< October 12 October 14 >
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 speedy keep, patently ridiculous nomination. Mangojuicetalk 14:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese mythology[edit]

It has been pretty much established that Japanese mythology content is not notable enough for Wikipedia's standards. See here. Delete. Shikino 14:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

























































The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Eminem. If someone wants to merge parts of the article, the edit history is still available. trialsanderrors 18:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hailie Jade Scott[edit]

a.k.a. Eminem's daughter. First AfD in August ended in a clear merge consensus which was never performed. To wrap this up I recommend Delete and redirect. ~ trialsanderrors 00:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, I think it's clear that this article needs to be deleted. After two relistings, the only !votes are to delete. The consensus is very strong to delete here. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Irvine[edit]

Notability? (converting contested speedy to afd - association with CIM asserts some notability) — ERcheck (talk) 09:35, 22 September 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


WP:BIO lists a number of ways a person can be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but it also seems to say that passing or failing such tests is not a sole reason to either include or delete an article, and that the whole idea of notability is not a wikipedia policy. It does point to verifiability, not original research, neutral point of view, etc. I contend first that this article is verifiable, it is not original research, and it has a neutral point of view. I'm in the process of finding more references (besides the link to his bio on CIM and ASTA's webpages), so I would like to request some time to finish doing that before any consensus is reached to delete this page.

I also would like to point out that he does meet some of the criteria for notability on WP:BIO and on WP:MUSIC, even though such criteria is not supposed to be a sole reason for keeping or deleting an article. For example....

  1. made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. (Organizing, publicizing, & teaching at Karen Tuttle Coordination workshops, and, through her work, contributing to the spread of William Primrose's techniques in the following generations of violists.)
  2. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.[2] (as a performer with the New World String Quartet in the US and in Europe.)
  3. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (The Journal of the American Viola Society, the Journal of Performing Arts Medicine, several news articles (I'll try to find exact dates))
  4. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style (This is not exactly spot-on, since I'm claiming that the "style" he represents is a technique or school of viola teaching, not a musical style of performing; and he is one of the most prominent, not the most prominent).
  5. Has won or placed in a major music competition. (Aspen Music Festival Viola competition, Cleveland Quartet competition)
  6. Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in ... teaching in a particular music genre. (notable teaching organizations such as Cleveland Institute of Music, Meadowmount, American String Teachers Association; also referenced as a notable teacher of Karent Tuttle's Coordination technique in places like the Journal of the American Viola Society)
  7. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. (well, if you call classical violists a 'sub-culture').
Again, I'd like to reiterate my request for more time to find exact references, since most of them are in journals or newspapers, and the dates and article authors of which aren't readily stored in my brain. J Lorraine 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In addition to what I listed above, he also passes several of the "alternative" tests for notability on WP:BIO.
  1. The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included. (He has published more articles on teaching in American String Teacher and in the Journal of the American Viola Society than most average college Viola professors).
  2. Verifiability -- Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now? (yes, it can)
  3. Expandability -- Will the article ever be more than a stub? Could the perfect article be written on this subject? (yes, there is sufficient information to provide a full-length article)
  4. 100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful? (yes, although this will probably be limited to those in the field of classical music, in particular those interested in 20th & 21st century performance practice)
  5. 100 year test (past speculation) -- If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today? (yes, again, though, probably only in the specialized field of historically informed performance, which is a sub-field (albeit a large sub-field) of current performance practice in the classical music world).
  6. Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism? (yes, although the word "lots" is somewhat ambiguous)

J Lorraine 09:09, 5 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, Yomanganitalk 00:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 AdamBiswanger1 04:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Levitz[edit]

Surgeon biography with nothing to substantiate inclusion in wikipedia Droliver 02:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Werner[edit]

Yet another politician mistaking Wikipedia for a free promotional vehicle. Third-Party candidate for Texas governor; otherwise, completely unnotable (unlike, say, Kinky Friedman, who did a few things before running). Calton | Talk 02:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is meant to provide information and there was no intent to use Wikipedia as a "promotional vehicle". The information included in the Wikipedia article is similar to the information found on other candidates' articles. Their education, residence, and other information is mentioned. It is better to edit this article, if necessary, rather than delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty6 (talk • contribs)

  • Not exactly. The only edits from Liberty6 are directly related to this candidate. Presumably an employee or supporter. Fan-1967 03:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles on people who are not as known as James Warner. James Warner's status as not being very popular is not a legitimate reason for deletion of this article. If that was a legitimate reason, that than deleting every reference of him on every article in Wikipedia would be reasonable along with deleting every reference of every person not as popular as he is. The information regarding why he was not invited to participate should be added to the article if you believe the article is biased in that respect. Also, I do not know what is meant by,"Most are of the also running is variety." Use correct grammar if you wish for me to understand what was attempted to be conveyed. Liberty6 04:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't understand the grammar, let me clarify: Most of the news mentions were of the "Also running is James Wermer" variety. He was mentioned in the articles, but only barely. Fan-1967 04:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In order for article mentions to matter for WP:BIO and similar guidelines they need to be more than just passing references. JoshuaZ 20:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the article will be protected, and you will be blocked. Announcing your intention to violate Wikipedia procedures is perhaps not the wisest course of action. Fan-1967 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • among the many things that WikiPedia is not is a blog. Wikipedia is not about unfettered and free expression. It is an encyclopedia, and as such, there are certain standards against which a subject will be judged by community consensus. The basic guidelines of verifiability and notability require that a subject meets a minimum baseline before the community will accept it. This guy does not rate. If you wish to find a vehicle to bring this guy greater exposure, great, more power to you. The internet is FULL of websites and tools to do exactly what you wish. Wikipedia is not one of them. --Jayron32 20:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify the standards: if an AFD nomination concludes with a consensus to delete, recreating the article in defiance of that decision is considered to be vandalism. Abiding by community consensus is one of the practices necessary in order to keep the project running (semi-)smoothly. Fan-1967 14:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If for any reason it would be an act of vandalism I would not recreate the article but if their was no notice indicating that it would be vandlism their would be no harm in recreating the article. I admit I overeacted but if they deleted it a second time I wouldn't keep recreating it. Jimwitz 16:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my elaborating can be found by simply looking for what I typed on this page. Also, to further elaborate, the article(James Werner) should be kept and revised. Revising, if done correctly, is obviously something that can be done that will make the article easier to understand and verifiable. In addition to that, Jesse Ventura polled about 10% before the debates and he went on to win the election, despite the fact that no major polls indicated that he was leading. While, it is true that James Werner is/was not as popular as Jesse Ventura and he is not polling 10% in any major polls, he is still polling in single digits, not a fraction of a percent, and although he did not participate in the debates, he is a candidate that should have an article. Michael Badnarik can be considered a person and a candidate(former and present) that shouldn't have an article, but does. How is he extremely more significant that James Werner? Is it because Michael ran for president and James is only a candidate for a less significant office? Think about it, what harm is done by keeping the article on James Werner, considering the article will be revised in the ways necessary? Liberty6 04:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Harm is not a criterion for keeping the article in question. Notability IS. You merely claim that he is notable. PROVIDE SOME SOURCES. Dozens of people run for dozens of local elections. What makes him more notable than the average political candidate. Be careful with the "If Y than X" arguement. Every article needs to be judged of its own merits. Still, if we must use Badnarik for analogy purposese, here goes. Badnarik received CONSIDERABLE national press coverage during his run for president. Though Nader ultimately received more vote, the Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the U.S. via total registered memebers, and the Presidential Election is considerably more notable than a congressional race. Its the nature of the race he was involved in. Badnarik's political positions were put under the scrutiny of the national press. He merits significant NON TRIVIAL mention in several fact-checked sources. We have no evidence that Werner has been covered by any source more notable than a voter guide. THAT is the standard that we are going by when we make the case for delete. If you want to change our minds, provide evidence to the contrary by putting forward NON TRIVIAL, FACT CHECKED references to this candidate. If you can provide them, you will swing the discussion to your favor. In the absence of such sources, however, your pleas, however heartfelt, will not sway the consensus. --Jayron32 05:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think about it, what harm is done by keeping the article on James Werner, considering the article will be revised in the ways necessary?
  • There is no necessary way to revise this article because no matter how it is done, the subject will still not be notable. Above, Liberty6 argues that Jesse Ventura has a Wikipedia article but then goes on to admit that James Werner is less notable than Jesse Ventura. This candidate is simply not significant enough for this encyclopedia. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 17:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Jesse Ventura is notable independant of his political career. His notability comes from his career as an actor and wrestler, which would have made him worthy of a Wikipedia article had he never even run for Governor. ALso 2) Had Jesse Ventura not been notable before he ran for governor, he would not have been notable polling only 10% of the electorate. He would have become notable the day he won the election. If THAT had been the case, he could only get an article after he had won. This guy is in the same situation. If he wins, we'll write an article about him. He hasn't won yet. Therefore he doesn't yet need an article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Jayron32 02:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's BEEN thought about and thought about plenty, long before you showed up. The harm, as I stated in my nomination, is in allowing Wikipedia to be mistaken for a free promotional vehicle. It's not; nor is a free webhosting service, a blog, a mode for free expression, a repository of unreferenced and speculative factoids, a way to attract attention to someone's cause, an unmediated and one-sided depository of candidate press releases and soundbites, a disguised campaign position paper, a dessert topping or a floor wax. Wikipedia aspires to be a vital and valuable online ENCYCLOPEDIA; devaluing it just so someone can get a few more votes for his pet candidate or pet cause DOES do it harm. --Calton | Talk 05:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I realize that we can't list every candidate for every office up for grabs in the United States (or anywhere in the world), but I think WP:BIO as it relates to politicians needs to be revised. I think we need to include information about candidates as well as victors in important races. A consensus should be reached as to what those races are, but I would definitely assume that governor, secretary of state, AG, etc. would be among them. I am in COMPLETE agreement that articles need to be NPOV - we don't want them to be big, free promotional vehicles (and it sounds like this has been an issue here), but then that's a different issue, and we need to address that accordingly. I can't think of one thing more confusing and in need of clarification than politics to most people - having a deletionist policy and only listing winners/officeholders seems to be well beside the point of what Wikipedia is for. My humble opinion. (Full disclosure: I was the author of an article of a candidate for secretary of state in my state that was deleted, despite media attention and notability.) NickBurns 19:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball All-Star Game Records[edit]

Article is just a list of facts. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see the parent article contains hundreds of words on "2008 All-Star Game and beyond". WP:NOT a crystal ball and most of that section isn't encyclopedic. Cut the fluff, if size is a reason the list of records was separated. Barno 12:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not? Per the AfD page's introduction: "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, or another language's Wikipedia—please note that it cannot be transwikied to WikiTravel [1] or Wikinews), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." Barno 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Votes to merge are OK here. Discussions of the nature of the merge are not. If it is decided to merge, how and why that is to be done are carried out elsewhere. --Jayron32 18:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My response would have been what Jayron wrote. SliceNYC 22:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's only an anti-merge argument. The reality is that all of the information on this page is available here, and Major League Baseball All-Star Game could then include a link to that site. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent! You found a source! That proved verifiability. One more reason to keep. --Jayron32 03:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability was never in question here - you won't find a sport with better statistical records than baseball. The point is that this information is easily available elsewhere, and simply reproducing that content here is a violation of WP:NOT. If the article could be expanded to include something more than just a list of stats, I'd see the logic behind keeping it, but I don't see how that is possible. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. Fair enough arguement. But the information is valid for inclusion in wikipedia. Where do you propose it go? I already noted that a merge with the main article may be in order. Do you have a better place for it, or are you contesting that WikiPedia not include such information at all? --Jayron32 03:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing in favor of deletion. The article can't stand as is, nor is it ever likely to become a free-standing article rather than a list of numbers, leaving deletion or merge as the options. The All-Star Game is a meaningless exhibition, one not taken even a little bit seriously by most of the players (witness all the defections from the announced rosters each year), and I don't see how information like most All-Star Game balks (2) or triples (also 2) is encyclopedic. I'll respect the consensus, of course, but if we're not deleting, let's trim this to the major stats before a merge with Major League Baseball All-Star Game. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opie and Anthony's Traveling Virus Comedy Tour[edit]

Delete - This article is for something that no longer exists and certainly does not need it's own article. Attention whore 02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both to Kingdom Hearts. Yomanganitalk 14:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keyblade, Princesses of Hearts[edit]

As this was part of Glossary of terms from the Kingdom Hearts series, which was deleted, I don't see any particular reason why this shouldn't be deleted as well. Interrobamf 02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Princesses of Hearts has been added since it is in the same situation. Interrobamf 12:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, leaving 'the nature of keyblades' and intro out, the remaining three headings could be slapped straight into the KH article during the AFD if nobody objects? Let's see how it goes, but if more contributors think this should be merged/redirected/deleted then it'd be the work of a minute. QuagmireDog 00:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The info really should be merged into the story section. No separate sections. "Sora gets the Keyblade, an important weapon/object because blah blah blah". Interrobamf 00:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. The story section of KH (possibly most of the article by the looks of it) needs rewriting anyhow, so it's not like the article will be compromised by inserting that text, but it will at least serve as a reminder to expand on the keyblade point when the article is overhauled. QuagmireDog 00:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (not that that stops anyone redirecting this where they wish). --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spitting dragon[edit]

Fails to assert notability. Note that it is about a project rather than a band (thus not under the scope of csd a7). Contested prod. MER-C 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanieo[edit]

Appears to have been submitted by the subject. No independent evidence of notability. --Peta 03:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 far as I can see, all the concerns of the delete proponents were addressed by Arthur Rubin. It is the responsbility of participants to watch discussions for new evidence and either change their opinion or explain why the evidence is insufficient. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drugs I Need[edit]

Contested ((db-web)) speedy. Editor removed tag saying "Video is done by notable group." The problem is, it's not. I'm assuming the editor was referring to the line in the article that reads "The animation, which is supported by JibJab...", but all that means is that JibJab is hosting a copy on their servers; they did not do the animation. Take out the JibJab line and I see no notability at all. To make matters worse, the animation is a highly POV ad attacking drug companies. To top it all off, zero wikilinks. --Aaron 03:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Further reasons to delete: I just discovered that JibJab no longer even offers this video on their web site. I've removed the JibJab references from the article. --Aaron 03:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe the notable group to which they refer is the Austin Lounge Lizards. SteveHopson 03:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, they sang the song, but they didn't do the video... --Aaron 03:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where's the video? El_C 08:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drausio R. Haddad[edit]

Subject is not notable. Page author and suspected sockpuppets have repeatedly inserted name into multiple articles. Also note duplicate of this article, Drausio Haddad has been previously nominated for deletion SteveHopson 03:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Can't sleep, clown will eat me. MER-C 08:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kenneally Features[edit]

Article consists entirely of nonsense, inside jokes and personal attacks. Dyfsunctional 03:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by JesseW. MER-C 08:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PIITB[edit]

Silly neologism of uncertain notability. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 has been pointed out, WP:WEB requires coverage that is directly related to the subject. Some of the 'coverage' presented here by the keep side doesn't even mention the website, only the emulator, whose article is not up for discussion here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emulators unlimited[edit]

I don't believe this website meets WP:WEB. Now don't get me wrong the emulator UltraHLE which they helped distribute widely is (or at least was) notable, no question about it. The website however is not. I suppose we could redirect to UltraHLE but then again, I'd rather have even that choice confirmed through AfD since I've been in disagreement with the creator (and sole editor) of the page. The search "emulators unlimited" on Google returns about 10K hits, not bad but then again not so good given they've existed for 10 years and that of the first 1K hits, only 260 are unique [5]. More problematic is that searching those links I could not find any solid third party references. Pascal.Tesson 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the webmaster of emuunlim.com and any questions on why you dont think that this (alongside other websites included such as Zophars Domain) shouldnt reside on wikipedia please ask, whether you feel that the website didnt have any significance on the emulation/internet regarding media attention and regarding UltraHLE, is souly down to your judgement at this moment of time, im sure that Realityman (Gordon, UltraHLE) will vouch that we played a major part of changing history & bringing it into the forefront (myself being the first person to test it also) of the emulation fans and the media, if you need any more validation, contact Nintendo :)

want some validation? okay:

http://www.emuhq.com/idx/5/004/article/UltraHLE-In-the-Press-News-articles.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/02/03/n64_emulator_vanishes_after_lawsuit/

correction, the current search of "emuunlim" (emuunlim.com is the website) shows 126,000 on google and "emulators unlimited" shows 1,570,000.

