< November 5 November 7 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary)[edit]

Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am not sure why this is in the main article space, but it should not be. Tom Harrison Talk 00:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by User:Yanksox. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toysandtreasures[edit]

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

Non-notable web shop. --fvw* 00:09, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 21:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Philips[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Author of various self-published online works. I removed the long list of articles on his personal website. His organization is also up for afd. Arbusto 23:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not the place to deal with accuracy disputes. Seano1 21:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suspicions of accuracy problems are an appropriate thing to bring up in AfD. Some users seem to think that the only thing to discuss in AfD is "notability." Instead of just going along with what the nom and others concluded from the text of the article, I added information that I found. I think this man may well prove to have a degree of notability if indeed he is associated with the 1993 WTC bombing conspiracy in reliable news sources but there are other considerations. My objections fall under the catergory of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. If these problems cannot be cleared up in a responsible way before the end of the discussion period for this AfD then the article is due to be deleted. But as to notability in the article as written there was not a sufficient assertion made. OfficeGirl 22:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then go in there and Edit Boldly.while observing WP:BLP policies. Edison 19:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a good person is not a qualification for getting an article on Wikipedia; the fact that he is associated with the 1993 bombing so strongly seems to indicate notability. The article needs an NPOV rewrite, removal of all unsourced and POV statements. But the fact that he is a noted terrorist is NOT a reason for deletion. If he were a non-notable terrorist that would be one thing; to claim in the same breath that he is notable and then deletable is contradictory. This is a content dispute and should be carried on on the articles talk page. Be bold, fix the article to be NPOV. It doesn't need to be deleted. --Jayron32 05:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
QueryJayron, has anyone gotten hold of a single good reference source about this man? I am not sure we are in a position to say that its been established as a fact that he was connected with the 1993 WTC bombing. I absolutely agree with you that if we have that as a fact then notability has been established. But if all we get is some kind of fansite content then the article would be due to be deleted. I am very much in favor of expanding the information available on Wikipedia concerning Muslim personages and topics related to Islam, as long as the articles are done responsibly. Since there's a real possibility that Bilal Philips has been involved in such serious matters I think his topic should be handled with special care. I also don't want the article to say he is a terrorist without at least one reliable news source to back it up, since we are dealing with a very damning statement about a living person. OfficeGirl 18:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Naik[edit]

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

Unnotable person. Fails WP:BIO, at first glance he appears to be notable, but its just a list of his beliefs. As someone noted on my talk, "He's not any better known than other Islamic public speakers, it's just that the article has been the scene of frantic revert wars between those who find him hilarious". [12] Arbusto 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Research Foundation[edit]

Islamic Research Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unnotable group. No independent sources. Started by a person who also started an article on the groups founder. Also up for afd. Arbusto 23:09, 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 per WP:V and WP:CORP. --Coredesat 00:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flamel College [edit]

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

Unnotable, unaccredited private school. Lacks independent sources. Do students actually attend? If so, how many? There are only two sources of trivial mention, which fails WP:CORP. No google news hits. One mention is "Determined to apply academic rigor to his pursuit, Mr. Villella took several online courses from Flamel College, which keeps a post office box in Sacramento ..."[14] WP:CORP is clear and this fails criteria. Arbusto 23:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Wp:Corp is a guideline. I consider it a stretch when applied to a school. For example, few schools are "listed on ranking indices" or have share prices "used to calculate stock market indices". Few schools have share prices full stop. However, the Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) guideline does state that: Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. [18]. I consider that further justification for keeping articles of this type. Otherwise, my reasons for wanting to maintain the article are explained above. --JJay 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying we should keep this because I added it to the unaccredited list? Arbusto 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read my first comment for numerous reasons why this article should be kept (and expanded). --JJay 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No response with substance? Arbusto 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please. This is a "school" that gives degrees in ghost hunting. Did you even review the article? Arbusto 03:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its about as useful in the real world as a college giving a degree in Turfgrass Management (Ohio State), Poultry Science (Univ of MD), or video gaming.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those are all large industries (and Poultry Science is to be blunt necessary for the standard of living in most developed nations). Ghost hunting on the other hand...(note, I don't think this actually has much to do with notability anyways, but its worth noting). JoshuaZ 06:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifable? The NY Times' trival mention is posted at the start of this nom says it based from a PO Box. Explain how it meets WP:CORP. Also unique isn't a criteria for inclusion. Arbusto 08:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is the basis for that statement? I provided three references when I addded material to the article including the NY Times. They are all reliable, independent and secondary. --JJay 00:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article I linked from the NY times at the top and is cited in the article simply states it is a PO Box. That is also on its webpage. Hardly passes any WP:V of a study body, history, etc. Arbusto 00:36, 11 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. I find it rather disturbing that so many established editors think the number of google hits should be the primary reason we include an article, but whatever. Based on the numbers there is no consensus to delete, thankfully arguments other than the google hits were presented, and per JJay's argument and evidence there does seem to be reliable information written about this topic. I suggest actually citing it in the article, which is about 0.02% as long as this AfD. W.marsh 23:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newport University (California)[edit]

Newport University (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unnotable, unaccredited private school. Lacks independent sources. Do students actually attend? If so, how many? Created by Drsalleh (talk · contribs), who's only made 3 article edits. Approved by California's consumer department (NOT education), thus must pass WP:CORP. Possible diploma mill.[19] Arbusto 23:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see relevant hits. Wikipedia and mirrors, and the Chronicle for Higher Education talks about "Christopher Newport University." Arbusto 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does it pass WP:CORP? How many students attend? Does it have a campus? The only place that knows of this is a divison of California Department of Consumer Affairs NOT any academic accreditor nor the Department of Education. Arbusto 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a school. Just because it is a private company does not mean it is not a school. Unacredited is not the same a not notable. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Schools which are unaccredited are in many ways only schools in so far as they claim to be schools. It isn't clear to me why they shouldn't be treated a corporations. JoshuaZ 03:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Acreddited simply means officially recognized. While unaccredited may mean it is not notable, it really only means it is not officially recognized, by whatever officials happen to be in charge of accrediting, not that it is neccesarily not notable. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that unaccredited doens't mean not-notable. Bob Jones University is an obvious counterexample. However, it does make it reasonable to apply WP:CORP. This university seems to fail it. JoshuaZ 03:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article does not need to meet every notability requirement it may fall under, only one(unless I am wrong). My stance is that while it may be a CORP, it is still a SCHOOL, and if it meets one of them, as opposed to all of them, it is fine. Yes, it is a CORP, but it is still a SCHOOL. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but we have a consensus about corporations. We have no consensus abotu schools. So it maybe makes sense to differ to the one we have an actual consensus on? JoshuaZ 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think so, because that consensus was not neccesarily made with schools in mind. To be frank, it seems like a bit of a stretch to apply CORP to a school simply because it is not accredited. After all, acredited schools can be private corperations aswell, I don't see the connection. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This place is for-profit, see policies on WP:CORP. And thus, is much different a public high school. It lacks sources and notability. Arbusto 22:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A public institution must have accreditation implies notability. Unaccredited schools like Bob Jones University have established notability with the number of students and articles, etc. Do have nothing like that here? Any articles for notability? Any statistics IF ANYONE ATTENDS? Arbusto 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, it is still a school, even if they make profit. Most major schools profit. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, most private schools are non-profit (all public are non-profit by definition), which gives them different tax stuctures and incentives. Moreover, its an unaccredited school that we can't verfiy academics nor do we have any WP:RS to write an article with. Please supply some WP:RS if you wish to expand this instead of keeping it as a two sentence stub. You can't even answer my basic question: HOW MNY STUDENTS CLAIM TO ATTEND? Arbusto 02:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are some of these links that cover this subject? Post them here. We have NOTHING to write an article with. Arbusto 06:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You "think an argument can be made"? Of that ghit count what are some WP:RS we can write an article with? I see forums, ads, and a bunch of other places with the "Newport University" not tied to this. Also how does this meet WP:CORP? Arbusto 06:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for all those "per Silensor" keeps: most of the Google hits returned are not about the Newport University on Newport Beach at all, but about the Cristopher Newport University. When you search for "NEwport University" California -"Christopher Newport", you already drop to 13,500 Ghits[20]. Many of those are still false positives, but you get the idea. As for the number of students: they seem to have had a grand total of 8 graduates in 1993[21], and are not listed in the COOL database[22]. As far as I can see, it is an unaccredited correspondence law school with some 10 to 15 students each year[23]. Since OCtober 2004, only two first years students passed the "Baby Bar"[24]. Apart from their own website and such statistics which prove existence (although with a very limited number of correspondence students), I am unable to find any reviews, discussions, or other WP:V sources to show any notability. Fram 11:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Registered with the bar examin means what? According to that page, "The Office of Admissions [of the bar] cannot advise prospective students on the advantages or disadvantages of attending unaccredited schools or the quality of the legal education programs provided by the schools." So your link means the bar has heard of this place before, but it doesn't know if its reilable.
  • You seem not particularly well informed of the requirements for admission to the bar in the state of California. Schools must fully adhere to bar exam rule XIX related to law study in unaccredited shools [28]. This requires state licensing, inspection, a qualified faculty, classroom study, library, etc. The requirements are not easy to meet. --JJay 12:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Review [29] and feel free to provide [WP:RS]] for each criteria. Arbusto 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What??? California sets standards for allowing students from various institutions to sit for the bar exam and in the case of unaccredited schools, bar exam rule XIX is applicable (as indicated in my previous post). It is not up to me to "provide WP:RS for each criteria". The school is listed on the California bar exam website, meaning they have passed inspection and adhere to the clauses of rule XIX. Pretty simple really. If you believe that is not the case please enlighten us. --JJay 01:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people can walk in and take the test. Does American Bar Association accredit law schools: YES. Does Newport have accreditation: NO. Has this been called a diploma mill: YES. Can the California Bar Association say this provides an good/quality education: NO. Does this place meet the standards for the California Bar Accreditation[30]: NO. Does California of Bar Examiners approve or accredit correspondence schools: NO.[31] Have you given any reason why this for-profit place meets WP:CORP: NO. Arbusto 04:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one claimed the school is accredited. That is not at issue. Your statement that "people can walk in and take the test" is false. The school has to be inspected and must adhere to a series of requirements. That is why few schools are on the list. Your comment that the school has been called a "diploma mill" is completely unproven. Provide proof of that statement. The California Bar's non-opinion of unaccredited schools is not the issue here either. Finally, WP/Corp is a guideline that should not apply to schools for obvious reasons. The interest of these types of articles is to have background information on institutions of higher learning that are awarding degrees to people that sometimes achieve positions of authority (in this case potential lawyers, social workers, psychologists). That is inherently notable and supercedes WP/Corp and its fixation on stock prices. --JJay 13:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have two sources that question its academics, and no one disputes its for-profit nature. 1) Here. 2) In an article in South China Morning Post Stella Lee's article "Overseas university under investigation in Hong Kong" states "The Newport University of California which is not accredited by the American education authorities, started offering courses ... through distance learning courses." This was in relation to Newport's "classes" which "are not in the form of instruction, we just ask the students to raise their questions and discuss them with experts." This again is a trival mention in the paper, but leads use to question Newport's seriousness as a "school"
You still haven't offered any sources as to how this business meets WP:CORP. Arbusto 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You cearly haven't read the first source, which never calls the school a diploma mill. Nor does the second source, apparently. The only person making that claim is you, but without proof. If you question Newport's "seriousness" take it up with the Bar association of California. --JJay 19:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2) Your insisting we keep an article for a ten year old Salt Lake newspaper that calls this place a diploma mill is more of a reason to delete. That is, no one has provided any criticism in the article about its ppor quality of instruction. Thus, your link makes us more skeptical about the article meeting WP:V. The article says nothing about criticism, which is very misleading per your one article. Readers, right now, get the false impression that is place's academics aren't questionable per the one source you mentioned.
3) Lastly, as you have been told just because I added this to the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning doesn't mean we keep it. We kept WP:V and notable unaccredited schools. One article from ten years ago does not prove notablity. Arbusto 03:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) While the school is not accredited, the fact that several state bodies do provide some level of recognition to the school is not only evidence of verifiability, it also goes a long way to establishing notability in the context of a university. 2) The source is independent, reliable and verifiable. There is simply no criteria that the source must be recent OR that it must be positive. "Non-trivial coverage" is timeless. As the source is provided, readers can make their own impression of the article's characterization. 3) A reminder that a school's presence on the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning doesn't mean it should be deleted. 4) The time has come to address the evidence of notability and get past the fact that it is unaccredited. There is simply no standard whatsoever that makes an accredited school notable OR makes an unaccredited school a non-notable target for deletion. Alansohn 04:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Its on a list for california's consumer division with 1800 of other unaccrediteds; hardly notable. Review WP:CORP. 2) You have one article from ten years ago. Review WP:CORP. 3) Yes. No one said otherwise. 4) Yes, notability is important. How does it pass WP:CORP? Arbusto 04:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but that is false. There is no information regarding student numbers on the school's website. The link provided by User:Fram shows eight law school graduates in 1993 and is from a California education site. The school also has numerous other programs. Finally, WP:Corp is a guideline. It is entirely debateable whether it should apply to a school. And numerous valid reasons have been given for keeping the article. Regarding WP:V, as indicated above, sources exist that confirm the school, its programs and that students are eligible to sit for the bar. There are no WP:V issues, serious or otherwise, with the basic facts of the article.--JJay 00:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) This is for-profit.[32] How does it meet WP:CORP?
2) It is NOT accredited by the California bar as I noted above. Allowing people to take a test is different than accreditation.
3) According to the org. you are citing "The Office of Admissions [of the bar] cannot advise prospective students on the advantages or disadvantages of attending unaccredited schools or the quality of the legal education programs provided by the schools."
4)[33] One source describes "Newport" as " A couple of clunker cars sit in the driveway of a 40-year-old brick house, which sits squarely in a commercial zone: a hardware store in back, an equipment-rental company in front and a McDonald's expanding up the street. The back yard has an old cedar fence, a rusting clothesline and an overgrown shade tree. Inside the house, a secondhand desk, some office chairs, bookshelves and a pair of torch lamps are assembled in the living room. Welcome to Newport..." Also note the title of the article.
5) Hence serious WP:V issues. Arbusto 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back to wikipedia. However, you failed to offer sources for WP:V. Can we properly assert it is a university or a for-profit diploma mill? No one has offer evidence for either. Thus, academics aside this is for-profit. How does it meet WP:CORP? Do we have enough sources to write a NPOV article about this business? I don't think so. Arbusto 02:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point if we can't find WP:RS and WP:V then we don't have enough to write an accurate article. And inaccurate articles should get deleted. Arbusto 20:45, 12 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 flagged as copyvio from [34]. MER-C 10:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ... and deleted as empty and unexpandable due to verifiability issues. Guy 10:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Online University[edit]

Islamic Online University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unnotable, unaccredited "school." Anyone even attend this place? Anyone even know what city this place claims to be in? Fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 23:14, 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, per WP:V - material that doesn't meet it shouldn't be in one article or another. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Turkel[edit]

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

A webmaster of a online "ministry" and author of one self-published book. Arbusto 23:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also: 1) The leading atheist website www.infidels.org lists 40 Christian apologists and JP Holding is listed among them (see: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.html)

2) Next, well known Christians have spoken favorably of his ministry (if memory serves Hank Hanegraaff" The Bible answer man" on the radio spoke well of Holding for example). Here is a link to one of Holdings articles at his website: When apologetics was evangelism by JP Holding

3) Many well known atheists disparage Holding and these atheists are listed among Wikipedia subject headings. What better recommendation of your relevance can you get than the public disparagement of those who oppose your viewpoint!

