< October 13 October 15 >
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 Transwikied to sep11:James Debeuneure --Konst.ableTalk 11:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Debeuneure[edit]

Victims of terrorist attacks are not in and of themselves notable. Lankiveil 23:54, 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 11:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WBXO[edit]

Nonsense, spam, fictional radio station. Kuroki Mio 2006 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The first AfD discussion for this article can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WBXO (result was Delete)

18:39, 15 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 Lots of Keeps - This article is going to be kept anyway, there is no need to sit here examining each others' motives. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Hindu[edit]

This article is based on a fictitious term Anti Hindu and its authors have tried to invent a term creating a parallel to Anti-Semitism - pls. note the (ism) ,Holocaust and possibly Islamophobia which are the terms with a lot of academic debate.An article by this name should be suitable for wiktionary being an adjective and not a noun.The issues discussed in this article could possibly be transferred to another article Persecution of Hindus, if they have not already been discussed there.An article like this is merely repetitive and maliciously put in to highlight a particular point of view Hindutva - the right wing Hindu religio- Xenophobe movement in India and increasingly abroad and should not be allowed a second to sit on the academic space of Wikipedia. TerryJ-Ho 00:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, The article lacks Reliable sources and these need to be clicked to verify their nature and if what they say is actually what has been referenced - removed on verifying the sources I am not saying the article lacks source but the article itself is denoting an adjective that is why it is used to qualify Prejudice (Anti-Hindu prejudice)in the very first sentence of the article.The term Anti-Hindu is therefore incapable of carrying the whole weight of the article.Do a dictionary search for Islamophobia,Anti SemitismAnti Hindu,You will find that both the former exist but not Anti-Hindu.I am equally against the terms Anti-Muslim being elevated to denote a movement or philosophy - which is the reason the term - fear of Muslims or Islamophobia is used to denote that state of mind or philosophy - similar is the case with Anti-Semitism.Anti-Jew does not denote a widespread philiosophy of hate towards Jews while Anti-Semitism does.The absence of a term denoting the fear of Hindus or hate of Hindus could be an indication that such a philosophy has not gained a wider ground even though in individual cases there would be definitely be people who are Anti-Hindus, in the similar way that there will be people who are Anti Buddhists,Christians or Muslims.The term Anti-Hindu does not exist in academic discourse the way it has been portrayed in this article and hence does not deserve to be used as a head for an article that discusses systematic prejudice against Hindus.TerryJ-Ho 03:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Note on Note

  • The reason why this article is put for deletion is the fact that the term Anti-Hindu falls under the ambit of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (along with some topics that would typically be found in an almanac).Hence, articles should consist of encyclopedic information about "notable" subjects.

Attacks on members of the Hindu minority

Hkelkar 15:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of the article

: The reason why this article is put for deletion is the fact that the term Anti-Hindu falls under the ambit of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (along with some topics that would typically be found in an almanac).Hence, articles should consist of encyclopedic information about "notable" subjects.

Attutudes of bigotry against Hindus is a notable subject. I believe that trying to delete this article is a bad faith nom by this user in order to promulgate the "religio-Xenophobic" Islamist bias.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the article has been around for months.Why, all of a sudden, this AfD?Particularly after TerryJ-Ho and his Muslim Guild buddies lost a mediation dispute regarding anti-Hindu prejudices of Tipu Sultan??Not a coincidence and a bad faith nom.Hkelkar 23:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • [Any article that simply defines a word, or short phrase, as you would find in a typical dictionary, and that can't be expanded into an encyclopedic entry, should be contributed to the Wiktionary sister project]' from Wikipedia's policies [2]
  • There could of course be an article on Systematic Prejudice against Hindu religion like any other religion.
This is it.But it's more than bias. It's a polemical hatred expressed in hoax books like Haqeeqat (protocols of Zion for Hindus) and others.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The Non-notability of this article or rather the term can be gathered from the fact that the definition of Anti Hindu does not come from any sources but is an invented one.Compare this to Islamophobia or Anti-Semitism who discuss the semantics and origins of the term in the very first paragraph.
See links below for the notability of the term.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • IMHO - the terms Anti-Muslim,Anti-Christian,Anti-Jew and Anti-Hindu should all point to Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia whereas the academic terms Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia along with wider articles on Systematic bias against religions should exist on Wikipedia.
Well they don't, neither should this.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There is of course a large element of bias in this article as the concept is built upon Hindu Action Forum sources while the some examples are indeed built upon news sources but do they discuss the concept of Anti-Hindu or Anti-Hinduism or Anti-Hinduness?? Many of the articles from independent sources discuss persecution of Hindus and not biases against Hindus including the one from US State Department and Amnesty International's BANGLADESH

Attacks on members of the Hindu minority

They do discuss anti-Hindu views in addition to the persecution of Hindus.The refs discuss prejudices against Hindus that lead to persecution.The former is used as reference material.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Rest of the debate[edit]

Above is an expression of hypocrisy as TerryJ-Ho himself uses the term "anti-Muslim" rather liberally on wikipedia. See this edit summary.Hkelkar 03:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I challenge you to find more of such usage in my edits TerryJ-Ho 03:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Kelkar above is a serious charge you have put against me and shows the extent to which you resort to lies.Take my challenge..My usage of Anti-Muslim is as a qualifier in that link not as a philiosophy.TerryJ-Ho 04:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the rather laughable claim by TerryJ-Ho about "lacking reliable sources", go ahead, click the links and check for yourself.They are sourced just fine thank you. More bad faith assumptions from this user.Hkelkar 06:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! You seem to get edgy when you get caught in an inconsistency. At least I will give you credit for trying to wiggle your way out of it with technicalities ^_^ .Hkelkar 04:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather , you think your comments on this fora make you immune to the consequences of these charges TerryJ-Ho 06:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term "anti-Hindu" used to denote views against Hindus exists in literature per this Anti-Hindu at Google Book Search
Plus, the term is qualified as an impersonal adjective, denoting views and comments rather than people.Hkelkar 03:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In your above link anti-Hindu movement,anti-Hindu animus,anti-Hindu propaganda,Indian Constitution is anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu attitudes,anti-Hindu feelings,anti-Hindu bias,anti-Hindu laws,propaganda word is not pro-Muslim, but anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu cast,anti-Hindu Zamindar all are qualifying words not Nouns themselves TerryJ-Ho 03:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that anti-semitism was originally used as an adjective only (Antisemitische Vorurtiele by Moritz Steinscneider). That was a "qualifier" too.Antisemitische==>antisemiticHkelkar 03:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why a certain political current in India - playing on victimisation is trying to invent a word like this TerryJ-Ho 04:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is the very definition of WP:OR. Plus, are you implying that Jews invented anti-semitism to "play on victimisation" too???Sieg Heil Mein Fuherer!Hkelkar 04:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, they did not.Anti-Semitism came to be accepted on account of its own weight and the whole world witnessed it TerryJ-Ho 04:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the whole world witnesses anti-Hindu bigotry, such as the US Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and others.Only anti-Hindus don;t witness it because they're the ones doing it:)Hkelkar 04:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an WP:OR your's Kelkar .Ain't?
Nope, look at the sources for anti-Hindu and the recognition by the Simon Wiesenthal Center.Hkelkar 04:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it only says what SWC says gives no source attesting what it says.On clicking the sources 7 link to Hindu America Foundation, 2 link to Indiacause.com, 2 link to Geocities, 1 to Tributeto Hinduism, 1 to Let India Develop
Please articulate your argument better.It makes absolutely no sense to me right now.All the HAF links are qualified as HAF links.HAF is an advocacy group like the Anti-Defamation League, which is allowed as a reliable source to explain their viewpoint (primary source) and to cite their activities etc. HAF is a notable and recognized group. Their partisanship may be a matter of debate, but they are reliable. Similarly, IndiaCause would not lie about the topics discussed as then they'd invite libel lawsuit. Thus, the facts are reliable.
The only worthwhile sources used are :1 educational on Wendy episode - scholarly interpretation whose comments on Hinduism were in academic perspective,few articles from rediff.com - editorial in nature.US State Department links mention the presecution of minorities in South Asian countries and are already covered in the Persecution of Hindus page.In short this is an interesting presentation of factoids and individual incidences.This page needs to go.Those who say the sources are fine and article is balanced need not look at the face value of the article - check the individual links.Most if not all are dubious TerryJ-Ho 06:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, right. US Congress is dubious? What a sick joke. Plus, the HAF report is backed by Simon Weisenthal Center and acknowledged in the Washington times so it is backed up by reliable third parties and can be sourced just like ADL articles are sourced in anti-semitism article.All my sources satisfy WP:RS. Looks like Terry is getting increasingly more desperate from being voted down so unanimously.Hkelkar 06:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martinp23/Desk Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/September 2006/Hkelkar .Hkelkar 00:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar is a likely sockpuppet and I question his motives here as well. BhaiSaab talk 00:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for moving anti-Hindu to Persecution of Hindus has been refuted in the talk page as the two articles discuss different topics (attitude vs action). Plus, below is a representatiom of reliable sources used in the article:

http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0412/features/index-print.shtml http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/hindus.htm http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71443.htm http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA130062001!Open http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2310359.stm