thanks and keep up the great work on wiki! ste (fox)

Comment Well if you put quotes around "emulators unlimited" it's below a thousand. Note that the search without the quotes is meaningless since it will hit any page with the words "unlimited" and "emulators" in it. The search with the quote tells you that about 1 out of every 1500 of this million and a half hits is relevant to the website. As for the search for emuunlim, yes it does get a lot. Yet half of those are the pages from the site itself! [6] A quick look at the remainder of the hits shows that the site does not come close to meeting WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 20:15, 10 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Emulators Unlimited isn't even the focus of the story linked by Mr Manticore above; the story is about a lawsuit against another company, with later content describing the subsequent announcement of UltraHLE, mentioning that "it relies on illegally copied ROMs." Frankly, a hack based on illegal copying may easily get popularity among a small niche, but it needs real evidence of mainstream coverage to meet WP's standards. I read references to MIME (another game emulator) frequently, but if I ever heard of "Emulators Unlimited", it was in a throwaway context. Barno 13:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commment I'd like to second the previous comment. Noone is contesting the notability of the emulators. We are contesting the notability of the website itself. Pascal.Tesson 13:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol :)

here is the UK's leading PC gaming magazine "PC Zone", covering my website etc in May 1999 just after UltraHLE was released:

(please scroll down to the part that says: "The Fox was interviewed by PC ZONE, the UK's biggest PC magazine. Who gave us the following three pages" and you should see three page scans)

http://www.emuunlim.com/about.php

IGN magazine covered it too, but need to dig that out :)

just as a snippet, Gremlin Graphics officially allowed emuunlim.com to host the back catalogue of their titles online:

http://gremlinworld.emuunlim.com/

and i interviewed Jeff Minter (creator of Tempest, Tempest 2000 and Llamatron):

http://pt.emuunlim.com/interview.htm

ESPN.com LINKS OF THE DAY: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/links/050801

- emuunlim (fox)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 indiscriminant information. Wickethewok 14:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chiki Kah[edit]

Non-notable game information from an MMRPG. Not worthy of its own article. Should be deleted. I considered a PROD for this article, but as it appears to be actively being worked on, I figured the PROD would be removed anyways, and so jumped a step. Also, it appears that the original author intends a whole series of articles like this. He should be dissuaded. Jayron32 05:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by default - there are too many issues under discussion here, none of which seems to involve deleting the article, and the subject has shifted halfway through the process with the creation of the environmentalism article. Discussion of the relative merits of a disambiguation page, redirect or move can be discussed on the talk page. Yomanganitalk 17:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bright green[edit]

Two problems here. 1) This article, which was created to be about the color bright green, has twice been hijacked by environmentalists who blanked the article without any discussion and turned it into an article about a supposed "subcategory" of environmentalism [8] [9]. 2) The term is a neologism that apparently is in little use even within the environmentalist movement. A Google search on "'bright green' +environmentalism" pulls up only 445 hits total [10], and even starting on the first page of results, most of the hits use the phrase "bright green" purely to mean, well, "bright green", as in "bright green oasis", "bright green in color", etc. Since there appears to be an orchestrated campaign by a certain few editors to hijack the page, I felt it would be best to go for a full AfD instead of simply reverting to the page's original content. Delete. Aaron 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


I have considered the discussion and the page in question: a delete verdict it is, for reasons best summed up by User:Khoikhoi. —Encephalon 05:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters missing an appendage[edit]

Because ... uh ... WTF!!??!? Just look at it! --Aaron 05:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: WP:LIST, of course, is largely a style guide that says little to nothing about what sorts of lists are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. By Jayron32's standards, any list about anything would get a speedy keep as long as it was formatted correctly. As for me being a little lighthearted in in nomination, guilty as charged. The reason for the nom is self-evident. --Aaron 05:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, only lists whose content is notable and verifiable should be included. This meets both tests. Consider the following from Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Appropriate topics for lists:

    " If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.)."

by analogy, a list of fictional characters would be too long. This is merely a listing of fictional characters by a notable trait. This is hardly a normally deletion worthy article. Check the history. It has dozens of editors and dates back over 2 years. If the page was not useful, it would not show this kind of activity. The list article has proved its usefulness by that standard. Oh, and nothing at wikipedia is self-evident. If you want to delete, make a point that shows this information is a) not notable b) not verifiable or c) redundant. If none of these apply, the article has no reason to be deleted. --Jayron32 05:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At first, I thought this list might have originally been created as a, uhh, "service" for those with Amputee fetishism. But given that the list skews heavily toward comic-book characters and sci-fi movie heroes who had their limbs replaced with better ones, I can't even figure out what an amputee fetishist would get out of this list. --Aaron 14:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, "It's useful" is a valid supporting argument, if used to mean "it helps readers make encyclopedic use of the article". But "usefulness" by itself doesn't get a topic past core inclusion policies like WP:V or WP:NOR. Barno 17:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In certain cases, amputation is a core trait... I agree with that and believe that should be covered in the characters' respective articles; however, in many of these cases, this does not hold up and, again, it's just an arbitrary trait that they share with other characters. It is of little difference from "Fictional characters with long hair" or "Fictional characters who live in mansions." My test is, after reading through the entries in the list, is there a possible reasonable answer to the question "So what?" If the answer is yes, there is likely an encyclopaedic use for this list. If the answer is either no or is a contrived, strecthed sort of case, as occurs here, then it probably doesn't belong. GassyGuy 23:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is quite a stretch to compare a permanent condition like amputation with "long hair" or "living in mansions" -- both of these are transitory states, and not a core physical disability, which is always employed by a fictional creator for a specific purpose. Just because a topic or list is relevant or important to you does not make it an invalid article. Would you make the same argument for List_of_people_with_visual_disabilities, which has a section of "Ancient, fictional, and mythological characters"? Or make a similar claim for List_of_Jewish_superheroes? (Which went through its own AfD with a keep consensus.) --LeflymanTalk 01:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of people with visual disabilities - no, I wouldn't make the same sort of argument. List of Jewish superheroes - I don't read comic books and therefore couldn't tell you how the religion aspect plays into them, so I would feel unqualified to offer any sort of opinion. However, I do make the same sort of case by case basis, and I was not saying that I attempted to find relevance to me - I was saying I attempted to find a possible reasonable answer - as in, something that could be relevant to people even if not me personally. Please don't twist my arguments. GassyGuy 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not clear how you view a list of fictional characters with visual disabilities as different from a list of fictional amputees? You wrote, "My test is, after reading through the entries in the list..." that's a pretty clear personal discretionary method. The answer to "So what?", as I gave above, is that the motif of amputation is used for a specific purpose by authors; it is not an arbitrary or accidental trait in fiction.--LeflymanTalk 01:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The amputation of Captain Hook is similar to the amputation of Frodo Baggins which in turn was employed with a similar purpose as the amputation of Thomas Covenant? Sorry, perhaps you can help me with this one? GassyGuy 02:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the question -- and if you'll allow me to expound on this rather interesting topic, I hope I can answer the "So what?" to your satisfaction. First to clarify: I wrote "amputation is used for a specific purpose" -- not "similar" purpose. The amputations of the characters you've mentioned are central to their characters and story development. Captain Hook's amputation of his hand by Peter Pan, and the subsequent eating of his appendage by the Crocodile are the core axes of his character's arc: because of this, Hook is set on a vendetta against Peter, and is in turn hunted by the Croc (who found the taste of the hand delicious) -- both of which prove to be his undoing: hook is ultimately defeated by Peter and swallowed whole by the crocodile. In the case of Frodo Baggins, the amputation of his finger, by being bitten off by the Gollum, is the climax to the entire course of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It is only through this, that the One Ring is ultimately destroyed. Thereafter, he's called "Frodo of the Nine Fingers" in acknowledgement of his status. Finally, and just as critically, Thomas Covenant was actually created by Stephen Donaldson based on his father's description of experiences with leprosy in India. Covenant's leprosy is discovered after the amputation of his fingers, and becomes the central thread of his struggle to survive. In his first appearance in Lord_Foul's_Bane, his amputation is what identifies him as the reincarnation of Berek Halfhand. You may be interested in reading an article from the April 2001 American Psychologist journal, "Creative Cognition, Conceptual Combination, and the Creative Writing of Stephen R. Donaldson "[11], which notes, "To help himself to avoid the prospect of future amputations, Covenant has developed a rigid discipline of regularly surveying his extremities for injuries... The dynamic tension between the attractions of the fantasy world and Covenant's fear of neglecting the discipline that has kept him well sets the stage for a remarkably compelling story."--LeflymanTalk 03:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but when you'd said specific, I'd assumed that meant one specific purpose - so, in essence, if I read you correctly, your argument is that these people all have a purpose for having a missing appendage. I never said they didn't. In fact, I'm sorry you wrote all of these explanations, because I not only agree but already found those three amputations important to their respective stories. What I'm saying, however, is that that purpose isn't similar. I think that the missing appendage should be documented in each character's article because it is indeed important. What I am saying is that this list cannot demonstrate much because the purposes and portrayals are starkly different, so that this list, again, becomes a group of characters sharing an arbitrary characteristic. The characteristic is important enough to be documented in the character's articles, sure; but the memebrs of the list are related by any sort of encyclopaedic connection, just a common trait. GassyGuy 03:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've just acknowledged why this is a notable list: that the amputations are an important part of the fictional characters. However, it's inaccurate to claim that it's an "arbitrary characteristic" -- as you've just pointed out yourself, it's not at all arbitrary. The choice by an author of making a character an amputee is a trait perhaps more significant even than being visual disability in fiction-- amputation becomes a critical element of change for most of the characters, whereas blindness in fictional characters is either inherent from the beginning or a motif of symbolic significance as an outcome for some wrongdoing (e.g. As in Oedipus and later fiction, eyes being plucked out is a popular theme).--LeflymanTalk 07:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we must be arguing different things. I have never argued against the missing appendage being somehow significant to the character or story - I am saying that there is no actual encyclopedic connection among characters who have missing appendages. You yourself said that the authors' purposes are not similar, just that each individual case has a purpose. What you've given is a very good argument for why missing appendages should be detailed in the individual articles for these characters, and I agree. What I still don't see is any explanation how this list helps to elucidate on characters missing appendages rather than simply collects them indiscriminately. GassyGuy 08:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you have a differing understanding of what an "indiscriminate list" is. There's no need for the authors to have exactly the same purpose in making certain characters disabled -- as you have already agreed, the use of amputation by an author is notable, in and of itself. That's what makes it encyclopedic. How is this list indiscriminate -- or any less descriminate than the hundreds of other Lists_of_fictional_things that make up Wikipedia? Perhaps you might apply the same metric to the dozen other articles in the category Lists of fictional characters by medical condition?--LeflymanTalk 23:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that not everyone on this list is an amputee, so they don't even have that in common. GassyGuy 02:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: 86.140.144.83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

That name would be inaccurate. Not everybody on this list is an amputee. GassyGuy 00:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. Well, renaming optional then. Still keep, as this is a case where imo a list is better than a category. --tjstrf 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who on this list is not an amputee? Amputation doesn't require a surgical procedure; according to that article, "Amputation is the removal of a body extremity by trauma or surgery." Everyone listed here would seem to qualify.--LeflymanTalk 23:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of what amputation is. I also think Wicked is an awesome musical and can't recall any element of the plot that establishes Nessarose Thropp is an amputee. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe her lack of arms was not through amputation, but rather was because she was born without them. GassyGuy 01:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I meant the novel in this case (though the musical was great too) and mistyped. Apologies for any potential confusion. GassyGuy 01:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, that single entry has been removed as a congenital birth defect -- although that's correct for the current title, but not the list of fictional amputees. Next?--LeflymanTalk 03:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you remove that entry? What significance do you attribute to amputees somehow? It still doesn't serve a similar purpose within the story. While I repeatedly agree that the authors have a purpose, I maintain that there's no reason to group them when all of the purposes are dissimilar. I feel as if we're going over the same ground repeatedly and see no reason to do so, so I shan't be adding to this AfD anymore (I pretty much said everything I had to say days ago and have just been rephrasing myself since.) Anyway, at a glance I don't notice anyone else who wouldn't fit the amputee list, but I can't be bothered to study a list I think ought not exist in the first place. GassyGuy 04:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Tupac Shakur. - Yomanganitalk 15:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makaveli Records[edit]

It is about a company that would have been created if we were in a differnt universe - Wiki in not a crystal ball ArmadilloFromHell 05:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because this record company really was not started up, everything there is to say is mentioned in Tupac's article, and the theory that Suge killed Tupac is not verifiable, therefore not relevent to this article. Resolute 03:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noot[edit]

Contested prod [12]. Dictionary definition/NN neologism. -- IslaySolomon 06:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Consequentially 06:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy close because this is re-opening a closed discussion, that is currently the subject of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 21#Web_operating_system, which review has not yet concluded. Uncle G 14:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web operating system[edit]

Previously deleted Sleepyhead 13:48, 23 October 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web operating system[edit]

  • Delete or Merge No such thing as web operating system. OS cannot be a web-page. Delete or merge to web desktop Sleepyhead 06:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article, entitled "What the heck is a web operating system?", would beg to differ. See also Internet Operating Systems. Uncle G 12:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see WebOS for several platforms to which this term has been applied. I suggest keeping WebOS for the projects by that specific name and using this article for the concept (including examples at Internet Operating Systems, which is an essay). Gazpacho 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Internet Operating Systems (I volunteer). Gazpacho 18:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete EliasAlucard|Talk 06:47, 14 Oct, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to WebOS; this article is unverified, uncited, and non-notable. Vectro 18:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Between Office 2.0, webtop and this there seems to be something a bit odd going on at the moment. Artw 19:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links to Web 3.0 seem to crop up in all of those articles as well. Artw 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Term invented here. Unrelated to WebOS project. Pavel Vozenilek 22:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it was not invented here. myWebOS used the phrase in 1999.[13] Most of the exlinks on the WebOS page are not related to the WebOS project either. Gazpacho 22:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge with Internet Operating Systems - never heard of a web operating system, how can it exist?Maybe if it is something related to HTML or a server-side language then it could be argued that they are web-operating systems, but the actual term of an operating system wouldn't fit this description.Matthuxtable 11:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Article author's note) Ok, I'm learning (wikipedia policies). I'll readily admit I was doing something wrong --- the wikipedia policies are a lot more strict than I had expected. I had assumed a bit too much of an old school wild wild web kind of spirit that would permit what was essentially part essay or not verifiable. The article has been modified extensively. If possible, please review the article and give me some feedback if you see problems. JohnPritchard 16:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 no consensus - WP:V is of course not negotiable, but the subject does have a good number of hits on Factiva, some substantial, so there isn't enough convincing argument or majority here to justify deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enver Masud[edit]

I am concerned that the article cannot be verified and that the subject may not be notable under WP:BIO. All his books are self published and the only web reference for the award is his website. The organization has no web presence but may actually exist as it is listed here. With no website or listing in catalouges of human rights organizations it is probably not notable in itself. Eluchil404 07:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but it is, at least on the internet the only evidence of the award is his own website. Eluchil404 02:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 has been adequately and coherently pointed out below, despite mass armwaving actual multiple credible third-party sources (i.e. not press releases or passing mentions) are conspicuous by their absence.