I cite:

G.A. Wells (see: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/holding.html )

Farrell Till (see: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/jftill/turkey.html )


Holding returns the disparagement here:

G.A. Wells http://www.tektonics.org/TK-W.html

Farrell Till http://www.tektonics.org/TK-T.html


4) Even the www.infidels.org website has mentioned Holding in rather favorable terms.

I cite:

"Updated the author page of Kyle J. Gerkin with an added link to the "Scholarly Diplomacy Series." (Off Site)

Kyle J. Gerkin and J.P. Holding amicably engage each other in an and ongoing discussion of their differing worldviews. The goal is to tear down the wall of antipathy that too often divides Christians and skeptics, so as to foster a respectful understanding of those differences."

taken from: http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/new/2003/may2003.shtml


5) Holding's website gets a lot off traffic and his articles often get high rankings on the search engines as many people link to them.


6) Holding has been published.


7) I know that many evangelical ministers are aware of Holding. I spoke to one last month and he is aware of Holding. ken 16:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

Andrew, you mean Ken, not the nominator (me). It was he who redirected it. Arbusto 03:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 23:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Academy of Science[edit]

International Academy of Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No independent sources and no claims of notability. Vague description of what it is does not directly assert is goals or importance. Arbusto 23:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Charlene and nom. JoshuaZ 05:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to keep per new info presuming that the claims can be sourced. JoshuaZ 01:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This organization is not one of them. This is one of those organizations that Nobel laureates put on their resume. See, for example, [37], [38], and [39]. The problem is, the Missouri organization has not actively discouraged people from confusing the two organizations. See this site from the Missouri organization, which has a big seal and a picture of Neils Bohr, and says "Current Membership: 11". O 06:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide WP:RS. Arbusto 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recall something too, but I recall it being an article on the unaccredited school. However I can not find it. --Bduke 00:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. There was an article about the Missouri organization, now deleted. COGDEN 06:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For reference: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Academy of Science (Independence, Missouri). Arbusto 07:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no major edits have been made since I opened this afd. Arbusto 07:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Arbusto/oo created the original AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Academy of Science (Independence, Missouri), the fact that he still believes this article to be for a school is baffling. IT'S NOT A SCHOOL! It's an organization that was founded by several world-renowned scientists, including the odd Nobel Prize-winner or two, and BigrTex is trying to point out that you either seem to be terribly confused or just plain vindictive that an organization with a similar name exists to an article you had earlier deleted. Stating in your excuse for nomination that it makes "no claims of notability" and "does not directly assert is goals or importance" is directly contradicted by the simplest reading of the text of the article. This nomination should be withdrawn. Alansohn 07:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Where did I call this a school? 2) Your bad behavior and attacks of various people is a violation of WP:CIVIL. --Arbusto 07:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually every delete vote seems to believe that this is an article for a school, the usual and customary target of your attacks. You have never clarified this to any of those who have blindly followed your nomination, and your confirmation that you had deleted a school with the same name never mentions that THIS IS NOT A SCHOOL, IT'S A SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION. The individuals who switched their votes did so upon realizing that this AfD is not for a school. While I cannot assume in this case that you are operating in bad faith, the fact that you have never clarified the nature of this AfD leaves this nomination and your motives in question. Alansohn 10:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't admit you were wrong. Your recent comments to new users and myself are out of line. If you can't follow WP:CIVIL then don't edit wikipedia. Arbusto 20:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbustoo, you have stood idly by allowing others to be misled into voting to delete an article on the assumption that it's a school. When are you finally going to clean up this mess and clarify that this is an article for an organization and not a school? This whole AfD is starting to appear deliberately fraudulent and just a casual mistake. Alansohn 21:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I starting to see a trend. Helical Rift 21:15, 12 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. --Ixfd64 01:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Projectw[edit]

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

Marked as a speedy, which was then disputed. I'm not sure, they get a reasonable number of google hits but then again that number will be hugely inflated for these kinds of sites. No vote. --fvw* 01:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats true but they do boast a membership of over 300,000 registered members in just about 2 years. I believe that is a large enough pool of people to permit us to make a wiki about it. It is one of the largest players in the warez scene and i have seen much smaller boards have a wiki. -Zabzu

hold on, can i have the admins of the site come and talk to give a reliable second source and prove he validity of all 300,000 members

here are the service stats of the board alone

Server Load: 2342 pages served in previous 5 minutes. Page generation time: 0.25508 seconds - SQL queries: 18

Our users have posted a total of 2347368 articles We have 300415 registered users The newest registered user is avrillirva In total there are 435 users online :: 354 Registered, 35 Hidden and 46 Guests [ Administrators ] [ Moderators ] [ VIP ] [ Donator ] Most users ever online was 1116 on Fri Nov 03, 2006 16:14

are you serious why to delete this page ?? ProjectW is the best !!!!!!

^ Yes, ProjectW is the shiz!

-- note that the above unsigned comment was left by user Zabzu --

ProjectW gains over 500 new members a day. It has 2347603 articles. I have seen much smaller sites have wikis and i think you should give our a chance, the site can only grow. We have members from almost every single country in the world. As soon as the Admins get on i can access the tracker info to show you how large and well represented projectw is.

You're entirely missing the point. You must have reliable secondary sources to get an article. We don't keep articles because their subject is big, without reliable secondary sources. -Amarkov babble 03:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources to back up the content? Warez boards are usually not officially listed as warez but i can prove that it is one of the 20 largest phpbb boards.

omg! all this discussion... ok, but to come to the point.. can we have the article or not?

here is a source, on of the 20 largest warez board, in fact projectw would be number 9 http://rankings.big-boards.com/?filter=phpBB,all&sort=members they refuse to lost Warez boards and other adult content but in fact if you sort by members ou will find projectw fits into 9th place

  1. Is projectw notable for that reason alone? 9th isn't all that impressive.
  2. If not, is projectw more notable than any other big warez board? If so, why?
If you can't answer these questions, the article will likely be deleted. humblefool® 03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More important is this:
  1. Are there reliable secondary sources on which to base the content?
If there aren't, the article will almost definitely be deleted. -Amarkov babble 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i still do not understand what you mean by secondary sources. IS big-baords not a secondary source?

And no projectw is also notable for the fact that It is the largest warez forum on the internet. When people download warez they have two choices, a bittorrent client or a forum and the number one forum is Us.

Also ProjectW beats the other warez competition in the fact that we have almost double the members of our two competitors and we are affiliated wiht other large warez sites such as katz.ws

We are the Largest Warez Board and the 9th Largest phpbb board. That clear? Also this is the most reliable way to track the size of these boards.

It. Does. Not. Matter. You. Need. Reliable. Secondary. Sources. NOTHING which mechanically gathers info is a secondary source, nor is something that just blindly uses what's been reported by the primary source. Please, read WP:NOTE and WP:V. For that matter, you really should just read all the policies and guidelines. -Amarkov babble 05:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ProjectW is a 300,000 member strong warez community. It's currently in the top-20 largest phpBB boards on the web --Wafulz 17:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When the article makes a claim, I'm afraid the onus is on those deleting to make the case that it is a false claim (or that having requested proper citation to verify no verificaton has been produced). However, based on your own evidence of a lack in 4000 publciations, I satisfied there is clear evidence of non-notability - thanks! --Mike 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Coredesat 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Pierce[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 01:26, 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 merge. W.marsh 00:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. James the Fisherman Episcopal Church[edit]

St. James the Fisherman Episcopal Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

disputed PROD for NN-local church delete DesertSky85451 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five Miles From Woodstock[edit]

Five Miles From Woodstock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC. There's no presence on Google for this band beyond wiki and its mirrors, plus a myspace page. The news article about the band member's survival of a plane crash did not mention the band. -- Whpq 01:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I did read the plane crash article, and I stand by my original statement in the nomination. What the article states, is a quote from Alex Milner-Smith
He would also like to return to playing in his rock band: "I'm a guitar player but luckily I play the drums as well. I might have to play those for a while until my fingers heal."
This provides nothing in the way of verifiability. In any case, the article is a poor choice for reference as the article is not about the band, but about the victim of a plane crash. For the refernces that you are adding, please review WP:V, and WP:MUSIC as there are the criteria being applied. -- Whpq 17:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Fair enough, sensible point. I'm not advocating that this article should be kept on, by the way. I have no idea who wrote it. I will supply the correct information and then leave it to your sensible judgement. All the best. -- ED.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vox Imperium[edit]

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

Non-notable online game. Looks like it fails WP:V and WP:WEB as there appears to be no reliable independent coverage. Delete as such. Wickethewok 02:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GamerNode[edit]

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

Website/company/forums that appear to fail WP:WEB, WP:CORP, and WP:V. There doesn't seem to be any reliable independent coverage on the subject. Biggest claims to fame seems to be that it has a lot of pages and the staff attends gaming trade events. Delete. Wickethewok 02:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That seems to be a press release, which is not independent at all. Wickethewok 06:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source, PR Newswire's Brian Anderson, is an independent source, according to the WP guidelines. Since the article was neither written nor circulated by the subject of the article, that seems to fulfill the criteria.--Yeldarb 2 07:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PR Newswire looks to be essentially an ad/PR agency of sorts - basically a company hired to make press releases. Wickethewok 07:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to PR Newswire's own site, "PR Newswire is the world's leading corporate news distribution, targeting and monitoring / measurement measurement service." The article in question was written independently of GamerNode's influence in an earnest attempt to raise the profile of the website. The fact that it was written and circulated by a PR distribution service does not dilute its independence. Additionally, I have added more information to the entry, including distribution info for both a magazine and several websites.
You'd trust a company that publishes press releases to assert it's own notability? I wouldn't. (P.S. PR Newswire is actually a notable company.) MER-C 10:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'm saying is that GamerNode didn't publish or write the release. PR Newswire regularly writes and circulates profile stories on businesses it considers noteworthy. The only participation GamerNode had in the creation or dissemination of the profile story by Brian Anderson was accepting the interview request from PR Newswire. PR Newswire simply does not write press releases on the behalf of its clients (which, according to the company directory accessed on 6 November at 11:30 PST, does not include GamerNode.com, GamerNode, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries). While the article certainly appears to be a press release, it is not.--Yeldarb 2 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Most people voting to keep seem to be members of the forums. That aside, no evidence was presented that this meets WP:WEB, non-trivial third-party coverage. The 3 references other than forum posts never ammount to more than a sentence each about this website. W.marsh 20:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actuarial Outpost[edit]

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

Non-notable online community failing WP:V/WP:WEB. I request sources on the talk page for the article, but haven't gotten anything besides blog links or trivial mentions. Only 14 unique Google hits. Delete. Wickethewok 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I must disagree. Half of the references listed barely mention this forum/website at all. The other half of the references are to posts on the forum. Wickethewok 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You made that point clear when you nominated this article for deletion . WP:WEB itself states that there are times for exceptions to firm application of the guideline, and the notability of this site in the tiny niche that actuaries hold in my opinion eminnently qualifies it for notability, Alexa and Google notwithstanding (and explained why they are inapplicable according to WP:WEB itself above). -- Avi 23:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Core policy? Where? Can you link to it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under official policies, [44] - "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." This is official policy, as opposed to simply a guideline. If you are going to start enforce notability, then you should begin by proposing the deletion of all pages for Star Trek episodes that are not individually notable (which would be all, except for maybe the one with the first interracial kiss, but even then that would be better in the main Star Trek article). *jb 01:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that policy does not say that you cannot delete things for not being notable. It says we have more latitude than other encyclopedias, not that we have to include everything. It does not invalidate consensus any way here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:20, 13 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 established. W.marsh 14:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science and technology[edit]