All of them are notable and describe anti-Hindu views and attitudes.Hkelkar 01:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Anti-Semitism, the other two terms are not commonly used apart as an adjective and could possibly be removed. anti Muslim points to Islamophobia rather and is a commonly discussed term at the time.I have never come across a term Anti-Hindu used as a phenomenon TerryJ-Ho 01:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the sources in the article that frequently mention the term.Islamophobia is a neologism.Hkelkar 01:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we are discussing Anti-Hindu , why not discuss Pro-Hindu as a phenomenon and all the Pros and Anti's possible.Say for example Pro-Communism, Anti-Communism. These are not ideologies but point of views and any person in the world will always have one or the other attitude or none at all TerryJ-Ho 01:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Immaterial to the issue at hand. We are talking about anti-Hindu views and prejudices here.Hkelkar 01:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources that use "anti-Hindu" are referring to specific incidents, not a phenomenon. BhaiSaab talk 01:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bigotry against Hindus are definitely a systemic phenomenon in many countries per the US congress report itself.Hkelkar 01:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another point of note: Anti-religious activities are not reserved for one religion or another, even though it's more visible in the Jewish community. Systematic discrimination of others over their religious views will happen regardless of who is discriminating against whom. This is a significant part of religious fanaticism and it's been happening for centuries, and it still continues today to a lesser degree. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 01:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Frankly I do not know how to react to this AfD. Personally I am so utterly disgusted I could retch. TerryJ-HO is deliberately conflating the issue of Hindu Nationalism with the hate and bigotry against millions of Hindus who have nothing to do with any goddamn nationalist movement.Many anti-semites also conflate the issue of anti-semitism with the issue of minority Jewish Fundamentalism, does that mean antisemitism should also be put up for AfD?This is utterly disgusting!Hkelkar 01:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you've already reacted by soliciting six votes. BhaiSaab talk 01:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No different than what TerryJ-Ho has been doing.Plus, informing users is no crime.I do not know user:Torinir and have never met him before.Hkelkar 01:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One can expect you not to call the Hindu Nationalists as goddam on your after these edits but anyhow let us remain within the realm of discussion rather than out of it.TerryJ-Ho
Yes, the pettiness of this AfD is becoming eminently clear after the views of User:Martinp23 in the Tipu Sultan debate here addressed to my side of that debate.Hkelkar 02:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are bent on discussing issues that have no relevance here note that Martinp23 wrote these comments as your advocate and not as a judge.I would appreciate if you continued to comment on the article at hand and not the editors.TerryJ-Ho 02:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To use your own words:"They all are relevent as they put into perspective TerryJ-Ho's position" from here as anon ip 82.44.188.125.Hkelkar 02:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I have been careful to avoid potentially partisan sources unless backed by reliable sources.Also bear in mind that anti-Hindus often hide their bigotry behind claims to oppose Hindutva (like the user who filed this AfD), so any claims of "Misuse of anti-Hindu by Hindutvaadis" need to be carefully sourced lest we don't let anti-Hindu prejudices enter the anti-Hindu article itself.This is similar to many haters of other religions who mask their hatred behind opposition to radical sects in the religion (anti-semites who claim opposition to Jewish nationalism, anti-Muslims who claim opposition to terrorism, anti-Christians claim opposition to Christian Fundamentalism etc.).Hkelkar 03:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure. That said I'm Catholic, but I'd concede some Catholics have used the term Anti-Catholicism in an improper or overly broad way. As has Anti-Semitism or what have you.--T. Anthony 03:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read those Google Scholar links again Anti-Hindu never comes across as a philosophy but as an adjective "anti-Hindu movement,anti-Hindu animus,anti-Hindu propaganda,Indian Constitution is anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu attitudes,anti-Hindu feelings,anti-Hindu bias,anti-Hindu laws,propaganda word is not pro-Muslim, but anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu cast,anti-Hindu Zamindar...etc." TerryJ-Ho Nowhere does Anti-Hindu stand on its own.YOur link proves my own point.Thanks TerryJ-Ho 04:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You read all 240 articles at Google Scholar? I think you need something better to do with your time. Besides that I wasn't only going by Google Scholar.--T. Anthony 14:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All are qualifiers - anti-Hindu movement,anti-Hindu animus,anti-Hindu propaganda,Indian Constitution is anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu attitudes,anti-Hindu feelings,anti-Hindu bias,anti-Hindu laws,propaganda word is not pro-Muslim, but anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu cast,anti-Hindu Zamindar not a Noun TerryJ-Ho 04:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless the term is notable.Hkelkar 04:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-semitism is an academically accepted term, Anti-Muslim points to Islamophobia and Anti-Christian says in bold Anti-Christian Prejudice while Anti-Hindu is standalone.Or is it like they say in India "do the needful" [3] TerryJ-Ho 04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On it being kept we can rename it "Anti-Hindu sentiments" if necessary. You want it deleted because it didn't add an extra word?--T. Anthony 04:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with this suggestion.Better rename it to anti-Hindu prejudices and redirect anti-Hindu to it (because many articles wikilink anti-Hindu).Hkelkar 04:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There are 1 billion plus Hindus, you are taking this out of context like the Muslim Guild above.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See book links above for the use of the term in media and academia.Hkelkar 23:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About hornplease:Look at his edit history to see a pattern...Hkelkar 23:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
err... what pattern? could you be more explicit, please? Could the fact that you have been asked to justify your edits on a few pages have caused you to make that statement? Remember, any edit you make, you should be prepared to defend without losing your temper.
I did look at the links, which is why I voted move. The use of the term in the media is largely limited to rightwing groups. I think we have to be very careful about such terms, like extraordinary rendition or islamofascism. That's all Hornplease 23:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
C. C. Yang, K.C. Ho, Kluver, Yang,Glenn J. Ames,William F Fisher,John Leonard etc. are "right wing"? Laughable! False propaganda again.Hkelkar 23:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. That was a remarkably incivil statement, and a violation of WP:AGF. The names you mention are based on a superficial reading of the results. For example, the Yang, Ho, Kuver and Yang edited book is a collection of essays, in which one by Muthu Selvan uses the term in the context placing the motivation of flame wars on Hindu newsgroups. Note that you could equally well have mentioned Sumit Sarkar, who also uses "anti-Hindu", and is hardly rightwing. The point is not irrelevant that the term is used as a single adjective. Consider the following representative quote from Ashok Kapur "The British India government was acting on anti-Congress, anti-Hindu and

anti-majority rule premises." This hardly suggests that the term is in widespread use. Please note that I do not object to the content of the article, but the name strikes me as something of a neologism. Also, dont lose your shirt. If you have put work into editing the article, and your edits are sourced and NPOV, the work will not be lost. Hornplease 00:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the reason for delete funny. I never heard of Jimbo Wales during my life, so does that mean he doesnt exist? Bakaman Bakatalk 00:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt vote delete. I merely noted that I was 'suspicious' of the use of a term that I, even after having observed these debates in the real world, had not seen before. That suspicion crystallised on reading the linked results. Please note that I have not disagreed with the content of the article, only, mildly, with the article title. I find it extraordinary that it should provoke such anger. Hornplease 01:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you here. I don't see how it being renamed "Anti-Hindu prejudice" would be worthy of a fight. I'd think renaming Anti-Catholicism to "Anti-Catholic prejudice" would be unnecessary, but not worth fighting over. Only issue is that moving it is a separate issue, this is more of a delete/keep discussion. Although possibly rename could start being an option as it is with categories.--T. Anthony 14:20, 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 Speedy delete a7 and a1. Not listed on IMDB. NawlinWiki 00:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zacharia Caley[edit]

Ridiculously unnotable actor, ridiculously written article. Speedy tag was removed twice even though it's rather clearly an nnbio candidate, so I'm taking it here. My vote is Delete, of course. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 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. I have imaginary friends. They're real people, I just like to imagine they're my friends. the wub "?!" 16:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary friend[edit]

This article is woefully junked. It is devoid of any encyclopedic worth at this point and serves only as a playground for rampant vandalism and attacks at religion and anyone's favorite 'make them an invisible friend' subject matter. ju66l3r 01:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC) The correct tools for the job have been given to me below. Thanks everyone. ju66l3r 16:09, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Azerbaijan[edit]

Since this article starts with a negation - it hardly has a chance of developing further at least till a further few years.The contents described could adequately be covered in a larger article on Hinduism. TerryJ-Ho 00:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have since changed the content, however, to be noted that it claims Atashgah as a Hindu temple when the sources used mention that Atashgah is the temple of Fire of Zoroastrianism which was the dominant religion of Azerbaijan and Iran at some point of time in history which might imply that there is some controversy to the exact nature of this structure.TerryJ-Ho 20:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - There is no controversy, only that this bad-faith AfD nominator has tried to create one. The facts calling it a Hindu mandir are sources and backed up in historical journals and the like. The atashgah was not even built until the 16-1700's.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of recent article additions and points brought to the table. Dar-Ape 02:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with recent changes ST47Talk 21:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Azerbaijan is not part of central asia, but Hinduism in Central Asia would include Turkmen, KAzakh, Uzbek, Tajik, and Kirghiz - stans.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Central Asia includes Azerbaijan mapTerryJ-Ho
Perhaps some maps say its in central asia. Wikipedia places it inb the Caucasus, and since this is meant to link and add to wiki articles, per the main caucasus article its part of the caucasus. Fringe maps made by nn geographers dont figure into this, as I could find a myriad of maps to counteract the map you found.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditionally,I accept to close this AFD if Religion by country is an acceptable series on Wikipedia.TerryJ-Ho 02:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admins may kindly wrap up this discussion if Religion by country is proved to be a Valid seriesTerryJ-Ho
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lali Watt[edit]

Non-notable local politician, see guidelines at WP:BIO Ronnotel 01:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BIO:

Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage.
Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.