The majority for keeping is rendered insubstantial by the fact that a significant proportion of its editors have no reasoning, faulty reasoning (claiming inclusion as an indicator of notability among the least bizarre but nonetheless incorrect) or empty assertions with nothing to back them up. I expect this to be controversial but evidence and policy, not votes, is what decides AfDs. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jurong Point Shopping Centre[edit]


Non-notable shopping mall. --Nehwyn 07:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ok lah, reference added liow lah, satisfied or not? Not happy then boh ban huat loh....Lol —Sengkang 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, write your motivations in English! This is the English Wikipedia. Thanks! :) --Nehwyn 11:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:STYLE: Article have strong tie with the region, and the use of dialect is understandable. Look up the meaning if you are looking so much forward to know what it meant. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 05:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dialect is fine, as long as it is an English dialect. "boh ban huat" is hardly English. --Nehwyn 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then that is just too bad for you. I dont supposed you know what that means, or do you?--Huaiwei 07:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia has English discussions. For article and discussion in other languages, other Wikipedias exist. If an article or comment is posted in another language on the English Wikipedia, it is fair to ask for a translation into English. --Nehwyn 08:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article, and both of your arguments, are in need of cited sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Neither you nor the article have cited any, not even one to support your assertion that this is a major shopping mall. Uncle G 09:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOCAL; Place of local interest. Jurong Point is neither a company, club nor corporation. Its a public commercial complex, and it is the focal structure within the town centre of Jurong West and Boon Lay. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 05:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... but you haven't cited any sources. Re-arranging the deck-chairs won't help make a case for keeping the article. Sources will. Uncle G 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. Instead of making fallacious arguments, please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied, as already requested above. Uncle G 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the article would be "a great insult to all Singaporeans"? You mean this mall has relevance as a national monument for Singapore? If so, please accept my apologies in proposing this deletion, but make sure that statement is included in the article. As for the rest of your argument, as it has been remarked already "if X then Y" is generally not considered a valid point in Wikipedia deletion debates, except for reporting other articles in need of a prod tag. I did propose deletion for some of them; the others did have a claim to notability. --Nehwyn 15:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The comment above is from the article author. --Nehwyn 10:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again... then "if X then Y" reasoning is not generally considered a valid point in a deletion debate, which should be based on the article in question. Your second point, on the other hand, may meet one of the WP:CORP criteria... any sources for that? --Nehwyn 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've worked places with parking lots bigger than 700,000 square feet, and those lots don't get WP articles. Why should size matter unless the mall is notable specifically for being "the world's largest"? I don't see that we should include every nation's largest mall, every nation's tallest building, etc. unless there are verifiable third-party sources featuring that fact. A local newspaper's article saying "mall being expanded" is of little weight by itself, as every mall has probably gotten a two-paragraph blurb in its local paper. Is this one Singapore's largest or just "yardstick of other ... malls"? Barno 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the population density of Singapore? - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance of this datum to Wikipedia inclusion policies? Barno 20:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The small land area of Singapore limits the size of architectures, which make Jurong Point one of the largest and most notable in Singapore. Perhaps Jurong Point is insignificant compared to American or whatever standards, but are you saying that we are supposed to neglect local standards when editing articles relating to local events/places and adopt only American standards? Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 05:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I'm saying we are supposed to adhere to Wikipedia standards, including verifiable significance rather than whether a couple of local people claim importance without evidence. Note that at least one other editor claims to be from there and claims it's not more significant than other shopping centers. Freddy's General Store might be the most important shopping facility in a town of fifty people in South Dakota, but that "local standard" isn't evidence of Wikipedia importance. Otherwise WP would be swamped in articles for a hundred thousand malls "one of the largest and most notable in XXX" for which nothing encyclopedic could be documented. Barno 13:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All well and good, albeit we arent talking about an "important shopping facility in a town of fifty people in South Dakota".--Huaiwei 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not limit yourself to "major mall"; give a motivation why the article meets WP:CORP.  :) --Nehwyn 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about a corporation, WP:CORP does not apply. This article is not about the owner or management of the mall, most people don't really care or know who the owner is. This is about a public place, with tens of thousands of people visiting there each day. It has medical clinics and a public library, etc, and is major part of public amenities in Jurong. --Vsion 18:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Tens of thousands of people visit the mall every day..." - sources? The problem with this article has been clearly stated early on by Uncle G - sources are needed! Without sources, anyone can say that about any place and there's no way to verify what they are saying is correct. If I were more skeptical and hadn't seen the place myself, I'd say the page writer is just making it up. "Major" and "many people visit this place" are what you can hear at the kopitiam ("coffee shop", for non-Singaporeans); (un)fortunately, Wikipedia is not the kopitiam anyone can edit - sources have to be provided. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what you are talking about? The nomination said the subject is not-notable, which is false. The source to these facts is already given in the "external link" before the nomination. If the nominator missed it, and someone had to highlight the infor, it is perfectly alright and that is what I was trying to do above. On the other hand, if one editor doubt another's comment for no apparent reason and don't bother to do his/her own research or even follow up with the links, that is not very constructive.--Vsion 05:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "external link" you mention as a reference for your statements is the shopping centre's own website. I did not miss it; I merely believe that cannot be used as an independent source about the shopping centre itself. --Nehwyn 11:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of "independent source" would you like to see? If I march up to that mall and snap a photo of the crowds, is that "independent" enough in your books?--Huaiwei 14:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's in my books is of little importance; it is Wikipedia:Independent_sources and WP:V which count in this case. I still think th official website of a commercial venue cannot be considered an independent source for claims about that venue. --Nehwyn 16:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do expect my question to be answered thou.--Huaiwei 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note sure I follow you on the last one... doesn't anyone? --Nehwyn 17:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I arent sure what "note sure" means either, but I can overlook that.--Huaiwei 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. What I meant to say is that I haven't understood why you stated that you expect your questions answered. If by that you mean that you feel I haven't answered "what kind of independent source would you like to see"?, I should probably rephrase my answer then: "The kind of independent source I would like to see is the one which would satisfy the definition of independet source found at Wikipedia:Independent_sources. A venue's official website cannot be defined as "independent" from that same venue." Again, sorry if that wasn't clear from the start. --Nehwyn 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are still not answering the question. I asked about the acceptability of my own photos. Do Wikipedia:Independent_sources make any mention of that?--Huaiwei 04:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The claim was "tens of thousands of people"... So no, I don't think a single photograph can confirm that number. We need factual, written references by third-party sources. --Nehwyn 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, you are making the assumption that my photo is meant to support that particular claim. Where did I make this association? Second, your statement "factual, written references by third-party sources" suggests that I am not an independent source, and that only "factual, writtern sources" are permitted. Is this true? Please point out the relevant wikipolicy which explicitely states as such.--Huaiwei 07:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What claim would your photograph be considered a source for? As for my statement on the need for third-party sources, if persons provide direct evidences (in this case, a photograph) of a certain state of affairs, those evidences may be used as Wikipedia sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher. If you edit the article to insert your photograph, the burden of evidence for that edit lies with you (the user who has made the edit).. --Nehwyn 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, be more specific as to which reasons motivate you. Thanks!  :) --Nehwyn 11:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Huaiwei - what you say is all well and good and would result in a keep, except without a citation what you say is entirely your own conjecture (original research) and can't be put forwards as a reason to keep - can you get a citation to that effect? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet. And how nice it is to sit around demanding for citations when practically every person who knows about its existance are vouching for its prominence, which should surely motivate some of you to do some checking up as well? A bit of googling wont hurt. The simple reason why I arent doing it yet is because I arent gonna waste time citing sources to be rejected at the whimp and fancy of some folks here.--Huaiwei 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that... but please, do keep in mind that notabiity is not "vouched for" by editors on Wikipedia. It requires sources. --Nehwyn 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also do be aware that any editor can jolly well be bold enough to help find sources for any article, irrespective of whether they are the original authors or not.--Huaiwei 04:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they can. Anyone can help!  :) --Nehwyn 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does "anyone" include yourself?--Huaiwei 07:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You conveniently lumped an essay (WP:INDY) with a guideline (WP:CORP) and treat them as thou they are policy. There has been contestations that a shopping centre, which is in reality a piece of real estate, is not a corporation, nor a singular business, and does not fall under WP:CORP. One also notes that sources deemed non-independent are not in themselves ample criteria for deletion. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Company_and_organization_websites clearly indicates that company or organization websites should be treated with caution, but makes no mention that this amounts to outright rejection of the said source and hence, deletion.--Huaiwei 15:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of non-independent sources is indeed not a deletion criterion. It is the absence of independent sources that is. --Nehwyn 16:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is true, it will not make logical sense. How is it possible for non-independent sources to be permissable, yet non-permissable at the same time? And mind telling us if all articles in wikipedia who base much of their content on an "official site" are now worthy for deletion?--Huaiwei 16:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My statement above does not regard "permissibility". It regarded deletion criteria. From a logical point of view, it is perfectly possible for "presence of non-independent source" not to be a deletion criterion, and for "absence of independent sources" to be one. As for your observation on other articles, again I must state that I prefer to judge each article on its own merits. --Nehwyn 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article can have both independent sources and non-independent (related) sources. A good article will use both independent and related sources. The issue isn't whether or not the related sources are used. The issue is whether the independent sources are available and used. If the independent sources are not available, the article should be deleted as a consequence of WP:NPOV and WP:V. If the independent sources are available but not used, the article should be improved by using them. The best evidence that the independent sources are available is their use, but pointing out other sources that cite such independent sources is sometimes adequate. The opinions of individual editors that something is significant enough to cover carry no weight compared to the opinions of independent sources. We ignore related sources in discussing notability because related sources are inherently biased.
I also think it is obvious from my comment that I said WP:CORP was the standard. Links to essays are perfectly acceptable as longer explanations of an opinion given in discussion. The failure to use independent sources is evidence that it is impossible to write an article adhering to WP:NPOV without violating WP:V or WP:NOR, all of which are core policies. GRBerry 22:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started an enquiry in [14] on the application of that guideline on shopping malls.--Huaiwei 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness' sake, let us report here that said enquiry has been answered. See the link above for the discussion. --Nehwyn 16:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterate WP:LOCAL; Place of local interest. Jurong Point is neither a company, club nor corporation. Its a public commercial complex, and it is the focal structure within the town centre of Jurong West and Boon Lay. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, WP:LOCAL is a proposed guideline. It has never been accepted and really has no relevance other than as an essay statement to summarize a particular point of view.--Isotope23 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That dosent stop others from using WP:INDY, also an essay, as a reasoning for deletion.--Huaiwei 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a major difference between the two. WP:INDY leads with a one sentence summary of the essay that is an argument from policies. No such summary of WP:LOCAL exists or is possible. To top it off, WP:LOCAL says in the section entitled "Creating articles about places of local interest" that references should be included in an article about a local place of interest. So I can also argue "Delete because the article does not have the references required by WP:LOCAL." WP:LOCAL is a reason to delete the article, not to keep it, because the article is not up to the level that WP:LOCAL expects. GRBerry 16:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether there is a difference between two essays isnt for a single wikipedian to define, however. We are concerned about policy implimentation here, not about writting styles. If both are indeed essays, then both should be treated with equal weightage.--Huaiwei 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Notability: Whether you think this page is controlled by WP:CORP or the general notability guideline, notability has not been established. WP:LOCAL is not helpful, as the proposed guideline explicitly states that it does not establish notability requirements. There is no verified statement anywhere that establishes why this mall is notable, other than that it is a large mall in Singapore. The basic requirement of most notability pages -- two non-trivial references in verifiable and reliable sources is not onerous, and has not been met.
  2. Verification: Not one statement on the page is verified by any reliable source. As written in WP:NOT, "all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small 'garage' or local companies are not likely to be acceptable."
  3. Advertising: The page as it is written reads like advertising copy, and its only function is to advise readers of the amenties available at the mall, and to direct readers to the mall's website. This fails for several reasons: (a) Advertisements masquerating as articles are not only inappropriate, they may be speedy deleted; (b) Wikipedia is not a directory; and (c) Wikipedia is not advertising.
  4. Incurable: As I've said, the page's defenders have had several days. I don't see that any of the problems above are curable, much less all of them.
Thanks, TheronJ 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with the article, Jurong Point is notable and verified. The article is referenced, NPOV, not disputed, informative, and has a picture. --Vsion 00:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I point out, that the conclusion "notability is not established" is no longer governed by whether this comes under WP:CORP or not, but whether the sources which are already listed are Independent enough to be considered reliable. As is the case for many above, I dispute the notion that non-independent sources are always assumed to be unreliable. None of the stated guidelines above explicitely rule out the possibility of reliable non-independent sources, and not one person here could proof that those sources are indeed unreliable.--Huaiwei 11:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change reason for nomination: To clear up the confusion the last post engenders, as the nominator I state again that the proposed reason for deleting this article is that it does not meet the relevant notability criteria. In this case, WP:CORP applies, so multiple, non-trivial, independent sources must be quoted by the article to establish its notability. As it stands, the article contains only one such source, whose reliability I have not questioned. As for non-independent sources, whether they are reliable or not, the article can of course contain them, but they are not eligible as notability criteria under WP:CORP. --Nehwyn 14:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple such sources. In the above, Mailer has already given another source from the Business Times. Let me add another one from a govt. agency [15]. So, any remaining problem? This Afd is already a futile effort, we are just entertaining each other here ;), which is alright. But basically, if the article was to be deleted, it would just be wasting the contributors' effort and reducing the comprehensiveness of wikipedia (although some editors don't care about shopping malls, but the majority do.) We can discuss forever, but in short, the reason cited for deletion is really very weak. --Vsion 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The webpage quoted by Mailer above mentions Jurong Point Shopping Centre when stating that a new large mall may be built near it in 2008-2009. That is not a notability assertion for the present mall. --Nehwyn 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Verifiability policy: "Material from self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as it is relevant to the person's or organization's notability." Does this apply here? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, non-independent sources can be used as sources, sure; they just cannot be used as notability criteria under WP:CORP. This being a debate on notability, that concern indeed does not apply here. --Nehwyn 04:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intermix (store)[edit]

Article about a small store chain does not establish notabilty or contain encyclopedic information - Wikipedia is not a business directory Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 whether to delete or merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon types[edit]

This article is entirely original research and violates Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:NOT, which states that Wikipedia is not a venue for game guide information and is not a dumping ground. I suggest that this be placed in an interested party's userspace to transwiki it or keep for personal use and then delete it from Wikipedia hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not like there's anyone who actually thinks it should be kept... -Amarkov babble 04:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage of popular game/anime series seems to have improved vastly recently; it seems that the wikiprojects are now taking maintenance as seriously as expansion, and simultaneously the deletionists have stopped being so aggressive (no references to notability so far here, only one mention of cruft, etc). I think it's safe to be optimistic. :)
    As for this article, merging the details that pokemon experts consider useful and well-established is the way to go. — Haeleth Talk 11:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Cartel[edit]

Article was prodded and expired its duration. Thought it deserved an AFD so listing here. No Opinion from me. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 08:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nothing here that doesn't flow naturally from the title ("Digimon Wii is a Digimon game for the Wii"). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon Wii[edit]

Article doesn't adhere to Wikipedia policies, specifically that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If and when the game is actually made, the article can and should be recreated hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE both. -Splash - tk 19:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitecross Systems[edit]

Also nominated is Netezza. The nominated articles were created by a corporate vanity account, Kognitio (talk · contribs). The two articles that share the username have been tagged for speedy deletion as spam. Both show no indication of meeting WP:CORP. MER-C 09:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Chris Wallace interview of Bill Clinton[edit]

This is an article about an interview. We generally do not have articles on press conferences, interviews, talk show appearances, and the like. Rather, important material from such events is added to the relevant articles either on substantive topics or on the participants. Any important new points that Clinton made should be merged into the relevant articles on those topics. If it is important that Clinton accuses Wallace of bias, that should be merged into the Wallace article. Derex 10:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No way. You just have to get off your fixation with this interview. The interview is only one piece of "Clinton administration anti-terrorism actions", which in turn is only one piece of "Clinton administration", which in turn is only one piece of "Bill Clinton". If the article on Bill Clinton tried to cover everything at the level of detail you want for this tiny piece, the article would be book-length.
What Wikipedia does instead is to use a hierarchical "daughter article" system. See generally Wikipedia:Summary style. For example, the Clinton bio article contains a reference to the Cole bombing, with a wikilink to the article USS Cole bombing. The latter article includes a mention of the different POVs about the Clinton and Bush administration responses (or lack thereof) to the Cole bombing. That section could be expanded with information from different sources, including but not limited to the Wallace interview. Other parts of the interview, of course, related to other subjects. The interview itself just wasn't such a significant event in Bill Clinton's life that it deserves that much space in his bio article. By way of comparison, note that the current version of the Bill Clinton article gives much more attention to this fifteen-minute interview than to Clinton's own autobiography of several hundred pages. The treatment of the interview in that article shouldn't be further expanded; it should be reduced substantially or eliminated. JamesMLane t c 07:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight: Someone responds to Chris Wallace's question by criticizing him as a "conservative hit" man and that goes in his Wikipedia entry. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton can say whatever he wants, and Wikipedia is expected to parrot this at face value, with no contarty viewpoints to express. Does not adhere to an overal neutral policy, IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.234.11 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I just looked at the text on the interview in the Chris Wallace article. It does present Brit Hume's critique of Clinton's claims. For want of a better phrase: it reads pretty fair and balanced to me. First, in the description of the interview. Next in the Media Matters (pro-Clinton) and Brit Hume (con-Clinton) paragraphs.PaulLev 05:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My response to the anon: No, you haven't gotten it straight. Whether Chris Wallace is biased is a subject that's about Chris Wallace, so it goes in the Chris Wallace article. Whether Bill Clinton, when he was President, acted appropriately after the Cole bombing is not about Chris Wallace and does not go in the Chris Wallace article. Where that subject is properly addressed, i.e. in the USS Cole bombing article, we should report all notable points of view. That means we report what Clinton has said on the subject but we don't "parrot" it (if by that you mean that we assert the truth of one side of a contested issue). We also report any notable criticisms of Clinton, though again without adopting them. The same is true of the other aspects of the underlying disputes about the Clinton administration's and the Bush administration's respective responses to terrorism. JamesMLane t c 05:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon game mechanics[edit]