Redundant, articles already exist seperately on science and technology. In fact most of this page's text is lifted from those two articles. (this was a speedy nomination, which I changed to AfD; there is also a related discussion on Talk:Science and technology ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see the role of encyclopedia articles to merely explore the relationship between two terms, unless there is a specific and notable history of the particular phrase in question (such as "cloak and dagger"). Perhaps that is the case with "science and technology," but this isn't conveyed in the current article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's why I think the scope of the article should be changed to reflect this relationship, rather than delete the article altogether. Technological and scientific progress go hand in hand, and there are a lot of academic works, historical or sociological, explaning the historic relationship between the development of both.--Lobizón 12:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which is why we properly have articles on the academic disciplines studying these two terms: science and technology studies & history of science and technology. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there is merit, why delete it as opposed to fix it? It has been pointed out that there are several articles incorporating this term (which is more than its two parts). Additionally there are categories that do this as well; in a quick search I can find Category:Science and technology by country (and this is full of many other sub categories of science and technology) and Category:Science and technology studies. If you delete the article Science and technology, it will eventually be re-created. Why not deal with the content of the article now instead of later? -- MCG 14:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Main article has been trimmed significantly to essentially stub-status. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yep... it is sad.. but that is why there are around 40 other articles covering this material. this article at best should be a category at best, and you know what... it already is.... so this article is moot. --Buridan 02:22, 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. --Coredesat 03:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrilog[edit]

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

This appears to be a neologism, as a Google search reveals only fifty results outside Wikipedia. Additionally, the way the article is written appears to indicate it is copied from another source. -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HNC Network[edit]

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

Group of hackers or something that doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:V. Looks like mostly vanity and original research. Pretty much all of the "references" make no reference to the subject of the article. Only the ABCnews article even mentions the subject, and even then, only a couple times in some passing sentences. Delete as failing any reliable independent coverage. Wickethewok 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Sources

The definition of reference:

(ref er ence –noun ) 1. an act or instance of referring.; 2. a mention; allusion.; 3. something for which a name or designation stands; denotation.; 4. a direction in a book or writing to some other book, passage, etc.; 5. a book, passage, etc., to which one is directed.; 6. reference mark (def. 2).; 7. material contained in a footnote or bibliography, or referred to by a reference mark.; 8. use or recourse for purposes of information: a library for public reference.; 9. a person to whom one refers for testimony as to one's character, abilities, etc.; 10. a statement, usually written, as to a person's character, abilities, etc.; 11. relation, regard, or respect: all persons, without reference to age. –verb (used with object); 12. to furnish (a book, dissertation, etc.) with references: Each new volume is thoroughly referenced.; 13. to arrange (notes, data, etc.) for easy reference: Statistical data is referenced in the glossary.; 14. to refer to: to reference a file.

Being that EACH article in the references, specifically references the moniker(s) of the HNC Network and also some of those formerly involved with it, said reference is therefore verifiable and legitimate as it is relevant to the entity in which it refers, no matter how major or minor said reference is.

Now, not withstanding this article has a ways to come, but even a quick search across any major search engine offers several substantial clues to why, where and when this group existed. Let alone the group seemingly has a current effort underway at www.thereformed.org, of which the group could obviously be contacted for a first-hand account or pointers towards other verifiable content. Perhaps this is a case of someone not wishing to help in finishing the homework?

The disturbing thing is this, your lack of willingness to assist in clearing up this article's potential misgivings and your history of requests in attempting to axe many well-laid articles simply due to your impatience with those lacking MASS quantities of referencial materials. Your contribs speak for themselves, play God on another Wiki, leave this one to those that can be objective and helpful in creating a incredible Internet resource of new content while paying tribute to the heritage and of those that walked before it, such as this group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References for articles necessary for inclusion into Wikipedia are defined differently than those on a normal dictionary. See WP:RS for more info.--TBCΦtalk? 04:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, has anyone attempted to explain, assist or correct the author? There seems to be no due process on Wikipedia anymore.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikipedia has never had due process as Wikipedia is not a democracy.--TBCΦtalk? 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - your Delete is considerably an injustice when a site in the same category spells contains NO references and provides only a handful of external links to substantiate their presence - see l0pht . Does this not make Wikipedia a biased publishing source if it doesn't effect the rules against all offenders? .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Due process is not a procedure relevant to just democracy, FYI. You'll also notice in the Wikipedia is not a bureacracy it states clearly:

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community and instruction creep should generally be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

Yet this has been anything but. NOONE apparently has attempted contact with the original author or the other contributors, which there seems to be a substantial few to attempt to correct this article and refine it..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an incident, it was the justified removal of an article on the grounds of notability. And so is this. yandman 13:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You get to keep the article if you can provide third-party references (as in, outside of the group itself) that talk about it, as expressly spelled out in the 2 cornerstone wikipedia policies: Policy on Verifiability, and Policy on Reliable Sources. If you cannot provide these references, than your group does not deserve an article in wikipedia. We wish you no harm or ill will, but Wikipedia is not the place for information like this. Many places exist on the web to promote your group. Wikipedia is not one of them. --Jayron32 22:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bypass the blatant ignorance by my counterpart of above and move along to the bits. Taking it upon myself to contact one of the former members, since it seems noone else did, there apparently is historical, third-party articles that were indeed written(including a published book mention of the group, several interviews with NOW media, an interview with ZDNet UK, an interview with ABCNews apart from ViXeN900 and some other odd and ends), but unfortunately the archived links that were relayed via correspondence no longer hold data although their architecture is within scope of others in the same independent sites (apparently sometime between 2000-2002 many online new agencies expunged these records?). Secondly, it appears that this member had no knowledge there was an article posted on Wikipedia about the group, but upon reading it, had suggested to posssibly remove for edit and then resubmit at a later date for an article tailored to their history - he did however confirm that the timeline was incredibly accurate. He also questioned whether a full upload of all the tools to an independent external source and of course the HNC Video made in Las Vegas would help in validating any future entry? I was unsure of what to say, but I didn't think it would hurt since it was a published, commercial product produced in partnership with an independent post-production house. Thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 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 09:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Tired[edit]

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

Article is about a neologism, "teddy tired", which has not gained common currency. A google search for "teddy tired" came up with very few relevant hits, all of which seemed to be from blogs. No reliable secondary sources were cited in the article. I could not verify that the Hoodoo Gurus wrote a song lyric about "teddy tired" with a variety of google searches. The article itself says this neologism is specific to a particular industry and goes on to point out that it is more of a one-man campaign than a common expression in Australia or elsewhere. Teddy Tired fails WP:NEO. Darkspots 03:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Redirect. Article already included on Hawaiian Airlines main page. Not enough content to warrent its own space. -bobby 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian Airlines destinations[edit]

Hawaiian Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

150.135.180.195 added this info into the main Hawaiian Airlines article today. Honestly, I think Hawaiian is small enough that it's not a big hindrance to have this list maintained in the main Hawaiian article as opposed to having a separate article to list their destinations. Hawaiian717 03:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Distance Learning Accreditation Council[edit]

National Distance Learning Accreditation Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unnotable accreditation mill. When this was created I looked into this and found only one article from a magazine (its the one source cited). It is not an approved accreditor or tied to any credible school, and I noted it accordingly. Thus, since it is not recognized by the Department of Education it must pass WP:CORP. I see no evidence of that. What city is it in? What country is it in? There is not enough material for an article, and as it stands it is an article about what it isn't. Therefore, not wikiworthy. Arbusto 03:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allah-win's Law[edit]

Allah-win's Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Barely-coherent quasi-POV OR attempt to create a corollary to Godwin's Law.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron dagan[edit]

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

Only source cited is own website. Piece was originally spam/fluff, author asserted notability but "sources" provided barely mention the guy and are not notable or reliable regardless. No new sources have been provided so recommend deletion. Seraphimblade 04:54, 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. Merge not ruled out. W.marsh 00:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superior (proposed state)[edit]

Superior (proposed state) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Certainly an amusing proposal, but this smacks of original research or an outright hoax since the only sources are A) a blog and B) a book that appears to not really exist. Also might have something to do with the Colbert Report... that should make it fun. Anyway, if someone can produce reliable sources confirming this topic great, but otherwise this article needs to go. --W.marsh 05:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And List of U.S. state secession proposals and Historic regions of the United States. All 3 references will need to be removed if a reliable source doesn't appear... I will most likely take care of it. --W.marsh 05:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but one 31 year old newscast transcription is not sufficient evidence to prove this a serious movement. If there were truly active plans in Congress and the Michigan legislature to slpit the state of Michigan then an article will be justified. Right now, these just seems to be a lingering idea enterained by some residents and local politicans from time to time. This might be worth a mention on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan article but not a seperate article. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original AFD was started by somone's thought that this was BJAODN. It's clearly not a hoax. The numerous sources that have been since unearthed show that this was significant if futile movement in the 1970s and earlier. IMNSHO, Wikipedia ought to document the extent to which there is or isn't (was or wasn't) a movement to form the State of Superior. I still think it can and should stand alone given the level of documentation that we have unearthed. Are we going to merge State of Lincoln, Upstate New York's Statehood Movement, Cascadia, and Jesusland map simply because they also aren't ever going to happen? It doesn't have to be serious or even likely in order to be notable. MPS 04:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does need to have been a serious movement, or at least it must have raised a lot of controversy. Did this movement really cause a lot of controversy. Was it on the front page of the NY Times? Were there heated debates among the intelgesita and legislature? Yes, I also was under the impression that was a BJAODN; it isn't. But, for the time being I stand by my vote that this article ought to be merged into the Upper Peninsula of Michigan article. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about the National Review? Besides, all these votes for merging to the UP neglect the fact that this is also a Wisconsin Movement. See long blockquote added at bottom. MPS 22:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have ever lived in a part of the United States where secession and autonomy were not major issues in local politics. In northern Wisconsin, where I spent my childhood, there has been agitation for the creation of a separate state of Superior, encompassing the northern parts of Michigan and Wisconsin. The justification was both cultural and economic: "Yoopers" have more in common with people on the Wisconsin shore of Lake Superior than either group has with the rest of its state, both regions suffer from unemployment and underdevelopment, and both speak a dialect unintelligible to outsiders. .


Thanks for the information... more sources are always better and the article still needs some work, but this probably shouldn't be deleted now, in my opinion. --W.marsh 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes you so sure that this is proposal is taken serios by the Federal and Michigan state legislature. While I beleive that people in the upper peninsual have some discontent over their tax dollars going to the lower peninsual and some residents might entertain the thought of splitting the state from time to time, I do not see any evidence of Congress or the Michigan legislature seriously considering such a proposal. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have to be an active, current movement that is being taken seriously by the legislature? The fact that it is taken seriously by its advocates over the past 110+ years demonstrates that it has a strong measure of verifiable notability as an independent subject. Alansohn 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was it really taken seriously by federal and state legislature? Was there an actual vote? Heated discussion, perhaps even fillebusters? The mere fact that an issue shifts from the back to the front of some people's minds every blue moon isn't enough to justify its own article. This article ought to merged in the the Upper Peninsula of Michigan article. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see blockquote below. Looks like Wisconsin was significantly involved as well. MPS 23:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While this may be "a real phenomenon" that "justifies retention" on WP; it does not justify its own article but rather a mention in the exsisting Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see blockquote below MPS 23:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactely, "It's not exactly a serious 'movement'". If there is lingering discontent over the distribution of government resources among the residents of the upper peninsula than such can be mention in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan article. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than start discussion of votes, let's start a discussion section here...

The question BrendelSignature seems to be taking to heart is whether this is a "real" (moving) movement or is a "fake" one. My answer is that it is neither. It is a real cultural meme/rumor/phenomenon that has been floating around Northern Michigan and the UP for years. This is kinda like Christopher Walken for President... but it really happened. We shouldn't argue that just because it happened 20 years ago it is not relevant. It is relevant and notable... and now it is documented. IMHO we could change the name of it so people know that it is not a really active movement. MPS 22:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From a review of the timeline of the books and newspaper articles published on the subject, this seems to be a meme that's floating out there, popping up with some seriousness every twenty years or so, generating interest in the U.P., treated as quaint but undoable pie-in-the-sky by downstaters, and has never generated enough steam to be considered for real. When it is back in the public's conscience it does get play in the media, as exhibited by the Google News sources, and then it fades away in a state of dormancy, only top up two or three decades later. I think its status as an almost viable movement for periods of time over more than a century demonstrates that it should be a standalone article. Alansohn 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one is barely notable enough for a separate article. Compare it with Jefferson (proposed U.S. state), which clearly is deserving of its own article. If we allow the second I think there's a good case for the first. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be anything in Michigan Legislature, as the Michigan government would obviously be vehemently opposed to the idea of losing all of the taxpayers in the UP, it's a very interesting article and should most definitely stay. 141.209.236.224 17:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[47]

STORIES OF THE BADGER STATE. THE BOUNDARIES OF WISCONSIN


USGENWEB ARCHIVES NOTICE: In keeping with our policy of providing 

        free information on the Internet, data may be used by
        non-commercial entities, as long as this message
        remains on all copied material. These electronic
        pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit
        or for presentation by other persons or organizations.

        Persons or organizations desiring to use this material
        for purposes other than stated above must obtain the
        written consent of the file contributor.