Lali Watt has not received significant press coverage - just some minor mentions in connection with a zoning issue she was involved in. Ronnotel 01:34, 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 11:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub categories[edit]

Disambiguation page that contains only self-references and cross-namespace links. Khatru2 01:40, 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 11:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air Traffic[edit]

At the moment this article constitutes vanity/promotion. They have been mentioned by a few reasonably high profile people, but this alone does not make them notable, therefore the article should be deleated.

Of course if they do ever become notable i.e. by releasing a charting single/album and winning awards etc. then the article could be remade at this point. Hgiffy 02:11, 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 Speedy Keep per unanimous consensus. Eluchil404 06:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buccal exostosis[edit]

Procedural nomination; AfD tag was placed on article without follow-through. No comment from me. ... discospinster talk 02:34, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corki's Corner[edit]

Non-notable business. Doesn't have any references, doesn't pass WP:CORP. Probably should have been speedy-deleted per ((db-spam)), but the speedy deletion was declined[4], and the prod was removed [5], so no choice but to proceed to afd. --NovaSTL 02:36, 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 speedily deleted by JesseW. MER-C 05:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Jordan[edit]

Procedural nomination; AfD tag was placed on article without follow-through. No comment from me. ... discospinster talk 02:37, 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 holy stub keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Hui[edit]

Procedural nomination; AfD tag was placed on article without follow-through. No comment from me. ... discospinster talk 02:38, 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. Deizio talk 13:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Null (scanlation)[edit]

Non-notable scanlation group, does not meet WP:WEB. They translate the One Piece manga into english, a couple other minor series, and... that's it. Precedant supports this deletion, as the Dattebayo fansub group (they do Naruto, a far more popular series) had their article previously deleted. It's also unreferenced and probably unreferenceable. tjstrf 04:28, 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 speedily deleted by Grandmasterka. MER-C 08:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poké World[edit]

Contested prod. I hold to my original argument that this is a non-notable forum that fails WP:WEB; even the article admits it's small and "growing". Crystallina 04:44, 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 11:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap.org[edit]

1. WP:NOT soapbox 2. Self-promotion 3. Advertising of their website Overlap.org, 4. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Internet guides, 5. WP:COI Editing from too close "little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, no verifiable notoriety given 6. NPOV, 7. style, 8. unreferenced Widefox 04:48, 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 Speedy delete as patent nonsense. -- Hoary 05:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lackasushi[edit]

This article is a joke. Fg2 04:50, 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 speedy delete. theProject 23:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Fang[edit]

1. WP:NOT soapbox 2. Self-promotion 3. Advertising of their website Overlap.org, 4. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Internet guides, 5. WP:COI Editing from too close "little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, no verifiable notoriety given 6. NPOV, 7. style, 8. unreferenced Widefox 04:54, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sandor[edit]

Unelected candidate for Toronto City Council; Wikipedia precedent has already established that the municipal level of government is not a field of endeavour in which a person can be considered notable for merely standing as a candidate. Article was previously deleted in 2005 (see first AFD) and subsequently recreated after he declared his candidacy. I don't consider it a G4 since the political candidacy, while not inherently notable per WP precedent, is at the very least a different claim of notability from the earlier article. Delete. Bearcat 05:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C&E doesn't seem to address municipal politicians very well (or even at all, actually). I've offered a summary on the talk page of where the precedents for municipal politicians and candidates have generally gone, as a start toward potentially adding such a section to the policy proposal itself. Bearcat 22:55, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Stick[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable fan-made parody of Counter-Strike. Prod was removed, but article has not been significantly expanded. --Alan Au 05:42, 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 Looking at all the arguments / checks myself Delete. Tawker 17:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaja Yoga International[edit]

Non-notable cult, does not pass WP:CORP. Fewer than 1000 Google hits, and no references from credible sources. --NovaSTL 06:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Google search for "Sahaja Yoga International": 82,800 hits. [7] Sfacets 03:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you search for any site that contains the words "Sahaja", "Yoga", and "International". When you search on the actual name of the organization, "Sahaja Yoga International", it's fewer than 1,000 [8]. --NovaSTL 08:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: "Vishwa Nirmala Dharma" - 14,600 Hits.
Regardless of what it is, is it notable? -Will Beback 07:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Dr. Michael Langone, editor of Cultic Studies Journal, Sahaja Yoga is a cult, it is preoccupied with money, the group has an "us v. them" mentality, and techniques are used and encouraged to suppress doubt about the group or its members. [9] (see the section on "Issues and Controversies). My own concern is that many of these mis-information techniques seem to be being used on Wikipedia, as members of this group appear to be creating articles here to promote the group and its activities. --NovaSTL 23:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So based on your one source, you brand your POV onto the organisation? Again, how does Sahaja Yoga International aim at promoting the goup? And here I was, certain that your concern was that the article didn't fit Wikipedia guidelines (which was the reason you gave when you nominated this article. Your edits show that since your account creation four days ago you have actively prevented sources from being added to the article, in particular any sources that could identify SYI as an organisation independant from Sahaja Yoga meditation. Your edits are obviously being used to push your own POV (expressed above) and aim at the removal of the article which you placed up for deletion. The fact that you do not reveal your Sockpuppeteer account name casts further doubt on your position in this matter. Sfacets 23:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've already gone over this, but to repeat: I have no bias in this matter. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone involved in this discussion, as I have already explained here (though considering the number of pro-SYI sockpuppets and meatpuppets that have been trotted in, I actually find that charge fairly ironic). Anyone interested in reviewing my contribution history for themselves is welcome to do so, and if the closing admin has any genuine concerns, I am happy to verify my identity in private email. As for "preventing sources", that's an absurd claim, as I would actually welcome anything which would prove that SYI had independent notability. See Talk:Sahaja Yoga International for details. In short, I'm not trying to attack SYI, I am simply trying to prevent the creation of poorly-sourced vanity articles on Wikipedia. At this point, my recommendation is that any relevant information from the Sahaja Yoga International article be merged into the article at Sahaja Yoga, and then the SYI name can be set up as a redirect. --NovaSTL 00:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well so far you have attacked the organisation by refering to it as a Cult, by ravaging the article - removing sources attempting to prove SYI is in fact a Worldwide organisation [10] placing your own without prior discussion (despite the long discussion mentionned in the previous edit)[11], removing claims without waiting for forthcoming souces (so instead of using a ((fact)) tag for example). All this seems to indicate bias, if not against the organisation, then at least in regards to this afd. You are altering the article to suit your interests, in this case winning this afd proposal. It shows bad faith that you would hide your Sockpuppeteer identity from the rest of us, even if your other Sockpuppet(s) were not engaged in this discussion. As for the assumed 'Meatpuppets', I'm sure many of them have contributed to articles anonymously over the years, just because they are required to create a User account to be able to have their say doesn't make their arguments (when given) less valid. Sfacets 00:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above post is the first-ever comment by Ewarrior21 (talk · contribs), who has no other edits. --NovaSTL 03:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NovaSTL- How many edits have you made on wikipedia in the last two days since you signed up? You should know that according to Wikipedia:Spam an NGO-related, not-for-profit establishment doesn't qualify as spam, as you marked it. (Vishwa Nirmal Prem Ashram). According to your comments above this afd does in fact seem to be a reaction to other contributor's edits, and therefore biased. Mentions of SYI as an NGO appear frequently in media, such as the Times of India, the Indian Express, there is medical research documentation done in connection with the hospital in Mumbai... there are plenty of sources. Feel free to add htem to the article. Sfacets 04:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There may be sources available, but we are not free to add them, as some users appear to be exerting ownership of the articles.[14][15][16][17][18][19] -Will Beback 21:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe NovaSTL was asking for 'Valid Sources' - something that wasn't established in this case. See Talk:Sahaja YogaSfacets 03:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that link to "Religion facts" from the University of Virginia looks like a credible source[20]. In my opinion, it should not have been removed. --NovaSTL 08:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you are unaware of the recent additions to WP:CSD concerning what is defined as spam. For more information, please read: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-02/More CSD. In any case, if you believe that there are references which assert this topic's notability, by all means, please add them to the article. Without such sources, I stand by my opinion that this article does not make an adequate case for the notability of its subject, but instead is written in a self-promotional manner, and is almost certainly in violation of WP:AUTO (please note that the primary editor on the Sahaja Yoga International article is Sahajhist (talk · contribs), who is obviously associated with the topic).
Instead of attacking me, I think that your energy would be better spent on addressing the obvious WP:AUTO problems with this article and the related self-promotional sub-articles, instead of fighting the attempts to request citations, as you have been doing in the past . For example, when someone added a ((fact)) tag, and you removed it, saying "not needed here."[21] --NovaSTL 06:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't attacking you, I was remarking on the fact that either you are a sockpuppet or a newly signed up member, and have already placed an afd. A fact you seem to be avoiding. How is removing 1 (one!) request for citation "fighting the attempts to request citations"? As I have been doing in the past? What, with my one tag removal? The tag in question wasn't required there (in my opinion) since the sentence was self-explanatory. The removal wasn't contested. But why am I justifying my old edits to you? according to the link you posted above: "Pages that exist only to promote a company, person, product, service or group." The template ((Db-spam)) can be used on pages that fit the definition". In what way do you feel an NGO project that affects hundreds of people and is well know in that part of India exists only to promote itself? Also note that it is a stub, having been created 3 days ago, so sources haven't even had the time to be included. Sfacets 06:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, your removal of that ((fact)) tag most definitely was contested, with the very next edit [22], followed by back and forth reverts, and finally the questionable statement's eventual removal. Next: My own account's status can be clearly determined by taking a moment to read my userpage. As is stated there, the primary purpose of this account is new page patrolling, as part of which I have nominated several articles for deletion, usually without much controversy (for example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corki's Corner). For other pages I have nominated for deletion, via WP:CSD, Prod, and AfD, you and anyone else are welcome to review my contribution history to see that I have not been specifically targeting this article. I am most definitely not a sockpuppet of anyone else involved in this debate, and I have no bias for or against articles about yoga. I do, however, have a bias against poorly-sourced self-promotional articles. If you truly believe that this subject is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, then, per WP:V, please provide sources which prove this. It's not about saying that something is well-known in India -- you have to provide sources which prove this. Please review WP:CORP. --NovaSTL 08:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more sources on the VND/SYI Organisation, looking up more references for Organisational status in various countries. Sfacets 03:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Argument for afd was tat the article didn't pass WP:CORP. According to WP:Corp,

