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

The result was Speedy deleted as nonsense/hoax by Lucky 6.9

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

Article on a fictional character from a non-notable publication. Google search for the story author (Jason Freehand) returns no relevant results. Has been previously speedied, but recreated by author. Canwolf 04:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Going away once again. Text makes it clear that the author is trying to use this site for self-promotion. - Lucky 6.9 04:09, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gents[edit]

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

Not notable - Plus the fact that I can't find much verifiable info on this fraternity. WhisperToMe 04:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unverified and unsourced article on a fraternity that fails the criterias of WP:ORG. Couldn't find any relevant "non-trivial published works from independent sources" on Google.--TBCΦtalk? 05:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable even it was true. Moreschi 13:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to toilet per nomination, and this is a common name for the place we visit daily. Kavadi carrier 13:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom TheRanger 14:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though I'd make replace it with a disambig between toilet and gentleman. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Booker T. Washington High School. It appears to be notable enough to be included on the school website, but not notable enough to merit it it's own page. --Ineffable3000 23:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Toilets My hunch is that a complete article could be produced on "gents" as in the cubicle where one goes to relieve oneself, but not about the club apparently sharing the name. I would imagine a whole article on "ladies" and even "Disabled" would be possible detailing the various signs and names used throughout the world. Afterall, when I went to spain, the only words I made sure I knew was "gents". --Mike 18:03, 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 no consensus. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tabb Middle School[edit]

Tabb Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-noteworthy middle school. Article is a directory entry, containing nothing but basic location and attendance data, and is unsupported by reliable outside sources. Prod removed without comment. Shimeru 00:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge per WP:SCHOOLS and/or WP:LOCAL. More than a directory entry. Doesn't actually have any indication of the school's size, unfortunately. Kappa 00:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What criterion of the ludicrously-over-inclusive WP:SCHOOLS does this school meet? It's a middle school less than 50 years old with no implied notability, no listed notable alumni (which, in and of itself, does not confirm a school's notability, anyway)... how can you !vote to keep based on that criteria? And how does WP:LOCAL support the existence of this article? Wouldn't it first support a merge into a school district or town article? -- Kicking222 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add parentheses to my vote as appropriate. Kappa 01:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. I'm not going over the whole schools arguments again. Nominator, please read WP:POINT and consider the number of times a fight has been started by nominating a school, then connect the two. Unfocused 00:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How in the hell can you claim this is a WP:POINT nomination without any rationale? -- Kicking222 01:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How in the hell? I suggested nominator read WP:POINT to understand why nominating this might be a bad idea. Once aware of the fight that is likely to ensue, perhaps an attempt to either improve the article himself, or a try to bring it to the attention of the Wikiproject Schools is a better first course of action. This argument has been burning steadily for over two years that I've been here, and I see no reason to throw gasoline at the other side's campfire when you know for a fact that there are dozens of good faith contributors willing to address shortcomings in this particular class of articles. Nominating one article is not WP:POINT, but a streak of four, if continued much beyond that, certainly is, and looks like the start of a certain "war of attrition" tactic tried (unsuccessfully) about two years ago that many WP editors still have bitter memories of. I have no desire for anyone else to go through that type of experience here. Unfocused 03:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It has been well established that high schools will never be deleted. In my experience, middle schools and lower have been deleted more often than kept. Resolute 04:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you remember when junior colleges were deleted far more often than kept, and high schools almost always deleted? I do. Do you remember when high schools were deleted far more often than kept, and primary schools always deleted? I do. It's been my observation that currently these are more often merged or kept, and I don't see good reason to think that's a bad thing. However, constantly arguing about it is definitely a bad thing. The simplest solution is laissez-faire wikipedia editing. Don't start wars and we won't be warring.Unfocused 06:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • One could just as easily argue that constantly arguing about process is worse. An AFD can be perfunctory and non-combative whatever the result. --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Except for the fact that your solution destroys content and alienates good faith editors simply because they have different interests than you, you could be right. Unfocused 01:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh please. We all have areas of interest that aren't notable. I happen to enjoy palindromes for example. That doesn't mean I make biographies on palindromists who aren't otherwise notable or anything similar. Similarly, there are number theory topics which I find interesting but would clearly not deserve articles. "I am interested in X" is not an inclusion criterion, and no one should be "alienated" from it. Saying that the removal of unencyclopedic not-notable material "destroys content" misses the point. JoshuaZ 01:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Oh, please, indeed. How about searching Amazon for encyclopedia. You'll find 121,736 books there, some serious, some scholarly, because it's more than just Britannica. Some of us want Wikipedia to be inclusive of "encyclopedia of educational institutions", a perfectly fine and legitimate topic for encyclopedic coverage. Quite frankly, if you can create neutral, verifiable biographies of palindromists, I'd be happy to read them here. They've made a unique contribution to the English language. Unfocused 05:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim of notability. Schools do not all need Wikipedia articles. They may be mentioned in an article about the city.Edison 00:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Edison and per everything I said above. -- Kicking222 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Please take a look at the current version of the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I looked. Claims some extremely minor distinctions. Not notable. JChap2007 02:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep seems to assert notability now. Kavadi carrier 02:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TruthbringerToronto, this is now a valid stub. I also have the impression that schools are generally granted a lower "threshhold of notability" --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only in so far as schools have a lot of editors who insist they should. There is no lgoical basis for this. JoshuaZ 23:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even with those minor assertions, its still not notable. TJ Spyke 02:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TruthbringerToronto. The evidence of verifiability with sources in triplicate as well as minor assertions of notability make this a firm keep for me. Yamaguchi先生 04:19, 4 November 2006
• Keep, after rewrite, most schools are notable. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 04:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Claims to notability are not that great, even after recent edits. Resolute 04:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very little distinction between this and most other schools of a similar level. Not notable. Valrith 05:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I found this: http://yorkcountyschools.org/students/attendanceZones.html - More verifiable information! More stuff to add to this article! WhisperToMe 05:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'm not ready to give a pass to middle schools. The "honors" listings are not really unique to the school. --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after the rewrite.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close This has the S word in the title so will never get consensus delete. It can go one of two ways: merge, or expand. Neither requires admin powers. Guy 10:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn IronDuke 19:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

&Delete Per Dhartung and others. Nothing about this school is notable. JoshuaZ 23:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - middle schools are notable. --Ineffable3000 23:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you have some reasoning or basis behind that claim? JoshuaZ 23:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One needn't go any further than User:Silensor/Schools or read the actual article to see that. Silensor 01:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing against school pages, but this one doesn't assert notability at all and it appears that's because it isn't notable. --SandyDancer 00:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Yamaguchi and others. Nothing about this school is non-notable. Silensor 01:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - add some of this material into the Tabb, Virginia article and change this to a redirect. --JohnDBuell 18:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article will benefit from improvement and makes explicit claims of notability. Alansohn 18:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep worthwhile article on notable subject. The precedent for keeping all verifiable K-12 schools was set some time ago, despite the odd exception (usually caused by clusters of non-editors). Removing this article, simply harms the project. If anybody has a policy based reason for deletion (e.g. verifiability), please say so, as that would actually be worth discussion. --Rob 19:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Worthwhile? Debatable. Notable? Only if you hold as an article of faith that "all schools are notable". I went to at least one school which is not only not notable, it is pretty much unverifiable. Removing it harms the project? Proof by assertion; there is no demonstrable harm from not having somehting which is trivially easy to obtain on the internet from the original source. Precedent? Yes, utter intransigence from the Church of the Inherently Notable School has made it impossible to remove any school article, but that is not a good thing, it's a triumph of sheer blood-mindedness over numerous offered compromises. Clusters of non-editors? Nice ad-hominem, but baseless. Given that the article is going to be kept anyway, Rob, I really can't imagine why you bothered writing the above since it appears calculated solely to add fuel to the flames. Guy 20:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm JzG you are aware that not every human being on the planet has internet access? Kappa 20:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use the analogy of a body, those who insist on deleting items in face of known and certain opposition are the "blood-minded" cutters. You already have the ability and community support to merge ALL of these articles into their parent school districts and localities until they become large enough to warrant breaking out. Just copy the whole article as written, paste it into the district article, then delete the stuff you don't like. That way the detail remains in the edit history of the district. Finally, go back and change the source article to a redirect. It's really quite simple. Yet you insist that deletion is the only solution you're willing to live with. From my side, it appears you're the one unwilling to compromise. Unfocused 20:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for calm please. That said, I take some issue with the claim that the deletions are caused by "clusters of non-editors" since some people (such as myself) who often argue for deletion of schools do so while helping to improve the school articles in question and have helped improve schools that we think should be kept. Furthermore, Rob's comment isn't very relevant in that this isn't a K-12 school but a middle school. As to Unfocused's comments, we don't have a strong consensus for that, and the merging of many school articles would create essentially directories in violation of WP:NOT and would simply duplicate information that can be generally found on the district website. JoshuaZ 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, "K-12 schools" is short for "elementary, middle, and/or high schools". It makes clear the reference to "school" doesn't include pre-school, after-school, home-school, grad school, night school or some other "school". It doesn't mean a school necessarily teaches every grade from K to 12, inclusive (it may just teach some). Some people use the term "grade school", but often that's used in a less inclusive manner. If there's a better/clearer term, you wish me to use, let me know. But AFAIK, middle schools are a subset of K-12 schools. And that was what that component of my comments, was referring to. There is the precedent I indicated. --Rob 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Inquiry, do you mean to say that you think that any kindergarten should be kept per current precedent? JoshuaZ 23:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no precedent for K-only inclusion, and I expect such an article to be deleted normally. I'm not aware of a single perfect commonly used term that precisely identify those schools, which we have precedent for keeping. "K-12 school" is close, but not perfect. I suppose "1-12" would be more accurate, but I've never seen anybody use the term "1-12". For any term, there's probably extra qualifications needed. For instance, when I say "school", I normally mean "real, full-time, accredited, and verifiable", even if I don't say so. --Rob 23:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Cribcage 05:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there some reason that you are saying that? Remember, AfD is not a vote. JoshuaZ 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't simply typing "Keep" sufficiently note disagreement with the nomination's claims? It seems self-evident to me. Unfocused 19:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to the rewrite. --Myles Long 17:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this school wasn't in the USA, it would be deleted. --SandyDancer 19:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's accurate. At this point schools outside the US are kept about as often as schools within the US. JoshuaZ 20:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Who would trust an encylopedia that doesn't mention your own school - what else have they censored? --Mike 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 21:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haverford Middle School[edit]