        This file was contributed for use in the USGenWeb
        Archives by: Tina S. Vickery <TVick65536@aol.com>


From a 1900 Book: STORIES OF THE BADGER STATE by Reuben Gold Thwaites Copyright, 1900

The people of the northwest wished to be released from Wisconsin, in order that they might either cast their fortunes with their near neighbors in the new Territory of Minnesota, or join a movement just then projected for the creation of an entirely new State, to be called "Superior." This .proposed state was to embrace all the country north of Mont Trempealeau and east of the Mississippi, including the entire northern peninsula, if the latter could be obtained; thus commanding the southern land western shores of Lake Superior, with the mouth of Green Bay and the foot of Lake Michigan to the southeast.
.
The St. Croix representative in the legislature was especially wedded to the Superior project. He pleaded earnestly and eloquently for his people, whose progress, he said, would be "greatly hampered by being connected politically with a country from which they are separated by nature, cut off from communication by immense spaces of wilderness between." A memorial from the settlers themselves stated the case with even more vigor, asserting that they were "widely separated from the settled parts of Wisconsin, not only by hundreds of miles of mostly waste and barren lands, which must remain uncultivated for ages, but equally so by a diversity of interests and character in the population." All of this reads curiously enough in these days, when the intervening wilderness resounds with the hum of industry and " blossoms as the rose." But that was long before the days of railroads; the dense forests of central and western Wisconsin then constituted a formidable wilderness, peopled only by savages and wild beasts.
.
Unable to influence the Wisconsin legislature, which stubbornly contended for the possession of the original tact, the St. Croix people next urged their claims upon Congress. The proposed State of Superior found little favor at Washington, but there was a general feeling that Wisconsin would be much too large unless trimmed. The result was that when she was finally admitted as a State, the St. Croix River was, in large part, made her northwest boundary; Minnesota in this Manner acquired a vast stretch of country, including the thriving city of St. Paul.
.
Wisconsin was thus shorn of valuable territory on the south, to please Illinois; on the northeast, to favor Michigan; and on the northwest, that some of her settlers might join their fortunes with Minnesota. The State, however, is still quite as large as most of her sisters in the Old Northwest, and possesses an unusual variety of soils, and a great wealth of forests, mines, and fisheries. There is a strong probability that, bad Congress, in 1848, given to Wisconsin her "ancient limits," as defined by the Ordinance of 1787, the movement to create the proposed state of "Superior" would have gathered strength in the passing years, and possibly would have achieved success, thus depriving us of our great northern forests and mines, and our outlet upon the northern lake.

MPS 22:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Also, Check out this 1975 map (bigger map here) proposed by C. Etzel Pearcy, geography professor at California State University, Los Angeles... and story corroborating Pearcy's proposalMPS 23:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one [48] from the May 5, 1895, Chicago Tribune. older ≠ wiser 01:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old shoes[edit]

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

Non-notable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Although 2 newspaper articles are cited their notability is questionable Dylan Lake (t·c·ε) 06:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how many bands there are? More than we have articles. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:42, 11 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. – Avi 03:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chun Sik Kim[edit]

Chun Sik Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notability appears to be questionable. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Suicidal Lemmings[edit]

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

Violates WP:AUTO, creator was Thepinksuicidallemming (talk · contribs). Thegreensuicidallemming (talk · contribs) has also edited the page. 27 ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 08:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The editors seem to be the same person. - jlao 04 10:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be non-notable, as almost non of the Google hits are referring to this exact band. The only link is a self-reference on blogspot --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 11:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Have seen them perform, but no where near notable enough for their own entry. 04:57, 8 November 2006 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 11:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zook (band)[edit]

No evidence provided to meet WP:MUSIC. Nothing particularly reliable on Google. Contested prod. MER-C 08:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable."
This criteria is satisfied per the reasons given by Prolog. -bobby 14:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel the "contains at least one member" clause is a somewhat unfortunate one. If Jukka Jylli one day plays his guitar to his cat a few minutes and calls it The Feline Experience it immediately passes the notability guidelines. And the cat can then transmit the notability to others. I don't think there is a "fame is virally transmitted to anything that a barely notable person touches" clause anywhere else on Wikipedia. Weregerbil 16:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Your cat case would of course require extra attention (although, I find the idea of a cat musician notable in its own right). In the more general case (such as for Zook) we are talking about a widely recognized band (ie. not a few guys sitting by themselves messing around with a guitar) composed of three individuals who used to play in notable bands. Thus, I feel the criterion I cite is well applied in this instance. -bobby 16:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meow! You are now notable :-) Re "not a few guys messing with a guitar": if the new band itself is notable due to what it does then it should be notable. Not by association with someone who was once in a band that had a member whose earlier band made two records on a "major" (heh) record label (the way "infectious notability" now works) (and I don't mean Zook/Kingston Wall is like that; I mean in general). If Zook itself makes records, makes headlines, tours widely, then it would be notable. But if it plays a few gigs in a pub and then disbands, I don't think it would be notable regardless of who is in it. But "infectious notability" does make such a band notable, as well as any of its otherwise non-notable members. There are bands and musicians like that in Wikipedia. Which I think is not good for quality. </rambling_in_the_wrong_place>. Weregerbil 18:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Pgk (talk · contribs) speedily deleted "Ulnis" (a1 - see WP:CSD)

Ulnis[edit]

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

Unless I'm misssing something the text reads like nonesense Malcolma 09:35, 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. ¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 06:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollen Stewart[edit]

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

Not Notable & Fails WP:BIO DXRAW 09:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Thank you for demonstrating that your proposal is flawed and should not be seriously considered. - Chadbryant 02:08, 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. --Coredesat 19:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings[edit]

Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment as above, better to keep this garbage in one article rather than incorporate it into the main. Suggest sources that do not meet WP:V and WP:RS, which appear to be most of them at this point, be deleted. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:54, 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 merge. I have added the merge suggestion tags. W.marsh 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfe+585, Senior[edit]

Wolfe+585, Senior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems to ba a hoax to me. I found a source stating that the Guiness Book 1978 indeed had an entry for this person, but nothing else. There was a previous discussion for this article under an other name, the result was Delete. -- lucasbfr talk 18:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete nomination, listed now. Kusma (討論) 10:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autodeology[edit]

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

The result was keep. – Avi 22:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Baseball Online[edit]

Ultimate Baseball Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Taggedand deleted as CSD G4 (repost) following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Baseball Online but the content is substantially different from the original, which sucked royally. It remains to be seen whether this is genuinely significant per WP:WEB, an issue not really addressed before as the article as originally deleted was blatant vanispamcruftisement. Over to you... Guy 12:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • But that does not speak to the significance of the subject or its coverage in reliable secondary sources, does it? So what of this article? Guy 22:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://pc.ign.com/objects/822/822506.html

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

The result was keep, as somebody has actually merged and two of those arguing for deletion don't appear to be against this. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreements to mediate[edit]

This and several other articles (listed below) are kind of a how-to guide for Mediation in Australia, in violation of WP:NOT, even though they have sources. Any useful information should be added to the general article. I speedied all of these once, and they have been recreated; let's get a consensus. NawlinWiki 04:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also included:

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 12:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Banana Shots[edit]

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

super NN team from "Division 1 of the Thursday Night 6 a side league" - crz crztalk 12:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Will recreate as a redirect to emoticon. Never mind. --Coredesat 19:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gmail Talk emoticons[edit]

Gmail Talk emoticons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's a list. Of Google Talk emoticons. I don't know if it should be merged or just deleted. JDtalk 12:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, just a big advert. Guy 13:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deira Guest House[edit]

Deira Guest House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just a big advert Flup 13:22, 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 redirect. W.marsh 21:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Henry Lee[edit]

Philip Henry Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article makes no claim of notability, apart from being spouse of someone notable, and offspring of someone midly notable without Wikipedia entry. Searhc engine comes up with next to nothing too. These are the only tools I personally have for any AFD debates. --Dangherous 13:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Dangherous 13:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find that an unwise AfD tool criteria when researching historic figures that were alive long before google or yahoo existed. --Oakshade 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zingamama[edit]

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

NN neologism Palfrey 13:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zingamama gets only 10 google hits. When your contributions consist of extreme racism, trivial references to unknown people, and bad spelling, other people might not take your opinion on their musical knowledge seriously. Zaian 15:01, 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. --Coredesat 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chili Guy[edit]

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

non-notable (his real name isn't even known, fails Google test, doesn't meet minimum standards as laid out in WP:BIO, etc.) Caliga10 13:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do a speedy; I tried to prod the article and there were objections (see the article talk page).--Caliga10 16:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Redirect. Not notable enough for his own article. -bobby 15:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Panelas[edit]

Non-notable person. In my opinion, it possibly goes under CSD A7. Google returned other Bill Panelas. Imoeng 13:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 13:33, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous work group[edit]

Is has been suggested that this is just a phrase. Mike 14:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I've used a different version of the AfD template:AfDU --Mike 14:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Mike 19:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 13:51, 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. --Dangherous 17:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tullaghmurray Lass[edit]

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

Page is about a boat which sank off the shores of Northern Ireland in 2002 and 3 members of its crew, all of the same family, died as a result. This seems to me as borderline notable. But maybe for Northern Irelanders there is something historic and symbolic or otherwise notable about it. I wouldn't know, am not from N.I. --Dangherous 14:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Dangherous 14:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GTVA Colossus[edit]

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

Technically not a G4, though this was just deleted a couple days ago through AFD, here. Same reason for this nom (as an individual video game unit). Wickethewok 14:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of rivers that flow north[edit]

List of rivers that flow north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Listcruft. There are no corresponding lists for south, west and east, and the criterion is fairly silly. This list is a) unmaintainable b) has a potential of growing indefinitely c) sourced from a defunct geocities site. Duja► 15:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note This was 172.148.158.110's first edit on Wikipedia.--Húsönd 18:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Note Anon user also has a predilection of placing nonsense votes. Danny Lilithborne 19:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Conflict[edit]

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

Non notable MMORPG. Apart from the awards, which are issued monthly by the members (currently 1737) of the website and are thus hardly notable or major, there are no external sources given, even though the article exists for over a year now (so plenty of time). A free game like there are many free games (in terms of verifiability and mainstream attention), fails WP:WEB, WP:V, and WP:CORP (for products). Fram 16:12, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backdraft (drink)[edit]

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

PROD removed without comment by anon. Wikipedia is not a book of recipes, least of all dangerous-sounding ones without sources. Delete. —Angr 16:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of English songs whose title includes the name of a fictional place[edit]

List of English songs whose title includes the name of a fictional place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete. What constitutes a fictional place is too ambiguous. This list is as unmaintanable as a List of fictional places. --Vossanova o< 16:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: What threat? I fail to see any personal attacks here. --Vossanova o< 17:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point? -Amarkov babble 18:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Clearly meets WP:BIO, and the nominator doesn't even support deletion. If you want to discuss notability in general, please use the talk page. --Wafulz 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gibson[edit]

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

Is this curler notable enough? I think so, but I wanted to see what the people think. Weak keep at the moment. --Nlu (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Will recreate as a redirect to hard water. --Coredesat 19:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HardWater[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced, notability not established. Khatru2 17:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete; apart from weight of numbers, the points made about the lack of definition and sourcing are persuasive. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of French surnames[edit]

List of French surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indiscriminate collection of information Ccady 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Neutral per Jayron32.--Húsönd 13:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And how is it pointless? -Amarkov babble 04:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is List of Spanish Surnames, List of English Surnames, or List of English Surnames? This list could be endless meshach 05:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative question: Where is List of Jewish surnames? Oh wait, there it is. -Amarkov babble 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Original Research: Where are the references to back up that these are French surnames? What makes a French surname? Surnames of people in France? How long does a surname have to be in France to be considered French? What about French surnames that appear in other nations? What about Franchified names that originated in other tongues? What about French surnames that have been translated to other tongues? Former territories of France that are now parts of other nations? Names that sound french but have no connection to France? You see the problem here? We have no way of defining the list to any satisfaction.
  2. The articles it links to make no mention of the list itself. For example, the first name Alphonse redirects to a list of kings named Alphonso (first name, not surname!). If the subject of the list isn't notable within the articles it lists, why is it here?
  3. Unweildy and huge. There are probably THOUSANDS of french surnames, maybe TENS OF THOUSANDS or HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS. It is impossible that this list can justify including some over others, and it cannot have all of them.
  4. triviality: Notable lists should be of notable things. This is no more notable than a telephone directory. Telephone directories are VERY useful. I use one almost every day. No need to put one into a wikipedia article, however.

Any other additions to this? I think that presents a pretty comprehensive deletion case. --Jayron32 06:07, 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 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Blumfield[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published author. The creator of this article, Eeriemind, has only created articles related to Brett Blumfield and the username is a reference to Blumfield's website, The Eerie Mind Of Brett Blumfield. Most likely vanity. IrishGuy talk 18:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Outer Realm[edit]

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

Non notable book. The publisher is an on-demand publisher [55] which makes this a self-published book by a non-notable author. The author's article, Brett Blumfield, is also under review. IrishGuy talk 18:01, 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 delete, per consensus of established users. --Coredesat 19:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Wexler (actor)[edit]

Gene Wexler (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appeared in one movie and died, apparently with no real role in the movie otherwise. I don't think this qualifies as notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC) "keep" I think this article should be cleaned up, but I see no reason to delete it- keep Stumblemonkey[reply]

Strong KeepIF YOU DELETE THIS, I will personally feel the need to file a complaint with the owners of Wikipedia because GENE WEXLER is an amazing person and he is the only person that I can think of that deserves to have his own "section" to say the least on Wikipedia. So if you delete this or want it deleted, THINK AGAIN. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.204.157.62 (talk • contribs) .

KeepI completely disagree with the previous statement. Gene Wexler should be kept on wikipedia for his obvious importance and contribution to society. Nicholas' Gift was a key part of the movement to help support organ donation. Gene Wexler played the young boy, Nicholas, who is possibly the most crucial character in the show. While only having a small part in terms of time, his importance to the movie could not have been more crucial. The only action that should be taken against this wikipedia page is expansion. 205.188.116.201 20:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep-This article can admittedly use cleanup (and I am willing to do it). But the fact is Wexler is an actor with an important role in the movie. And as per the above editor, the movie and more specificly Wexler has made an impact on society. 68.193.95.73 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The argument for deletion is false. This article is very notable as Wexler has made a large impact on society. His role in the movie, although short, flashes back various times. His role is vital in the movie and the plot would be lost without him. Also, he is an established musician, taking part in a variation of Stomp and has been in many musicals and dramas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.95.73 (talk • contribs) .

KEEP! whats with the need to delete this page when there isn't a lack of space on wikipedia. He worked for that role and has a right to be noted. Remeber, in theater, there are no small parts!!!! 67.85.95.121 04:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textKEEP - GENE WEXLER IS A MUST KEEP68.193.81.39 04:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important thing!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.93.71 (talk • contribs) .