A club, society, or organization is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:

1. The club, society, or organization has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the club, society, or organization itself.
  • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations6 except for the following:
  • Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the club or organization talks about itself, and advertising for the club, society, or organization. 1
  • Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply announce forthcoming club meetings or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in directories.
Sahaja Yoga international
IS Subject of non-trivial published works - see article for sources.
Sfacets 03:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Possible single purpose account: 61.14.15.65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Commentary[edit]

Comment This discussion is not about the notability of Sahaja Yoga, If you have been directed here by someone else, please be aware that this discussion is not a vote, and is not about the question of whether or not the practice of Sahaja Yoga is notable. There is already an article on Wikipedia about Sahaja Yoga, and it is not in danger. The reason for this discussion is about whether there should be a separate secondary article about the organization known as Sahaja Yoga International. In order for there to be a second article about this subject, it needs to be proven that the organization known as SYI has independent fame as a company. If not, it is more appropriate to merge information about SYI into the already existing article about Sahaja Yoga. Please limit comments to this topic. --NovaSTL 19:57, 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, time for all you keep voters to get busy on the content issues. Deizio talk 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of unsolved problems in Egyptology[edit]

List of ancient Egypt mysteries was nominated for deletion on 2005-05-27. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ancient Egypt mysteries.

As noted on the Talk page, this list is mainly a list of questions with no answers due to gaps in our knowledge of the past. They may never be answered. This list can go on and on in that regard. Furthermore, most of the questions smack of "educational" sensationalism that appeal to TV viewers but not serious research. They beg for Original Research and are POV. Also as stated on the Talk page, those questions which are legitimate can be asked and discussed on their respective articles pages. There is no need for this list. —Flembles 08:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe rewrite is realistic solution, looking at the history of the article. It was requested in last VfD in 2005 as well. Pavel Vozenilek 19:31, 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 11:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Mazzola-McMahon[edit]

Fails notability: "Marissa McMahon (née Mazzola) is the wife of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) Executive Vice President of WWE Global Media Shane McMahon." Mais oui! 08:38, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Hut[edit]

Non-notable small burger bar. Links in article are to its own website and to a directory. No independent citations or sources. Google check brings up lots more restaurant directories, but little else. Emeraude 09:47, 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 11:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Lucio[edit]

Aparently an independent music producer from St. Paul. Does not obviously meet WP:MUSIC and has no sources. Google turns up lots of hits but nothing obviously notable. Eluchil404 10:08, 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 speedy deleted by author request. Mackensen (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chirgilchin/Temp[edit]

An almost near duplicate of the Chirgilchin page. Matthuxtable 10:12, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Poutine[edit]

This appears to be a sneaky vandalism article. Most of the text is copied outright from Henri Chretien; the editor who started the article has this page as his only edit. Both Poutine and the award named after him only get hits in Google for pages based off of the Wikipedia database. Even an Amazon text search shows absolutely nothing for Henri Poutine. This man likely does not exist, and even if he does, there is absolutely no verification at the moment. Girolamo Savonarola 10:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Walther[edit]

Acedemic who does not come close to meeting WP:PROF. Prod was removed, see discussion on talk page. In all honesty, I think that it probably meets speedy criteria A7 and G11 (for the book), but given the good fiath effort to improve the article, I thought I would bring it here for wider consensus. Eluchil404 10:16, 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 11:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jemuel Carty[edit]

Does not appear to meet inclusion guideline for humans. Goole search returns three hits, notably "owner of a new company names Street Ballaz INC..." I would think that the review of "Tru 2 Da Game Vol. 2:Return of the King" by pinball10 [27] does not constitute non-trivial coverage. This could with some justification be seen as advertising. Delete unless reliable sources for information can be found.
brenneman 10:35, 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 & redirect to Weird Al Yankovic. Deizio talk 13:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Weird Al" Yankovic on Television[edit]

It's already in the Wierd Al main article, word for word. No need for this fork. People Powered 12:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Besides, you do not usually see articles like "Jennifer Lopez on Television". Michaelas10 (T|C) 12:26, 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. Deizio talk 13:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bellydance Superstars[edit]

No evidence of notability. --Peta 23:58, 6 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, Bobet 12:16, 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 Speedy Delete. It was a borderine case for A7/G11 speedy deletion in any case; non-sock votes were overwhelmingly delete; save everyone the hassle of this attracting a further 100 sock or meatpuppets in the next 24 hours which it looks set to do. The Land 19:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rational Response Squad[edit]

"small radio production group founded in 2006", the stations which air this radio show are all redlinked, and their own website has an Alexa ranking of 4,442,813. Punkmorten 10:12, 6 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, Bobet 12:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is just for a difference in opinion, people may want to know about this and other peoples opinion is no reason for deletion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death shriek[edit]

Expired WP:PROD for an article that had a no consensus result at AFD last year. PROD reason was "uncited, vague, pov article, essentially overlapping with death grunt, minor elements may be integrated in death grunt". Previous AFD here. This is a procedural renomination, so I abstain. Kusma (討論) 12:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article cites no sources, and the only Google hits I can find for "death shriek" with this meaning are WP and its mirrors. It therefore appears to be unverifiable. -- Donald Albury 18:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot a real term while metal lyrics often contain shrieks etc, this is not valid here, and does not describe true metal properly anyway.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article has been much better referenced since the start of the AfD.--Konst.ableTalk 11:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Options[edit]

Notability appears to be marginal, at best. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:33, 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. --Coredesat 06:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Callaway[edit]

I suspect copyvio, since the style of the text is similar to articles written by/about Callaway on the Christianity Today Web site, but I can't find a direct article there or elsewhere that this is a direct copyvio of. Otherwise, notability appears to be asserted and somewhat established, but only somewhat. Delete if copyvio shown (and I admit I can't show it, but it still seems to be there), weak keep if not shown. --Nlu (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've written a total replacement article version at this point in time, so if there was any copyvio I believe it is gone from the current incarnation of the article. GRBerry 03:36, 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 11:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7th Cheltenham (Charlton Kings) Scout Group[edit]

This article should be deleted, as with all other scout groups articles. Please put your efforts into Scouting in Gloucestershire. Jt spratt 16:51, 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 11:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cybergrind[edit]

Non-notable ultra-fringe genre Inhumer 21:53, 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 11:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyTinyPhone[edit]

Non-noteable/advertisement/spam Jtrainor 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm only finding directory listings and blog mentions (of dubious sources) of this company. As of now, I don't see it meeting WP:CORP standards.--Marriedtofilm 22:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry about that, the instructions for how to do it are a bit confusing. :( Jtrainor 17:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE New Year's Revolution[edit]

Pure fancruft. Will consider removing other annual pay-per-views depending on the results of this debate. Aaru Bui DII 10:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Results of matches are unnecessary. Important storyline development and title changes are already recorded in the pages of the individual wrestlers and the championships. --Aaru Bui DII 23:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're obviously horribly mistaken to what meets the criteria for deletion. I think it's obvious to everyone here that this is not going to be deleted. Unless you plan to delete every WWE pay-per-view, this has no merit for deletion. Really, deleting an active PPV from the most notable wrestling company on the Earth doesn't really fly here. — Moe 23:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do plan on deleting other pay-per-views. At least the card shouldn't be included in the article. --Aaru Bui DII 23:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PPV's are an annual occurance, so they should have their own article. I agree that results are not all that important, but there are other things that make it worthy enough for an article due to the annual nature of it. James Duggan 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are NOT getting rid of PPV articles Aaru Bui. The only reason we were putting the special episodes of RAW up for deletion was because they were only season premires and didn't warrent thier own articles. All PPV's by WWE are notable and should have articles. Your borderline WP:TROLL if you keep this disruptive behavior up. — Moe 04:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment without regards to the merits of this AfD. Wrestling is a topic whose inclusion limits are still being defined and are in fact being actively tested at the moment (as the above-mentioned season premieres). Just as that scrutiny is identifying topics on the deletion side of the acceptable threshhold, so too must it indentify topics on the other side of the threshhold. That doesn't mean that a nomination such as this, or active debate over it, is necessarily trolling or disruptive. The purpose of AfD is better articles and a better encyclopedia as a whole. Serpent's Choice 07:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is trolling when the obvious outcome is going to be Speedy Keep or Keep. It's like putting George W. Bush up for AFD and expecting it to be deleted, it ain't gonna happen. — Moe 16:58, 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 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Democratic Republican Party[edit]

Completing a nomination. See the talk page of the article for rationale. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might be notable in the future but isn't yet.