Haverford Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-noteworthy middle school stub with no sources. Directory entry. Shimeru 00:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge per WP:SCHOOLS and/or WP:LOCAL. "It was built in the 1926s as Haverford Senior High School, until redistricting plans moved the high school into a new building." is encylopedic, not directory info. Describing it as a middle school is misleading. Kappa 00:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't. Haverford Middle School is a middle school. Shimeru 00:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Misleading and irresponsible. Kappa 00:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. The middle school is a middle school regardless of the building it occupies, and the founding of the high school has to do with the high school, not the middle school. I will also thank you to refrain from personal attacks. Shimeru 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, you are right and I apologize. Facing constant brutal confrontation makes me grouchy, LOL. Kappa 01:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And, in addition to that, the middle school shared a campus with the high school until the high school got its own campus. WhisperToMe 05:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep or merge. Please consider the number of times a fight has been started by nominating a school, then read WP:POINT. Wikipedia is better served if you submit the article to WP:SCH for improvement instead of nominating for deletion. Unfocused 00:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim of notability. Schools do not all need Wikipedia articles. They may be mentioned in an article about the city.Edison 00:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be a merge vote then? Kappa 01:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some high schools are notable and should have articles. Middle schools rarely qualify and there is nothing about this one that suggests it's appropriate to have an article about it. JChap2007 02:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I tried to add a bit of content and a cite. I think I established some notability. Please review? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation is a definite plus, so thank you for that. I still feel it's a directory entry and nothing more, though. Shimeru 04:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability. It's misleading too, the buliding may have been built in 1926 but the middle school wasn't. TJ Spyke 02:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, WP:SCHOOL. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 04:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to School District of Haverford Township per WP:LOCAL and WP:SCHOOLS. Yamaguchi先生 04:50, 4 November 2006
• Delete Utterly non nontable middle school. Resolute 04:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Throwing a monkey wrench; it was easy to cite the school's history and the student body statistics. I am fixing many of these problems anyway... WhisperToMe 04:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Valrith 05:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lack of distinct notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article makes a clear and distinct statement of notability, and recent changes and sourcing have obviated suggested reasons for deletion by the nominator. Silensor 06:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep better content than some of our city stubs...  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close This has the S word in the title so will never get consensus delete. It can go one of two ways: merge, or expand. Neither requires admin powers. Guy 10:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn IronDuke 19:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. The strongest claim for notability is that it almost became a highschool? Please. JoshuaZ 23:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - middle schools are notable. --Ineffable3000 23:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you have some reasoning or basis behind that claim? JoshuaZ 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you know, public middle schools are regularly the subject of nontrivial coverage in local media. Kappa 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they are regularly the subject of puff-pieces in the local media. And even if they were non-trivial, we don't have any evidence that such pieces exist for this school. JoshuaZ 06:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't have any evidence that such coverage exists for a typical village in Africa, but we don't delete them if they are verifiable. Kappa 07:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:SCHOOLS of being older than 50 years. - JNighthawk 23:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentJNighthawk, you are referring to a provision of a proposed (not accepted) guideline (not a policy) that is itself labeled as controversial (I would label it idiotic, but I'm feeling a little surly right now). Can you think of any other rationale for including this school? IronDuke 02:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thorough article for a school that meets and exceeds the WP:SCHOOLS standard. Alansohn 18:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge information into school district article or Haverford Township, Pennsylvania. --JohnDBuell 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cribcage 05:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there some reason that you are saying that? Remember, AfD is not a vote. JoshuaZ 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also Wikipedia:Schools#Arguments/Keep. Kappa 07:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per many of the fine points above. --Myles Long 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Several different sources are presented, meeting our verifiability policies, and also meets the criteria set by the bastardised WP:SCHOOLS guideline. Silensor 23:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets all content policies -- there has been no assertion to the contrary -- so no basis for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh really? What about WP:NOT? JoshuaZ 04:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No sensible assessment of the article could conclude that it is excluded by WP:NOT. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not a directory. Nor is Wikipedia a collection of random information. JoshuaZ 05:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You make reference to two sections of WP:NOT, that A) Wikipedia is not a directory, and B) Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. WP:NOT defines these terms as follows: A) Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). NOT APPLICABLE; 2. Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. NOT APPLICABLE, and 3. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business Now this what is raised as an issue, but WP:NOT defines this as For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. There is just nothing in this clause of WP:NOT that seems relevant to making this particular article improper. B) Next we have Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is defined as 1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. NOT APPLICABLE; 2. Travel guides. NOT APPLICABLE; 3. Memorials. NOT APPLICABLE; 4. Instruction manuals. NOT APPLICABLE; 5. Internet guides.NOT APPLICABLE; 6. Textbooks and annotated texts. NOT APPLICABLE; 7. Plot summaries. NOT APPLICABLE, Again, there is no aspect of this clause of WP:NOT that seems applicable in any way to this article. WP:NOT is often thrown out as a justification to delete articles, but I agree completely with Christopher Parham that it simply doesn't apply in this case. Alansohn 05:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • As to the first point, this entry is little more than an address easily in the "phonebook entries" category. As for the second setting, it should be apparent that the list there is not intended to be exhaustive. In fact, almost daily, articles are deleted per WP:NOT's "random collection" criterion even if they don't fall into exactly one of those categories. JoshuaZ 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know what's printed in your phone book, but in mine, phonebook entries look like Haverford Middle School 123 Main Street 123-456-7890. This article far exceeds what a phonebook entry is, by any reasonable definition of the term. The fact that WP:NOT's "indiscriminate collection" clause is used to mean "anything I think doesn't belong on Wikipedia", and the fact that there are many people who misuse it and get articles deleted, does not make it a valid argument. The examples provided are intended to serve as cardinal prototypes of "indiscriminate collections", and none of them are within miles of this article. How can we meaningfully apply Wikipedia criteria if their clearcut meaning can be changed to mean anything anyone wants it to mean. You yourself don't excuse bad arguments to keep (e.g. "Do you have some reasoning or basis behind that claim?"), why should a bad argument re WP:NOT (e.g., other people use it to mean something other than what it says and they delete articles anyway) be acceptable? Alansohn 06:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep There are some subjects in this WIkipedia that don't interest more than a handful of people, and this school is not one --Mike 18:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So? JoshuaZ 18:17, 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 Article has been speedied by Naconkantari under G11 Dina 22:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gizmotron[edit]

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

This article is not notable, with only 45 google hits, and no official website I can see. h2g2bob 00:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteNo claim of notability. No presentation of multiple press mentions, hit recordings or famous artists. Nice name, though. Edison
• Delete per nom's ghits. Based on the creator's user name (Mikebritt) this seems to a case of WP:AUTO/WP:COI. -- IslaySolomon | talk 01:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Cbrown1023 01:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've actually tagged this as a Speedy A7: non-notable vanity piece that appears to be entirely self-promotion. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:44, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thornton Friends School[edit]

Thornton Friends School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NN school, no outside sources, directory entry. Article has existed in the same stub condition for nearly a year with no expansion -- lack of media sources indicates to me that none is possible. Shimeru 00:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep or merge to local. Please consider the number of times a fight has been started by nominating a school, then read WP:POINT. Wikipedia is better served if you submit the article to WP:SCH for improvement instead of nominating for deletion. Duration as a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Unfocused 00:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents:

"Schools are frequently nominated for deletion, but consensus is frequently not reached. Most of the approximately 270 school articles nominated for deletion in the eight months January to August, 2005, resulted in no consensus, with fewer than 15% actually deleted."'

--A. B. 01:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No claim of notability. Schools do not all need Wikipedia articles. They may be mentioned in an article about the city.Edison 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not the Friends school that Chelsea Clinton attended. I expanded the article a bit, and clarified its location. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct... that would be Sidwell Friends (a school within the district).  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - most U.S. secondary schools get articles from what I've seen. --A. B. 01:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not a super-strong "keep" -- I'm just going by what I've seen before, not some deeper belief or ideology re: inclusion/deletion, etc.