Please do not vote more than once. IrishGuy talk 15:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THIS ARTICLE Though the movie was only a TV movie, it still raised much awareness about organ donation. I know a few people who were impacted by this movie and became organ donors themselves. It was interesting to read about the actor who played Nicholas and what he is doing now. Maybe we will see more of him in the future. He did a pretty good job, so i suggest you keep this article!

Delete I'm more noteable than this guy. So's my wife, and she was just an extra for the Beeb. Robovski 01:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has been in only one movie and that movie is not notable enough to have its own article. Cynrin 03:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Just because it was only one small part, doesn't mean it wasnt significant. a part is a part, no matter the size. The film, along with Wexler, helped bring transplant awareness up. A reason in itself to keep the young actor, here on Wikipedia. — 67.85.85.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reply You say "until" he has achieved more. This page is continuing to expand as he keeps achieving more. He recently recieved a 96 on his AP Stats test. Before you know it he will be starring in more movies.

"Before you know it he will be starring in more movies." But until he does... (and you should sign your replies for credibility).Freshacconci 20:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gene Wexler is a fine actor and this movie an inspiration. Please kep this article because it opens awareness about upcoming actors.67.85.82.2 05:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIkipeadia isn't about awareness of organ donation, cancer, or upcomming actors. Or advertising or making people feel good. It's an encyclopedia. It's about knowledge and information. Gene's main claim to fame is a minor role in a TV movie from 8 years ago. Should Gene get his big break or become a notorious murderer or something actually of notoriety I'm sure we'd be happy to have an article on him. Right now I think I get more hits on Google, and I think I've had more screen time from back when I lived in Chicago - and I'm not an actor. I'm just some guy.Robovski 06:05, 11 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. Yanksox 13:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yousef al-Khattab[edit]

Yousef al-Khattab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Procedural nomination. Article has been prodded, deprodded, reprodded, and deprodded (prods cannot be restored). There is concern that the subject may not meet WP:BIO youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mind providing a reason? T Rex | talk 23:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an AfD. Your question would have a better chance to be answered if you ask it at [[The Root of All Evil ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please limit the debate to whether or not the subject merits inclusion or not and not about any opinions that you may have about the individual as a person. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I apologize. Sorry. I've crossed it out, please accept my apology. Elizmr 14:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
could you maybe give us a hint where? I assume more people than just me have all been looking and if anybody can find anything that doesn't stem from Dawkins nobody's reported it. Gzuckier 19:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Yousef al Khattab" -Dawkins gives 520 hits, 100 less than just "Yousef al Khattab", proving that he is not just notable due to the dawkins film. --Striver 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 129 of the unique - crz crztalk 12:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warning: Joey Cohen is a serious publicity hound. He is responsible for most of those things, and for this Wikipedia article. - crz crztalk 12:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? Is that a bad thing? --Striver 12:38, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 11:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Brown, Jr.[edit]

This page is unnecessary because this character has only appeared in a few Family Guy episodes. The character does not deserve his own page. Jayorz12 05:00, 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. W.marsh 14:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2: Episode Four[edit]

Administrative note: I have split the histories of the two AfDs so that the first is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-Life 2: Episode Four. Thus those comments referring to "below" should be taken instead as referring to that. Splash - tk 15:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already been deleted before, nothing has changed, Delete PureLegend 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make things clear, Episode Four *does* exist and *is* under production, by a second-party studio. You can read more about its confirmation, and find the source, at Half-Life 2#Mods_and_expansions. That said I don't really mind whether it stays or goes at this point: Abstain. --Tom Edwards 17:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've reconsidered. Ep4's existence is notable, and therefore an article, even if it's just a stub, should be around to convey the fact. Keep. --Tom Edwards 17:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Second-party studio" - Does that mean that I am producing it? Do you mean first or third party? Wickethewok 21:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. Third-party I suppose. Third-party is how Valve sometimes term mods, which is probably what caused that booboo. ;-) --Tom Edwards 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A detailed telephone interview with Valve's PR head is a long way from the "gossip section". You've not even checked the source, have you? --Tom Edwards 15:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did. The only verfiable source is one quoted sentence on a forum followed by a plethora of fan speculation. Very convincing. Half Life 2 Episode 4 yields absolutely nothing on google bar the associated posts on forums. I am now convinced that that this article DEFINITLY shouldn't be here yet. The Kinslayer 12:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia's not a crystal ball. Read the above "delete" votes.--WaltCip 23:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 4 IS being made by a third party, Valve said so.

The article uses the present tense. --Tom Edwards 11:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have to agree with this course of action...it's not even helping anyone at the moment. Just an article with about two sentences of info.--Katana314 22:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware of the sources for this article before commenting:
  • "Episode 4: 'stand alone plot'". Halflife2.net Forums. 3 April 2006. Retrieved 25 July 2006.
  • "The World According to Gabe". PC Gamer magazine (US). April 2006. p. 22.
  • "Re: Steam Source LOL". 7 November 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-07.
I moved these sources from out of the template header to here, since you shouldn't add things up there (they get deleted when the AfD is closed, thereby removing part of the discussion input). I notice that your thrid source, the only recent one, is a forum post, as is the first one, leaving only the PCGamer announcement of more than half a year ago. (Well, I have a forum post which says it is true, because it is confirmed on Wikipedia (!), after which the other posters starts Wikibashing: that is the result of having articles about these things, less trust in Wikipedia instead of more...)[56]. Fram 12:31, 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 I have added the tags suggesting a merge. W.marsh 17:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of BAPS temple locations[edit]

This article is an indiscriminate collection of links, and a mere collection of internal,links. Propose deletion per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Sfacets 12:52, 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 Merge to Love triangle. Yomanganitalk 13:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love rectangle[edit]

I'm holding a survey as to whether or not to merge the page Love rectangle into this love triangle or possibly a delete. Love triangles are obviously more popular or well known over love rectangles. The love rectangle page is also rather short and basically has the same info as the love triangle page, my vote:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. cholmes75 (chit chat) 06:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Serebrian[edit]

Reason in a nutshell: This is in all likelihood an astroturfing campaign that involves paid translations of author's autobiography.

Compare this article with the appearance and contents of this very piece on various European Wikipedias: de, pl, es, fr, hu, it, ro, ru. All these articles were created from a Molvadian IP address (195.138.119.133) that otherwise had little or no interest in contributing to Wikipedia.

The notability of this person is not clearly established; he was a local politician / ministry spokesperson, and a local scientist who, judging from the article, had published about five articles in various magazines and/or larger compilations, but has no own published books; this is perhaps more clear when you look at the references on pl.wiki. Although this is not mentioned in the article, he is the leader of Social Liberal Party (Moldova), but this party does not seem to have any notable accomplishments ("[...] in 2001 Oleg Serebrian released a manifest with the intention to found a social liberal party. This initiative was joined by the Christian-Democratic Women's League and the National Youth League of Moldova. In 2002 the Party of Democratic Forces merged into the party."; the members of the party had three seats in the parliament prior to forming this bloc).

This is our AfD vote on Polish Wikipedia. I'm just dropping by to share our findings. Regards. lcamtuf 15:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Born in 1969, Oleg Serebrian is one of Moldova's youngest and most promising political leaders. He has a solid background in international affairs, with a degree in international relations from the European Institute of High International Studies in Nice, France, and post-graduate work done at Harvard, Edinburgh and Paris. In the late 1990's, he worked for his country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He is also the author of several books on international affairs and foreign policy, the latest being "Dicţionar de geopolitică" (Geopolical Dictionary), a 340 page tome on international politics which has just been published simultaneously in Romania and Moldova." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.97.56.58 (talk • contribs)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 13:59, 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 (interested editors may merge with Jack Abramoff). cholmes75 (chit chat) 06:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of trips funded by Jack Abramoff[edit]

This article contains content that is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. The article on Jack Abramoff is already very long, and contains many, many subpages. Some of this information could be integrated to one of the other articles, but most of it is just indiscriminate information relating to the Abramoff scandal. Each Abramoff list also contains little if any references, which makes me think that it is original research.

Since this is a sensitive political topic, I know some editors will accuse me of nominating this with a political agenda or motivation. In order to dispel this idea, I will point out that while I have also nominated List of Jack Abramoff's tribal clients and List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations (and copied this description to each), I have not nominated Jack Abramoff timeline because I feel that is a better example of the kind of list that belongs on Wikipedia. Ultra-specific, unsourced lists related to already specific scandals and persons and their dealings do not belong on Wikipedia. Renesis (talk) 17:36, 26 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 18:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that are also the name of a film[edit]

List of songs that are also the name of a film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete - This list has misguided intentions, exposed in the very first sentence: "Here is a list of songs that happen to be the name of a movie". This sets a bad precedent for unencyclopedic lists: Things that have the same name as other, unrelated things of no particular category. --Vossanova o< 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I could possibly see a List of films containing songs of the same title, or List of songs from films of the same title, but the flaw of this list is that entries don't necessarily have to tie the two together. If someone were to rename the article and restrict the list more, that could be discussed. --Vossanova o< 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm retracting my comment and voting Delete. For some reason, I thought this article was the other way around (Films named after songs). Danny Lilithborne 19:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I actually came looking for a page of this specific description, for help with a small project I'm working on, so in theory, it has a valid use. Agreed that endless, coincidental matches are not useful, but certainly it's worth noting the cultural trend of titles such as "Singin' In the Rain," "Pretty In Pink," "Knock On Any Door," transferring from film to music, or vice versa. If there were a way to better define what the list was for, it could be a useful reference. --Hypersquared 20:15, 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. --humblefool® 23:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church league soccer[edit]

Church league soccer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Group is not notable, article not encyclopedic, name of article too broad Vpoko 19:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. --Masamage 19:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Speedy if possible. Completely NN. Google search for "Brisbane Catholic Church League Soccer" returns 1 page. Probable hoax. They watch from pews? The refs have cards to prove they can be trusted with young boys? --Onorem 19:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as unverifiable. --Coredesat 19:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Tale Untold[edit]

A Tale Untold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unverifiable article on a fantasy (film?) with no claim of notability. No Google hits bar the official website. --Scott Wilson 19:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Leon Bucknall - whatever decision is made here should probably apply there as well. --Scott Wilson 22:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what everyone is writing about there being little context and little pages being linked the the page but i have to have time to link pages to it and such like and also add context. Also i've read millions of articles on Wikipedia and some of them appear to eb more useless than this one ^^. Also A Tale Untold has been worked on now for over a year since around last winter and although only about half of Series 1 has actually been filmed we have had alot of script writing, designing, advertising and CGI work to do so in some sense i suppose that's why it's not fully notable. Please just give me some time and if you want explain want you want improved, if you need a longer description and an improved article i will happily ablige (dunno how to spell it sorry). Also i realise that there are no "Fan based websites" about A Tale Untold but 50% of the atricles on wikipedia i bet there aren't aswell. For example i looked at a few MMORPG's and searched for them and the only hits they had was on there offcial website, not fan based websites so they are still notable even without any other hits so why can't A Tale Untold have the same treatment? - Jonoridge 17:39, 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. cholmes75 (chit chat) 06:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. Rightway[edit]

A. J. Rightway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fictional characters that attain notoriety only in one school district are not notable enough for Wikipedia. Jesse Viviano 19:30, 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.

Postscript. The topic has now been covered at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2007 October 30#Will it fly?. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A plane on a conveyor belt[edit]

A plane on a conveyor belt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone (163.1.126.41 (talk · contribs)) initiated this AfD. I endorse this nomination, looks like nonsense to me. Ezeu 20:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User 71.111.28.69 (talk), please elaborate. Your expressed opinion here is not constructive. Baccyak4H 14:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So who thought it up? If it was a notable individual or group in the field of Physics then yes, I can see how it would be notable. At the moment however the only mention of its origins are that it appears on some Blog sites on the web--Edchilvers 18:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The posters to Mythbusters are (apparently) non-notable. But I propose that if it can be verified that that series starts producing a segment about this topic (say, getting past the writing stage to the actual production and taping, but not necessarily to having a finished, broadcast segment), that we keep and rewrite. Baccyak4H 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see how the the origin (whether it be insignificant or unknown/anonymous) can detract from the prevalence of the question today. I believe that the mere fact of its continued existance is justification enough by itself. Something so insignificant would surely eventually die out in a matter of time, however this has continued for 2+ years. I also site 0.999... as a similar phenomenon with unknown origin, which still stands as being deemed significant today, and also sites The Straight Dope as a valid source.
Also, The Pilot's Lounge Issue #94: It's The Medium, Manfred (free membership required) which is the official Newsletter of AVWeb.com World Premier Independent Aviation News Resource by Rick Durden (Pilot & Columnist for Aviation Consumer) which would meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Self-published sources (online and paper) could also be used to address the significane of the issue - this citation needs to be added to the original article. -SAO123 November 7 2:35pm EDT
Delete This is basically a riddle, and not a particularly famous one. It is like a question on an exam. Basically, while it is interesting and informative, it is not the sort of thing an encyclopedia would use. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the thinking this problem must be famous in order to be enclopedia worthy. I thought an encyclopedia is supposed to be a reference of things unknown, a place to find something when you encounter something previously unknown to you. If all we ever list is common knowledge, why even have an encyclopedia? If people already know the facts, they are not going to come to you for the answers. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a reference source of uncommon knowledge, meaning, they come to you for the unknown, not the common knowledge or the famous knowledge. As far as being in a national publication, did you checkout the afore mentioned Pilots Lounge Issues #94? - SAO123 10:18am November 09
Well, an encyclopedia is a repository for established knowledge. You may not know about it, but it should be something that IS well known by somebody; to the point that it appears in other reliable sources. Encyclopedias are not the place for original research, there are other kinds venues for this. An encyclopedia may be the place where one FIRST goes to learn about something, but as a first resource, it is always an overview; a superficial study of the subject at hand. The encyclopedia should lead you to the in-depth studies and resources, and be well referenced to do so. That having all been said, I am still of the opinion that this particular logic problem is well enough known in external sources that it transcends the simply trivial; its solution is debated. The Straight Dope article cited above is more than a solution, it is part of an ongoing analysis of the problem. Which is why I vote keep. The subject is referencable in reliable, third party sources. --Jayron32 15:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, having just read the pages on Wiki: Notability of Science (proposed) and Notability of Math it would seem that under these general guidelines, the article could be considered notable. Consider it under items 2,8,9,10 or 11, under the science page, and Items 1 & 3 (item 2 does not apply) on the math page. Other articles have been posted on Experts.about.com, MadSci.org, and ask a scientist. Furthermore from Wiki: On Notability The primary notability criterion The rationale that underpins the primary notability criterion is that the fact that something has been noted demonstrates that it is notable. Notability is something that is judged by the world at large, not by Wikipedia editors making personal judgements. If multiple people in the world at large that are independent of the subject have gone to the effort of creating and publishing non-trivial works of their own about the subject, then they clearly consider it to be notable. Wikipedia simply reflects this judgement. There are other portions of this argument to long to print here, but also read subsections Notability is not fame nor importance, Notability is not verifiability and Notability is not subjective for further relevent guidance. - SAO123
Those science and math guidelines are, unfortunately, all off-point. This is not a scientific or mathematic principle, it's an example of basic physics (i.e. two objects moving in opposite directions and not applying force on each other don't act on each other.) It's not a significant new development, a new theory, a new explanation, etc. - it's a physics example in the form of a logic puzzle. The question I have is whether significant publications have taken notice of it and written about it (rather than just re-stating the riddle and the answer.) I haven't seen enough of that, hence my vote. --TheOtherBob 16:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also from Wiki: On Notability The scope of published works What constitutes a published work is specifically not limited by the notability criterion. A journal article, a newspaper or a magazine feature article, a television documentary, a book, a consumer report by a watchdog organization, or even a widely recognized Internet FAQ document all count as published works. I dont see how you can eliminate a pilot's journal article (he writes for a national published avaition journal), and several Physicists who write internet FAQ / Q & A columns as insignificant publications in addition to The Straight Dope editorial. - SAO123 11:58am Nov 9th
By the way, one small thing - you can more easily sign your post by adding the four tildes. Beyond that - I don't know what to tell you. I've looked at those publications, and draw the distinction I've drawn before. I in no way dispute that the publications and authors you're talking about could, in some cases, be a part of notability. But here I don't think there's enough about (rather than restating) the riddle. For reference, you can see that Jayron applied (I believe) the same analysis and came out the other way - he sees enough about the riddle. I don't. You disagree with my analysis on that, and that is absolutely fine - I think we just disagree and I think that's ok. --TheOtherBob 17:09, 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. --Coredesat 20:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GAR (slang)[edit]