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

The result of the debate was to Delete the article. No references to show that it is even true.--Konst.ableTalk 11:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postal Orders of Diego Garcia[edit]

A doubt has been raised on whether these postal orders have been actually issued or not (see the talk page of the article). Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, Postal Order is a bit better on this subject. FrozenPurpleCube 16:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources cited, and I can't find anything in Google that isn't derived from this article, so it may well be unverifiable. -- Donald Albury 18:54, 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 SPEEDY KEEP, withdrawn by nom. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Can't Play Rugby[edit]

An unsourced drinking song that gets 159 Google hits. No apparent notability. Sandstein 15:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC) -- Withdrawn, see below. Sandstein 16:08, 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 - Yomanganitalk 09:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Falling Skies[edit]

A band which existed for a while and doesn't now. They released a couple of EPs, one of which sold a couple of thousand copies. They used the money to tour a bit. And that's about it. There is nothing to say about this band other than what they say about themselves, as far as I can tell. Guy 15:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yanksox
Comment, not a vote: Note that WP:MUSIC says, in the above-mentioned keep criterion, note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How would a redirect work when the various members have gone on to work with three different bands? Wavy G 16:01, 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 delete, redirect to Uppingham School. Deizio talk 13:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Bank House[edit]

Not notable Addhoc 15:03, 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 - Yomanganitalk 09:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craft Beer Radio[edit]

This just seems like blatant spam about an insignificant website, possibly speedy delete under CSD A7. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yanksox
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete this would actually qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1.--Konst.ableTalk 11:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raccolta[edit]

Raccolta means Collection in Italian. It is not the title of Vivaldi first Opus. Any collection of musical pieces, or of anything else, is called Raccolta. Eubulide 15:11, 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 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rehearsed Meeting[edit]

No indication that this has any notabilty beyond what is almost certainly a small self-centred clique in London. Appears to be linked to an organisation Shytstem which I am also nominating as non-notable and crystal ball gazing; appears to be ad and is in any case written by one of the organisers. Both articles are by the same person, who has previously been warned for vandalism. Emeraude 15:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page: Shytstem Emeraude 15:32, 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. --Coredesat 06:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squats in ...[edit]

Nominating the following pages for deletion: Squats in ex-Yu, Squats in Italy, Squats in Spain, Squats in France, Squats in Poland, Squats in Germany, Squats in Switzerland, Squats in The Netherlands, Squats in USA, and Squats in Canada. These pages are basically identical to Squats in the UK, which was deleted by the discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Squats_in_UK. I had added these pages to the original nomination, but the closing admin felt it would be better procedure to list them all. Leuko 15:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - The articles about Spain and Netherlands were not, imo, added to the UK AfD debate correctly, hence the reason they were not included in the original decision. I offered no opinion on whether those or any other articles should be listed. To say these articles are "basically identical" to the UK article does appear to be fair comment but I'll abstain from making a vote here. Deizio talk 16:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- USA list - delete becuase we already havea list under punk house

- germany - we already have the bluelinked places listed in the squatting page under notable squats

- netherlands - reluctantly, i like it as a list, but see comments below

- lack of verification takes care of the rest

I mean, i think there are lots of lists here on wikipedia which i personally find a lot more worthless than these, but then squattign is an interest of mine and i appreciate that the lists are not verified at this time, although perhaps Mladifilozof, who recently created most of these pages and perhaps is still learning the ropes of wikipedia, will provide verification. There is already the list of notable squats on the squatting page and i hope i have moved all the blue links to that list, which can be expanded as necessary. I find it a shame that Squats in The Netherlands is also going to get deleted, becuase it is a list which has existed for quite a while and i personally find useful. moreover, i am slowly working through the squats making entries out of them, but i guess for now they can stay on the notable squats list. Further, I think its a shame Leuko is going about the deletion in this way, as i have already pointed out here and here. And finally it would be nice at least to have a real proposal for deletion of these pages Mujinga 22:59, 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 delete. -- Steel 15:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Gibson and Anti-Semitism[edit]

Procederial nomination, contested PROD. Yanksox 15:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely copied. SergeantBolt (t,c) 18:01, 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 12:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source BI[edit]

Little more than a collection of external links. Delete per WP:NOT. ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipeia is not a link directory. If there was content about such open source ETL tools - it definitely should've stayed (probably inside the main ETL article), but Open Source BI doesn't provide content - this is why it is nominated for deletion. Wikiolap 05:14, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High school subcultures[edit]

Prod'd, but obviously needs a wider audience for deletion decision. UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 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 12:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morton's list[edit]

This was previously AfD'd and deleted. The current article is much shorter than the old one and I don't believe the creators are the same, so it's not a repost, but the current article reads like an ad (listing the price??) and is still about a non-notable meme. Opabinia regalis 16:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. SergeantBolt (t,c) 18:00, 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. Deizio talk 14:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netjak[edit]

Was on prod, but contested. Prod concern: No claims of notability, per WP:WEB UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States military nuclear incident terminology[edit]

This article was originally speedy deleted because all of the terms had been individually transwikied to Wictionary (under CSD G5). A DRV consensus overturned, reasoning that -- while dicdefs aren't permissible on Wikipedia -- glossaries are sometimes permitted. Please consult the DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:32, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community Middle School[edit]

School vanity page with no alumns of any note whatsoever. EntropyGuardian 16:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: EntropyGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

  • Comment: Let me just say that what is important is the consensus among all Wikipedians, not among schoolwatch this is a very alarming statement and not at all in the spirt of wikipedia goals. I visted the link to Schoolwatch and found no discussion as to what are notable or what is not. All I found were a list of AfD's current and a past AfD's with results totaled by month list with totals by month. As to its point of view I found this statement right at top of page "the terms 'keep' and 'no consensus' are used interchangeably (as no consensus defaults to keep)." TheRanger 16:04, 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 merge & redirect to Pickling. Deizio talk 13:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pickling spice[edit]

Not noteable. Wikipedia is not a recipe book Blood red sandman 16:42, 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; AfD is not a vote, it is up to those arguing for deletion to address claims of notability when they arise. They didn't, so we have to assume that Hit's evidence proves the book's notability in the absence of any argument whatsoever to the contrary. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Loudness of Sam[edit]

Seemingly non-notable children's book. Claims to have been made into a TV programme, which seems equally non-notable --Dangherous 17:05, 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 - as the nominator isn't actually arguing for deletion, nor is anyone else, it seems pointless to relist this. Discussion of moves goes at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. government designations for places[edit]

The information seems OK, but I don't like the name of the page, it seems a bit vague. Maybe I should put this on "requests for rename-age", but I don't know the template for that. So it's here instead. Plus, the page has gone nearly 2 years without any editting, so I've a feeling the info is somewhere else anyway. --Dangherous 17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not entirely, as there are some remaining redlinks. FrozenPurpleCube 00:01, 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 delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities in Lahore[edit]

Seems deprecated what with Category:Universities and colleges in Lahore. In this case, cats at end of articles are less maintenance-y than having to update the list. --EEMeltonIV f17:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, has no incoming links other than AfD material. --EEMeltonIV 17:35, 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 no consensus to delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations[edit]

Article gives no indication of satisfying WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:SOFTWARE. Whispering 17:53, 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 speedy delete --Durin 12:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSN Messneger , Previous[edit]

There is already an article pertaining to MSN Messenger at MSN Messenger. This article is not useful in any way, and serves no purpose. I nominated it for speedy deletion, but its author objected. Martin 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pointless, and its title is misspelt. SergeantBolt (t,c) 17:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ther is an article on its history though. But thatz not the point. I posted the narticlefor users who use systems that cannot run WLM, and if this is put back correctly, I will have a link to a site where people using slow or junky computers can find out more about the product that actually works for them, not one that doesn't. Besides, all the products are splitting;soon you might be arguing with someone who wants to write an article about Hotmail not Windows Live Mail.
--I saw the article and liked it so i wish you would leave it alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sam798 (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. Deizio talk 14:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foothill horizons summer camp[edit]

Non notable camp. Prod tag previously removed by article creator. cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:20, 8 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 18:14, 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, redirecting to Youtube. Deizio talk 14:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalina (3rd nomination)[edit]

DELETE - PASSING FAD THAT SERVES NO IMPORTANCE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.18GB (talk • contribs) .