• Delete There are only 55 students in the Upper (read "secondary") school and no evidence of notability. JChap2007 02:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable school. I also don't think that having a notable person attends make a school notable (and pointed that out on the talk page of WP:SCHOOLS). TJ Spyke 02:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Silver Spring, Maryland per WP:LOCAL and WP:SCHOOLS. Yamaguchi先生 04:49, 4 November 2006
• Keep per Unfocused. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there arent too many quaker schools in Maryland. This makes it a relatively unique school.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close This has the S word in the title so will never get consensus delete. It can go one of two ways: merge, or expand. Neither requires admin powers. Guy 10:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We actually have had a few consensus deletions before. They are rare but do occur. JoshuaZ 23:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete IronDuke 19:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tiny non-notable school with no notable alumni or succesful athletic teams or anything similar. JoshuaZ 23:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - middle schools are notable. --Ineffable3000 23:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you have some reasoning or basis behind that claim? JoshuaZ 23:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Next stop, notable kindergartens. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - give it a mention in Silver Spring, Maryland then change this to a redirect. --JohnDBuell 18:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If merged, the place to put the school would be in Silver Spring, Maryland#Education where the current sentence on private schools reads: "Notable private schools in the region include Yeshiva of Greater Washington, Torah School of Greater Washington, Our Lady of Good Counsel High School, and The Barrie School." I noticed two things about the sentence: red links and the word "notable". Will we have a similar conversation about those red-linked schools? And how do we merge in this school if that word "notable" is in there? If you delete the "notable" word and merge this school in, will someone later revert, re-inserting "notable" and dropping out this school? My suggestion is that if the decision is "merge", then put a note on the Silver Spring talk page. --A. B. 19:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put a note on the Silver Spring talk page making local folks aware of this AfD; they may have some perspectives pro or con. --A. B. 19:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article is for a quaker school in MD, a relatively unusual characteristic. We have near 100% precedent for retention of high school articles. Alansohn 19:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per nom Subwayguy 22:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cribcage 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there some reason that you are saying that? Remember, AfD is not a vote. JoshuaZ 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alkivar and TruthBringerToronto's additions to the article. --Myles Long 17:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is just a guess, but I believe I've read several thousand articles about schools and this is the first time I've run across one about a Quaker school. Silensor 23:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't see the point of these School AfDs. You put schools in Wikipedia for exactly the same reason shops sell milk at below cost price - it brings the punters in! Moreover a well written school article gives invaluable covereage of the local area - something to be encouraged and a good way to find related articles --Mike 18:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 21:59, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signal Hill Elementary School[edit]

Signal Hill Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NN elementary school, no outside sources, directory entry. Shimeru 00:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, magnet school. Failing that merge per WP:SCHOOLS, WP:LOCAL, WP:Not a battlefield etc. Kappa 00:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Magnet school is not a reason to keep by itself. WP:SCHOOLS does not have a consensus behind it. I fail to see how WP:NOT is relevant. JoshuaZ 21:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep or merge to local. Please consider the number of times a fight has been started by nominating a school, then read WP:POINT. Wikipedia is better served if you submit the article to WP:SCH for improvement instead of nominating for deletion. Unfocused 00:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim of notability. Schools do not all need Wikipedia articles. They may be mentioned in an article about the city.Edison 00:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good school and has been recognized (with a lot of other schools) as such, but not particularly notable. JChap2007 02:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability, and many schools are magnet schools. TJ Spyke 02:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have jumped the gun on this one. Striking out my comment pending further research. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom is not notable TheRanger 04:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a California Distinguished School and magnet school, this is notable enough for me. Yamaguchi先生 04:49, 4 November 2006
• Keep, WP:SCH, magnet school, notable school. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 04:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:SCH is a project it is not a reason to keep. Furthermore, there is no reason why magnet schools should be inherently notable. JoshuaZ 21:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Elementary schools are not inherently notable, and there is no evidence this school has any claim to fame. Resolute 04:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasons discussed in several AfD's above. Also, my good faith is flagging; the sheer number of these school AfD's begins to seem like someone is making a Point. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable by any recognizable measure. Valrith 05:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DocTropics... I agree with the WP:POINT statement entirely.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close This has the S word in the title so will never get consensus delete. It can go one of two ways: merge, or expand. Neither requires admin powers. And no, I do not think we should have articles on elementary schools, but there will always be holdouts who assert that "all schools are notable" and frankly we have better things to do with our time than continually documenting the existence of a group of users who will never allow any article with "school" in the title to be deleted. Merge and move on. Guy 11:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dito Well said - you can tell an adult why their club or company isn't listed, but to any schoolkid, their school is notable. What's more, it is the schools which are most likely to put in the other details of the locale - so why on earth is this up for AfD? --Mike 18:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Disagree here. We have had some schools deleted in the last few months. It does occasionally happen. JoshuaZ 21:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If we give up on middle schools, where do we draw the line? Let's have a clear policy that school-crufters can be directed to. One with the S word in the title, perhaps. IronDuke 19:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - elementary schools are notable. --Ineffable3000 23:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excuse me? Do you have a justification for this? Also, note that the claim a year ago was that colleges were inherently notable, then it became highschools and now its elementary schools. Is this going to move onto daycares and kindergartens next? JoshuaZ 21:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; WP:HOLE. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge information into Signal Hill, California and/or Long Beach Unified School District. --JohnDBuell 18:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Above and beyond meeting the WP:SCHOOLS guidelines, the school has received several awards that constitute explicit claims of notability. Alansohn 19:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (would not object to merging in principal). The awards the school has are by and large minor. The "National Achieving Schools Award" and the "California Achieving Schools Award" don't return any google hits aside from schools that say they have them and Wikipedia mirrors. I can't even find a single newspaper article mentioning that a school was given one. The only award which therefore is arguably at all noteworthy is the California Distinguished School award. However, as far as I can tell the number of schools which get this award is immense. There are so many schools award that the award's webpage breaks them out by county [1]. Picking a county at random, Los Angeles county has over two pages worth of schools with the award [2]. This is a good elementary school where someone should be happy sending their kids, but it isn't notable. JoshuaZ 21:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor clarification Looking in more detail, Los Angeles county may not have been a representative sample. Some counties such as this one have very few schools with the award. Still every county has more than 1 school with the award and most counties have over a page so the basic point stands. JoshuaZ 21:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cribcage 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there some reason that you are saying that? Remember, AfD is not a vote. JoshuaZ 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alkivar, etc. --Myles Long 17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Yamaguchi and Alansohn, obvious claims to notability are made within the article. Silensor 23:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletenn school. Carlossuarez46 21:59, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hossam Shaltout[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Gnews results limited a PR release and a very few reports regurgitating it, which doesn't rise above trivial reporting. If WP:BIO is the appropriate notability guideline, the subject doesn't meet it. I assume that this is the same Hossam Shaltout who previously sued the US govt, which was marginally better reported, but appears to sunk without leaving much trace. A redirect would have been the obvious solution, but the only thing linking to it - Human rights in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq - didn't seem like a good candidate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable, fails WP:BIO. Cbrown1023 01:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I was going to put a Speedy tag on it, but that's already been tried. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - to use McLellan's argument, this is not Wikinews, I would say that, if the press coverage is somewhat lacking, his claims is still disturbing. As the conspiracy-loving guy I am, I think that there is substance to his claims, and that the media coverage signals that his story is hush-hush for someone. I understand the guidelines very well, and if you are to use them literally it would be a vote for delete for me too. Eventheless I believe that this article about Shaltout may show if his claims are real. --abach 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable conspiracy theorist. Junk. Moreschi 14:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. --Ineffable3000 23:56, 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 delete. —Cryptic 11:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil as a possible emerging great power[edit]

Brazil as a possible emerging great power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Where to start? Crystal-balling (especially with a title like that!), WP:OR, WP:V, duplicate material article - appears to be a re-creation of Brazil as an emerging superpower and Brazil as an emerging great power, both of which were deleted on 21 Oct. This article is a random collection of 'Brazil facts' all of which belong in the various Brazil articles. Xdamr^talk 01:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Xdamr^talk 01:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator of this article put it best in the last AfD: "Ok… I give up. You seems here to be very ignorant to understand… We will see in 2050… João Felipe C.S 23:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)" When this actually happens let's write an article about it, but not before. JChap2007 01:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and appears to be in essay form. Cbrown1023 02:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete if it is substantially identical to previous deleted articles, otherwise plain delete as unverifiable. Kavadi carrier 02:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, but the title should be copied to MOS as an example of what not to do. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean WP:FREAKY? Or WP:BAI maybe. :-) Kavadi carrier 04:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as repost. No, no, no. Gazpacho
• Delete as crystalballism. It has been tagged as a speedy by someone else.-- danntm ^T _C 04:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This should be deleted asap. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 04:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as a repost of previously deleted content. Resolute 04:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 69.177.186.233 06:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Wareq 07:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Stammer 10:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. A merge could be discussed on the talk page, no need for afd. W.marsh 13:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of references to Lost in popular culture[edit]