Clear example of failing Wikipedia policy in regards to no game guide information. The title alone lets us know that policies are being violated (game mechanics) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 10:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak keep now that the article has been significantly cleaned. GassyGuy 23:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk 11:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eichmannphobia[edit]

A sick joke, and a WP:OR. Please recategorize as you see fit. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knox Glass Bottle Company[edit]

For your consideration, a non-notable local bottlemaking company, which was bought up by another non-notable bottlemaking company now defunct. An attempt has been made to show some kind of notability - an apparently ground-breaking decision involving the company in Mississippi. Nuh-uh. It's just corporate cheerleading from the lawfirms website ("define in detail" is the relevant weasel phrase). This fails WP:CORP. Eusebeus 10:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radiohead overview and influence[edit]

yes People, I am the one who is deleting the majority of the aritcle. I am the one that wknight94 was talking about, and yes untill you can source whatever it was that I deleted, I'm afraid it will stay deleted. 71.236.225.50 03:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom political polls[edit]

Mainly repeated infoormation from Opinion Poll Rob.derosa 11:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anydays[edit]

Non-notable band, 23 Ghits. Speedy delete tag removed twice. - TexMurphy 12:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Tenendum est, designatione revocata, nullo suffragio deletionis. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Caecilius Iucundus[edit]

Subjectus de articulus anti-notabilis est - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Io concedo. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Normally I might relise, but the nominator and participator are right; view this as a kind of PROD-esque thing adn speedy-restore with relist if contested in good faith. -Splash - tk 19:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mastercare[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion with the explanation "advert". I don't think it's speedyable; let's try it here. (No opinion from me) – Gurch 12:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Karate organizations[edit]

I was tempted to speedy delete this under criterion A3. This page is a spam magnet that doesn't work: it does collect linkspam, but it doesn't keep it off of any of the other martial arts pages. There are no established editors watching this page: I couldn't find any examples of an organization being removed from the list, so this counts as "indiscriminate information", advertising, and a web directory, all in direct violation of WP:NOT. Furthermore, having a list of all Karate organizations is just a bad idea: there's no selectivity implied in the title and there are hundreds of thousands out there, ranging from single dojos to international federations. Nothing in this list is worth saving. Delete and quickly. Mangojuicetalk 12:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversational publishing[edit]

Non-notable neologism (WP:NEO) that gets all of 56 Google hits – few indeed for an Internet-related concept. The only source cited is a blog. Contested PROD. Sandstein 12:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah quelle surprise[edit]

juvenilia - trivial, unsupported by sources, appears to relate only to a single school in Istanbul. Rbreen 13:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstated comments as deleted by Osmancan:

osmancan- it is important for it's users, also other high schools in that district use it besides it is something symbolic for students of that school and that school is the best school of turkey.An encyclopedia is a source of knowledge and this is knowledge. İt may be treeitorial however there are some territotrial informations and it is a commonly used idiom that is why i found the the proposal for it to be deleted is riddiculus. This article is not something made up in a school in one day. It's been using for a long time but was not carried to wikipedia untill now and if it was something made up in one day then it would be forgotten in one day. It was born in a schoollike some other traditions burt it is not used only by students that makes it is out of categopry WP:NFT. [ —The preceding comment was added by Osmancan (talk • contribs) .
Osman, please do not delete comments made in an AfD discussion, even if they are your own. It's important to leave them there so futiure contributors can follow the discussion. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

osmancan- However I am boycotting this article now because of political acts of france[ —The preceding comment was added by Osmancan (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. --Coredesat 06:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Botardz and Stunts performed in Botardz[edit]

This appears to be a borderline-vanity/advertisement page for a non-notable group of stunt performers. A Google search "Botzards" yeilds only four results, none of which reference the group, movie, or YouTube clips.

Only two of the words in the article are blue links -- the year 2008, and the language "English" in the film's infobox. I might be hopelessly ignorant on the topic, however, which is why we're seeing this debate here. Consequentially 23:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Jenkins is a pop-culture phenomenon, to the point where it was mentioned on Jeopardy. Google it, and you'll find dozens of imitators and hundreds of mentions. This movie, on the other hand, has zero Google presence, and no pop-culture notability. There is a large difference between the two. Consequentially 21:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Can (band) - Yomanganitalk 15:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Johnson (musician)[edit]

Contains no information that isn't in the main Can article already and the Internet in general does not seem to contain any information about this guy either so there's no point in keeping this stub.--HisSpaceResearch 14:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redir per Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia (AfD discussion); no need to repeat this waste of editor's time for a slightly different spelling. `'mikkanarxi 08:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia[edit]

WP:OR or WP:NEO, either way, I gave up looking for genuine references for this word after the first 15 pages of Google hits. I don't think every "jocular" (i.e. something someone made up) definition deserves a unique page anyway. Earle Martin [t/c] 13:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for spotting that. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 14:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart[edit]

The edit wars over this article appear to be out of any kind of proportion to the subject's verifiable importance. With under a hundfred unique Googles and none which appear to meet the test of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent media of known authority, I'd say the importance tag which was the subject of the latest spat was more than justified. In fact, I see no credible evidence of importance at all here. Guy 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as the subject has changed her name several times over the course of her life, this search for Morning Glory Zell would be more accurate. It returns 82,900 hits. Also note that Morning Glory Ravenheart, her name before marrying Zell, returns 15,700 hits. -999 (Talk) 14:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those searches are invalid, because the names are not quoted they return all articles containing the word morning, glory and zell. Quoting the text gives 238 and 21 unique hits respectively - the 238 will include the zell-revenheart ones. Guy 15:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you may have a point, but I have to agree with 999. The search '"Morning Glory"+pagan' returns 39,300 Ghits. I've also added references to the article of mentions in such publications as Hinduism Today, Salon and Nerve, among others. She is notable. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further results: "Zell-Ravenheart" gets 34,900. "Zell-Ravenheart"+"Morning Glory" gets nearly 2000, and that doesn't include references to her as either "Morning Glory Zell" or "Morning Glory Ravenheart". Unfortunately, she tends to get mentioned only by first name in articles which refer to her husband, so restricting to the full name in quotes is not a fair test. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pagan community would, then, appear to be too small to generate significant coverage. Where are the multiple independent non-trivial articles? Guy 15:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's discrimination. As I am sure you know, the notablity guidelines are guidelines. If a person is notable within their religion, they deserve an article. Otherwise I'm sure there are many minor figures important to Islam, Judaism, Bahai, Sikhism, etc. that should be removed, because you probably haven't heard of them either. Bah! Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for reiterating some of the statements above. I'm still kinda new at this.
Septegram 13:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto: Ninja Chronicles[edit]

Non-notable Half-Life mod. --InShaneee 13:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep (no arguments other than the nominator's for deletion, redirection etc is up to the usual workings of consensus). --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minmatar[edit]

This is a cruft-heavy article that almost completely duplicates information in some of the other, better-written articles about EVE Online. As one of the major contributors to the better EVE Online articles, I think the EVE Online category as a whole should stay small, and that articles aren't needed about each of the major races... because then we'll get articles on the bloodlines... then the ship classes... then the individual ships... and so on. I am also nominating Amarr with this. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 14:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 15:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didge (acronym)[edit]

Neologism. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Delete. —Brim 14:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark hearts[edit]

non-notable band. They haven't released an album yet. Delete. —Brim 14:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Fanon[edit]

Non-notable wiki for Star Wars fan fiction. Fails WP:WEB. I don't have a problem with Star Wars pages, but this is just a site where fans make up their own stories and characters. No mention in any independent third-party sources I can find. Kafziel Talk 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThePete[edit]

Appears to be one staff member of a small, local radio program from a small market, who is only known by a pseudonym. Doesn't assert notability, and doesn't come up anywhere of consequence unfortunately on searches. Recommend deletion. · XP · 14:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I talked with the webmaster of the radio station that broadcasts the show...his (and other members of the show) profiles were supposed to be on the station's website. The pages were left in a "pending" status and never published. This should be getting corrected in the next few days. This would address the verfiability.

My question is, should this be a stub instead?tony garcia 14:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a primary source, and that would not be sufficient. There are no outside 3rd party WP:RS sources talking about them, to establish notability. · XP · 14:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the arguments that is attempting to be made is related to St. Cloud's status as a "small market" and KNSI's status as a "small local radio program." St. Cloud is hardly "small market." St. Cloud is the 8th largest city in the state with a population of 64,308 (as of 2000), and KNSI's broadcasting is not limited to the city limits, as well as online. Could you please give us your qualifiers for "small market" and "small radio station" so we may reference these qualifiers with other Wiki articles? As a member of the staff, who has an influence on what is put on the air of Race to the Right, I would also like qualifiers that you are using for "obscure staffer." From what I understand (according to Wiki's own definition, "there has been controversy over Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy with the site receiving criticism for its (among other things) preference for consensus or popularity over credentials." Members of Race to the Right staff are not going to win an argument about popularity. But the staff for this radio show can hold their own when it comes to credentials. Articles from the Always Right Usually Correct blog have been featured throughout the blogging community as well as sites that track the notability and popularity of articles ( http://www.buzztracker.com/ for example). Would it not be also good to know of decendants of notable historical figures as well? (Jean-Baptiste Faribault for example) If needed, I can provide birth records. Pete Arnold 22:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wiki guide on Notability, personality notability can be determined by: A large fan base or Name recognition (ammong other things) What would you consider a "large fan base"? Also by what do you define "Name Recoginition"?

[20] has had over 76720 visators since 3/17/06, with an average of about 360 a day. The name recoginition leads out of this as well.Pete Arnold 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as I stated at the Race to the Right AfD, even if the show is proven to be notable, that does not confer notability to Pete Arnold. Pete Arnold needs to meet the WP:BIO guidelines and it has not been demonstrated that he does, as of yet.--Isotope23 00:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man weapons[edit]

Essentially a game guide, and perhaps of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. Combination 15:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not function as a game guide, if only because the information contained in it is inapplicable to the games. It is a article on the technical specifications of the weapons used in the game, which are actually un-selectable for most of the games, and more of a storyline concern than any kind of hints page.

As for having less citations than normal, this is because the information for the weapons is mostly contained in the japanese sourcebooks and in-game dialogue/captions.128.211.254.142 16:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Chump[edit]

Fictional band created by university student who produce mock videos- --Nehwyn 15:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Demented Cartoon Movie[edit]

Non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (web). Vectro 15:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject iconAnimation NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
NAThis article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
--Ridesim 07:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suntec City Mall[edit]

Shopping mall. The only claim to notability, being the largest in Singapore, has expired since a larger one was built. --Nehwyn 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any source to that claim? --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As written below, the largest fountain claim is contested, and no independent source has still been found to resolve it. As for the Singapore 2006 event, according to its own article, that has been hosted in the nearby Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre (built by the same company, but not a mall). Any source on the fact that it was specifically the mall, and not the congress centre, that hosted the World Bank meetings? --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article you mention states that a drop in sales occurred during the Singapore 2006 event due to security restrictions because of the meetings going on nearby. Hardly a claim to notability per se. --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I may have not made myself clear. I meant to say that currently there is no notability claim, although it may have been notable in the past (when it held the "title" of largest mall). :) --Nehwyn 17:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that many hold by a "once notable, always notable" attitude. Certainly, most guidelines seem to take that for granted. JoshuaZ 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any specific statement on that? --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Singapore Book of Records (2005) still assert this as world's largest. [22] - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in a Singapore vs USA contested record, the fact that the Singapore book of Records supports Singapore is not really a surprise. Any independent source? --Nehwyn 10:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do write your motivations in English. This is the English Wikipedia. Thanks! :) --Nehwyn 11:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Singapore 2006 page, that would be Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre (still Suntec, but not a mall). --Nehwyn 11:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I smell something too...But I'd rather assume good faith here. :) - Mailer Diablo 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated them all together because they were brought to my attention all together after I nominated one. As for the rest, I too smell something fishy: it seems to me that far too many of the "keep" comments come from Singaporean editors, and it is conceivable that they may have contacted one another to try and lobby the debate page... although again, WP:AGF applies, so let's assume that is not the case. --Nehwyn 15:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And so I suppose you expect most of the "Keep" comments to come from Italians, for something less fishy? It is a no-brainer why most of comments are coming from Singapore. And if you wondering why most of them are "Keep" votes, have you considered the fact that not every mall in Singapore has got an article? How sure are you that I will not question an article about a truly insignificant Singaporean mall?--Huaiwei 17:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would prefer if comments on the inclusion or deletion criteria for any given article were not based on the editors' area of residence, but only on the article itself. For an example of what kind of reasoning I'd prefer not to see, try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurong Point Shopping Centre, where the deletion of the article has been defined by one editor as "a great insult to all Singaporeans". I wish this kind of reasoning would not become a factor in Wikipedia debates. My concern is not really that being a resident in the area might colour a single editor's judgement on differentiating between local notability and Wikipedia notability (although that is certainly possible); my concern is that some editors with a common interest or characteristic (in this case, residence) may have rallied privately to "lobby" the debate in disregard to the Wikipedia public. But again, let's assume good faith and deem it not the case. --Nehwyn 17:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed for the AR3 mention, but as far as the Singapore 2006 page, please note that would be Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre (still Suntec, but not a mall). --Nehwyn 15:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is what a Wikipedia reference should look like. Kudos to Silvester. The Suntec reference cannot be considered "independent", but the URA reference and the awards definitely are. Personally, I think that if the AR3 and this one are added to the article, that would be referencing it enough for a speedy keep. =) --Nehwyn 07:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting to note that Nehwyn considers a Singaporean statutory board acceptably "independent", while a publication called the Singapore Book of Records (2005) is not.--Huaiwei 07:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the URA is a governmental entity, not part of Suntec, and thus considered independent. Suntec, having built the venue, cannot be considered an "independent source" about the venue itself. As far as the Fountain record goes, on the other hand, the Singapore Book of Records statement currently is contested, and the Guinness World Records (generally considered the standard authority on world records) has withdrawn mention of the Fountain of Wealth as the world's largest fountain about a week ago. They might in fact be checking the claim, for all we know. As soon as the record is re-listed by Guinness, I'd say that will solve the problem. --Nehwyn 07:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still, even though this entry has been withdraw by Guinness, it once appeared in the book for a period of time. Even if it is disputed, the fountain is still notable, and is still the largest outside North America. Is that notable for you? Singapore Book of Records is an independent source and what's wrong with it? --Terence Ong (T | C) 12:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't get us started on that.  ;-) --Nehwyn 07:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Suntec City is not the largest mall in Singapore; that claims does not apply here. --Nehwyn 11:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; despite SPAs, and despite the armwaving nature of some of the arguments for keep, there isn't a sufficiently coherent case for deletion - some of the links presented are passing mentions, but crucially not all.