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

Notability evrik (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no merit being on Wikipedia if it has no use outside of a small community. 75.16.218.17 02:42, 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 Snowball KEEP Tbeatty 07:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hacking Democracy[edit]

Non-notable documentary according to the Film notability requirement. Even IMDB doesn't have a lot of details. WP is not IMDB and is not repositiry for every film ever made. This film has no claim to notability. Tbeatty 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: More Discussion on discussion page. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD posted on 'Conspiracy Theory Noticeboard' - Noticeboard - F.A.A.F.A. 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article is being used as a dumpnig ground for a pirated version of the movie. A user states th eproducers put it there however there is no proof of that and further they have no right nor permission to display and show HBO content. Since the user seems determined to keep putting it back I have changed my vote to delete for the greater good of our copyright regulations on Wikipedia. --NuclearZer0 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my view to Neutral. Sourcing from NY times and other major sources is good. I still find the article very lacking. Why would someone choose to view it here on Wiki, rarely than a movie website such as imdb.com? The article now is sparce and doesnt make a case for itself as to why this documentary is notable above the thousands of other documentaries not on wiki.Dman727 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. Tbeatty 23:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If something hits the news in a major way, it becomes notable and therefore encyclopedic. --Aim Here 00:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, potential single purpose account(s) noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18 Doughty Street[edit]

Article does not assert notability of subject. --SandyDancer 16:35, 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, Ezeu 19:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the keep votes seems to be as suggested by SandyDancer, not three.--jrleighton 01:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AirMagnet[edit]

Article does not indicate notability, merely the fact that it exists, has been funded, and has produced products. johnpseudo 16:57, 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, Ezeu 20:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Húsönd 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Above All Kings (album)[edit]

King Above All Kings (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Future album. No sources, and created by a user with a history of creating unverifiable/false content (see previous AfD discussion). Zetawoof(ζ) 20:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th Coming[edit]

Was deleted through prod contested on DRV and undeleted. Article doesn't meet WP:V, WP:RS or WP:SOFTWARE Whispering 16:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by my delete nom. Chris Kreider 20:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ok mmoginfo.com is a listing for MMPORG's, the same for mmorpg.com, gamestationstore.com looks like a combination sale/review site. Pc.gamezone.com is a short blurb about the game no review or anything. Gameogre.com is another listing site, Au.pc.gamespy.com is another short blurb, and appdb.winehq.org is another listing site. Whispering 00:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - French website which reviewed the game: [70] French Wikipedia article (created 2 years ago): [71] News article on a French website: [72] I think this one's another review: [73] Looks like another review: [74] This is definately a notable game. Sean K 09:55, 28 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 20:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by admin Saxifrage (reason: unsalvagable nonsense (CSD:G1)). Non-admin closure of AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 05:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Occult Dragon[edit]

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

Impenetrable ungrammatical bumf. There is a book cited as a source, but the article reads like the output of Dissociated press Leibniz 20:22, 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 redirected. "Boldly" means "go ahead and do it yourself". Zetawoof(ζ) 20:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was boldly redirected. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Abdulaziz Alsaud[edit]

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Abdulaziz Alsaud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No idea, not my AfD yandman 20:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Gkklein, type your reason here:[reply]


Article already exists.--Gkklein 20:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Give a link to, or the name of, the version that already exists. yandman 20:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Waleed bin Talal--Gkklein 20:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly Redirect Article already exists is a great rationale for a redirect to the existing Al-Waleed bin Talal and if the nominator is agreeable I think we can just go ahead with this.--Isotope23 20:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK Boldly Redirect--Gkklein 20:33, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 content, rename or move could be possible. W.marsh 14:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis performance timeline comparison (women)[edit]

Tennis performance timeline comparison (women) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An AfD tag was applied here weeks ago by a single-purpose account and the nomination was not carried through. Now, the article is a CSD-A1, lacking any sort of encyclopedic context. But the editor creating it has spent lierally weeks crafting it. I don't wish to see it deleted per se, but I can't, at this moment, see what our customers (the people who read Wikipedia rather than edit it and who thus vastly outnumber the people who make changes) would make of it. So I ask for others to discuss it in a reasonable way and offer no opinion of my own.➨ ЯEDVERS 20:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The problem is, whilst I know of Ms King and her works, I know nothing of tennis rankings/results/systems or whatever the article is trying to tell tennis fans. If the article has something important to say, then why, even with the changes, do I not understand it? I'm not thick, I'm not playing stupid, I simply know nothing about whatever these complex coded multicoloured tables are trying to tell me. A need to simplify exists. Without it, CSD applies: no context. If I can comprehend an article like the ones we have on quantum physics (a subject I know even less about than tennis, of which I know almost nothing) thanks to having the issue discussed first, the meta-meaning of the item second and the weird science third, then asking an article about tennis to do the same (what are the championships? How important are they comparitively? How has tennis changed over the period concerned? Who is deciding this? What will I understand if I read the article?) seems plenty reasonable. As I said in my introduction, the time spent crafting this table is noted and appreciated. But now someone needs to make the table meaningful. It isn't there yet. It's still a CSD as it lacks context. If it belongs in an encyclopedia, then it must have context supplied. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Comment What tennis is about, how to play the game, how people are ranked, etc., etc. is already provided in innumerable tennis articles. Are you wanting me to repeat those articles here? Have a look at the tennis articles that provide data without the context you are saying is necessary. For example, look at French Open women's doubles champions. That is not my article, by the way. But it illustrates the data-oriented tennis articles that abound throughout Wikipedia. Should all of those articles be deleted (trust me, there are lots of them)? As for whether I have "something important to say," it would be a violation of Wikipedia's POV doctrine for me to say that so-and-so was a greater player or had a better career than so-and-so. I am presenting a lot of the relevant data so that a reader could draw his or her own conclusions. The tables are very simple. I've changed the article to discuss the color coding. The concept of this article is much simpler than the quantum physics article, which I'd bet, by the way, any reader would have to spend a considerable amount of time trying to understand - much more time than understanding the tables I'm presenting. But if you want to delete the article, so be it. I think you would be holding the article to an unprecedented standard when compared to virtually all the tennis articles that are out there. If the article is deleted, I'll still have it available for my own purposes and will continue working on it. But others will never see it. It's up to you, I assume. I'm done debating the issue and I'm not going to beg for the article to be treated fairly and consistently. Tennis expert 21:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As stated above, I'm against having this article. However, I don't think it should be considered difficult to understand. The idea is that for every female tennis player who ever won, or came in second, in any of the four major tennis tournaments, her lifetime record in all of those tournaments is shown, from the first time she entered any of them to the last time. And for each such tournament in her career, there is an indication of whether she was the Winner, a Finalist, a Semi Finalist, a Quarter Finalist, or lost in one of the earlier rounds, or didn't compete in that tournament. So if you see some player shown with a lot of Ws, that means she won a lot of major tournaments. I don't find it easy to read or particularly useful, but it's certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion. --Metropolitan90 03:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate the point, but this is one discussed endlessly all over Wikipedia, and has been for years. An individual AfD is not the place to start yet another new discussion. At the top of the index page for this discussion, you'll find a big big pile of links to places where people are talking themselves into circles about this very point. Hope this helps! ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redvers - positive comments - unfortunately there may be many talking, but is anyone listening? I've pesonally posted on this subject, (I even created a new AfDU) and your's is the first comment I've had! This is a problem of power disparity. Those without power need things to change, but those with the power and influence to make things happen have no need to see any change. I only grumble because it makes me feel better, not because I expect anything to change! --Mike 21:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My honest opinion As a non-expert in tennis, I must say I find a table such as this one rather useful. For better or worse, I find information assembled in a tabular format rather helpful and easier to assimilate. Admittedly, some of the features (colors, symbols) could be simplified but, all in all, I believe this article serves a useful, albeit infrequent, purpose. Carpe diem 11:11, 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 13:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial state[edit]

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

Ill-defined term, sometimes used to refer to a multi-ethnic state. Favor deletion, merger/redirect. I don't think the article can stand alone. Deodar 20:42, 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 redirect. GringoInChile 12:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Abe[edit]

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

I have my doubts about whether this article meets WP:BIO and thought it should be discussed here. Being married to a notorious person doesn't make someone automatically noteworthy themselves. The only possible inkling of notoriety in her own right is the mention of her being a vocal proponent of his release; but it is not stated how much coverage has she received. GringoInChile 20:52, 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete; its existence may be verified, but there is no verification from third-party sources that this is a notable product. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immunocal[edit]

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

Advertisment for a product Rich257 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that there are sources and that we can believe the product exists and it seems that there are sources to back the claims, although some the references could perhaps be better embedded within the article. However it's still advertising for a specific branded (probably trademarked) product isn't it? The article is not about a class of supplements, for example. Rich257 10:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Okay, where do I begin? First of all, although patent documents prove that the said product (which I have never heard of) DOES exist, that does not mean it is notable to a wide audience. I would consider most medical journals to be unreliable sources, as some have come under fire for being paid by a manufacturer to write a positive article. Give us a citation from the New England Medical Journal or from a source that the general public knows is legimate, such as The New York Times (or such). A lot of the statements in the article are attributed to "According to Immunotec...". This is a primary source, and thus a no-no. Use inline citations for statements, providing a reliable secondary source. While I believe this product does exist, it's nothing personal, but I believe Wikipedia must maintain a strigent article acceptance policy, because otherwise it would soon become a walking billboard. If the article is kept, it needs major cleanup to make it look less like a spam article (all of the external links in the article text need to be converted to inline cites) and more understandable to people outside the medical community. Green451 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Green451: You suggested either the "New England Journal of Medicine" or the "New York Times" as credible sources. That's like saying I want the high standard of a either a Ferrari or a VW bug. Highly divergent. The NEJM typically requires the highest standards for inclusion of clinical trials (unlikely that a nutritional supplement trial will meet this criteria unless it is subsidized by the NIH). The New York Times is least credible source in scientific terms. Heresay and author opinion. Most journalists are not scientists. Your statement that "most medical journals [are] unreliable sources, as some have come under fire for being paid by a manufacturer to write a positive article" is something that is not accepted in the scientific community. Most are "peer review" journals and almost all today require authors of articles to state "conflicts of interest" which would certainly include being paid for writing a positive article. I am a scientist and if I participated in that, I would lose all professional credibility. It happens, but it is the rare exception and not the rule. Lets re-write as necessary, but not exclude minor journals as references because they could be "tainted".Apparent Logic 05:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Okay, I will assume a leap of faith and believe that the nine journals you cited are legitimate. Which brings me to another point: What makes this drug as notable as, say Penicillin or Ibuprofen? Why would people want to know about this product? I just thought of those examples off the top of my head, but they are notable drugs. I do not have a scientific mind, and, although everything on the medical journals may make sense to you, it's all gibberish to me. My question above stands. Green451 16:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does the article fail WP:OR in that case? Rich257 15:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:OR Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. Rich257: I don't believe this meets that criteria as the arguments are published. Apparent Logic 05:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that earlier in this thread Cfidsguy said "I found info here [that] I have not seen elsewhere", which seems a claim of original research? It certainly implies that that material is unverifiable. Rich257 08:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rich257: Not necessarily. Only that the reader hadn't seen it before. SkierRMH stated: "parts come almost verbatim from thier publicity/publications" but I also reviewed the supplied manufacturer's link and didn't find verbatim lifts. I reviewed the WIKI article and most statements are documented by external links to credible sources. If the contention concerns "the manufacturer states", perhaps an editor could do a little research to find references beyond the manufacturer (i.e. compensated by Medicare/medicaid, etc). I believe this may need a re-write, but dont think the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater... Apparent Logic 14:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rich257: You are correct. The class of supplements is "undenatured bioactive whey protein supplements". There are only 2 or 3 that I am aware of, however the Immunocal is the original supplement in the class, and most folks search for it by brand name. I checked the Yahoo network and found no searches for "undenatured bioactive whey protein supplements" but numerous for the branded product "immunocal". Users of Wikipedia would therefor be more likely to search for the branded product. (This is similar to the brand "kleenex" which is more likely to be searched for than "facial tissue", and is included in Wikipedia as the branded reference for that reason. Apparent Logic 14:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether the product exists or not, the links show that it does. The issue is that it is an advert for a product from a specific manufacturer. Rich257 11:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The precident is that products from a specific manufacturers are included in wikipedia: An abbreviated list includes these major products. There are hundreds of minor products. [[75] windows XP], [[76] Kool Aid], [[77]Kleenex], [[78]Fruit of the Loom], [[79]Band Aid], [[80]Coca-Cola]. If "most well known" is the criteria, then how well known? According to searches on the Yahoo.com network, immunocal has about 25% of the searches of the established brand "Band Aid". Apparent Logic 13:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luminary (album)[edit]