List of references to Lost in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:OR Eryyut 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)— Eryyut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, please state a proper reason for deletion and use your main Wikipedia account to make the nomination. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge into Lost (TV series); it has good info that doesn't seem to be WP:OR. Cbrown1023 02:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge insto Lost (TV series) per Cbrown. TJ Spyke 02:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Referenced, and a bit large to merge into the main article, which is already fairly long. Shimeru 04:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Article is fine as a separate entity. Resolute 04:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shimeru. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shimeru. --Opark 77 11:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet more Lostcruft. Completely arbitrary. Take it to Lostpedia. Guy 11:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not just listcruft, it's Lostcruft. Listlostcruft. Bleh. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Listlostcruft" may well be the pithiest WP neologism I have ever seen. IronDuke 19:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or Merge into Lost (TV series) where it had been previously until it was decided that there was enough information for it to merit its own article. --theDemonHog 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is "References to Lost in popular culture" an acceptable topic? I think it isn't, and by extension, a list of individual references isn't, either. The Literate Engineer 20:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Merge to Lost (TV series). That is how it has always been done. --Ineffable3000 23:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ineffable. --SandyDancer 00:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to Lost (TV series). Edison 03:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article brings whole new nuances to the word "trivia". This kind of near-parody of an article lowers the collective quality of Wikipedia. PKtm 04:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shimeru. Battle Ape 12:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is Wikipedia, not Lostopedia. Irremediably crufty, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep but clean-up. (ObNote: I spun-off this List from the main article due to length.) This is neither Original Research, nor an "indescriminate collection of information" (a commonly cited, but poorly understood section of WP:NOT). It is an attempt to organise the major references to the series Lost as they appear in popular culture. The precedents for this are clear: there are thousands of "in popular culture" articles on Wikipedia, e.g.:

• Jeopardy! in popular culture
• Twin_Peaks_in_popular_culture
• Fight_Club_in_popular_culture
• Aleister_Crowley_in_popular_culture
• The Big Lebowski in popular culture
• And even, Wikipedia_in_popular_culture

And this one imposes greater requirements for citation: nearly every item included is referenced, or has the particular source within the entry. This is rightly called a "list of references" until some diligent editor takes the initiative and starts the conversion process into prose. Many similar articles have started their life in this fashion; being a long list is no reason for deletion-- it is nowhere near the length of List_of_cultural_references_to_Star_Wars-- but for editing and pruning. This should not be re-merged, as it was moved precisely because it had grown to such content; removing it entirely would make the section Lost_(TV_series)#Fandom_and_popular_culture balloon. For further info on Lists, See WP:LIST and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists).--Leflyman^Talk 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I should also note that there's a whole Category:In_popular_culture.--Leflyman^Talk 20:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but Merge: I think that this article should be cleaned up (as per other comments) and merged with Lost main page - another show article that incorporates references in pop culture is the Buffy the Vampire Slayer main site, if anyone wants to check it out (just got featured article status recently!). Riverbend 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a long list, and it is not unusual to spin off a long list from the main article. Plenty of other lists just like this one too, and frankly, while I might not find it useful, someone else might. We don't have to emulate Britannica here. Robovski 00:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. Wikipedia doesn't need original research list pages of pop culture references. It's bad enough that many episode articles of shows have insanely huge lists of pop culture references. Yes, shows and films have pop culture references: but it's not completely necessary to have a huge list of them. Keep the important ones only. RobJ1981 19:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Per Leflyman Mahahahaneapneap 20:48, 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 Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice cast in the Kingdom Hearts series[edit]

Voice cast in the Kingdom Hearts series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete or Merge WP:LC. Eryyut 01:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)— Eryyut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep (see change in vote below), WP:LC is not a policy or guideline, nor is it grounds for deletion. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "LC is not a policy" is not an argument for inclusion, and AfD is not a vote. Why do you think this article belongs in Wikipedia? Please discuss the article instead of criticizing the nominator. — Haeleth Talk 12:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In order to delete an article, an appropriate argument must be presented. Unless such a reason is given, it is by default kept. The person who wishes that an article be deleted must explain why he wants it to be deleted. Those who want it to stay do not need to explain why it should be kept until a valid argument for deletion is set out. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Dark Shikari. Also, per Eryyut's obvious ignorance with deletion policies. Cbrown1023 02:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nominator is not an expert on Wikipedia policies" is not an argument for inclusion, and AfD is not a vote. Why do you think this article belongs in Wikipedia? Please discuss the article instead of attacking the nominator. — Haeleth Talk 12:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quoting someone implies that they said something. Cbrown1023 did not say "Nominator is not an expert on Wikipedia policies." In addition, the nominator is a clear SPA. If you are the one who created the SPA to nominate this article, please say so. We won't hold anything against you--just please, as a general statement, nominate AFD articles with your main account, not a sock. It makes things so much easier. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Kingdom Hearts series], I see no reason for it to have its own article. TJ

Spyke 02:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete This info is already present in another article, making this redundant. TJ Spyke 21:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of characters in the Kingdom Hearts series. --TBCΦtalk? 03:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per TBC. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 04:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Zoautew 05:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete or Merge The information is already available at List of characters in the Kingdom Hearts series. It is a little easier to scan here. I'm not entirely sure that warrants a separate article. A merge might make the list article unwieldy though. But either way, the information is relevant and easily verifiable. Shimeru 11:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As Shimeru points out, the information is already present in List of characters in the Kingdom Hearts series, which gives far more context and information and is thus a more useful article. This is redundant. — Haeleth Talk 12:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I change my vote to delete. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, this page was a result of discussion here and here. I don't really like the page, I only made it to appease the editors there so it could be removed from the main page where it was being really ugly. Axem Titanium 15:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In answer to Shimeru, I agree with Haeleth and Dark Shikari that it justifies deleting this entry and making Characters in the Kingdom Hearts series more readable. The Literate Engineer 20:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree that it doesn't belong on the main KH page, but am now convinced that it can be added to List of characters... if necessary, or that article edited to make that information more accessible. Therefore, changed my vote above. Shimeru 00:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Kingdom Hearts. --Ineffable3000 00:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Information is already present in List of characters in the Kingdom Hearts series. --Kunzite 03:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it's simply an awful and redundant list. Interrobamf 09:49, 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. W.marsh 13:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Patient[edit]

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

Non notable fictional character, text in the article is copied and pasted from the articles for the songs on the album on which the character appears, in addition, the article suffers of original research and is largely unsourced -Nightmare X 01:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom It'sAwwwright 01:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cut it ... er ... Redirect back to article about album. JChap2007 02:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An articel dedicate to a fictional character on a CD? TJ Spyke 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unverified emocruft. Original research is not okaaaaay. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IslaySolomon who made me LOL with emocruft. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with My Chemical Romance --Ineffable3000 00:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of the information has already been stated in each of the song pages, I don't think that there is a need for a new page. If anything needs to be merged then it should be compiled into The Black Parade as that is the album the character is in.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 03:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above no need for this page SOADLuver 22:15, 5 November 2006
• Comment: Someone removed the AfD notice from the article, I have added it back.

(UTC)

• Keep, but revise to actually be worth something. have an article on the character isn't in and of itself a bad idea TastemyHouse Breathe, Breathe in the air 05:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non notable, copypasta from other articles, unsourced, largely original research and we can do without it SuperInternetdudeomg 23:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Im in agreement with the cruft statment, plus it is all from other existing articles—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.214.229.81 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 9 November 2006.

• Redirect back to the album page. I don't think it needs its own article. The patient's story can be elaborated on in The Black Parade. A category could be added to show the album's synopsis.--Jude 15:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Changing my vote to delete, but place this information, once it's been condensed into the main 'The Black Parade' article.58.108.43.51 12:05, 10 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 a series of attacks arranged under a neologism. Fails pretty much every policy we have. Guy 11:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political Crossdressing[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, with a whole 47 google hits. Contested prod. Amarkov ^babble 01:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unsourced, POV, Original research. OfficeGirl 01:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism. Couldn't find any source that was actually about the term (as opposed to merely using it). JChap2007 02:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Original research neologism TheRanger 04:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Death by abbreviations: WP:V WP:DICDEF for a WP:NOTE WP:NEO that was probably WP:NFT per GHITS. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:44, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anzor Kikalishvili[edit]

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

"The supposed head of the supposed russian mafia..." does not cite sources, I tried to find them but failed. -Lapinmies 01:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Probably nonsense, but if it isn't, it is unsourceable (come on, do you think a mob boss would have a blog?). Cbrown1023 02:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article admits it is based largely on rumors and "not much is known". Original research. Kavadi carrier 05:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what a weird article. It breaks about a million different rules. Moreschi 13:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like unverified original research to me. AgentPeppermint 15:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Original research. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider - At least some of it could be compared to the following article: http://www.playthegame.org/Knowledge%20Bank/Articles/The%20Russian%20Mafia%20and%20hockey.aspx

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

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 03:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Montgomery[edit]

del nn vanity radio singer `'mikkanarxi 07:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. I made it, not Mercedes Montgomery. She's well known in her realm of work. countryfan