It goes without saying that insufficiently-sourced 'controversies' (forum posts do not meet reliable source guidelines) should be reverted on sight. That's not a judgement formed from this AfD, that's cornerstone encyclopaedia policy. Perhaps those personally involved with the site should avoid editing the article - and if that leaves no interested editors to work on it, perhaps this would merit another AfD in the near future to form a clearer consensus from outside editors, without prejudice from this one. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boxrec.com[edit]

WP:NN ,fansite which only claim to fame is a nationality dispute Gnevin 16:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you could establish that it's the "biggest compliation [sic]" through a reliable outside source that might help sway some editors (such as myself) to share your opinion. If it's so large then surely there are outside sources such as prominent boxing and sports media that mention the website, right? We need something other than just your word or the word of those who operate the website to establish that it's noteable. --ElKevbo 17:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not a web directory. Has anything about this website ever been newsworthy? All I see are some trivial statistics about the website and meaningless wikilinks to male, female and a bunch of countries. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommmentNetsnipe - you obviously havent looked around the site - boxrec is quoted in countless boxing articles, you obviously have no knowledge of the subject and should probably stick to subject that you do know about. First you said it was NN, that was proved wrong, then that it was a directory- thats wrong - what next?? In fact if you search Wiki for "boxrec" you get over 800 hits!!! Vintagekits 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment*Whereas a Google search just for "Boxrec.com" turns up about 527,000 hits. While this is obviously a very flawed methodology that's a significant number of hits. --ElKevbo 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. The links presented below by Ozzwald35 seem to be from a diverse set of sportswriters and make a decent argument for notability at least amongst sportswriters. --ElKevbo 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRec.com
Anything else, that is irrelevant to describing Boxrec, should be made in the Talk area!!--Ozzwald35 17:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.inthecorner.net/story.php?id=696 http://www.fightnews.com/hoffman119.htm http://www.realitytvworld.com/index/articles/story.php?s=3441 In German http://www.ingogazelle.homepage.t-online.de/homepageboxen/reportagen/boxrec.htm Honolulu http://starbulletin.com/2003/04/14/sports/story1.html Rochester, NY Newspaper http://www.rochesterdandc.com/sports/general/0606story2_general.shtml Savannah, GA Newspaper http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/062803/SPTguideraboxing.shtml

  • Wikipedia should stick to notable/interesting/relevent facts, their BoxRec article is just about an argument that is completely irrelevant to 99.99999999% of the population. What next another article about the article about the argument and then another article about that, it's ridiculous. You should take a look at the BoxRec Wiki 40,000 articles and not one page of crud, delete please.JohnShep 20:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone here is disagreeing that the current article sucks. But that's a poor reason to delete the article entirely. Clean it up, yes. Delete it, no. --ElKevbo 20:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Reliable_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB

If Boxrec is all it's saying, surely it wouldn't be too hard to rectify it's mistake and change Duddy's nationality.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban (disambiguation)[edit]

This disambiguation page has only two items in it. I added Chevrolet Suburban as a toplink to Suburb. G Rose 16:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Rosenfeld[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable local theater actor. Delete. —Brim 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


I have considered the discussion, and am inclined to view deletion of these two pages as appropriate for the moment; equally, I should not be surprised if a well-sourced article may be written on the subject before very long. —Encephalon 05:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil as an emerging superpower[edit]

Information essentially duplicated from Brazil, I can't see the need for a seperate article on this. Contested prod, so sending to AfD to get consensus. For my part, Delete as duplicate material. Akradecki 16:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of Oct 16, I am adding Brazil as an emerging great power to this AfD, based on the fact that it is OR copied from other deleted articles, and essentially duplicates material found in the existing Brazil articles. Akradecki 22:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are other possible emerging superpowers which have sometimes been mentioned in these pages, these have prominently been Russia and Brazil, but there have been examples of Japan, the UK and even Pakistan sometimes being mentioned by some users as emerging superpowers. If we let such unilateral decisions made by users stand then we'll have way too many emerging superpower articles. Brazil's rise is not as widely documented as that of India, China's and the EU's. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 02:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but South America isn't exactly a continent which is noted for its decisive influence on world events, nor does this affect the primary issue, the lack of any real sourcing for the basic premise.
Xdamrtalk 02:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment...we need some consistency. The article Superpower defines such a country as "A superpower is a state with the first rank in the international system and the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale". The article provides no quality references to demonstrate in an academically acceptable way that Brazil is anywhere close to being able to project power anywhere in the world, at any time. Yes, Brazil is growing, but there's no verifiable sources to say that it's actually emerging with that ability. Akradecki 04:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely a regional power, but it is not in a state of growth to an extent to which it seems likely that it will become a superpower, or a nation that is likely to contest the United States and European Union. Note that much of the article is copied from the history of Major power, which was deleted per WP:NOR. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 07:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is that it isn't verified. The facts such as GDP etc are easily enough sourced, but the main premise most certainly is not. The Jonathan Power article is the only source, a source which in itself fails WP:RS.
Xdamrtalk 22:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy about that. Xdamrtalk 22:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, added above under my first del reason for the original article. Akradecki 22:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe… what you they want? At least one emerging great power or global power Brazil is. João Felipe C.S 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I've said it already: put this information where it belongs. We don't need multiple articles on the same subject. Secondly, I think there's folks here who'd say that they want to stop the recreation of OR that has previously been deleted. The definition of "Great Power" includes: "is able to exert power over world diplomacy." Brazil certainly isn't there yet. It's not even in the G8. And, the article that I've added, despite its title, makes no case with verifiable refs that the country can actually do this. All it does is rehash stats on the country without showing how the country influences world diplomacy. (On a side note, I think it's amusing that the article includes a pic of Brazil's lone aircraft carrier, a used boat bought from the French...hardly sufficient "power" to project around the world.) Akradecki 23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok… I give up. You seems here to be very ignorant to understand… We will see in 2050… João Felipe C.S 23:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't deny what? Xdamrtalk 00:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate, otherwise I suggest your vote be disregarded. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 07:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brazil is NOT a emerging superpower. Yes, their are reason why some time in the future it could become one but I can also make those reason for some 30 other nations. Also the article is unsource and unverified. Aussie King Pin 06:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idea - Instead of having some articles on emerging "superpowers" and emerging "great powers", why don't we just have a page about the international status or power status of any country that editors feel it necessary to write about. Leave it up to the editors to some up with the facts (keeping within the WP:OR policy), and let the reader decide for himself! Kevlar67 02:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment umm...I think that's what I've been saying all along, including in my original nom...we already have existing articles that deal with these subjects (in the case of this country, we have Brazil, Foreign relations of Brazil and Economy of Brazil, among others, all of which would easily accomodate the issues involved in the international status of the country). Akradecki 04:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wickethewok 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Lim Square[edit]

Shopping mall; no claim to WP:CORP notability given. --Nehwyn 16:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ignore that - I just do not consider that (unsourced) statement to meet the WP:CORP criteria, as specified in my nomination. --Nehwyn 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any success? And please note, the fact that the square is notable, does not automatically imply that the venues on it are. --Nehwyn 11:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some citations to the article already. It may be difficult to add more without a physical presence in Singapore. Also, if the square is notable, then it makes sense to mention vendors in the Square's article; the vendeors only have to show separate notability if they want their own article. See e.g., WP:CORP, WP:C&E, and WP:BIO for examples of this principle. Cheers, Vectro 16:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has several non-trivial published sources independent of the mall. Can you expand on your reasoning why it still fails WP:CORP? - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that WP:CORP states that media sources should be centred on the subject, and not cover it peripherally, such as on a survey of prices. Two of the references in the article fall into the "trivial coverage" category. The other two, on the other hand, seem to be legitimate. --Nehwyn 10:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"lah" is hardly a valid argument in a Wikipedia debate. :) --Nehwyn 10:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... but any claim to Wikipedia notability? --Nehwyn 11:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"for goodness sake" can hardly be considered a valid argument in a Wikipedia debate.  :) --Nehwyn 10:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, not that "if X, then Y" is generally not considered a valid point in a Wikipedia debate. :) --Nehwyn 16:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you apparantly applied the same formular when nominating them for deletion.--Huaiwei 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated each article individually. Group nominations are possible under Wikipedia policies, but this is not the case. An individual nomination, like this one, is best evaluated individually, based on the article it refers to, and not on others. --Nehwyn 18:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So how did you come to the conclusion that people arent exercising their votes "individually"? Just because the same logic applies in one topic happens to apply in another doesent mean it is a collective vote. Mind sharing with us how different each of your "individual" nominations are, then?--Huaiwei 07:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather assume good faith and hypothesise that no "anti-national conspiracy theory" has been formulated, and that no reaction to that has been discussed out of Wikipedia channels on the concern that said discussion would have been unsuitable to the general public. As for nominations, nominations are termed "individual" if each article has a separate nomination; they are termed "multiple" if a group of related articles is listed in one single nomination. Personally I prefer the former option, as each article should be assessed on its own merits. --Nehwyn 08:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Noting that I've participated in this AfD, closing on the basis of WP:SNOW and WP:IAR given that this has been left open for more than a week. - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jurong Entertainment Centre[edit]

Shopping mall; no claim to WP:CORP notability. --Nehwyn 16:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but I'm not sure that would satisfy WP:CORP. --Nehwyn 21:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow me to explain the local context. The name "Shopping Center" can be quite misleading. But these "shopping centers" are actually major service, commercial, and entertainment hub, located at the center of a large residential district serving hundreds of thousands of people. These are not just business corporations. The supermarket in the mall is a business, but the "center" is the hub for many activities in that community. You may still think it is not worthy for wikipedia, that is a fair opinion. But WP:CORP does not apply here because it is not a purely corporation or business entity. --Vsion 06:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! :) Any source on the not-for-profit activities? --Nehwyn 11:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a need for not-for-profit activities in this mall for it not to be classified as a company or a corporation? Now since you insist on using WP:CORP, kindly tell us just what is the name of this "company" or "corporation", who is its CEO, where is it listed, and where is it corporatised?--Huaiwei 17:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of non-business activity has been mentioned by another editor. Since that may be an important fact to include in the article, I have asked whether there is any reference on them. As for WP:CORP, please keep in mind that, despite being called "corp", it does not apply to corporations or companies only, but more in general to commercial and economic entities. --Nehwyn 17:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:CORP implies that it's rules applies to all commercial and economic entities? Kindly quote the exact line which explicitely states it as such.--Huaiwei 05:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The very first line in the page. --Nehwyn 06:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"a product, company, corporation or other economic entity". Explain in what way is this a "product, company, corporation or other economic entity"?--Huaiwei 07:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the article "has a net lettable retail floor area of ...". Malls are in the business of renting (letting) retail space to chains. This is a company and the letting of space is economic activity. GRBerry 15:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, IMM Building is the other major mall in Jurong East. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, oops forgot about it. —Sengkang 05:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The gist of Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) is to act against advertising by companies and corporations for services and goods. Taking the sentence "a product, company, corporation or other economic entity" literally as meaning every single entity with any remote sense of "economic" activity will result in Human being deleted as well, for who else is responsible for and engages so actively in it? I do not think it that difficult for anyone to take a step back and realise just what is the core intent of wikipolicies and guidelines before attempting to blanket-apply them all over without much consideration for common sense.--Huaiwei 16:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it has been pointed out to you on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(companies_and_corporations)#Application_of_this_guideline, your understanding of this particular guideline is fallacious. The gist of WP:CORP is to set notability criteria for economic entities, so as to avoid non-notable economic entities showing up in Wikipedia. There is another guideline which acts, as you say, "against advertising by companies and corporations for services and goods", and that is WP:SPAM. --Nehwyn 17:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close, this article is already covered under the AfD that I closed here as delete (I must have missed it). Deathphoenix ʕ 19:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marapets[edit]

I deleted Marapets per this AfD. I believe this article is also covered under the same topic. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - verifiability is non-negotiable, and all research in this AfD into verifiability counts against it. The existence of other sources is asserted, but their details have not been given so we can form no judgement on them (and as the credibility of the sources which have been given have been cast into doubt, such assertions count for even less than usual). Bear in mind that if a sourced article can in fact be written, this deletion of an unsourced article does not prejudice against it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis Corporation of America[edit]

non-notable [26]--Syunrou 08:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the corporation does seem to have been involved in a fair number of legal cases surrounding cannabis use in the US, so may be borderline notable (despite low number of Google hits). However, the article is utterly appallingly bad. — QuantumEleven 09:53, 5 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisting following remarks that this corporation might not exist. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Walter[edit]

Was previously nominated and headed for delete until substantially rewritten towards the end of the process. A second trip to the dancefloor seems like the way to go. No vote from myself. Deizio talk 16:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Fails WP:BIO, person is notable only for offering a 9/11 conspiracy theory reward. This article is part of a walled garden of 9/11 conspiracy theory articles. Fails to cite to reliable sources, violating WP:NOT, WP:RS and WP:NOR."
A few Wikipedia:Reliable sources were actually in the article, though admittedly, hard to see under the thick cloud of unreliable sources. The other problems, I suspect, stemmed from that. I rewrote the article focusing on the reliable sources: New York Times, Reuters/Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Der Spiegel, and (with thanks to User:Ohconfucius), ABC News. Notice from some of the most influential media entities on three continents make the person pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) (WP:BIO) in my opinion. True, he is mostly notable due to spending millions on an advertising campaign, but that is not the silliest thing for which people are notable. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just had an AfD, closed with no consensus. There's no new nomination reasons at the top of this one, there's no reason to believe this nom will end up in anything but a keep (consensus or no). Not a vote, based on policy. *Sparkhead 18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw it was closed and relisted. Doesn't seem productive to do so and it'll just get the same votes from the same people. If it was clear to delete in the last AfD, it would have been deleted. *Sparkhead 19:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so. I personally even stated on the last AfD that I needed time to consider the latest revision, and now that I have done so I have reversed my previous vote.--Rosicrucian 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, glad to see honest reconsideration of the article (even in the case if your vote did not change). However, even when the evidence is obvious for a keep, there are some who will still vote delete simply due to the topic. It's always the same editors, the same who bring forth what might be construed as bad faith AfD's. *Sparkhead 01:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the article was substantially rewritten but the original AfD had passed the five-day threshold and could easily have been closed as delete, it was closed and relisted so the article could be considered on its revised merits. This nomination is entirely different to the first AfD, being made by myself as a neutral admin on a technical basis rather than by an editor who objected to the content of the article. There appears to be no criteria within WP:SK which allows for this to be speedily kept. Deizio talk 19:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(squeak) 22:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Pulsifer and Amos Urban Shirk. I realise that simply saying "but those articles are just as bad" is not a valid argument (so please don't repeat it back at me), but the concern here is that AfD should be consistent about the articles it keeps. Otherwise it becomes a laughing stock. Carcharoth 10:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, get the (paper) New York Times to devote an article to you and I'll start the Wikipedia article myself. I think you'll find that's tougher to do than you might imagine. Derex 17:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but my claim isn't notable since it is preposterous, while the million is because it's not...and he paid to advertise anyway. If other articles are nominated for deletion and I see that there is a criteria that supports keeping or deleting, then I will vote accordingly.--MONGO 04:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Rachko, tell me who he is without looking at the times. If you cannot then you only prove that simply being mentioned in a paper does not make you notable. --NuclearZer0 18:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Can you tell me about the 14th Earl of Someford, in England, who lived to the age of 30 in England and died circa 1520 AD, and did nothing notable in life, yet has a Wikipedia article that is uncontested? Because your statement is a hollow one. Notability is established in policy. Published or written about in multiple non-trivial works. This man qualifies. Any opposotion to our policy therefore, and all above deletion "votes", as that is all they are in truth, can be safely disregarded by the closing admin as politically motivated. Non-policy based reasons to delete should have no validity (and it is from following this all on multiple articles) past time that the AfD process by permanently in writing modified to reflect that. Note that this is not a lapse of AGF, but simple fact, based on observed AFD behaviors and pattens by certain Wikipedians. · XP · 18:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but WP:BIO is not a policy, hence it is your statement that is hollow. Since you do not know who he is my point is proven, news coverage doesnt prove notability. --NuclearZer0 23:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also try to assume good faith per WP:AGF, which actually is policy. --NuclearZer0 23:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
XP...be careful with your accusations.--MONGO 04:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. james(talk) 11:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alamy[edit]

advert for NN-stock photo corporation DesertSky85451 17:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - already an entry on Wiktionary - Yomanganitalk 10:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace[edit]

Purely a dictionary definition, not an encyclopeadia entry Emeraude 13:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 17:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CRA International[edit]

advert for consulting firm, no claim of notability. wikipedia is not a directory of corporations. DesertSky85451 17:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, cheap and easy. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focus Fusion Society[edit]

Advertizing two non notable organizations. --Pjacobi 17:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectsCenter[edit]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Cox[edit]

Delete, Yet another political hopeful who does not satisfy WP:BIO nor WP:C&E. Vectro 17:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Smith (California politician)[edit]

Delete, Yet another political hopeful who does not satisfy WP:BIO nor WP:C&E. Vectro 17:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Bruno[edit]

Delete, Yet another political hopeful who does not satisfy WP:BIO nor WP:C&E. Vectro 17:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X. Claire Yan[edit]

Delete, Yet another political hopeful who does not satisfy WP:BIO nor WP:C&E. Vectro 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan C. Ting[edit]

Delete, Yet another political hopeful who does not satisfy WP:BIO nor WP:C&E. Vectro 17:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Grotberg[edit]

Delete, Yet another political hopeful who does not satisfy WP:BIO nor WP:C&E. Vectro 17:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Benson[edit]