The actual band (who don't appear all that notable aside from their singer) doesn't have an article, so it makes little sense that their albums would.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 21:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe merge to a Adeyto discography since the current article is rather long (suggestion supplements "keep" vote above"). Kappa 06:30, 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. W.marsh 17:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idolblog[edit]

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

Blog site that doesn't assert notability. I'd recommend it for speedy A7, except that the article's been around for a while, and [83] says it won an award, although I don't know how significant that might be. gadfium 21:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with it. - TuiKiwi

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Hollingshead[edit]

This garage-built Gravitational Lensing Generator is obviously complete WP:BOLLOCKS. But as we all know, that alone is no reason for deletion.

So I plead: No reliable third-party sources!

Let's dissect the sources (actually external links only) given

Pjacobi 21:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaybag[edit]

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

This article looks like vandalism. Google shows no results for "gaybag recipe." Definitely not a traditional cookie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfeditor (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bocaranda[edit]

Steve Bocaranda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This appears to be advertising. The IMDB link is to Bocaranda's personal resume, not an IMDB listing. A search on IMDB's database shows no credits for Bocaranda. Google search shows that Bocaranda is very good at spreading his name around, but there doesn't appear to be any level of notability here. IrishGuy talk 21:32, 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. cholmes75 (chit chat) 06:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Serebrian[edit]

Reason in a nutshell: This is in all likelihood an astroturfing campaign that involves paid translations of author's autobiography.

Compare this article with the appearance and contents of this very piece on various European Wikipedias: de, pl, es, fr, hu, it, ro, ru. All these articles were created from a Molvadian IP address (195.138.119.133) that otherwise had little or no interest in contributing to Wikipedia.

The notability of this person is not clearly established; he was a local politician / ministry spokesperson, and a local scientist who, judging from the article, had published about five articles in various magazines and/or larger compilations, but has no own published books; this is perhaps more clear when you look at the references on pl.wiki. Although this is not mentioned in the article, he is the leader of Social Liberal Party (Moldova), but this party does not seem to have any notable accomplishments ("[...] in 2001 Oleg Serebrian released a manifest with the intention to found a social liberal party. This initiative was joined by the Christian-Democratic Women's League and the National Youth League of Moldova. In 2002 the Party of Democratic Forces merged into the party."; the members of the party had three seats in the parliament prior to forming this bloc).

This is our AfD vote on Polish Wikipedia. I'm just dropping by to share our findings. Regards. lcamtuf 15:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Born in 1969, Oleg Serebrian is one of Moldova's youngest and most promising political leaders. He has a solid background in international affairs, with a degree in international relations from the European Institute of High International Studies in Nice, France, and post-graduate work done at Harvard, Edinburgh and Paris. In the late 1990's, he worked for his country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He is also the author of several books on international affairs and foreign policy, the latest being "Dicţionar de geopolitică" (Geopolical Dictionary), a 340 page tome on international politics which has just been published simultaneously in Romania and Moldova." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.97.56.58 (talk • contribs)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 13:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Volfson[edit]

YANNAGI (Yet another non-notable antigravity invention).

No reliable third-party sources

And, without necessarily attributing reliable to them, please discard the the Podkletnov and Tajamr articles. They don't have a connection to this specific invention, they are only put into external links sections of every antigravity article. Finally, patent (granted and applied) aren't reliable sources either.

Pjacobi 21:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pjacobi. I've been watching this article to make sure someone didn't start adding back dubious additions, such as calling Volfson a physicist. I've flagged Phonon Maser for deletion for much the same reasons as this article (not to mention that a real phonon maser would be something very much different). Michaelbusch 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's how gravity works, isn't it? Delete. Hasn't this lot or something very like it been deleted before? Tonywalton  | Talk 13:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's see you get a U.S. patent, then 3 independent articles in the mainstream media. I will gladly write the article. Ever read the editorial in the New York Times in 1920 ridiculing Robert H. Goddard's theory that rockets could reach the moon? In their scientific opinion, rockets could not work in a vacuum because there would be nothing to push against.Edison 17:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If at all, this may give a small sentence at US patent office. The short news stories [84] and [85] focus on the failings of the patent office. That's the only verifiable fact on this invention. --Pjacobi 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. 6,962,737 Simulated stained glass modular electroluminescent articles 2. 6,960,975 Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state 3. 5,965,897 High resolution storage phosphor x-ray imaging device 4. 5,656,814 Versatile method and device for thermoluminescence comparative analysis 6. 4,826,044 Dispenser for viscous fluids 7. 4,411,044 Cord weight pulley 8. 4,399,855 Roll type closure assembly for a window

All these patents (along with some foreign patents) are to my name only except for ##3 & 4 on the list where I am listed as a co-inventor. Most of the patents are physics-related. All the patented devices other than the item #2 were built and worked as intended.

The device of item #2, the "antigravity" Spaceship, worked too. But it cannot be demonstrated as it broke through the ceiling, the roof and flu away toward Mars. The "antigravity" Test Chamber is used by the CIA in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp for questioning of the enemy combatants. The "antigravity" Phonon Maser is hidden in the secret undeground lab.

The device of item #6 was sold for many years as Colgate Toothpaste pump. The pump was very popular and sold in the millions in many different countries (the product currently sold under this name in the UK is slightly different from the originally-produced pump). Volfson,boris


Keep. Edison's remarks are thoughtful and salient. This is the sort of thing one would want in a civil forum. In response to pjacobi: If you read the text of Volfson's anti-gravity patents, there is extensive reference to, and use of, both of the Podkletnov and Tajamr articles. Podkltnov's work was the inspiration for Volfson's. The following are directly from the "theory" page linked to his site (borisvolfson.com). Emphases added by me:

"A series of experiments, performed in the early 1990’s by Evgeny Podkletnov, reportedly resulted in a reduction of the weight of objects placed above a levitating, rotating superconductive disk subjected to high frequency magnetic fields. (“Weak Gravitational Shielding Properties of Composite Bulk YBa2Cu33O(7-x) Superconductor Below 70K Under E.M. Field”, E. Podkletnov, LANL database number cond-mat/9701074, v. 3, 10 pages, 16 Sep 1997). The drawback of the technology described in Podkletnov’s above-mentioned paper is the weakness of the resulting effect. Even though Podkletnov has reported .3%-to-2.1% weight reduction with the device described in the above-mentioned 1997 paper, many scientists point to a likelihood of error in Podkletnov’s measurements."

and

"Also in Nov. 2005, scientists led by Clovis de Matos and Martin Tajmar and funded by the European Space Agency, published a paper on their research of gravitomagnetism. They measured the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field in a laboratory by rotating a superconductor ring at 6,500 revolutions per minute. The scientists found that, under certain conditions, the gravitomagnetic effect is much greater than expected from general relativity. However, at just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the effect, which the scientists identified as the Gravitomagnetic London Moment, is very weak. Unlike Podkletnov who used the Type II superconductor, de Matos and Tajmar used a Type I superconductor (“Gravitomagnetic London Moment and the Graviton Mass Inside a Superconductor”, C.J. de Matos and M.Tajmar, Physica C Volume 432, Issues 3-4, 15 November 2005, Pages 167-172). The relative weakness of the artificially-generated gravitational effect makes it necessary to consider amplification before this effect could be used in many practical applications."

Moreover, Volfson provides a well-documented path though his reasoning. See his step by step inferences from work of his predecessors: http://borisvolfson.com/GravityTheoryPaper.html.

I am not a physicist. However, I know that without imagination, physics would stagnate (and often has). It's still incomplete and confounding. We still don't have a unified field theory. Even the "standard model" has been found wanting.

I am not suggesting dumping currently accepted theories regarding gravity. Darwinian theory is also gappy, but this doesn't warrant disregarding constructive, well-supported parts -- in fact, we rely on them. We should embrace attempts like Volfson's to creativly extend existing theory, provided there is sufficient justification. (An examination of the path he provides, referenced above, would be warranted.)

Mathematics and logic have lead, in the past, to new empirically interesting ground. Group theory, for example, provided particle physicists a fruitful heuristic for empiricle research ... in spite of group theory not being an "empiricle" science. Volfson's work follows an analogous route.

Hostile arguments like some provided by other commentors contribute nothing to a search for truth and understanding, but contribute to the growing climate of incivility and to rigidity of thought. Consider the values behind the attitudes displayed. Consider allowing others to judge for themselves from the evidence he provides. If you find actual errors in the science or logic, please document them. It's more useful to offer constructive suggestions, and to avoid criticism base on mere failure to match current accepted theory. That does not provide anything fruitful.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedekind cut (talk • contribs) Pjacobi 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Consensus?[edit]

After six days, I count eight votes for deletion and three for keep. Admins, does this count as rough consensus? Michaelbusch 20:39, 12 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 21:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitophonon[edit]

Per the arguments given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Volfson

Pjacobi 21:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're at the bottom of my garden right at this moment. Delete per reasons given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phonon Maser. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Coredesat 20:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Potter (actress)[edit]

Carol Potter (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable actress. Speedy was contested, but there's very little assertion of notability in the article. Subject fails WP:BIO. Valrith 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
An independent biography
Name recognition
Commercial endorsements
  • On Wikipeida, decisions are by consensus. WP:BIO is not policy, but a general guideline not meant to automatically exclude subjects that might be notable. --Oakshade 22:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I forgot to add the other part of WP:BIO you left out:
"Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers" Sorry 'bout that. --Oakshade 00:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She did appear in a well-known television production and does have name recognition. I also found a newspaper article about her, which is now used as a source in the article as revised. --Metropolitan90 03:36, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 20:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7th Wonder[edit]

This song is simply not worthy its own page. Drew88 08:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's the reason: Many other songs have placed second at the Eurovision song contest, inluding Malta's own Chiara with her song "Angel", but none of them have their own page. Drew88 05:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - before I created a few of them this year, many multiple Olympic gold medallist swimmers, world champions and Tour de France winners did not have articles- so we should delete them too? Just because others are lazy does not mean a hard-worker should have their hard work cut-up and binned. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just because they don't yet doesn't mean that they won't ever. I'm currently working on pages for ESC entries going by country (in the middle of Luxembourg at the moment) and I can tell you that the following Contests have their second-place songs written up: 1956 (inasmuch as there was a second place, we probably have it), 1957, 1967, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002 (the subject of this AfD), 2003 and 2006. The majority of the missing years are due to the fact that the United Kingdom has placed second something like 15 times and I just haven't got as far as U yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: While "precedent" is often a dirty word around here, I'd point all concerned to these two AfDs, in which the consensus was established that even a song which came second-last was sufficiently notable for our purposes for the simple reason that it was the song which represented a country at a major international event for that year. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also rewritten the article in order to show a clearer level of notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This despite the fact that the song in fact passes the proposed guideline with flying colours? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does it pass the guideline exactly? The song does not satisfy any of the listed standards. It did not win a major award, it is not an anthem, and it is not a musical standard. It did not appear in any top 20 or top 100, it did not define any music genre etc etc Marcus1234 09:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 23:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's not the song guideline, it's the musician guideline. Marcus1234 09:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per that guideline, too, it's notable. The big four it misses out on, true, but turning our attention to the other 11 criteria we can see that it Is the signature song of a performer, certainly in the sense that Losco has a signature song for non-Maltese listeners. It was also the subject of a major publicity campaign, in that Maltese television wanted it to win the ESC that year and promoted it accordingly. I'd argue that it is also a particularly well-known song from a piece of musical theater, radio, film or television, being performed live at an internationally-televised event. I'd also suggest, subject to research which I'm mid-way through at the moment, that it could well have appeared in the Top 20 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country or Charted in the Top 100 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country, for at least six months, although I may be proven wrong there. Add into that the fact that it was nominated for a national award and I think we've got a notable song on our hands. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript The song placed in the top 20 on the Maltese chart this is the site with the information, although it's not set up well enough that a direct link will work. You'll need to mouse-over the "About Ira" section and then go to the "Detailed Biography By Year" and select 2002. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You said it yourself: Maltese chart. Malta is far from a large or medium sized country, hence, it misses out on that criteria. You also stated that it's her "signature song", but that's merely your opinion. You also stated that it's a "well-known piece from a piece of musical theater, radio, film or television", citing the fact that it was performed live on tv, but you are fully aware that the guideline refers to a theme song or other song associated with a specific production. I will concede that it was subject to a major publicity campaign, but that's about it. Delete Marcus1234 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am in fact blissfully unaware of that interpretation of that clause, for the simple reason that it's not clarified anywhere on that page or its associated Talk. In terms of one's "signature song", the description of any song as such is often going to be a matter of debate. What I will say, though, is that it's the song for which she is best known outside of Malta, which would go quite some way towards it being her signature song. In terms of the size of the country, there's also some evidence that it charted in Germany. I was reluctant to add this at first, since the page doesn't actually say what number it charted at, but in an effort to counter systemic bias then it seems important. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, is not a song competition covering all of Malta a "major award" within the meaning of WP:MUSIC/SONG? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding being in the German charts, there is absolutely no evidence that it was listed for at least six months and I'm most certain that it was never in a major Top 20 chart. Regarding your other point, I certainly do not classify winning the "Malta Song for Europe" as a major award, and I doubt anyone would. Technically, it's not even an award, as the wikipedia page itself states: it's the song festival which decides who will be Malta's entry in the Eurovision Song Contest. If the "Song for Europe" competitions were a "major award", then every song that has ever participated in the ESC would merit its own page! I'll stop here...Marcus1234 12:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response So far, the precedent has been that every ESC entry does merit its own page. The two AfDs I've linked to before have upheld that idea, even as far as to say that a song that came second-last is notable. Indeed, a song which came stone motherless last was sufficiently notable to appear on DYK. We talk a lot about "ESC winners" meaning the artists who perform the song, but in a very real way it's actually the song which wins or places - hence the notability of a song which places second, especially when this is the equal-best (then-best) result that a country has had. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 20:44, 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/redirect Redirecting for now, information seems to be in Cathay Pacific already. W.marsh 16:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Marco Polo Club[edit]