• Delete - article cites no sources, and googling turns up very little -- Whpq 14:13, 29 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 01:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unverifiable, and fails WP:MUSIC in current form. Kavadi carrier 02:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. SupaStarGirl 14:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only 943 ghits, all seemed to be either blogs or car dealerships. Both are notoriously unreliable sources... --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:18, 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. -- Steel 16:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Celebrity Laser Eye Surgery Patients[edit]

List of Celebrity Laser Eye Surgery Patients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not encyclopedic or maintainable. -AED 01:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nom and unencyclopedic list-cruft. Cbrown1023 02:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet another list of people with hands pages. JChap2007 02:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOT a home for indiscriminate lists. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCΦtalk? 03:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT TheRanger 04:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I gotta admit the listcrufters are getting more creative, though. 23skidoo 04:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, listcruft. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 04:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. EyeMD ^T|C 05:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unmaintainable and unverified list. Could be replaced with a category, though I can't think why we'd want to. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete arbitrary and unverifiable. Guy 11:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clackmannanshireman 17:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yep. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:27, 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 Merge to Minor characters in Seinfeld. - Yomangani^talk 17:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babs Kramer[edit]

Fancruft, minor character on Seinfeld, only appears in 1 episode - Coasttocoast 02:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the rest of the minor seinfeld characters, some of whom aren't EVER seen (see Lomez, Bob Sacamano). Sienfeld is sufficiently notable that a character oft-mentioned and appearing should be notable enough. --Daniel Olsen 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with other minor characters in the show. Most of those character do not need their own articles. TJ Spyke 03:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Nothing in Wikipedia "needs" an article, but since some things are more useful when presented as a separate article, Wikipedia is not one giant article. Unfocused 03:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Minor characters in Seinfeld. Babs has only been in one or two episodes and is not a significant character in the series.--TBCΦtalk? 03:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. A bit part in a notable show does not establish independent notability. Resolute 04:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. I've seen every episode 2-3 times and this has no significance to me. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per above DesertSky85451 01:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Same Reasons As above. kingpomba|Cants bother to sign in 14:01, 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 Keep - Yomangani^talk 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thermophobic[edit]

Seems like a hoax; a Google of "thermophobic" and "orgasm" reveals a whopping 2 results. The article doesn't provide much more context to work with. Crystallina 02:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep page was vandalized (diff) and has now been reverted. --Daniel Olsen 02:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep After two years of sex therapy, you too can finally achieve the thermophobic orgasm. Google hits for "thermophobic" and "organism" seem to confirm that this is genuine.-- IslaySolomon | talk 02:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. I've restored the pre-vandalism text of the article. Now, although brief, it makes sense. The AfD nomination was placed on a vandalized article. Please check article histories before nominating for deletion. Unfocused 03:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Daniel Olsen. hateless 03:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shouldn't this be at Wikitionary? It sounds like just a definition. TJ Spyke 04:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, agreed. As you pointed out this, I shall not participate in this AFD. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 05:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment True, as it stands, this article is just a one line definition. However, I think this can be addressed by expansion rather than deletion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm gonna go with Keep, per the other keeps †he Bread 06:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary or expand. Guy 11:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have expanded the article to include examples of thermophobic stuff. Kavadi carrier 13:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and kudos for the cleanup. Sandstein 23:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep post-expanded and newly referenced version by Kavadi. Solid work. Kuru ^talk 01:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though I would fact check the business about dandruff. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. Robovski 00:37, 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 patent nonsense. Guy 11:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siantonian Proof[edit]

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

"created between 2nd and 3rd November 2006". Original research. Slac speak up! 03:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Pffft! Delete per nom. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 03:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obvious original research, sourced by someone's myspace page (!) and blog (!) Baccyak4H 03:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Literally born yesterday. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. IslaySolomon | talk 03:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT. --Daniel Olsen 03:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obvious WP:NFT. JChap2007 03:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No claims of notability, speedy deleted, violates WP:BLP User:Zoe|(talk) 04:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milagro Cunningham[edit]

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

Old stub of a news event which wholly lacks context GilliamJF 03:46, 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.  Glen  01:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skeet (slang)[edit]

Unreferenced and rather unorganized collection of unrelated lewd slang definitions GilliamJF 19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Clear evidence of use in 3 pop cultures, complete with where it can be found in recordings. It appears to me that a good faith attempt to document that usage is presented. This article needs attention, and a lot of trimming, but doesn't merit complete deletion. Unfocused 04:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Article seems to contain relevant information. As usual wikipedia seems to be the only place to find definitions of these "newer" terms. Would be a shame to lose this information. (OsbornW) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.218.214.121 (talk • contribs) . — 69.218.214.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete The exception in WP:NOT 1.2.3 reads, "In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate." I don't think this qualifies as "essential". The Literate Engineer 04:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If Wikipedia is the "only place to find definitions of these 'newer' terms" then it is not notable. Resolute
• Delete Largely unverified original research. Not that that matters since wikipedia is not an (urban) dictionary. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. hateless 06:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The comment As usual wikipedia seems to be the only place to find definitions of these "newer" terms reveals both the fundamental problems with the article, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is here for. Take it to Urban Dictionary. Guy 11:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a place for repellent rubbish. Moreschi 13:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki some to wikt. --Rory096 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not urban dictionary (we should really add that). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — For a start, WP:NOT a dictionary, and WP:NEO says that we don't accept neologisms, which this appears to be (failing that, it's just as bad - a protologism). Martinp23 21:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Aow, delete delete delete Danny Lilithborne 01:04, 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. --Daniel Olsen 03:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ageiola[edit]

Not notable, not verified, questionable point of view, and does not meet criteria for bio of living person--"speculated A.G is a former mid level drug dealer" Glendoremus 04:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, no assertion of notability, totally unsourced, violates WP:BLP. Kavadi carrier 05:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Speedy Delete as above. Potentially slanderous biography of a living person made up of unverified original research. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - please delete this rubbish quickly. Libellous material and non-notable. Moreschi 13:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, probably speedy assuming it's really even a BLP. Can find no references, except for frequent board postings by someone using the name 'ageiola'. Whole thing seems like simple nonsense. Kuru ^talk 01:22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanguinarium[edit]

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

Fails notability and verifiability metaspheres 04:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, claims of having members "all over the world" are unsourced. Kavadi carrier 05:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unverified and probably unverifiable. Shimeru 11:05, 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 Delete as reposted material (previous AfD). --Daniel Olsen 03:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of the Vampire[edit]

Temple of the Vampire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails notability, verifiability, and practically nothing about the organization can be substantiated due to its secrecy. In addition, much of the present article is copyvio. metaspheres 04:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete no assertion of group's notability. It may also be repost of deleted page Temple Of The Vampire, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Of The Vampire. Kavadi carrier 05:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Commercial pitch. Plus, these poseur vampires are, like, totally ruining vampirism. Auto movil 06:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as an article about a group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. The introduction vaguely cites a big-book-of-vampires otherwise this is just a rephrasing of content from the group's website. I'm pretty sure we have a policy against that... -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as per above. And below:

The Temple supposedly exists in the town of Lacey, although its presence there is doubtful (Guinn, 1996: 50-55). Given that the Temple is largely a mail-order organization like The Church of Satan, the lack of an official establishment is hardly a surprise; Lucas Martel, the founder of the Temple of the Vampire, was a member of LaVey's organization. Many contemporary vampires become involved with the Temple for a time, but few continue because they disagree with its brutal world-view and come to believe that it is little more than a money-making scam.

from Kenworth, David. Socio-Religious Beliefs and Nature of the Contemporary Vampire Subculture. Journal of Contemporary Religion; Oct2002, Vol. 17 Issue 3, p355-370. Lowerarchy 03:02, 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 Merge to Steve Jobs and delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Nicole[edit]

A (poorly titled) bio article on Steve Jobs' daughter, Lisa. Lisa does not seem to be a notable individual; IMO she does not meet the standards of WP:BIO on her own, and being related to Jobs is not in itself notable. Some will argue that the Apple Lisa was supposedly named after her, but as far as I can tell neither Apple Computer nor Jobs have ever confirmed that theory, always officially stating that the name is an acronym for "Local Integrated Software Architecture". Therefore, the only "notable" information about her can't actually be verified. It could be argued that the industry speculation about the origin of the name is itself somewhat notable, but that is already mentioned in the Apple Lisa article and doesn't merit a separate article for Lisa Brennan-Jobs. -Big Smooth 21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete It is ridiculous to have an article about a barely notable person without even using her last name. Nuke it. Danny Lilithborne 21:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Lisa Brennan-Jobs seems to have become a journalist, or at least writer of magazine articles. One notable article is "Driving Jane" for The Harvard Advocate, about how her aunt Mona Simpson fictionalized her as a character in the book A Regular Guy. It also looks like she also wrote a whole series of (less autobiographical) articles for Spiked (magazine): [3], and the Harvard Crimson: [4]. Don't know yet if being a writer for notable publications, fictionalized book character, as well as daughter and niece of notable people combine to make her sufficiently notable. It's close. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds. Personally, I still don't think she meets the notability guidelines of WP:BIO as an author, but you're right, it's closer than I thought. -Big Smooth 21:32, 27 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, Chick Bowen 04:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Steve Jobs, with some mention of her in Jobs' article. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 05:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable--if writing is her job, you'd expect to find a few magazine articles under her name. Real test is whether articles have been written about her. Per WP:BIO, notability means "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" Glendoremus 05:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not a "computer specialist", nothing written about her in independent reliable sources. Kavadi carrier 05:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Having a notable relative does not equate to notability. The trivia surrounding the naming of the famous computer model is already covered here. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Steve Jobs. Yet to establish individual notability, and the Apple Lisa story isn't enough. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Merge anything salvagable to Steve Jobs. 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Steve Jobs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Steve Jobs as above. Robovski 23:13, 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 13:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next Era Wrestling[edit]

nn wrestling promotion. Only 58 Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Google hits have their deficiencies, but for popular culture topics like this should be an accurate gauge of notability. Lack of results would therefore indicate non-notability. Also there are no cited independent sources. Kavadi carrier 05:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 13:01, 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. --Daniel Olsen 03:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darla Sawler[edit]

