, and many Wikipedians have attempted to correctly portray it as a fringe-term, they are merely playing into the hands of the individuals who wish to promote its usage.) In fact, the article has existed for several years and has neverbeen edited to include any references of sources.

If one considers the subject to refer to an actual organization, it should be deleted because it does not meet the criteria for the notability of organizations. Unlike significant items of historical interest, such as the Elders of Zion conspiracy-hoax, this "organization" is not notable; again, its presence as an article merely acts to ascribe notability to something nonexistant and invented by certain groups with ulterior motives.

Redundant: this subject is adequately dealt with as part of List_of_conspiracy_theories and therefore does not require more extensive coverage (and debate) here. If there is any content in the article that is additive to the subject of Jewish world domination conspiracy theories, it should be dealt with there. If it is determined that there should in fact be a separate page on Jewish conspiracy theories, it should be relocated to there.

  • keep It is notable, has been discussed in the New York Times, has other sources such as the ADL and SPLC. JoshuaZ 17:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is there some sort of general antisemitic conspiracy article this can be merged with? --- RockMFR 17:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There are pages for Antisemitism and List of conspiracy theories that would be more appropriate for this. Also, the page Jewish conspiracy currently redirects to this page. I'd suggest that when/if the content is merged elsewhere, that that page redirect to the new page (Jewish Conspiracy is clearly a larger subject than one particular acronym that hasn't met widespread usage.) Tarinth 18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, too much information to merge elsewhere, and mentioned at length in multiple sources. Kavadi carrier 18:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am undecided, but I have added some potential references to the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 18:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article decently sourced (could be better). Too long an entry to be folded into another article. IronDuke 19:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment The term, despite its dubious merits, is notable. We aren't going to start deleting neo-Nazi terms like 88 next are we? ZOG is referenced constantly on supremacist websites, forums and propaganda. Comment though, can we clean up the talk page and keep it only to the article content? The tit-for-tat jokes and assorted silliness is not what talk pages are for. They are for discussing the current, past or future content of the main article. Thank you.--Son of More 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The article is appears nicely neutral in its current form, and this is a frequently used propaganda term of bigots and hate groups. It's a fine example of what's wrong with some members of the human race, and it's definitely encyclopedic. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Shuki 22:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
    • I don't think the article has anything in the world to do with Judaism. Suggest removal. - crz crztalk 22:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Those who choose to refer to a so-called "Zionist Occupied Government" are almost all the basest and vilest bigots on earth. That this so-called organization does not exist does not detract from its widespread use and notability. I don't see the unidentified flying object article being deleted, despite the paucity of little green men (another non-existant entity) detected by the folks swarming around our nation in black helicopters under the direction of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (ditto). Let's devote efforts to stamping out anti-semitism, not information. Alansohn 23:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with JoshuaZ that like it or not, the term meets WP:N and WP:V. It's been used by enough notable extremist groups that a number of major publications have reported on it. --Shirahadasha. Could possibly be Merged as part of the articles on Neonazism, Antisemitism, etc. 03:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic, properly sourced. It's a shame it has to exist, but the world is what it is. Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Needs more secondary sources, though. If there are no such sources, it should be stubified. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:41, 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.
More