Previous AFDs here Yomanganitalk 18:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have split the history so that they are now at 1st 2nd. -Splash - tk 23:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'll just change to Neutral as I also did on the Crazy German kid AfD.--Húsönd 18:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: 4.18GB (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.*Delete - flash in the pan. Would you find this in Britannica? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.18GB (talk • contribs) 14:40, October 14, 2006

WP:BIO is not at stake here. The previous AfDs have already established that. (JROBBO 12:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
That's not a reason for deletion as already established by the Daniel Brandt controversy. (JROBBO 06:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
There is a list of notable YouTube users, which have established her as a notable YouTube user, and she has survived a deletion review twice. (JROBBO 06:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Excuse me? Being in a category is not justification for having an article kept. GassyGuy 06:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, bad English. My point is that this has already survived two deletion debates and there hasn't been any real change in circumstances warranting a third. Secondly, there are plenty of other YouTube users with their own articles who were less notable than this user, but whose articles are still regarded as notable. I really don't think this is a reason. (JROBBO 06:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
By that logic, every politician should be deleted once they retire. WP is not just about the present, you know. You can't argue this. (JROBBO 06:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Not really analogous. In the real world, politics are central to the workings of the nation. Politicians played key roles in something very important, so they are notable and worthy of encyclopaedic reference; in contrast youtube is... well... a website, and not exactly central to the world. Being involved with youtube is hardly being a government official. GassyGuy 06:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point still remains - just because you stop doing something that you achieved notable coverage for doesn't mean that you automatically become non-notable. In any case, there is enough precedent on WP to make this sort of argument unfounded. (JROBBO 06:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Perhaps, but, the point is, just getting press coverage isn't the same as establishing notability in the first place. I, too, have gotten press coverage, but good luck finding my article, which also doesn't belong here. The point being made is that, if having some press coverage is all that can be said to support keeping the article, it is unlikely to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. I'll also note that the presence of even less worthy articles does not justify the keeping of this one. GassyGuy 06:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP is not just about the present, but it is also not an indiscriminate collection. She got a little press for being momentaraly popular on a website. Big deal. By your logic, anybody who receives any press is automatically notable. Right down to every minor criminal who is locally newsworthy. Nobody is going to remember this girl in six months, let alone 100 years. Resolute 14:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it does give notability to the prominence of internet memes on YouTube. Perhaps some (but not all) of this information would be better served on a "Notable YouTube memes" page which is there to establish YouTube memes that have made significant coverage in particular countries. That would make this page defunct but the new article would serve YouTube's notability and not Emmalina's. (JROBBO 04:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The subject wishing deletion to take place is not a reason for deletion, as already established by the Angela Beesley and Daniel Brandt issues. But to protect their interest, perhaps someone can get this article protected to stop unsigned users from adding incorrect and libelous information? (JROBBO 06:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Meh, no one said that WAS the reason for deletion. The reason is that I'm entirely unnotable. 124.177.40.147 08:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true - you gained significant media attention. That establishes some notability at least. Anyway, her notability has already been established here and doesn't need going over again. Why doesn't someone stop this discussion? It is pointless going over the same debate again for no reason. (JROBBO 12:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
What!? Three news articles in the "Tech" section of online news sites counts as "significant media attention" these days? One of which was a follow-up article, and the other written without my consent? You have to be kidding me. I'm NOT a public figure nor do I want to be. Oh, and why "stop the discussion" when at this point over half of the voters agree that it requires deletion? 124.177.40.147 07:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting hacked makes you notable now? A whole lot of my acquaintances are now worthy of articles. GassyGuy 00:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have any of them received newspaper coverage of their harassment? Andjam 00:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some have received coverage via incident reports in papers, but does coverage in a newspaper automatically make a person notable? GassyGuy 02:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What else exactly would you use a measuring stick? Notable people--even if notable for a time--get in the press. Notable once, they merit inclusion. · XP · 03:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I'm saying that, while not having any press coverage at all may be grounds for deletion, having some isn't automatic grounds for inclusion. Do you really think everyone who has an article in the special interest sections of newspapers should be included here? This is a basic summary of what happened: She had some videos on Youtube that people watched. She got hacked. It got a bit of coverage in minor newspaper sections. The end. It's not really the sort of thing that belongs in an encyclopaedia. Press coverage might make it a borderline case, but really, there's little to push her over into celebrity status. Think of it this way - every paedophile who gets caught and convicted by Perverted-Justice.com will have people on the web reading their story and also get newspaper coverage of the conviction. Does that establish encyclopaedic notability? (Note: I apologize to Emmalina for using the example of criminals in comparison to her, if she is reading this. I do not mean to imply that she has done anything at all to be held in a negative light. It was just the only other case I could think of that involved extensive website coverage and minor newspaper coverage.) Anyway, I think I'm rambling, so I'll quit trying to explain myself and let the AfD carry on its normal course. GassyGuy 07:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In a local paper, or a specialised website, maybe not, but if you read about it in a paper on the other side of the world? Andjam 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is focussed on events that happened on the Internet. You know, the World Wide Web. It's not surprising or special in the slightest that it was covered (by what, ONE media company?) in a country other than my own. EmmalinaL 05:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I heard of him" is not a very convincing argument toward notability when the subject is female. GassyGuy 04:16, 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 delete. — TKD::Talk 02:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indomitable (Star Wars)[edit]

In my random merge project in Category:Star Wars spaceships, this one pops out like a sore thumb; it's an attempt at a disambiguation page, listing several very minor star wars vessels. I don't think a dab is necessary; this page as a whole is unnecessary, and can't really be redirected appropriately. — Deckiller 18:10, 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 - the main thrust of the arguments from those arguing to keep is that she is notable enough to have an article (I know there are other arguments but I'm summarizing) and that the circumstances surrounding her death confer that notability. Although that is obviously (from the sheer volume of argument below) debatable it is secondary to the policy of WP:NPOV. This article, while cited, cannot be regarded as having a neutral point of view - look at the Joe Scarborough article to see the incident is covered in a far more balanced way - and since no attempt has been made to remove bias during the course of the AFD it must deleted under that policy. Yomanganitalk 11:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Klausutis[edit]

First Deletion Reason: Pursuant to WP:BLP regarding Non-Public Figures: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.”[35] Subject of the article is non-notable, except for a flurry of speculation in 2001 regarding Joe Scarborough’s involvement in her death, and mention in a local Florida newspaper, and that time has long passed. Article seems to be created for the sole purpose of disparaging Joe Scarborough. I don’t care for Scarborough, but having this article gives undue weight to a story which has been thoroughly discredited, and as such violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight -- there is no investigation of Scarborough, and the Coroner said Klausutis did not die under suspicious circumstances – its inclusion here is sensationalist and tabloidic, not encyclopedic. This article was deleted once before. Only 842 hits on google, most of which are blogs. If this information is notable at all, put it in the Scarborough article, and leave sensationalism to The National Enquirer. Wikipedia is not a battleground Morton devonshire 18:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History Okay, to clarify on the deletion history of the article, it was nominated for deletion twice in the past for different reasons than it is being nominated for this time. The first time, the result was delete, because it was a useless and possibly POV redirect to Joe Scarborough. The second time, the main reason was lack of notability, and the result of the debate was no consensus. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC), 00:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • G10 does not apply here per derex above. You may want to change your comment or it may be disregarded by closing admin Glen 04:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again speedy delete does not apply here so per above you may want to change your comment or it may be disregarded Glen 04:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Attack pages are deletable by an admin on sight. --Aaron 18:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Absolutely, which is why this one is not eligible. Give me a break, it may be misguided, but it's not an attack page. Further, I find the nom's arguments to be wholly unpersuasive and irritating in tone; nom seems to view AFD as a POV battleground and routinely spams to friendlies on votes. This one, for example, was pre-discussed among a little group of early voters. That last said, and I've been wanting to comment on this longstanding abuse of the AFD process for a long time, this person has no notability beyond Scarborough. So, there ought to be about 3 lines in his article mentioning the hubbub. Derex 18:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a pre-meeting on the AfD? And I missed it? Rats. That means my sockpuppets Rex/Merecat/Morton/172/TDC/MONGO/Tom/Aaron missed it too. <that was a joke for the humor impaired folks> --Tbeatty 03:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, don't be coy T. You even alerted me of the listing[36], because you knew my opinion. You are quite prolific enough by yourself without imaginary socks, anyway. The repeated behavior of the nom here is the problem, not you. I've seen him spam as many as 50 friendlies (based off conservative user-boxes) over an AFD. Derex 09:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I alerted you because you had previously expressed interest in voting delete before the AfD and I thought that was a noble thing that you had done. --Tbeatty 17:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, you knew what I thought, because you had asked me to nominate it for AFD and I refused. That's not the point, but it is indicative. I am here participating because of private communications off the talk page; a one-off or two is no big deal, but it's becoming systemic at least with this nom. The point is that there has recently been a tremendous amount of pre-discussion of AFD's among politically like-minded editors, crucially this is off the article talk pages. These voters are quickly informed of the nom's and swarm in to create a snowball before disinterested editors ever have a look. I don't like it. If an article truly deserves to go, it will go without a lot of lobbying and spamming and otherwise un-wiki techniques. Derex 23:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see some criticism of the medical examiner in the article. Which other 2 persons are attacked? Any unsupported or POV statements, or statements violating WP:BLP should be edited out.Edison 07:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a serious question? Try Scarborough and Harris. Crockspot 19:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The husband of the subject requesting its deletion is not relevant to the process. *Sparkhead 01:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject may not be a living person, but the husband is. WP:BLP does have legal concerns, but if it weren't ethical as well, it probably wouldn't be as strict. The letter of WP:BLP may not apply, but the spirit does. The article may not affect the actual subject of the article, that person being dead, but it does affect other people - those who cared (care?) about the subject, and other living people mentioned in the article. It can affect those people's lives, and it is affecting some of their lives. Two of those people have attempted to intervene in the articles in ways WP:BLP suggests subjects of articles might. The fact that the husband is not in fact the subject of the article does not make the impact on his life any less real.
    Regarding my change in vote, I hope that the article is deleted and not recreated, but dispute resolution, which is already occuring for the Joe Scarborough article, is probably a better outlet for deciding that than AfD. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 03:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the discussion. An article didn't exist at the time of the delete. Since the item in the Aug05 AfD was a redirect, handled as an RfD in an AfD discussion, this article was never deleted. It was an AfD that resulted in a deletion of a redirect. A little intellectual honesty would be appreciated. *Sparkhead 00:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not much point in posting to Essjay's talk page about anything; he hasn't made a single edit anywhere on Wikipedia in two months. --Aaron 01:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that Morton devonshire might not have read the discussion. In any case, although "recreation of a deleted article" is not a good justification for deletion here, the *fD still has historical interest, especially considering it does mention the Joe Scarborough controversy. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a lot of merit in this article, but I would like to keep the history accurate. This may be the third nomination, but is only the second time the article itself is being considered for deletion, and it was never deleted. Just a nuance, but it is more accurate. Catch me on my talk page if you want to discuss it a bit more, no use cluttering this up. *Sparkhead 00:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is no logical comparison between this article and Chandra Levy. Gary Condit was having an affair with Levy, and lied about it during much of the search for her. There is zero evidence that Scarborough and Klausutis had anything other than a standard employer-employee relationship, and he has an iron-clad alibi that proves he was uninvolved in her death. --Aaron 00:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's plenty of logical comparison. A young woman worker of a congressman died with no known witnesses present. How often does that happen? Also note the very recent Miami Herald mention of the incident with respect to Katherine Harris, which is not a small town paper. *Sparkhead 01:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one knows how many times it happens because no one cares. It's not notable. But people die in the workplace for natural causes all the time. That's all that happened here. And the smear is trying to compare someone who was murdered and that's having an affair with a congressman vs. someone who is unknown to a congressman that dies of natural causes. 'Female' and 'dead' is about the only comparison but the innuendo is something more and is a violation of BLP.--Tbeatty 03:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can generalize to "any workplace" but when something happens related to a Congressman, whether it's tax evasion or death of a worker, it is more notable than it happening to Joe Public. *Sparkhead 12:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of those editing (1)[edit]