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

Apparent Hoax, talk page violates WP:BIO Risker 04:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, article gives no idea what Darla is. An organisation? Group of people? A person? Kavadi carrier 05:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sorry, I failed to note that this article had originally been listed for PROD, but the tag was removed with an edit history indicating that the Guinness Book of World Records should accord some notability. Hence the listing here. Risker 05:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Good old fashioned vandalism by a single purpose account. Ghits as expected [5]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Nothing notable here. - Triviaa 21:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If she had the most sightings of the Loch Ness Monster, then I'd say keep! --Oakshade 08:29, 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 delete as spam, unfortunately; created by the artist and no credible claim to significance. Guy 11:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joie[edit]

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

Proposed deletion of non-commercial CD album recorded by a non-notable artist who is currently the subject of AfD debate. Ohconfucius 04:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The claim of being "the second solo organ recording made on the Harrison & Harrison organ of Holy Trinity Cathedral" is unsourced. Kavadi carrier 05:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not only is the supposed claim to fame unsourced, it's also not a claim to fame. We don't even have an article on Gillian Weir's recording, the first to be made on the rebuilt Royal Albert Hall Organ, which was (a) first, not nearly-first and (b) a much more significant instrument in the world of classical organs. Guy 11:33, 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. No third-party sources were provided verifying notability or claims, and no other suggestions for fixing the article were offered. The article can be recreated if and only if those issues can be addressed and conflict of interest can be avoided. --Coredesat 04:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Magazine[edit]

The Jewish Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I declined a speedy deletion under G11 (advertising) for this article, and thought to bring it here for deletion discussion. This is a Canadian free magazine, formerly known as the Israeli Magazine, that has as it's key audience the Jewish community of Toronto. The article claims readership of 500,000 but I could not find sources. I abstain procedurally. Samir धर्म 04:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources for that 500,000 readership is needed, and I believe it does not assert much notability. If sources are cited, then it will be a keep, if not during the discussion period, it will be a delete. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 05:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The official site [6] estimates the readership at about a fifth of that, with only half of those actually physically reading the publication itself. Going on messages left on the talk page and a user's talk page this seems a likely case of WP:AUTO/WP:COI. Without any assertion of notability and verification this is a borderline speedy as advertising spam. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hi there, please feel free to delete the 500,000. That number reflects the readership worldwide. The Jewish mag site reflects canadian #'s only. Remove the readership number so it doesn't sound like a sales pitch...what is important is the fact that there is another jewish publication that is not being recognized. Thanks kindly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.156.201 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 4 November 2006HH, 4 November 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.156.201 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 4 November 2006

• Comment The real issue here is notability. Does the subject of this article meet Wikipedia's notability criteria? So far, there is not evidence that it does. If you are involved in this magazine and are trying to get it recognition then you are in absolutely the wrong place. "What Wikipedia is not" and WP:AUTO are both worth a read. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Okay, i'm new at this....you are obviously well versed in the wikipedia ways. I am an advid user of wikipedia and saw toronto life and numerous other publications on this site....help me understand the difference here....off to bed...i'll look for your response in the morning. Good night. HH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helen Hatzis (talk • contribs)

• Delete Dubious readership claims, notability not established. Vanispamicruftitisement I think I saw someone call this sort of thing once. --NMChico24 06:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources and spammy appeal Sandstein 08:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentMorning...has a final decision been made?'74.116.156.201 13:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• These things usually take five days for the full process. You can read up on it at WP:AFD --Wafulz 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable. Moreschi 14:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Commentcan we agree to leave this article up deleting the readership numbers...i thought it would be useful to add under the Canada Jews section as a link to other Jewish publications. That's it, that's all....no alterior motive. The bottom line is that it is a successful cool ethnic magazine in the Jewish community...there is no advertising motive...it's a free magazine. I made haste when adding it to wikipedia as an article. I use wikipedia as a resource often...I was not aware that regular folks like us could add info to the site, so I took the opportunity. Next time, I'll be sure to read through the instructions properly. Have a great day.--[[User:HH]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Shuki 22:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless notability can be demonstrated. Highly likely NN. - crz crztalk 22:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abandon AfD The writer has used those magics words "I don't understand" - it simply isn't possible to judge the article until they have had time to work out what is needed in the article, by which time the AfD will be closed - this AfD is a waste of time. He has asked for help, yet I see no offers. As a relatively new user myself I'm not in a position to help but until someone has actually worked with the user to bring out the full potential there is no information on which to base a delete - this appears to me as yet another instance of Wikipedia failing treat new users appropriately and is a serious failing in the AfD procedure --Mike 18:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD has nothing to do with the user who made the article, and editors should not feel bad if articles they wrote are brought to AfD. This AfD is about to the notability of the subject of this article, as found in the article, and in sources discovered during the AfD process. -- Samir धर्म 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Commenthi there...I have located the magazine contact info from their website, please feel free to obtain all the pertinent info needed 416.987.3210 thank you. User:HH

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  01:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Makowski[edit]

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

No apparent notability with uncited claims; Google shows nothing -- Tim D 05:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per evidence on talk page. Appears not to have won any awards for his work. Kavadi carrier 06:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The google hits are pretty damning. The article doesn't mention the names of his "more controversial films" and a google search for "Eli Makowski" and "conspiracy" only turns up this article. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I believe it to be a Hoax.There is no notable Eli Makowski, filmaker. Google returns only Wikipedia entries. I previously (Nov 1) tagged it as a probable Hoax, and the creator of the article has removed that tag. The Talk page contains a garbled plea to leave the page but no references in rebuttal of the Hoax claim. They also blanked from the article previously asserted films (no record of which seems to exist anywhere) . Pudgey 06:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - oh dear. A weaker hoax I have not seen. Moreschi 13:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am creator of the article originally on Eli Makowski. For those who do not know, Eli Makowski is an extremely popular filmmaker in Australia and won several awards. He has left the 'public eye' and as a result, has made no more new films or won more awards. After further correspondence I believe it to now be okay to delete and re-published if his career in filmmaking proceeds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.143.0.230 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 4 November 2006.

May I ask why this article still hasn't been deleted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.143.0.230 (talk • contribs)

• It will be deleted as soon as an administrator comes to end this discussion. Kavadi carrier 00:43, 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, and there are two reasons why. "All schools are inherently notable" arguments were disregarded because no reasons were given for why. Secondly, part of this is unverifiable. The article may be recreated if these issues are resolved. --Coredesat 04:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Louis Grammar School[edit]