Delete; Yet another political hopeful that satisfies neither WP:BIO nor WP:C&E. Note that despite Deidre's claims, this article does not satisfy WP:BIO as a playwright, actor, or poet, because there is no indication of notability in those fields, either. Vectro 17:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bechna.com[edit]

Serves as advertising for online Indian classifieds site. Non compliant with WP:V and WP:WEB. Deizio talk 17:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aulenre[edit]

fails WP:MUSIC. Label seems to be akin to vanity presses. ccwaters 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Ral315 (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research Institute for Transnational Education University[edit]

Content of this AFD nomination has been blanked; see the history. Ral315 (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Transwiki. Trebor 10:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integral (examples)[edit]

Not encyclopedic article. Visor 21:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 18:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Now transwikied, see b:Transwiki:Integral (examples). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 12:06, 25 October 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 no consensus. --Coredesat 06:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyke tyke[edit]

Unverifiable, unsourced neologism; purely Original Research. Further, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. LeflymanTalk 18:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A neologism is any recent term created by an individual or group which does not have widespread recognition. In this case, it's a slang term that has extremely limited recognition, according to Google -- which shows only around 1300 entries when Wikipedia is subtracted out. Wikipedia is not "a usage guide or slang and idiom guide". This plainly violates WP article policy. --LeflymanTalk
  • The article is meant to cover several related terms, some of which are more popular than the current title. Maybe if the title was "Article that discusses men who hang out with lesbians" and had a section covering slang terms this wouldn't be an AfD about a neologism. But instead we use common names. SchmuckyTheCat 17:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:RULES: "A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus." Guidelines do have the weight of Wikipedia consensual practice, but are more flexible than policies, which are the core principals (which this article also fails to adhere to).--LeflymanTalk 18:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book you've mentioned as a reference is a humor work from 1996 called "So You Want To Be a Lesbian", not exactly a Reliable Source. That same page also posits "Celebudyke" and "Cyberdyke" as terms. The only source I see at Google Books that might qualify is the single mention in "A Companion to African-American Studies" -- however that mention doesn't define or discuss the term as a concept, and by placing "dyke tyke" in quotes confirms it as a slang term. --LeflymanTalk 18:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it makes it any less reliable as a source It's not exactly meant to be a "serious" term, so this fits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, yes, that does make it a less reliable source. The foremost rule of Wikpedia is that it aims to be an encyclopedia (as opposed to guide to pop culture) -- which means articles, particularly on controversial topics, must be based on academic or "serious" scholarship. See: Secondary_source. A single entry in a humor book does not fulfill the obligations of verifiability for an article. Further, the mere mention of the term does not create a reference for the full scope of Original Research presented here. The only place this term should exist would be in List_of_gay_slang_words_and_phrases -- which itself should be put up for review by AfD.--LeflymanTalk 22:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:RS, which is under some discussion but still a worthwhile reference for the moment. "However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on...may only be found on what would otherwise be considered unreliable....When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included." It's more than a-okay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting aside that the particular section of the WP:RS guideline is highly disputed, you appear to have not given due attention to the last sentence you quoted, "When a substanial body of material is available..." -- there's the exact problem with this article: there's no body of material. 1300 entries on Google is hardly notable. By that metric, I should be an article. --LeflymanTalk 02:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you should be! --badlydrawnjeff

talk 10:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article isn't a dicdef, and would read the same if you did a find-replace of "dyke tyke" to "lesbro" Would you think the same if the article was titled "Straight men who hang out with lesbians"? SchmuckyTheCat 03:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very weak keep. While I grant that the phenonmenon exists, I've personally never heard the term in real-life use. In fact, the only place I've ever even seen in is on Wikipedia. Sources are going to be a major problem in the article. Notability is another problem, if the only sources are on the Internet and there are so few of them... Exploding Boy 16:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was Keep and rename. KrakatoaKatie 12:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First MiG behind the Iron Curtain[edit]

This baffling article starts with a rather unencyclopedic title and premise, and from there just spirals off into a series of increasingly irrelevant tangents. No sources whatsoever for any of it. wikipediatrix 18:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As it is, this is just an indiscriminate collection of information. Are all defections notable? I don't think so. Do we need a list of them? Doubt it. Do we need a list of specifically only defections by pilots? Definitely not. wikipediatrix 23:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - there is agreement that it scrapes through WP:SOFTWARE and there was also a request for reliable sources which a Sky News article and the PC Gamer article just about fill. 99% of the content of the article could still be removed on the basis of being original research though, so it needs cleaning up and could be proposed for deletion again if no work is done on this (and please check WP:RS to see what reliable sources are). - Yomanganitalk 11:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Battles[edit]

Contested prod, article doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE and is also a how to guide/game guide which is not allowed on Wikipedia Whispering(talk/c) 18:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article. The modification is one that deserves no notation and should be removed from the memories of everyone.

* Strong Keep - Featured in PC Gamer UK, even included on CD. Notable, most popular JKA mod. How-to article feel is being cleaned up, and just three days ago I asked for comment on this article. Cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion. In addition, WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline, not a rule. Not to break WP:AGF, but I question the spirit of this nomination - user has been involved in a series of mod deletions recently (see his talk page). Wooty 21:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It meets WP:SOFTWARE barely but it's still a game guide. Whispering(talk/c) 21:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, "needs cleanup" is not a valid reason for deletion. If you'd review the history of the article, you'd see that extensive work is being done to improve the prose of the article. Wooty 22:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Appearing on the CD doesn't make it notable. An absolute assload of stuff makes it onto cover CDs, single player mods, random maps etc. What would make it notable would be multiple references from reliable sources, PC Gamer is one of them, but it'd be nice to work more in. - Hahnchen 01:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note - Actually, I just took a look at that source, and its not that great. It's absolutely tiny, I thought you were referring to a full page review, or even a half page review. If thats the best that you can come up with then I would vote to delete. You can see another AFD for a game mod where I've argued to keep. If you can promise further upcoming sources, then it'd be OK. - Hahnchen 01:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That mod also had no cited sources and its like a half page of text...Yzmo 08:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Right now it doesn't, but if you see the AFD, there's multiple print references, including a double page spread in a French gaming magazine. - Hahnchen 14:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Movie Battles was in PC Gamer.. which is a very big gaming magazine.Yzmo 20:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem is that u have NO VALID REASON for deletion, thats the point. No citing is just no valid reason, it would be better if u could say exacly why u want it deleted, and just why u want to clean up the game mods section...Yzmo 13:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there still aren't multiple external sources, TewfikTalk 16:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But thats no valid reason to delete the whole article ;), but im aware of this, and im trying to put in some more sources, but that isnt so easy as the text is written by people who play the mod and write from what they see/know from ingame..Yzmo 17:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is this discussion dead??Yzmo 19:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But at least half of all the articles on wikipedia have no sources or anything like that, and there ARE some sources in the arcticle, but its hard to write about a mod without using the info u have in ur head which u got while playing..Yzmo 16:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yzmo, that's invalid reasoning. Satori, WP:CORP does not apply to game modifications. As stated above, Movie Battles does pass WP:SOFTWARE (though barely), and cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion. Wooty 01:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon what authority do you state so unequivocally that a game mod program is not a product or service covered by WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services? Once the proposed WP:SOFTWARE becomes a guideline, that will apply, but until then WP:CORP is the appropriate standard for notability. But more importantly, my opinion was based primarily on failure to meet WP:V, which you have neglected to address. --Satori Son 01:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Comment You can verify the Article by playing the mod.Yzmo 17:25, 13 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 18:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article has been on wikipedia for at least 2 years now.. and NOW you want it deleted, and why isn't a bad article better then no article at all?Yzmo 09:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What Yzmo said is plain logic, a bad article is much better than no article. Simple as that. Dirk Lightstar 15:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have patience. Many editors have been going through mod articles and finding the ones failing guidelines and policies. If you wish to help with this process, you are of course welcome to. I assure you no one has anything against "moviebattles" personally. Wickethewok 22:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - In looking for citations I've pretty much come to the conclusion there aren't any, and the article should be deleted, even if it is notable within the JKA community. Abstain - New sources. Wooty 20:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - consensus that he fails WP:BIO - Yomanganitalk 09:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Martina[edit]

I speedy deleted this, the Aecis put this in a deletion review, I decieded to undelete and put in a AfD so the contents of the article can be seen to all. As a result I am doing to say Neutral as I am the one who speedied this. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:11, 5 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 18:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Seringhaus[edit]

Is a non-notable newspaper columnist. Fails WP:BIO and as an academic fails WP:PROF. Also note that the most of the edits come from an IP address which goes back to Seringhaus's university (also a comment in the YDN a few days ago implied that he started the article himself, so it has a vanity element as well) JoshuaZ 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Watson (hiker)[edit]

I'm really having trouble believing that this person is notable enough, nothing links to the article. Can't find anything on them via google as it's quite difficult as there are many Thomas Watson's, so the article may be unverfiable (WP:V). Even if all the things in the article are true, I still don't think the person is notable enough per WP:BIO. Andeh 19:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That bio page doesn't include anything that would be a claim to WP inclusion even if verified. The WP article mentions he started a fansite that is claimed to be large and might meet WP:WEB, but that notability doesn't carry to him as its founder, so far as I see from the evidence so far. Delete per WP:BIO. Barno 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nitro Pro Wrestling Alliance[edit]

Non-notable wrestling promotion, PROD removed without a reason TJ Spyke 19:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Policy Innovations[edit]

This is a non-notable program within an organization (whose article suffers from its own notability/spam issues. At best this should be merged into the organizations article. ju66l3r 19:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, after discounting IPs (whose arguments do not relate to Wikipedia policy anyway). --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After An Autumn Day That Felt Like Summer[edit]

This film lacks notability and fails WP:NOTFILM. A google search [44] returns 256 hits, none which are independent, reliable sources that can be used to source this article. --Aude (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 there has been no challenge to the indications of notability presented. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robbins Burling[edit]

doubt it passes WP:PROF. Inquired via a prod which was removed without explanation. Also looks like WP:VAIN/WP:AUTO. ccwaters 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. The problem is that we, on Wikipedia, generally expect the people we have articles on to be notable, i.e. they must be in some sense important or interesting enough that others would want to read an encyclopedia article about them. For academics, the rules most of us use are at WP:PROF. If you think your father meets any of these criteria, you should update the article to reflect it, and provide a external source for it. The fact that no-one had gotten around to delete the original article doesn't mean it was acceptable - we unfortunately have many more inappropriate articles than we can keep up with. Another namespace isn't the solution either, because encyclopedic content belongs in the Wikipedia namespace, if at all - unless your father were to become a Wikipedia editor. Then one could put this content on his user page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning his patriotism, I'm questioning his judgment[edit]

Strange essay, violating both WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Article name is not something that a user could ever be expected to search for on Wikipedia. Zero wikilinks. Only source in the entire article is a link to a Daily Kos blog entry. As a topper, it's been tagged with a ((cleanup)) tag for ten months now without any action. Aaron 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn, pending proposed changes. Wickethewok 21:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of music releases featuring a vocoder[edit]

This is a potentially huge list that would encompass pretty much every eurodance song and thousands of other songs. While this list would be more limited and feasible, say, 15-20 years ago, the prevalence of vocoders in modern music makes this on par with List of songs featuring guitar or at least List of songs featuring cowbells, which was deleted less than a month ago. Wickethewok 19:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simdesk[edit]

Simdesk is a real company, but this article is focuses solely on the speculation (original research) that it is the company that a series of message board posts were about. If the article is to remain, it should be about the company, and the Virtudyne thing should be at most a footnote. Coneslayer 19:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if the speculation becomes more important than the company? - purposely unsigned
Who cares? Its not that big of a deal.
The article could be moved to Virtudyne, as it is more likely people look up the article for Virtudyne looking for the real company. Bernhard Bauer 19:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could also rename the article to something like "Virtudyne-Simdesk Theory". The fact is that nothing before this DailyWTF article justified Simdesk having its own article, but now it deserves mention on its story alone. I'm okay with this page being a description of Simdesk, but its story isn't a footnote, it should be the meat of the article. Klondike 20:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtudyne. Fagstein 22:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article posted here is pure speculation of a company that could be Simdesk. The story itself has not been verified or even researched (to my knowledge). The wikipedia entry for simdesk should first contain information only about the company. Anything else should be addressed as footnotes, or like wise. Atmostphere 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This still isn't a great article, but it certainly qualifies as a stub Wrs1864 12:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:CSD#G11--Konst.able 23:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Laminates[edit]

promotional Tom Harrison Talk 19:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

NS Variables[edit]

The result was delete. No Guru 03:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a listing of variables or something used for modding a video game or something similar. Not encyclopedic whatever it is. PROD removed by anon with no explanation. Delete as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a coding repository. Wickethewok 19:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and protected. Spam, no assertion of notability.. Aguerriero (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googie.com[edit]

Spam, personal research (editor says to be still researching about the topic)... It can be a noble try to stop a false ad, I don't know, but it's clearly not an encyclopaedia article. Delete --Neigel von Teighen 19:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wdflake 19:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam, clearly non-notable, plus editor threatens to recreate if deleted. Delete Malpertuis

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but leaning towards keep - in particular, it has to be noted that being in a foreign language does not have any bearing on a source's credibility, and that if a subject merits an article in one language Wikipedia it generally merits one in all of them. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B.A.P.!! (Basque band)[edit]

Notability not asserted...no sources...no google hits...small useful content can be merged to Negu Gorriak. Annasweden 19:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... what specific criterion of WP:BAND do they meet, and are there WP:RS for it? Sandstein 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the notability of this band is likely focused in the Basque Country, which is not an independent nation. The criteria for national notability (charts, etc.) thus may not be met here. However, the Basques could be considered a specific ethnic, cultural and national entity (and in this case notability within the Basque Country could suffice to meet WP:BAND). Otherwise all bands singing in Basque would become inherently non-notable just because they are not notable Spain-wide. I think that this perspective should be debated. --Húsönd 22:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK: Assuming, arguendo, we treat the Basque Country as a country for the purposes of WP:BAND, what specific criterion of WP:BAND do they meet, and are there WP:RS for it? Sandstein 22:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not sourced, but the article claims that members of the band went on to play with a series of other bands, the first one of which appears to be relatively notable. Additionally, an argument could be made that the band is representative of a particular regional scene (that of the Basque Country). That said, the lack of sources for either claim is problematic, and I think whatever comes up is going to be in Basque. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the article claims something means nothing without sources. In addition the links provided by Husond are not in English, so maybe this article belongs in the Spanish wikipedia but certainly not here. It simply must produce sources. If no one is interested in this article enough to find reasonable sources, it should be deleted. i can see its been a redlink on the disambig page for a long time and no one has stepped up to state its case for many months. the logical thing is to merge its content into Negu Gorriak. Annasweden 23:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to scavenge the Basque Wikipedia but this was all I could find. I'll try to find some English sources on the web. In case of Transwiki, the Basque Wikipedia is more suitable than the Spanish one anyway.--Húsönd 00:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this website has a small description of "B.A.P.!!". Apart from that, only scattered mentions throughout the web. Anyway, this band conforms to WP:BAND on the grounds of the criterium that stipulates that a band is notable if it "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". Since this drummer Mikel Abrego later joined Negu Gorriak (which many websites regard as "with no doubt the most important rock band of the 90s in the Basque Country"), then I guess we need not delete this article. :-) --Húsönd 00:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would do it for notability, but I still see no WP:RS: this Mikel Abrego isn't mentioned in either of the band articles or in the external link you provided, which - as a random private website - is a bit dubious in terms of WP:RS anyway; plus the BAP article still has zero external links. Sandstein 06:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, most websites are private, I think that references on them should only be discredited when they're clearly spammy. But in this EuskalRock website I provided they write about "the History of Basque Punk Rock", so I think that the information contained therein is prefectly acceptable and conforming to WP:RS. Any search for "Mikel Abrego"+"B.A.P."+"Negu Gorriak" on Google retrieves hundreds of references that confirm that Mikel Abrego joined notable band Negu Gorriak, this is virtually impossible to contest. Even the Galician Wikipedia confirms it.--Húsönd 14:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right, as per BigHaz below, they probably just make the cut. Changing my vote. Sandstein 16:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this discussion. Deleting noncompliant pages is a necessary function of Wikipedia administration. This is not about you personally. Please read WP:DP, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Thank you. Sandstein 10:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to drop many WP articles that are irrelevant. What has to do Assume Good Faih and No Personal Attacks in this discussion? The only relevant page you mentioned is Deletion Policy and the article does not meet the criteria there: it's not vanity nor publicity article but one on cultural history. In fact the article has no relation with WP:NOT, where the policies for deletion direct too. So I understand that you are being very subjective here.
WP:MUSIC says:
Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country.
Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.[2]
Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable...
Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city...
B.A.P.! fulfills more or less all those criteria and the only problem is about online sources, that are scarce but do exist (see above). It's not one of those groups that appear now and vanish tomorrow. It's surely one of the most influential bands of the Basque scene, particularly as avantguard of hardcore music (that's why they went largely ignored before the 90s).
I insist that the very nomination for deletion makes no sense. I insist: Keep it and improve it if deemed necessary. --Sugaar 12:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should carefully review the discussion before presenting such a deviant position. The notability is not only existent as it is also confirmed with sources conforming to WP:BAND and WP:RS. I can't grasp your reasoning for "the one (!) link given is out of date". And no, it is not a vanity article.--Húsönd 20:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article's standing is not improved by Husond's personal attacks on those who speak for deletion. I have read the record and i object to my views being termed "deviant". The article's subject is clearly not notable; in fact, the article text makes no assertion of natability. In addition i dont find one google hit in english on this subject. If you read the one link given in the article you will find a brief reference to BAP somewhat far down in the text, and the implication is that the website thinks the band exists, when it is defunct. Thus the source is proven to be not only out of date but inaccurate; moreover, this source doesnt qualify as a reliable source per wikipedia standards. Upon re-reading the article the word "vanity" calls out. Cdcdoc 02:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not deem my objection to your objections as "personal attacks". I have a strict policy against personal attacks and I don't think that your accusation is even close to plausible. In order to find Google hits related to this band you must narrow your search by adding related words such as band/basque/euskal/etc. That will provide you with a vast array of results. The fact that the band is defunct does not strip it (nor any other band) from notability. Once again I recommend that you carefully read the discussion and realize that the band is notable at least for the fact that one of its members later joined a notable band (as per WP:BAND).--Húsönd 03:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - So you are somehow calling me vane (by arguing that my work is an act of vanity, like if I had anything to do with BAP! apart of having enjoyed their music) and you don't tolerate that Husönd considers your opinions deviant (I think he meant dissident, but anyhow). As long as we a re talking about each other opinions or actions there are no personal attacks. We are pondering not each other's essential qualities but our respective acts. If you say that something I've said is false, you are not necessarily calling me a liar, you are just saying that I've comitted an error. If You think my stub is "vane", I hope that you are not calling me that, just this specific act. If I wrote that Annasweden's decission of submitting the article for deletion was capricious and felt my effort sabotaged, I'm not implying that she is a capricious person or a saboteur.
Let's stay cool and accept the criticisms to our actions as what they are opinions, and opinions not on ourselves but on some of our acts. That's all.
(And, yes, the online sources are obsolete. That's a pity but I still don't think it justifies the deletion. I could create a page in my geocities site on them... but that would be really an act of vanity. So I won't). --Sugaar 21:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gloom (game mod)[edit]