  • The BLP is joe scarborough and the problem is false light defamation. You have already stated that you believe that this article reflects negatively on scarborough and that is prima facie evidence of "false light" as there is no reason Klausutis' death should reflect anything on Scarborough. --Tbeatty 22:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first deletion reason is not applicable in this case: "Pursuant to WP:BLP regarding Non-Public Figures". Other BLP issues may be in play, but to focus on a non-public figure BLP violation is not correct. *Sparkhead 22:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We can delete it for reasons other than the reasons listed in the nomination... assuming sufficient consensus, of course. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's why I mentioned other issues may be in play. *Sparkhead 01:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In fairness to Scarborough, especially given that Katherine Harris reportedly brought this up in her campaign, if it is shown to be a tragic but non-notable death unrelated to Scarborough, the facts that show that to be so should be laid out somewhere, and it seems too much space would be required in the Scarborough article for an adequate treatment, which it does not have at present. For comparison, the death of Marilyn Monroe (certainly notable) was officially ruled to be suicide by drug overdose, but there is another long article Death of Marilyn Monroe about it being suspicious and possibly due to murder, far more tabloid than anything in this article. The Vince Foster article bandies about tabloid theories that he was murdered by the Clintons, despite official findings of suicide, so there are precedents that a coroner's ruling does not prevent conspiracy theories being discussed in a NPOV way on Wikipedia.Edison 07:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've misinterpreted my comment, then, Jimbo. I was not literally comparing Oswald to Klausutis. Obviously, Oswald has been the subject of far more media attention and study than Klausutis, that goes without saying. The only reason I invoke Oswald's name is as a hyperbolic example, extending the logic of a previous poster's fallacy - which is basically that Klausutis didn't do anything notable before she got her share of posthumous media attention. wikipediatrix 13:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of those editing (2)[edit]

Actually, since an AfD is NOT a vote count, there's no indication that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. wikipediatrix 13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not counting "votes". I was looking at rationale. But I am also asking for an uninvolved admin to take a look. While I see a potential snowball they may not. Fiddle Faddle 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to think that a deletion here would increase the size or significance of the paragraph in the Joe Scarborough article. There is no relevant information in this article that would improve the Scarborough article. The question his will Wikipedia be the conduit for "scurrilous aspersions" or will it allow them to remain in the dark corners of the internet.--Tbeatty 04:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is already the conduit for scurrilous but notable aspersions, such as George W. Bush's deliberate lies about Saddam Hussein, or the Smear Boat Vets' deliberate lies about John Kerry. My view is that we report notable aspersions, whether they're valid or scurrilous. If your view is that we suppress information about notable but scurrilous aspersions, then you'd have Wikipedia editors deciding what's scurrilous. The Klausutis issue is clearly notable by objective standards relating to the coverage it's received. JamesMLane t c 05:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a rationale for keeping this article. It is a rationale for writing an article about the exploitation of the poor woman's death for political gain. We have to be very clear that the article text must reflect the topic of the article. Mrs K's life was non notable except to her loved ones. Her death per se was not notable either. The use and abuse some people made of her death is notable, and worthy of consideration for an article. But it is absolutely wrong to put this into an article "about Mrs K", because it is not about her. So, yes, report notable and verifiable aspersions and controversies, provided such is encyclopaedic reporting not journalistic pap, and create as many relevant articles as you wish. But this article is not the article to do it with. It has genuinely no notability and should go forthwith. Write the article about the way Mrs K's untimely death was exploited by various parties, and, provided it meets the guidelines here, there will be support for that article except from politically blinded folks. Lest anyone thinks I care about US internal politics, not a chance! I'm from England. Fiddle Faddle 07:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then change the article name to Klausutitis Affair, Death of Lori Klausutis, Conspiracy theories regarding Lori Klausutis or something non biographical. --Bletch 11:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the way most Wikipedia articles are set up, readers would often be typing "Lori Klausutis" into the search box, so that seems like the best place for the article. A redirect to one of Bletch's proposed titles would be my second choice. By the same reasoning, I'd keep the Willie Horton article at Willie Horton, even though he has no notability except for how his record "was exploited by various parties". JamesMLane t c 13:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is perhaps an argument for a redirect, but the fact remains that if it remains in its current namespace, it is a biographical article.--Rosicrucian 15:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of those editing (3)[edit]

Are we pointing to other articles that could be deleted to justify the existence of this one? Where does that lead this discussion? Nowhere. Ramsquire 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, then they should also go away...we are here to discuss the merits of this deletion, not why other articles haven't been deleted.--MONGO 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is filled with articles that should be deleted or merged. My problem with this one is its use to attack another person by innuendo. Wikipedia is full of tedious lists too, but I mostly leave them alone. If we had a list of Liberal pundits who have no alibi for gruesome murders I would delete it. Tom Harrison Talk 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the key words "relative lack of media coverage" from the Lori Klausutis article. It is not our job to make media coverage where there is none. Stephen Tibble got a posthumous medal and a memorial. Rachel Levy got coverage by Newsweek and CBS. Many of the others Wikipediatrix mentions should also be deleted for non-notability. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is a way to do what you suggest, and that is indeed called a "hard redirect." It involves making the redirect, then protecting the page.--Rosicrucian 23:11, 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 delete --Durin 12:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSN Messenger, Previous[edit]

WRONG. There is already an MSN messenger article at MSN Messenger; That article redirects to the Windows Live Messenger page, and it does not even have a link to the history page; Therefore I am removing the Deletion notice.

There is already an MSN messenger article at MSN Messenger; this is a pointless article. This page is a copy of a page nominated for deletion here. Martin 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is a duplicate of the more imrpoved: History of Windows Live Messenger. 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So is Windows Live Messenger Article But you win, ill remove it k bye MESSAGE FROM: ((Unknown_(email?)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan.hardman (talk • contribs)

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myrmica ordinaria[edit]

it is a personal attack against someone Teh tennisman 18:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's what I figured. Speedy it ASAP. Teh tennisman 18:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I added a speedy delete tag to it, I hope I did it right. Edward Wakelin 19:21, 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 No consensus to delete.--Konst.ableTalk 11:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Large[edit]

Blatant advert for John Large's company. Also fails Wikipedia is not for lists of external links. -- RHaworth 18:42, 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 Speedy delete as CSD A7. Yanksox 19:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Group Films[edit]

2006 October 14 Non-notable organization. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:45, 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. - Bobet 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Job for a Cowboy[edit]

Appears to fail to meet every single one of the WP:BAND criteria, even though they come close to fulfilling several. Delete for now, may restore later when they actually meet at least one. --Nlu (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only the UK tour was verified, and the US tour was "with" a bundle of other bands. I don't think this is sufficient. --Nlu (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Either way, it does fill at least one of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. I don't think this Afd really surves any purpose as the band, judging from the talk page and Last.fm, is clearly popular among some and will probably have its article re-created within a few weeks. The re-creation will then re-ignite the genre debate. Prolog 16:31, 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 Speedy delete - nn- and auto- bio. -- RHaworth 18:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chad blenkin[edit]

the article is an autobiography about a person who fails the Google test (see the article's Talk Page) and reads like an advertisement JPG-GR 18:51, 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. - Bobet 19:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirt Spawn Disease[edit]

nn band FreeKresge 19:25, 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 Home improvement. KrakatoaKatie 12:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home Modifications[edit]

Article content is only one of many topics that could be listed under 'home modification' and appears to be a gateway to firm selling household improvement stock (see external link) AuldReekie 19:32, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhikle[edit]

Non-notable surname. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:11, 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 speedy delete. theProject 00:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short Bus Racers[edit]

No verification provided, and I cannot verify that this is a real sport. Prod removed. Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:21, 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.