St Louis Grammar School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about an elementary school. No evidence of notability. Valrith 05:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. No assertion of notability. The editor doesn't even state what country the school is in, let alone what city. Vote changed to Weak Keep It is not an elementary school. "Grammar School" only means elementary school in a few countries, such as the United States. I Googled after I made my vote: this is a private school in Kilkeel, Northern Ireland for students up to 18, so the equivalent of an American high school.[7] Apparently it's well over 50 years old so may qualify as notable under WP:SCHOOL --Charlene 05:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep as long as criteria can be met for WP:SCHOOL. Someone needs to go through the work to do this, though. -- Tim D 06:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:SCHOOL is not a guideline and almost certainly never will be. JoshuaZ 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, but it works as far as my opinion goes. -- Tim D 07:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability (and I don't buy into that BS that all schools are notable that someone always yes in these school AFDs). TJ Spyke 06:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 06:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have added some material and cleaned it up a bit on the assumption it is St Louis Grammar School in Kilkeel. However it could be the one in Ballymena, also in Northern Island. This has to be resolved before this AfD is closed. If it is not cleared up, it should be deleted. If it is cleared up, I support keeping it and expanding it. High Schools are notable. --Bduke 07:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable school with no notable alumni, no team or club which has performed at a national level. Nothing to distinguish this school at all from other schools. JoshuaZ 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JoshuaZ... not like it matters. -- Kicking222 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously more important and notable than the average Pokemon character. See Kingler. Unfocused 01:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment**Comment Actually in terms of the number of people whose lives are affected the pokemon easily wins. Furthermore, just because we have bad standards about Pokemon doesn't justify them for other things. JoshuaZ 01:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or expand so it is more than a directory listing. Not every school is so notable it needs its own encyclopedia article. It could be mentioned in an article about the geograpic area. Edison 03:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all non-notable schools! In the absence of that, start with this one. Montco 06:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JoshuaZ. Encyclopedia people, not a repository for a content-free stub on every school on the planet. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - school is already mentioned in Kilkeel. Add a little bit more information in the latter article, perhaps, for a proper merger, but delete this article or change to a redirect. --JohnDBuell 18:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a high school, which have an extremely strong precedent for retention. Article makes explicit claims of notability in terms of alumnus and athletic achievement. Alansohn 19:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for my usual reasons. Nominator misunderstands the non-US definition of a grammar school. This is a selective secondary school. -- Necrothesp 00:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cribcage 05:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there some reason that you are saying that? Remember, AfD is not a vote. JoshuaZ 05:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets all content policies. Certainly, there has been no assertion otherwise in this AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments, article makes explicit claims of notability as noted by Alansohn. Silensor 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeeeeeep It is a school, it is noteworthy, it is a valuable source of information, it would be in any encylopedia if they had the space and time to write it - why is this AfD here? --Mike 18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes you think that it is noteworthy and that it would be included in "any encyclopedia if they had the space"? JoshuaZ 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshuaz, I simply use the criteria that I would expect to find the entry. All schools appear in numerous official guides, they appear on local information sites, they have a huge local audience, and they contain probably the biggest user group for Wikipedia. The only reason I can see for not having schools, is their huge number, but there is a clear policy (WP:?) that says this is not a reason to prevent entries. --Mike 20:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having a huge local audience isn't very relevant. So does every car dealership and movie theater, nor is having a large user group an assertion of being noteworthy. JoshuaZ 04:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 22:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of the valid arguments above.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unremarkable school Catchpole 12:36, 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. --Daniel Olsen 03:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Bedford[edit]

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

Delete, fails WP:BIO Deproded by serial deproder Kappa, so have to turn it into a AFD nom Brimba 05:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems very much like an attack on Kappa. Please don't imply that another user's opinion is less valuable based on how he chooses to improve Wikipedia. We all have our preferred areas to edit. Unfocused 06:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Kappa's recent activity (as far as a quick look at his/her contributions can tell me) is heavily concentrated in deprodding articles, often without comment beyond "deprod". While not every article marked with ((prod)) deserves deletion, removing the tag without supplied reasoning isn't the most helpful behavior. Zetawoof^(ζ) 11:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And others recent activities have been directed at AfD's. So? WP:AGF. Address the article, not the editor. Edison 03:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO. The bit about the mayoral race is interesting, but garnering 2% of the total vote doesn't exactly make him noteworthy. Being one of five finalists in an online stand-up comedy competition, likewise. Shimeru 05:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable politician, reality show contestant, and comedian. Appearing at Yuk Yuk's does not make an individual notable - a dozen or more people appear there on every amateur night. The original editor (Dbcomedy (talk · contribs)) has only made edits to this page and to the sandbox. --Charlene 06:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 06:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Nice, well written article, complete with references and external links. Based on username, it was likely started by the article's subject but since it's been edited and doesn't read that way, I'm fine with it. Unfocused 06:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Shimeru. -Seidenstud 08:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. Moreschi 13:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "best known as one of the final 5 contestants" of a reality show? Reality show contestants have no inherent claims to notability. JoshuaZ 23:50, 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 13:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonkum[edit]

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

User says he wants to "Trying to craft this into an article about unique furniture that can be used for health and sexual enhancement." Keep or Delete? No vote. -WarthogDemon 05:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as advertising for a company, product, group or service that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopaedia article. Created by a single purpose account named for the product. The references citied are just pages on the company's website. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Advertising spam. --Charlene 06:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Kind of stinks of advertising. -- Tim D 06:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to be mentioned in the press quite a few times. [8] Kavadi carrier 06:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The product sounds interesting but the article is unencyclopedic advertising spam.--Dakota 06:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could be notable if the article weren't a sales brochure, and if health-enhancing fisting swings are an idea whose time has come, or whatever. Auto movil 06:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have rewritten the article to mention only details of the item which are described in magazine reviews. Kavadi carrier 06:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as spam, since Bonkum (talk · contribs) created the article. So tagged. If not, then regular delete - the reviewer magazines aren't notable with 231 and 48 ghits for the two googleable magazines. This is despite the <euphemism>search engine optimisation</euphemism> the porn industry does. MER-C 09:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete t his is clearly spam TheRanger 19:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What is spam? ATA_Airlines, Boeing, or Sears show me the difference? Both these examples and the Bonkum page seem to be talking about the products, the history, and the company. 'Spam' is a relative term. Much the like the term 'Pornography'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boudle (talk • contribs)

From WP:CSD: Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. MER-C 04:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — per WP:SPAM Martinp23 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am surprised that it has not been speedy deleted; it is clearly spam.--Runcorn 09:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is bunkum.--Taxwoman 12:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Easyas12c 14:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-- This article doesn't really mean anything to me- I like police stuff, but they shouldn't go advertising: This's Wikipedia, not ADdiepedia (my ahem, "non-existant version" of ADs) My userpage Chicochango 22:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete - i wanted to assume good faith, detailed encyclopaedic knowledge on notable aspects of BDSM is reasonable. However, after looking over this user's true contribution history, and after noting the fact they have changed their name to try and disassociate themselves from what they are doing, I have to say that this should be deleted, and all edits made by this IP need to be reverted. -Zappernapper 18:37, 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 13:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuvashakti[edit]

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

This is a sub-article about a religious organization, which does not have any reliable sources, and does not have any assertion of notability. Multiple attempts to merge/redirect the subject to a more appropriate location have been reverted by someone with a conflict of interest, so I am proceeding to AfD. Recommend speedy deletion, otherwise they're just going to trot in another herd of sockpuppets, like they did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaja Yoga International. --NovaSTL 06:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete no assertion of group's notability. Tagged. Kavadi carrier 07:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - bad faith nom. novaSTL has been persistantly pushing his POV in continuously labeling the organisation cult-like, not participating in discussion, and bad-faith attitude (see comment above for example). The article is a stub, more content is forthcoming, and yet, well aware of this fact, here we are. Sfacets 07:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note: A reference has been added. Sfacets 11:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not a bad faith nom. The article has been around for a year, without any valid sources. That's plenty of time to allow for expansion, especially considering that there's been a merge template on it for the last few weeks. I would also point out that Sfacets (talk · contribs) has previously been blocked for disruption [9], and has a long history of reverts and false personal attacks. --NovaSTL 07:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I had been blocked (mistakenly, I might add) once a long time ago. I now have many thousands of edits under this username. A long history of reverts and false personal attacks? Such as? As usual this user has demonstrated his total disregard for proof to back his arguments and relies on generalisations. Also please note that NovaSTL is a sockpuppet, Sockpuppeteer unknown. it shows bad faith that he would refer to my one supposed transgression in the past, when he will not even share his real identity. Sfacets 09:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Stop it, both of you. We're here to discuss the fate of the article, not the contributor(s). In any case I must say that "more content is forthcoming" is probably the most common argument used to argue for an article to be kept — and the most vacuous and ineffective. Kavadi carrier 10:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Stammer 11:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 12:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - weak assertions of notability. Please note that AfD is not the place for such bickering: get a room. Moreschi 13:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per sfacets. I'm trying to find some links.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --  Doctor Bruno  16:00, 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. --Daniel Olsen 03:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Videos Featured on Toonami Jetstream[edit]

List of Videos Featured on Toonami Jetstream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's a simple matter to check which videos are on the website. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First of all, the website is not available to everyone. How would you explain your argument to them? Secondly, there is no other way to track what videos are featured. Finally, third, It is relative to the subject. NIVINCo 01:41 EST, 4 November 2006

  Comment If people can't access the site in the first place, what good does it do to tell them what they're missing? Relevant or not, it doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion. It's an indiscriminate list and nothing more. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  But it is more, it is the whole essence of Toonami Jetstream. NIVINCo 01:45 EST, 4 November 2006

  No, the shows are the essence, not your list. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  There are more videos than just the shows. Plus there is the times when Toonami Jetstream changed premieres, the duration of how long a video is featured, etc. All this information can be found in the list. It is more than just the videos featured. NIVINCo 01:52 EST, 4 November 2006

• Delete. WP is not an indiscriminate list of info. ju66l3r 06:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Kavadi carrier 07:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 07:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sandstein 08:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 12:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft. Moreschi 13:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 18:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete fails WP:NOT and WP:OR. Danny Lilithborne 01:07, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurd-Dagh[edit]

Kurd-Dagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vanity (def #1) article. Unsourced, unreferenced and overall unhelpful. Article focuses more about controversies than the geological data. The name itself is a subject of controversy apperantly.

As Geography of Turkey article points out, south eastern turkey is a very mountainous area and I feel better to cover the mountain range (Taurus Mountains) in a single article as the individual mountains don't seem to have stand alone notability.