Game mod that doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP's criteria for products. Looks to be mostly original research to me and doesn't seem to meet verifiability or reliable sources requirements. I requested sources on the article's talk page and have not received any responses. Delete. Wickethewok 20:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Some references from outside the gloom pages. Description from moddb: http://mods.moddb.com/581/gloom/ Anouncement at planetquake: http://planetquake.gamespy.com/View.php?view=POTD.Detail&id=254 I think these where the ones you where asking for that match WP:V. Tneg 02:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning. It doesn't seem to meet WP:V, as the PlanetQuake and moddb listings seem trivial and are not from reliable sources. Many mods have been featured in magazines, so that doesn't seem to be an unrealistic bar for notability or verifiability. Wickethewok 06:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn; nominator was unaware of recent page vandalism. Aaron 20:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factions in the Republican Party (United States)[edit]

Generally, if the article's opening paragraphs contain a line like "Defining the views of any 'faction' of any American political party is difficult," you've got a WP:V and WP:OR. This article has both in spades; basically, the "factions" have been defined according to the POVs of whichever editors have ever passed through and added their two cents; sources are nonexistent, save for an eight-year-old Washington Post article. Not that the information in it is necessarily wrong, in my opinion, but that's the problem: It's all just opinion. Suggest delete or perhaps merge into Republican Party (United States) where at least there will be a far larger consensus reached as to which "factions" are legitimate (the current article doesn't have very many wikilinks). Aaron 20:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that discussion of highly political issues brings out the POV in people. The editors of this very important, timely article have tried to overcome that problem with considerable success. The article of course is based on the current media--Time, Newsweek, NY Times, New Rebublic, Nation, National review etc have useful information every week. (and numerous books---of which Barone is essential). The critcs seem to have no specific complaints--which seems rather odd. The article of course is one of several spinoffs from The Republican Party, which is already very long. Rjensen 20:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References--the section on references had been vandalized. Here it is, noting the recent mainstream publications that cover the topic, as well as sources from left and right to provide balance. Rjensen 20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware the article had been vandalized; I'll withdraw the nomination. But the article seriously needs a good cleanup, preferably with each section individually referenced to some point; and it also needs better representation on main Republican Party (United States) page, where it currently gets only a passing mention. --Aaron 20:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul lally[edit]

Article about some random comic with no claim to fame, includes unnecessary personal details. Could satisfy A7 & possibly G10, listing here because the author removed a prod tag. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noel (food)[edit]

Delete: Unverifiable, Uncited, and possible not notable. Note that this page is the rewritten and relocated descendent of this edit, which was added on April 1 by an anonymous contributor who made changes to no other article. Vectro 20:23, 13 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, Coredesat 06:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Mall[edit]

Previous AfD ended in no consensus. Article is unsourced other than a link to the mall's website which establishes it's basic existence. Previous reasons cited to keep this article ran along the lines of it being an important part of local culture or important community landmarks. This reasoning is not supported by any reliable sourcing though. This is a simply an average, run-of-the-mill mall. There are no sources that show this mall has any notability, has any impact, standing, or importance on the local community, or that it meets WP:CORP (if one chooses to judge it as a commercial entity, though I'm aware that many editors don't apply WP:CORP to malls). without sources to demonstrate that this Mall has any local significance, this article should be Deleted.--Isotope23 20:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Han[edit]

A teenaged saxophonist. Originally speedied as copyvio from his website, but that has been delat with. We still have the problem that this is a monograph by the subject's father and fails to establish encyclopaedic notability (yes, he's played with some great people, but my 12-year-old son has performed with some of the gods of the horn world and that doesn't make him notable; festivals are great that way, you can meet, talk and play with the greats). I think this is (a) a proud father's boasting of his son's talent, (b) at least somewhat promotional (see the earlier versions) and (c) too early. Wait until he has a recording deal, eh? Guy 20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Anime Convention[edit]

non-notable event/convention CobaltBlueTony 20:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The following copied from the article's talk page:)

Why I think this article should not be deleted.
I believe AAC is a notable convention. It had 534 attendees in it's first year and will continue to grow. This article is to give people the history of AAC and information on the convention along with links to other such notable conventions. This is not a unworthy article and still has more to be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweetheart143 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 14 October 2006.

(I have explained further to User:Sweetheart143 on their talk page. --Confusing Manifestation 03:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Not that I can see - even taking into account the fact that there may be a few Ghits for people talking about "another anime convention" in a generic sense, there aren't many results, mostly advertising the event on forums, and no news sources that I could find. Confusing Manifestation 03:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Blast/Blisskarm[edit]

Two more Pokémon articles waiting to get yanked. Turned the prods into one AfD. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 20:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was already deleted as a ((db-author)) per the deletion log. GRBerry 16:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Juskalian[edit]

PROD,deprod,PROD,deprod... so I'm bringing it to AfD for some community consensus. Mr. Juskalian writes book reviews for USA Today. I don't see any evidence that Mr. Juskalian meets WP:BIO as an author, so I'm leaning Delete.--Isotope23 23:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Odd, oh... fixed the fact I didn't sign nom...--Isotope23 23:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This AFD is hereby closed; the article may be kept. —Encephalon 08:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Governor's Mansion[edit]

This article is about a hypothetical building; it simply states that there is no governor's mansion. Db099221 20:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Yes, I realize that I was the one who nominated the article for deletion, but it has since been improved significantly, thanks to Fg2. --Db099221 00:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many, many "significant" projects that have never been built, but I don't agree that it's encyclopedic. It's somewhat analogous to a movie that never makes it out of development hell or a bill that never becomes a statute. I'm also a small bit concerned about opening the floodgates to every failed project that never came to be. I still maintain my "delete" comment above. Agent 86 01:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my stance to Neutral following article expansion by Fg2.--Húsönd 04:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the template, at the time, had a red link pointing to it, and it was a better idea than leaving open the potential for someone from out-of-state to incorrectly assume there is one. Sahasrahla 09:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oy. I guess the floodgates are open after all. Agent 86 03:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For your other analogies, here are 64 bills that never became a statute Category:United States proposed federal legislation, and plenty of movies that never made it out of production: Category:Unreleased films, Category:Unfinished films. SchmuckyTheCat 04:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted for copyvio by User:Quadell on 23 October. Trebor 10:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon and Smith Surfboards[edit]

Advert and non-notable company Rich257 20:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know if it is non-notable, but I think it is a copvio from here. Ozzykhan 21:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that! I think you should put a copyvio notice on the article then so the text is hidden. Rich257 21:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I blanked the page and added copyvio template. The article could've been speedied if it would have been spotted earlier. Prolog 07:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald Kids[edit]

unreferenced NN-neologism DesertSky85451 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism in Iran[edit]

This nonsense article had its prod removed. The numbers of Buddhists in Iran is negligible File Éireann 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ozzykhan 21:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - article by same author was deleted earlier today. I'm putting it up again. -Patstuart 21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might like to point out that this author has been banned as a troll. -Patstuart 21:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are provided.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over. There does seem to be a history of Buddhism in Iran [46] [47] [48] and plenty to say about it. But this article makes what appear to be wildly improbable claims with no sources. --Hyperbole 22:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, immediately or sooner. The author has already been banned as a vandal/troll. The article cites no sources. Reliable sources ([49], [50]) offer no information or speculation about Buddhism in Iran. The CIA World Fact Book gives a breakdown of "Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 9%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 2%". -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trebor 10:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradyon[edit]

Neologism. Even the article itself admits that it's not commonly used. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noisegrind[edit]

Non-notable ultra-fringe genre Inhumer 21:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

2nd time[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Real geographical locations don't get deleted, ever. — CharlotteWebb 04:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stotesbury, West Virginia[edit]

Town is gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.25.57 (talk • contribs)
The nomination was added manually to AfD by the anon. I have reformatted it properly. Choess 21:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was lets have another AfD, shant we? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mall Sainthwar[edit]