The Marco Polo Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yet another article on a non-notable frequent flyer program. Some multi-carrier ones have been kept (such as Miles & More), but this is a single-airline program, no different from Mileage Plus or SkyMiles, both of which have been deleted and redirected DB (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: that should have said, both were merged and redirected. DB (talk) 02:47, 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 Speedily deleted as a copyvio from IMDb.com. (aeropagitica) 22:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cariba Heine[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Speedy was contested, but very litle assertion of notability is made. Subject fails WP:BIO. Valrith 21:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as an indiscriminate list. --Coredesat 20:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of influential texts[edit]

List of influential texts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hopelessly POV, and there are thousands, no, millions of texts that could be potentionally put here. What is the definition of influential? Also, influential to whom? The Western World? Muslims? Feminists? Scientists? Militants? Consumerists societies? Socialists? Daoists? Stoics? These are a drop in the bucket of the idealogies and demographics by which billions of peoples' daily lives are affected. And each group could credibly point to hundreds, if not thousands, of influential texts that espouse these lifestyles - everything from poetry by Robert Frost, to the Kama Sutra, to the Iraqi constitution. There are many notable and influential texts for sure, but the Category:Literature would probably be someone's best bet to sort through such an incomprehensible list, and even that cat has a tag on top saying "This category requires continual maintenance to avoid becoming too large." But at least that cat has a fighting chance. This list will always be POV, random, inadequate and unfathomably large to the point of inutility.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Hunt[edit]

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

Contested prod of article about a non-notable model. No claim or evidence of notability per WP:BIO. Valrith 22:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Armstead[edit]

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

Non-notable author. These books are published by iUniverse...which is self-publishing. IrishGuy talk 22:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete (as a convient excuse - real reason is spam). -- RHaworth 03:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOON-CHOSEN[edit]

MOON-CHOSEN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject of non-notable self-published books by Joseph Armstead. Armstead's article is also under AfD. IrishGuy talk 22:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I put this up for speedy deletion under the Copyright Violation category. See http://www.freewebs.com/jarmsteadsnocturnes/theconcepts.htm. Beyond that, I agree with the nominator's nomination. Hu 01:40, 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. --Coredesat 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Dark Memory[edit]

Book of Dark Memory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yet another vanity article for the self-published author Joseph Armstead. IrishGuy talk 22:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as copyvio. Fang Aili talk 18:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Quinn[edit]

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

Yet another vanity article for the self-published author Joseph Armstead. IrishGuy talk 22:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 16:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talley Nichols[edit]

Non-notable biography. Article provides no claim or evidence of satisfying WP:BIO, nor does it provide any sources that would allow verifiability. Valrith 22:19, 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 no consensus to delete. I have added the merge suggestion templates, there is probably a consensus to merge but it might be best to make sure. W.marsh 00:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter Fourteen[edit]

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

Delete.At the end of the final Lemony Snicket novel, The End, after the thirteenth chapter (which is when the books usually end) there is one more chapter, titled Chapter Fourteen. This serves as an epilogue of sorts to the series. Snicket formats this chapter like a whole new book...title page, copyright, etceteras. Because of this, it has been granted a whole article. As it is only one chapter, I do not believe it deserves an entire article. There is nothing about it that couldn't be succintly described in the page for The End. CyberGhostface 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rules state "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community." Just wait until a consensus is reached.--CyberGhostface 01:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense at your attempt to be high and mighty, but that is the concensus.

Clamster5 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you watch your act, pay attention to the rules and wait until a consensus is properly reached by an administrator, as it always done in AFD cases. Thank you.--CyberGhostface 04:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. You for whatever reason are very against this chapter/short story (whatever you would like to call it). So you nominate it for deletion, even though you don't really think it should be deleted, it should just be merged/redirected (per your comments on the End talk page). You cause a big argument/discussion/debate (once again stick in whatever word you want here). People have differing views and sometimes we have problems accepting that. So after legthly arguing/discussing/debating (see above parentheses), I merge and redirect the page as you originally wanted quite a while ago (once again referecing comments on The End talk page). And now you're upset? I don't get it. You got what you wanted and you're still upset? If you truly are this upset, maybe you need a cup of hot chocolate, a kiss on the forehead, and a nap. Clamster5 04:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, at this point I no longer care. Stomp your feet, pout your lips, and whine like a five year old. Nominate every book for deletion and say they should be merged into the main asoue page. Tell everyone you see "There was this truly horrible, truly dastardly editor on Wikipedia. She thought she could actually have a differing opinion. (Laugh)." I don't care. Have a nice life. Clamster5 04:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (Note: This post was made 5 minutes after my first one, roughly 9 hours before you posted. Check the time stamps. I didn't reply to you. You just thought I did. This is just to show that you're too dumb to check time stamps. Clamster5 07:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Your time stamps says you posted it on the eleventh, the same date I replied. Unless you're referring to something else. And if you weren't replying to me, then who the hell were you replying to? And keep up the personal insults. I've already warned you once, and if you continue, I'll have no choice but to report you.
BTW, if you "don't care", why are you still posting here?--CyberGhostface 18:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nine hours, huh? I have no idea what you're trying to say, or why its relevant to the discussion. All I know is that when I replied you had the last message. And if you weren't replying to me, who were you replying to? And why does this even matter in the first place? Do you care that much about it? I wonder what that says about you given that you've long given up any reasonal debate and have instead resorted to petty namecalling and random stupidity about timestamps.--CyberGhostface 23:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to be ignorant or does it come natural to you? The rules state that you do not change articles into redirects while they are nominated for deletion. No exceptions. You wait until the admins look over the article and reach their decisions. There's nothing more to say on that matter, so I suggest you just accept it and get over it.--CyberGhostface 13:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're the one who is throwing a tantrum because you're not getting your way. I'd also mention that merging a chapter into a novel's page and merging a seperate book into the series' page are too different things. You probably knew that, and were just trying to be obnoxious.
And if you are done with this page, is that going to stop you from replying again? I thought not. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take some hot chocolate before I get tucked in for my nap.--CyberGhostface 13:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

humblefool® 22:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I haven't heard of the "Lump of Coal" story you mentioned. Perhaps you could start a page on it. --Arvedui 09:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for misunderstanding you. For the record, the Lump of Coal (which is, I just found out, from Usa Today) can be read here.[89]
I don't really believe that Snicket intends for Chapter Fourteen to be considered a seperate work. Wouldn't the title alone make it Chapter Fourteen of an already existing work, not an entirely seperate one? If it was a seperate work, why didn't Snicket give it a more distinguished name, like the Eerie Epilogue or something? Also, its not like its even its own seperate story in terms of plot...its just another chapter carrying on from the previous chapters. Had Snicket done another plot that was unrelated from the general story (like one chapter detailing the lives of Lemony and Beatrice) I might be more willing to consider it a different story. But formatting gimmicks aside, whose true intentions are unknown, is there anything about it that makes it a different story for deserving its own article?--CyberGhostface 18:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall, the 6-book division was arbitrarily imposed on Tolkien by the publisher, who believed that people wouldn't buy or want to read such big thick books, but it was in fact written originally as a trilogy. The analogy between the two doesn't quite hold, then, especially since the numerology is clearly irrelevant to Tolkien's work while it is central to the structure of ASOUE. --Arvedui 08:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with this line of reasoning, except that I don't for several reasons. In the LOTR example, the "books" were separated simply by a single page which said "Book Two" or "Book Four". It was clear that they were little more than section-markers, and indeed many authors use divisions like "Book One," "Book Two" etc without ever intending that they be published separately. In this case, Chapter Fourteen is preceded by all the usual trappings of a regular book, including blank pages, copyright info, title-page, other-works-by, etc. It also isn't intended to be published separately, true, but there is also an internally-consistent (to the story) logic behind having it published the way it was. And don't get too hung up on the name--meta-fiction is tricky that way! --Arvedui 10:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Above Comment Deleting the page implies that you want the subject not to be covered and when someone types in "Chapter Fourteen" for there to be no page. But even you seem to think the chapter needs a mention, a paragraph, something that signifies its existence. So why didn't you have a discussion on both talk pages, stick the template that says "it has been proposed that these page be merged", wait patiently for at least a week or so, and then merge giving Chapter Fourteen the coverage you feel it deserves in The End article? Honestly why? I don't want to get you angry/upset/acting like 5 year old. Please just answer why you proposed to delete instead of merge? Clamster5 00:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the page means that I do believe the subject should be covered, just in the article for The End as one chapter does not deserve its own article.
And whats there to merge? Chapter Fourteen is already covered in the main article! Excluding the fact that the general consensus is merge, so chances are thas what the result will be.
And if you still have to ask why I want this deleted then I guess I haven't made myself clear for the last three days. I've said nearly everything there is to say on the subject.--CyberGhostface 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There are 13 books in the series, each with their own title and ISBN. This fourteenth chapter is not a book and does not have a title/ISBN.
  2. The fourteenth chapter is specifically a chapter. You cannot buy a book by Lemony Snicket called "Chapter Fourteen".
  3. Any information in "chapter fourteen" is also applicable to "The End." --JCoug 20:26, 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 Evidence of reliable third party coverage was not presented (see WP:WEB), as always I will undelete if some can be presented to me. W.marsh 16:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Monkey Games[edit]

Contested prod, original reason for nomination was "Doesn't seem to be particularly notable or meet WP:V/WP:RS/WP:WEB." Procedural nomination, please count me as neutral. JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 08:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aye, no expediency required. Wickethewok 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't use Alexa rankings to determine notability - see WP:SET. --163.1.165.116 01:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack226 21:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 21:50, 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 No Consensus, default to Keep. cholmes75 (chit chat) 06:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salthill Devon F.C.[edit]

Non-notable club. Returns 409 ghits. Appears to have youth teams between under-11's and under-18's but not much else. Not in notable league. Bubba hotep 11:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 22:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsidian Reign[edit]

Contested prod, no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSIC. Khatru2 18:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Have sought the Cleaned Up method for the page, and I am now re-submitting it for approval. I am a fan and friend of the band.Merauder 19:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 23:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 16:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universo HQ[edit]

I found this while finishing my new page patrol last night, and it was marked with ((db-site)) when I checked its history using pop-ups. The Alexa rank for this site is 82,920, and hence fails WP:WEB. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 23:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron D'Souza[edit]

Aaron D'Souza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vanity article by User:Aaron kimi whose only contribution is to this article. Google hits don't give any links to a racing driver.[92] . The Hindu does list an Aaron d'souza, but he is a swimmer [93]. Should have speedy deleted, but the article is 3 days old Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 23:38, 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. cholmes75 (chit chat) 06:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Cadet Squadrons in Canada[edit]

List of Air Cadet Squadrons in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

meets criteria for what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a mere list of squadrons. While only some may be notable, not all are. Additionally, this listing is available externally at [94], [95], [96], and [97]. Luke! 23:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, how did this list help you find some old friends? I find this notion a bit of a stretch. Even if you did find your old friends through a listing such as this article, the content is almost exactly duplicated in the external links given above. And what other uses could this list have other than to show a list of squadrons, of which only a minority our notable? Luke! 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The general topic being the Royal Canadian Air Cadet organization, not the list that this article is. It would predominantly be a red-link article spurring eventual article growth of other Air Cadet squadrons that may not be notable. Luke! 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is more rationale at User_talk:Dark_Shikari/Archive1#appeal_.3F. Finally, I have to disclose that I'm the one that spent quite a lot time pulling this information together.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Húsönd 04:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TNA Hardcore War[edit]

TNA Hardcore War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was a one-time house show by TNA. It wasn't very notable at all. RobJ1981 23:59, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Layton[edit]

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

Nice kid but nn self-published author (book by Virtualbookworm publish on demand house), fails WP:BIO, few unique ghits, authored by SPA with no other edits. Tubezone 23:59, 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 no consensus to delete, but please see WP:CITE to cite sources in the article. W.marsh 20:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boyfriend Robotique[edit]

*delete a google search turns up only trivial mentions (i.e. "BOYFRIEND ROBOTIQUE present "English Lessons For The Foreign Artist" & "How Do You Feel" at the Market of Vain Desires...") that merely note where they are performing. There does NOT appear to be any critical review of their work. If no one in the media cares enough to review their work, how can they be notable? --Jayron32 05:04, 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, Relisting because sources were provided after everyone but Jayron commented. W.marsh 00:36, 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.
More