--Cat out 06:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Unless I'm missing something, this appears to be a legitimate place. -- Tim D 06:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an existing, notable region in Syria and Turkey, as proven by the three references I just added to the article. Google also confirms this. It also gets 155 hits on Google books...I don't get how an article about a region is "vanity". Khoikhoi 06:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chill will ya? You do not need to vote the second I start an AFD. --Cat out 06:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha. Ha. Punkmorten 15:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - precedent says that real places (ie towns, mountains, lakes, etc) are notable (see WP:AFDP). --Daniel Olsen 06:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but this mountain is a part of a mountain range. Individual mountains dont have any true distinction... --Cat out 06:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is the guideline that says individual mountains aren't notable? Punkmorten 15:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the mountain has offended you in some way, you should probably first try to take things up with it personally... -- Tim D 16:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      There is no such guideline, just how I feel it should be covered. We do not use guidelines to do everything.

      Huh? There is no way a rock can offend me...

      --Cat out 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Per WP:AFDP "Geographical features such as lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., are notable." Single mountains are included in the term "mountains" like single rivers are included in "rivers." Besides, this article is of a region, not just a mountain. --Oakshade 06:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, isn't a statement like "it is among the three "ethnic mountains" of western Syria" assertion of notability? Kavadi carrier 07:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per.. oh, everyone else. :-) Let's go ahead and speedy keep this one. - JNighthawk 16:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tim D. Clackmannanshireman 17:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep I don't really see how an article about a mountain can be vanity, since mountains don't write articles. I know the "other things like this have an article so this should have an article" argument often doesn't go over well in Afd, but in this case I think it applies, as there isn't a guideline. If you check the categories related to mountains there are tons of individual US mountains with article (9 in Massachusetts alone, and we're not really famous for our mountains.) Most mountains are part of a mountain range, so that argument doesn't really fly with me. Dina 18:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep An article of a region that speaks of "charcoal production" is VANITY?? Anyway, it's a place that has thousands of people living in it. Inherently notable. --Oakshade 06:45, 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 as an advertisement. An article being the "only article on the subject" does not justify it being an advertisement. --Coredesat 04:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EMSN[edit]

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

Article was marked as ((db-spam)) and was deleted, but the original author contests its deletion, and so I am nominating this article for AfD, with no vote on my part. Tangotango 06:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Spam. TJ Spyke 06:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Regular delete since a sysop is kind enough to let us comment, but this still fails WP:SOFTWARE by a mile or ten. Kavadi carrier 07:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 07:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kavadi carrier. utcursch | talk 12:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that this fails WP:SOFTWARE, but remember that it is currently only a proposed policy. Keep it at least until (if ever) this becomes an actual policy. Kurt Weber 21:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I obviously think it should be kept... 'cuz, you know... I made it and stuff. And I do believe having an "advertizing" article is better than not having an article at all on the subject. Gothic Embrace 15:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:SOFTWARE InvictaHOG 04:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All these people who are saying "Delete per WP:SOFTWARE" need to clarify what they mean. Are they saying that they agree with the rationale on WP:SOFTWARE as to why articles not meeting the criteria listed there need to be deleted, or are they simply saying that it needs to be deleted since it violates WP:SOFTWARE, regardless of whether or not they agree with it. If it's the latter, then that argument is completely bogus as WP:SOFTWARE is not policy!. The former is somewhat more reasonable, but still, the fact that it's not policy but only a proposed policy which may or may not pass should give one pause when invoking it. Why not wait and see if it becomes policy, and act then, rather than delete an article which under current policy is perfectly acceptable? Why remove perfectly good content (and risk pissing off a potentially valuable contributor) because of something that's not even policy yet? It's ridiculous. Kurt Weber 20:07, 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. W.marsh 01:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aplus.Net[edit]

Aplus.Net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was deleted back in August per a previous AfD nomination. The article was recently recreated, but the content has changed. The author opposes its speedy deletion, so I am putting it up on AfD for reconsideration. Tangotango 07:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems to meet WP:CORP now. Has been mentioned multiple times in independent reliable sources. Kavadi carrier 07:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree the company may meet WP:CORP, however:
  • the article is clearly Wikipedia:Conflict of interest it has been created and predominately written by the company sockpuppets: USER:216.55.131.77 and USER:Dnate76
  • This is not a company that anyone other than itself has seen fit to add.
  • Checking the history list, this article was recreated less than a week after the last WP:AFD (with only a trivial name change)
  • Neither of these sockpuppets have made other useful changes to other parts of the wikipedia
  • the sockpuppets have however unnecessarily been wikilinking it around as in: [10] [11] [12] [13] (presumably as a form of cheap advertising)
  • then they renamed it with the comment '(moved Aplus.net to Aplus.Net: Company name was capitalized incorrectly.)' back to the original article. It all seems a bit slimey to me. Personally, I've got nothing against companies in general, but in this case, I'm unclear what the advantage is for the wikipedia for having this article, and allowing this kind of stuff.WolfKeeper 17:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Absolutely not. See WP:SPAM, "Advertisements masquerading as articles". There is nothing substantive or encyclopedic here, just a laundry list of accomplishments and awards. Look at the author's contributions - they are all either working on this article, or spamming other articles with links to this one. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would say KEEP. This simply an informational page about a company that is large enough and has created enough notable products to be featured in Wikipedia. The fact that the company has been featured in such large publications means that they are doing something important that will benefit the Wikipedia community.

I would disagree with the “Conflict of Interest” point. I do not see exactly what part of that policy the articles breaks. I am assuming some users may think this is self promotion but the wikipedia policy is

Examples of these types (self promotion) of material include:

1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).

2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages (vanity links).

3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

I do not think the article breaks any of the above rules.

This is the first and only edit for Wiki-enforcer (talk · contribs) - isn't that weird? --Aguerriero (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Everything I've seen here leads me to believe this is spam. While maybe someone will start a legitimate article on this eventually, this isn't it. Wickethewok 20:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It cleary states in the Wikipedia policy page that

When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view.

to me this article is written in very neutral point of view. Wiki-enforcer

there are some curious omissions however, it strangely doesn't cover the sleezoid google bombing techniques that push the company way up in the google ranking, described here: [14][15][16] Under the wikipedia rules, this would clearly need much more coverage in the article, including detailed description of how this works and why this means that the very high google ranking may be unjustified for the company. It's unclear that the article would end up in a positive light at the end of the day for the company.WolfKeeper 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe the artcile has encyclopedic value. The company is in the top 25 web hosts in the world http://www.webhosting.info/webhosts/tophosts/Country/US?pi=2&ob=RANK&oo=ASC. There are many smaller web hosting companies listed on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Web_hosting .

apparently another decisive opinion by Wiki-enforcer WolfKeeper 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-enforcer (talk · contribs) is a likely sock. Only 2 edits, both were to participate in this debate. Ohconfucius 03:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam. This is one of the better written advertisements I've seen, but it remains nothing more than an advertisement none the less. Few of the links under "recognition" actually talk about the company itself. The rest are included because an employee of the company got a one line question/answer in an unrelated article. The entire section is basically nothing more than name dropping in an attempt to add legitimacy. The blatant linkspamming does not help their cause at all. Resolute 00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Notability seems to be better established, but I still don't see this meeting WP:CORP. The citations provided are rather trivial - just a one sentence blurb from the marketing director. In order to keep, I would like to see articles featuring the company and their contributions to the web hosting industry. With all the awards that they claim on their website, I would think this would be easy. I tried searching CNET, but found no mention of the Editor's Choice award and didn't go further than that. Keep if the awards can be verified. I'd also support Speedy Delete under G11 unless it is substanstially rewritten in a NPOV manner since the article seems rather spammish to me. Leuko 00:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:Agree with Resolute and Wickethewok. The page may be able to be encyclopedic, but certainly not in its current incarnation (or last). Unless a neutral editor completely redoes the article, it needs to be removed, IMHO. --Benwildeboer 02:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as WP:SPAM. This is all very distasteful. Clearly the author's intentions are dishonest per research by WolfKeeper. It's a possible that the company could conceivably meet WP:CORP, but the author no favours by using tactics like what we have witnessed. Dnate76 (talk · contribs) has made no other meaningful edits apart from this article and associated spam links. The subject's website ranks a healthy 1,105th, and the Tophost award checks out. Curiously tophost ranks 22,111th (lower than the subject), As pointed out aplus consolidates hits belonging to many of its clients by googlebombing. pcmag (1 & 2) and cnet searches all reveal zerohits other than directory listings. the links to about.com and Hostreview are but infomercials, as is the Tophost article, which is completely written by the company's PR department. Also curious for someone who appears to be so well acquainted with wiki's policy on speedy deletion, the author is nevertheless guilty of WP:NPOV, using weasel words: I take issue with the unjustified use of terms such as "regularly profiled" and "drew national attention" when many of these articles linked to are clearly "trivial" (ie only mention the company fleetingly or where one of its officers is merely supplying a quote). I find that even the use of the word "Recognition" as a paragraph title is NPOV. "Ranked by" doesn't mean squat if you're not ranked #1 in a basket of important criteria, judged againts solid competition: so what if it's ranked by Netcraft? What is more, the Tier 1 Research ranking is unimpressive. I strongly suspect if we re-wrote the article and added references to the google bombing (which although are from blogs, are objective and easily reperformed), the author will beg us to delete the article ;-) Ohconfucius 03:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]