Not notable. Only one google hit for name. Creator removed prod, is civil but cannot provide other sources. Possible original research. Please also note Mall sainthwar rajputs redirect first created by author as a copy.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Moderators of Wikipedia.org
The details mentioned about the ‘Mall Sainthwar’ community are based upon the facts and is a genuine one and in my humble opinion should not be deleted at all. This is evidenced by a strong community presence of over ‘1.2 million’ people residing in the Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and they originally belongs to the Rajput clan of Kshatryia's. ‘Mall Sainthwar’ community is prominently recorded in well known history books like Aaeene Akabari, Tujjak Jahangiri etc. which, if needed, we can supply for your verification too.
I would like to kindly request the Wikipedia.org moderators to first verify the facts with good resources before arriving to a conclusion to delete this article.
Kind Regards
Pradeep
pk_shubhi@yahoo.co.uk
Phone No. - +0044-7793962960
High Wycombe, BUCKS, UK
Dear Sirs,
History of Mall and Sainthwars which is written here is based on many books written by Historians on 'Type of Rajputs/Kshtriyas' in India and mainly in Purvanchal comprising of Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Western Bihar. Existence of Mall kingdom can be seen in ancient India. Mall are Visen rajputs while Sainthwars (or sihatwars) are basically migrants from western part of India. Detailed can be seen in AINE-AKBARI which gives name of villages where they settled, their original place alongwith their sect. Population of both rajput sect is around 8-9 lakh as per census of India and they are found in 6-7 districts of Uttar Pradesh & Bihar in India.
Literatures are available on these rajput clans wriiten in Moghul period like Aine -Akbari and British records which shows the existence of this great rajput clan.
So please verify before deletion.
regards,
jay singh
jaysingh_r@yahoo.co.in
phone no - + 91 09322697836
Mumbai -400080, Maharashtra , India
Dear Moderator of Wikipedia
The details mentioned at the wikipendia about the MALL SAITHWAR community is a genuine one and should not be deleted at all. This is strong community of more than 12 lakh people residing in the Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and belong to the Rajput clan of Kshatryia's. It has strong hold in cities of Uttar Pradesh namely GORAKHPUR, DEORIA, BASTI, SIDDHARTANAGAR, PADRAUNA, KUSHINAGAR, MAU, AZAMGARH, VARANSI, ALLAHABAD, KANPUR, EASTERN AND WESTERN BIHAR. The authencity of this community as a caste can be verified in Gazzeters of Government of India and also from the land records Uttar Pradesh Government. Kindly look into the matter and as a matter of expectation it would be unwise on the part of wikipendia team to move ahead for deletion without any prior verification as such.
For any clarificatins and details for historical accounts, kindly get in touch with me as well.
19:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
ALOK SINGH
09868877099
aloksingh_07@yahoo.com
Uttar Pradesh (India)
Currently residing in New Delhi.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloksingh 07 (talk • contribs)
Dear Sirs,
It is not my orginal rasearch but based on lots of history books (In Hindi Language)of India. This is a 5 to 6 lakh strong community residing in eastern part of U.P. stae of India. I can give you name of hindi books of some prominant writer or if you permit me , I can send these books to wikipedia office by postal mail for your perusal. It will be unfortunate if you delete itwithout verifying it thoroughly.
Regards
Shalendra Singh
Singh_shalendra06@yahoo.co.in
+91 9415875685
+91 551 2200777
U.P. IndiaShalendrasingh 15:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I belong to this community and what ever written is correct to my knowledge. I know books and publish matters are the proof but it is not always possible to get in the English language. If you refer the history of Maharana Pratap great warrier and king of India, he belong to our community. It is small but very strong community in India. This mission started to educate our clans in all parts of the worlds. Kindly refer this link you can find the proof of existance [51] This site gives all the info and population spread.
I request you to consider the case and remove this article form deletion.
Regards Ajay Singh from Bangalore India +91 9341309636
Ajaysingh76 19:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)ajaysingh76[reply]
The article is very genuine and represent the history of prestigious rajput clan. The article deserve to be at wikipedia. It is going to get a big traffic to wikipedia (out of aroung 2-3 Million people of this community). So it is in the favor of Wikipedia also.
Best Regards
Narendra Pratap Singh, Delhi, India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npsingh (talk • contribs)
Hi,
Mall - Sainthwar Community name is also mentioned in following books
1)Aaeene Awadh
2)Aaeene Akabari part 2
3)Tujjak Jahangiri
4)Muntarkab Ultavarikh part 2 ...these books were world famous and were written during Mughal- Period which came into the history of Medieval India.
I request you to reconsider your decision of deletion of the article posted.Kindly let me know what kind of proof I should provide you, So that we can also be part of wikipedia-a great site.
Regards
-Chandreshwar Rao
IIT MADRAS
Chennai -36
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandreshwar.rao (talk • contribs)
Dear Moderator,
As the detail given in mall-sainthwar community was based on the fact.This community makes a major part in east Uttar Pradesh and some parts of Bihar.Also they have a great history.
So, I request u to reconsider ur decision of deletion the article without any solid ground bais.
Regards
-Pawan Kumar Singh
728,IIT Madras
Chennai-36,
india
Marriage this is the best thing to answer about the proof of this article as well as this community.Now it is easy to marry in other community ..may be easy. But in older time do you believe that a person belongs to Saithwar Mall community can marry in other community???[In normal way to any community in India was it easy to marry in any other community?].
This is what i wanted to explain that from olden time there are "n" number of marriages which can answer itself as a proof.
Community is haing strength of more than 12 lakhs.
For any clarification contact me.
Regards
Shashi Shekhar
shashishekharn@gmail.com
09343826707
This is one of the purest races of Rajputs. In ancient past, there were many powerful kingdoms having rulers from this community e.g. "Mall Rashtra",etc. In medival period also, there were many reputed and strong princely states like Padrauna, Dughara, Pali, etc.
It is a very good written article about "Mall Sainthwar Rajputs". Great Work!!
Ravi Singh
(9818136861)
The article is very genuine and represent the history of prestigious rajput clan. The article deserve to be at wikipedia. It is going to get a big traffic to wikipedia (out of aroung 2-3 Million people of this community). So it is in the favor of Wikipedia also.
Regards
nripendra singh
nripu2002@yahoo.co.in
mobile no - 09869441693
To , the wikipedia.org : from Shalendra Singh, Gorakhpur, U.P., India
Eye Opening Facts About Sainthwar And Mall Rajputs
Some representatives of Sainthwar community gave many applications in the court of Collector, Gorakhpur in the year 1942. The copy of that application is as follows
In the Court of Collector Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur, U.P. India
Subject: Correction of papers in matters of caste
Sir,
H’onably and respectfully the petitioners beg to bring following few lines for your kind consideration and favorable orders :
(1). That the Gorakhpur district beside the adjoining districts is widely inhabited by the people generaly known as Sahatwars or Sainthwars. They are also written as such in caste column in Government papers.
(2). That the said Sainthwar Rajputs are the descendents of grand Rajputs whose original capital was Sahat in Gonda District. The mention of Sahtwar rajputs is to be found in Aine Akabari* on pages 93, 151, 314 etc. The Sahat rajputs have also been mentioned in Tod’s Rajsthan.( * “Aine Akbari” is famous book written Abu al-Fazl ibn Mubarak, Vizier of Mughal Emperor Akbar the great * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar and the author of “Akbarnama” refer your own site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu%27l-Fazl_ibn_Mubarak & http://www.the-south-asian.com/Dec2000/Akbar.htm
(3). That among the people generally known as Sahatwars there are other sections of Rajputs who are incorrectly termed as such. They are Khagis, Thakurais, Mohits, Karkotaks, Dovis, Bishenmall, Gaharwars, Mohatas, Soharas, Mangras, Pushkars, Bellas, Bhathis, Uskas, Barhajas, Bais, Sahajs, Rawals, Kotharies, Rajpali, Khutahania, Barwas, Pundaris, Darwa, bhakhars etc. who are scattered over whole of the district. Thus the word Sahatwar though really comprising a part is by misnomer used for various independent deferent sects of Rajputs mentioned above. The mention of these various sub caste of Rajasthan is to be found in Tod’s Rajasthan and Aine Akbari* as well.
(4). That the said Saithwars and other Rajputs mentioned above being Kshatriyas*, it is also necessary and befitting to their position and status that they should be entered as Kshatriya in caste column in Govt. papers for the want of which they have to suffer many difficulties.
(5). That the paper of whole Gorakhpur Tehsil has been corrected. On the above grounds in the matter of the caste by the order of SDO sadar dated )*/1942 through which the caste of Sainthwar has been substituted by Kshatriyas instead of Sainthwar in the caste column. The copy of which is attached here with.
(6). That the petitioners have been authorized to move this application on the behalf of the whole community in Gorakhpur district by a special resolution, the copy of which is attached here with. SO, it is humbly requested that your honor may be pleased to order the correct papers in Khesaras and Khataunies in matter of caste so that in the column of caste the word Kshatriya may be substituted in place of Sainthwar, with the title of “Singh” in all the villages of the Gorakhpur district except tehsil Gorakhpur for the correction of the letter has already been made by the order above referred.
Thakur Jainath Singh & Other Petitioners
Sign. Jainath Singh, Sign Sarvan Singh, Sign Ganga Bux Singh , Sign Bansi Dhar Singh , Sign Thakur Mahatam Singh
Seal
Court of Assistant Collector & Magistrate
Distt. Gorakhpur
(True copy Sd. Inillegible, Head Copyst, Collectorate, Gorakhpur, Date 12/11/1942)
References : ( * “Aine Akbari” is famous book written by Abu al-Fazl ibn Mubarak, Vizier of Mughal Emperor Akbar the great * (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar) and the author of “Akbarnama” refer your own site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu%27l-Fazl_ibn_Mubarak) and (* http://www.the-south-asian.com/Dec2000/Akbar.htm)
Kshatriya * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshatriya
Dear Moderator,
It is good to see the things here related to mall-sainthwar community. It will be very helpful to oneline viewres...
JGS
IIT Kanpur
This is the true copy of the order passed by the District Collector ==
COPY OF ORDER
In the court of E.D.C. Moss Esquire, I.C.S. Collector, District Gorakhpur
Nature of Case : Miscellaneous application
Miscellaneous application of the Sainthwars of Gorakhpur district except Sadar Tehsil for correction of Papers in matter of caste i.e. their names must be written as Khastriyas.
Decided on 12/11/1942.
COPY OF ORDER
Action should be taken in accordance with orders of Government. Entries to be made as applied for.
Sd. E. Dc. V. Moss, I.C.S. Collector, District Gorakhpur 12/11/1942
Informations submitted by :
Shalendra Singh, +91 9415875685,
C-103/61-B, Near Ramgarh Lake,
Gorakhpur-273012, U.P., India
59.94.113.148 14:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Please note that Indian History is not found in the net in the same magnitude as European or American History.
  2. Also most of the Indian magazines (dailies, weeklies) do not have a online version.
  3. Another factor is that the vernacular (Hindi, Tamil etc) magazines use different fonts and is not searchable by Google
  4. Another problem is the use of different spelling for the same name. For example, my town is referred to as Tuticorin, Thoothukudi, Thoothukkudi, தூத்துக்குடி etc. You can get the complete picture only if you search all these. Even then since most of the matter is not online, you may not even get one hit
If something does not turn up in Google, it does not mean that it is non-notable for the above reasons.  Doctor Bruno  00:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northgate, Seattle, Washington[edit]

Delete. This is an article about an "informal district of neighborhoods." No indication of notability is given. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Xezbeth 12:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Akkerman[edit]

CSD A7 applied, as none of the edits for this person assert importance. Template removed without any change or discussion. Google shows 3 results for "Kirsten Akkerman" besides WP & mirrors. Gotyear 21:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SPEEDY KEEP. Nobody here wants this deleted; Bamf himself even says "merged or deleted." Let's take this discussion of a merge to Talk:Gorath where it belongs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magma (Gorath)[edit]

This monster appears for only six minutes in an obscure film. I tried merging the actual content with the films' article, but was reverted. This either needs to be merged or deleted. Interrobamf 22:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclaimer: I wrote this article) Actually, all you did was blindly copy the section explaining the character's relevance to the plot into the article, calling it a "plot summary". That's not "merging"; there was much content — explaining the character's importance, why it was included in the film from a production standpoint, and it's removal from the English language releases of the film, etc. that simply wallow in the history.
What you conviently don't mention in your nomination is that you "tried merging" it twice before[52][53], but, in reality, you simply turned it into a redirect without once edited the target.[54] All this before any comments on any talk page, which you only did after someone else tried to start a discussion.[55] I'll also note the frequent similiar attempts, characterised by the same style of "merging" (or lack thereof) and no discussion, to turn other kaiju articles into redirects.[56][57][58][59][60][61]
On your actual points, you'll note that the article clearly states the length of time the character appears. However, it also notes the character's significance to said film, and goes on to explain why it is important within the context of tokusatsu and Toho productions in general.
The fact of the matter is, there is clearly content here that is not easily merged with the film. The article is (if I may be so vain) reasonably well-written and well-referenced, so there is really no case for deleting it. Having said that, I would not oppose a merge into a list of minor Toho kaiju, if absolutely necessary. Thanks.--SB | T 22:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was never split off; the vast majorify of the information in this article was never in the Gorath article. In any case, you have an odd definition of "very short", as Gorath is a pretty substantive article. Why don't you give an actual reason this should be merged, instead of blindly citing notability guidelines? --SB | T 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and carry out your conversations in a civil manner.
It's a notability guideline and also a deletion and style guideline (it's the where the debate about character deletion was codified and the guidlines were recently updated to jive with the guidlines for writing about fiction.) The general premise of the guideline is to keep like things together until an encyclopedic treatment of the article makes it long enough to warrant its own article. In fact most of the information contained in Magma (Gorath) is duplicated in Gorath.
Gorath is an article just long enough not to be considered a stub. It is a very short article. It's one long paragraph and 5 short paragraphs long with a total of 418 words.

If you consider it substantive, then have a "odd definition" of substantive. --Kunzite 01:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FILMharmonic Orchestra Prague[edit]

Commercial orchestra, does not meet notability as an orchestra that has solely recorded music for a handful of video games, and Wikipedia is not for advertising. The link to the orchestra's web page is clearly a commercial link. SkerHawx 22:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Maine goes, so goes the country[edit]

Essay, WP:OR violation. Zero sources. Highly unlikely any user would come to Wikipedia searching for this phrase. Aaron 22:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subeta[edit]

Article (and potentially website) does not meet notability requirements for wikipedia WP:WEB. Certainly, the article is non-encyclopedic and notability is not asserted therein. For these reasons I propose the article be delete'd. MidgleyDJ 22:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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' on AfD means 'keep', to move the content then turn the page itself into a redirect, with edit history preserved. Merging and deleting is not a valid option under the GFDL. As I don't feel self-contradictory !votes can outweigh coherent ones, delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Jr on TMF[edit]

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

The result was: as the references found half way through the discussion clearly haven't convinced a significant proportion either way, no consensus, I'm afraid. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Parents Network[edit]

Was originally put up for speedy deletion per A7, but I removed the tag and decided to send to AfD. I did some research and it appears to be notable (using Google and Alexa to back up this claim). Note: I am only nominating this article for deletion because I wanted some second opinions about the article's notability. Nishkid64 23:11, 13 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, Nishkid64 22:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ryan Leaf (not Bryan). KrakatoaKatie 12:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brady Leaf[edit]

Isn't notable in his own right until he reaches the pros, (which is not likely) for now, hes the page was created only because he is Ryan Leaf brother, all needed info is there already, revert war happened over the redirect so putting here, Redirect to Ryan Leaf is my choice-- Jaranda wat's sup 23:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no reason at all to get rid of it. There's practically no info about him on his brother's page. Hbk314 01:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nakul Shenoy[edit]

Notability not substantiated by text, article is auto-biographical, only one contributor, no links to the page SkerHawx 23:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was AfD failed. Sherurcij obviously meant well, but he should not have attempted to close the AfD himself, as there are other voices for deletion apart from his, and as it is he hasn't closed it properly (that's what I'm doing now with the coloured background etc - until this is done, the AfD still appears in the lists of open AfDs). When he removed the tag, he should have been reverted. AfDs require that the tag remain on the article for the duration so that everyone knows it's going on who should know; deletion review has invalidated AfDs where this didn't happen and I'm forced to do so here.

Though it may be somewhat moot, as from the discussion here, a consensus doesn't seem to have been reached anyway. If anyone still feels that notability is in doubt, this AfD should not prejudice another. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadeq Mallallah[edit]

Delete, while a bit of work could make the subject a bit more NPOV, (he was beheaded for apostasy presumably, not "for owning a bible"), the fact remains that there is absolutely zero evidence that he ever existed...900 google hits, all of them are Wiki mirrors, or copy/paste the exact phrase "In 1994, Sadeq Mallallah was beheaded for owning a Bible". The only quasi-basis for the name is seen in a statement made by the head of the Saudi Institute in Washington, Ali al-Ahmed, who said "In September 1993, Sadeq Mallallah, 23, was beheaded on a charge of apostasy for owning a Bible."[65], he offered no evidence or reference, and none was ever given by anybody else. No news agency ever reported such a beheading (and it certainly would've been a dear pet for media sensationalism at the time, if it were true). Basically it comes down to a completely non-notable person making an illustration of his point by inserting a name, fictitious, misremembered or actual. In short, let's not allow ourselves to further the misinformation out there...or else I want to start an article about how my priest discussed "There was a guy named Jack Straw, who was ploughing his fields one afternoon, when..." as a sermon illustration last Sunday. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 23:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment, I just found this message from Jimbo, which I feel (indirectly) supports the removal of the article. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this is hardly "I heard it somewhere." This is the Wall Street Journal. A2Kafir 00:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A2Kafir is the author of the disputed page, just for reference. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 00:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a Wall Street Journal article meets the criteria of WP:V, an op-ed is more like an internal Letter to the Editor, and does not. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, thank you for the third link you provide, I'll rewrite the article to reflect the actual charges against him, and remove the AFD. Much thanks. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep of the new version. I'm not entirely convinced of WP:BIO notability. If the blogosphere were print media, it would be a slam dunk case that he is notable, but we discriminate against blogs because they are unreliable. And gee, he's in the blogs because they are unreliable. GRBerry 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Ani[edit]

Has been speedy deleted twice before, but I thought it would be best to nominate the article for deletion just to get a community consensus. I don't have any background in this type of subject, but this article does not link to any other articles, and I only got 1,600ish hits on Google. The creator of the page left a note on the article's talk page contesting the article's deletion. (it was deleted earlier yesterday) Nishkid64 23:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Val_Henson[edit]

Subject is not notable


This page has been prod'd twice before by others, and removed against the rules, without discussion. As others have noted, it appears to have originally been written by a fan-boy impressed merely with the fact that Miss Henson is female and attractive. Consensus in the talk page appears to be that her contributions as a programmer are not significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, and there's debate whether her "women in computer science" writings make her a notable figure. I don't think they do, but either way, this should be resolved with a proper discussion, rather than silent Prod removals.

(personal attack removed—Phil | Talk 12:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Rabbi 23:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I am sympathetic to the desire to have more articles on women in computing in Wikipedia, I don't think this article will have a significant positive effect, and will all probability dishearten such an audience given the current propensity for discussion of female subjects' appearances and their effects on men. Given the enthusiasm of the various editors (hi, Rabbi!) and the relative lack of third-party source material, I still feel that the wiser course of action at this time is deletion.

For me, the loudest knell of doom for this article is the fact that even people who like me (or, heaven forbid, are infatuated with me) can't clearly explain why I'm notable. Therefore, I'm not.

Valhenson 07:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it's better that the controversy over that paper subside than to continue to confuse developers who don't wish to become experts themselves in the subject of hash functions, but simply wish to have an authorative source to turn to and direct them in proper usage of these primitives. I suspect this is likely to happen now that a peer-reviewed rebuttal has been published in academia -- but with John Black lacking a Wikipedia bio page explaining his background, and with edits expressing limitations of your background in this area being removed for NPOV reasons, I'm uncertain of a good way of presenting a coherent, unconfusing explantion of the controversy of the paper that satisfies NPOV and doesn't denigrate you unfairly. (The Usenix committee really fell down in accepting it, in my opinion, and did you a disservice by doing so.) It's important that developers think about the sorts of questions raised in your paper, but it's also important that they have an accurate source at their disposal from which to seek the answers to those questions.
It's rare that a good programmer is also a good cryptographer, and I hope I've made it clear that I'm not trying to imply that your lack of "kernel hacker celebrity status" means that you're bad at programming. One's level of fame is quite often orthogonal to one's talents or abilities. And as for my comments regarding the initial post and the presumed motives of the author -- I was attempting to sum up what had been previously expressed by others on the talk page. (I believe the original author represented it as his own writing, which explains the confusion.) I think we share the belief that your gender should be irrelevent, or only minorly significant, when considering your notability as an open source developer (and certainly not more significant than the actual code you've written!)
Thanks for commenting.
Rabbi 09:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To summarize, the above argues for deletion because the mere existence of a Wikipedia article about a person might improperly sway readers' opinions in favor of one of the subject's many publications. It is possible there are better arguments for deletion; if so, I plead that they not suffer by association with this one. On a side note, I appreciate John Black's criticism of my work, which has improved slightly as a result, and also his courtesy in attaching his name to his criticisms. Valhenson 09:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel.Bryant 10:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Con-Dom[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion, but I removed the tag as I didn't really understand how it was relevant to the article. The group seems notable and might pass WP:MUSIC (not confirmed yet). Nishkid64 23:49, 13 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, Nishkid64 22:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep the redirect. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karma Police (music video)[edit]

It's not notable enough. It's not a world famous video. why not have a article for every video Me and my robot 01:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Later...It seems as though enough of this article is already merged into the Karma Police article, as it happens. doktorb wordsdeeds 00:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Urban Dictionary: zeeky boogy doog
  2. ^ YouTube - Broadcast Yourself
  3. ^ Fooby the Kamikaze Watermelon - Garry's Mod
More