W3.org/Tools/[edit]

The result was Speedy deleted as a copyright violation from http://www.w3.org/Consortium/ User:Zoe|(talk) 20:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although a Google search brings up 9,350 hits, it should be merged into World Wide Web Consortium, provided article subpages are now considered bad form. Moreover, it reeks of WP:SPAM. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a copyvio from http://www.w3.org/Consortium/. Speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:54, 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 No consensus to delete.--Konst.ableTalk 11:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X[edit]

Delete Three months since the previous nomination and nothing has happened. No one is interested in working on this. And the few that have made edits don't seem to care about citing sources or avoiding POV and OR. AlistairMcMillan 20:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, delete. You know what, Alistair McMillan, you've really put this article down the shitter anyway. As the history page will show, you had nothing better to do with your time than to prepare this article to propose it for deletion; you hacked and hacked away at its material and obviously want it gone. I dont know what your grudge is, but a genuine argument such as this would've been fine if you hadent made it your sole purpous to delete it. Truly there is nothing wrong with this page; but your will seems to be stronger than mine.

The article is open to many ideas and contributions to all sides of the argument, but apparently its not good enough for Wikipedia (although Tom Miller is).

I expected this; after you followed my every move like a hawk. You are--without a doubt-- the worst WikiSnob I know of.

Thank you for your patronage, administrator. --Alegoo92 21:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. For the record, I helped out with your article on "Speakable items"[43]. And I've tidied up a bunch of your other edits. Proving citations where I can, which you NEVER do. If I thought this article was salvageable I would try to fix it, but it ain't salvageable because it just ain't encyclopaedic.
BTW I stand by my edits on Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X, if you would like to discuss any in particular... AlistairMcMillan 23:15, 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 of the debate was to Delete the article. --Konst.ableTalk 11:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Bookcases[edit]

commercial advertising of non-notable store. ThuranX 20:37, 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 delete. Sango123 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Good Ass Job[edit]

((prod)) tag was removed without discussion. The topic is a substub about an album to be released in approximately two years. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mikeblas 05:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result was

A Good Ass Job[edit]

Uhh, nominating again, for some reason this wasn't deleted. Crystal ball, etc per first discussion --Macarion 20:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted. This is a recreation. Speedied. When the album comes out, then we can have this article. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:51, 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 Speedy Keep per passing of WP:MUSIC. Nishkid64

DJ Webstar[edit]

Was speedy deleted yesterday under CSD A7, and was recreated and tagged for speedy deletion before User:4.18GB nominated it for AfD. He/she did not make the AfD page, so I am doing so. I have requested the user come here and state their reasons for nominating this page for deletion. The user did say "Notability Issue. This entry serves of no importance and would not be found in a respectable encyclopedia." Nishkid64 21:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indians to appear on the cover of TIME magazine[edit]

Listcruft. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarascity[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; this page is entirely a glorified dictionary definition. No noteability established. Prod removed without comment Blood red sandman 21:02, 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. However, I plan to (as an editor) merge some of these articles into List of minor characters in Danny Phantom. It's obvious that there's consensus to keep major characters as separate articles, but unless someone can give me a good reason why each minor character deserves its own article, I will merge the minor characters into one list. Ral315 (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Phantom (character)[edit]

(this AfD is for the Danny Phantom character and for all other characters/elements in the Danny Phantom series) WP:NOT a place to dump articles about your favorite show on. Delete. [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] Other articles being AfDed can be found here: A Link to the Past (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...I have decided that my policy is that if one of the articles in the mass nomination is not worthy of deletion then I will say Keep them all, with no prejudice against anyone relisting individual articles in their own Afd. In this case, although the nom doesn't really specify a guideline that is being violated here, the discussion seems to be about notability. Since I perceive the main character of this show to be notable enough for an article, by my own criteria, keep them all until relisted in their own Afds. Dina 02:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE I don't see how the entirety of those articles merit deletion. Merging, perhaps, but the recommended course of action seems extreme and personally motivated.--Jace Draccus 21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Jace Draccus is new and has edited this page only. HighInBC 20:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Sorry for writing three entries but If you merge the articles then other people will start articles for that character and do we want to merge it NO The show's viewers are increasing every day and as for People want to oppose this well that's your opinion. However if you keep the articles then things will just be better for me and most of the people (those who said keep all) so KEEP ALL ARTICLES -- Mrsanitazier 24(0):04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't use vote images, and don't post your vote multiple times. It's cheating. And how is it better for most people? I bet that there are more people who would vote delete than those who would vote keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the other comments made by Mrsanitazier. Please Mrsanitazier, please do not make it seem like more people are voting to keep than it really is. And Link, what the hell are you talking about when you say "I bet that there are more people who would vote delete than those who would vote keep". Are you blind? Do you not see the excessive amount of Speedy Keep and Keep votes? Not only by fans of Danny Phantom, but by respected editors of this community and by admins too. When are you going to give up this ultra-deletionist attitude of yours, because frankly it's getting old. Also, it's not a problem to use Images here, so I don't see why you care about that at all. — Moe 02:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Funny, I always thought that the entirety of Wikipedia was encompassed of more than the people that voted in this AfD. And there are also respected members and admins who disagree with the respected members and admins who agree with you. And let me guess - I'm an ultra-deletionist because of this one AfD? I'm a merge/redirectist. You can't just say that someone is a deletionist because they AfD your favorite article. You know what? I say that you're an ultra-keepist, who would defend an article about The Box Ghost's eye color. And, there is a problem with vote images because they're generally not supposed to be used. So now you see why I "care at all". - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yet there are more people who have voted on this article that chose 'keep', not 'delete'. I think that was Moe's point. --Jace Draccus 02:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And my point was that everyone who voted in this AfD does not comprise the entirety of Wikipedia. My earlier point was that more people would vote delete than keep. What do you expect? There are a bunch of AfDs on all of the Danny Phantom character articles, so everyone who edits those articles comes to their rescue. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't comprise the entirety of Wikipedia, but editors and admins who decided to make thier presence felt is what consensus is about. And if the the other respected members of the community and admins who disagree with me on this issue exist, where the fuck are they, because they certainly are not here. You're wrong, I don't like this show, at all. I don't particualry like the storyline and most cartoons nowadays are rubish. Regardless that doesn't take away a cartoons popularity or notablity. NO, I wouldn't defend an article about The Box Ghost's eye color, but I sure as hell wouldn't agree with some tired-excuse you present as notability. The only reason I don't agree with the deletion is because I think main characters of a TV show are notable enough for thier own article. I also vote Keep because I absolutly hate mass-deletion voting like this. If you AFD'ed these articles sepretely you would probably have some different responses, but wtf do you expect when you nominate 27 complete articles of a popular TV show for deletion? — Moe 03:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's speculation, nothing more. If 'possible votes' mattered, democracy would fall apart. So the entirety of Wikipedia is less important than the entirety of people that voted here. Most of which voted 'Keep' or 'Merge'. Which invalidates your theory. Also, don't complain about the editors 'coming to the rescue', you're the one that chose to mass-flag. --Jace Draccus 03:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Moe, how can you argue with your own logic? You stated that my AfDing of these articles makes me an ultra-deletionist, so why aren't you an extremist keepist when you do the opposite? And yes, I speculated, just like another user speculated that these articles' existence is good for most people. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't call me Moe. And you're the one wanting them gone. Speculation, exaggeration and lack of solid argument does not help your case. You want us to agree they should be deleted, remember? However, I think you were referred to as an ultra-deletionist because of your apparently fanatical obsession with removing these articles. Moe might be an 'extremist keepist', but he'd not defending the articles for the sake of defending them... merely, as I understand his arguments, because he doesn't agree with your reasoning or methods. --Jace Draccus 08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't speaking to you, so I didn't call you Moe. And what are you talking about? When another user speculated that these articles need to stay because it's good for most Wikipedians it's fine, but when I say that most Wikipedians would probably agree with me I'm a fiend? And I like how you point out that I am apparently being fanatical in my pursuit to have these articles deleted. What should I do to not be fanatical? Vote to keep them? Another hypocricy - why is it that Moe can accuse me of being an ultra deletionist because I happen to vote to delete one group of articles, while Moe could never be an extreme keepist for voting to keep this one group of articles? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being lazy and address Moe in replies to Moe then. Let's keep things orderly. I never commented on another user's speculations, only that your speculations are entirely irrelevant as 'most wikipedians' are not voting on this article, so saying 'most would vote delete' means nothing, as most who have voted went for 'keep' (Ok, yes, I editted, it didn't make sense before--Jace Draccus 20:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)). If you're referring to the 'speculation' I think you are, then look at their reasoning as to WHY they think its good. And argue it with them... as for not being fanatical? Stop quoting rules that don't exist, and find some justification more solid than 'OMG IT'S NOT AS POPULAR AS SPONGEBOB SO IT ISN'T AS IMPORTANT'... and don't flag EVERY article relating to the show for deletion. That's a napalm approach. Better to review each article on its OWN merits. Also, learn to read. I said Moe _may_ be 'an extreme keepist', but I defended his REASON for being so. Which has more to do with the Wikipedia process than a personal bias towards the show, unlike your portrayal of your reasoning. --Jace Draccus 20:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One vote does not make someone an "extreme anything". However, you do state on you userpage that you have put a lot of things up on Afd, so maybe that's where he got it from. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Happy Halloween! • WP:NYCS} 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I always thought that having a personal bias against a show entailed that I disliked it or, Hell, was biased. I like DP and Final Fantasy VI, yet I nominated character articles of both for deletion. And the rule does exist, according to you - who stated that I was fanatically against the Danny Phantom articles. So logically, you are fanatically for the Danny Phantom articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way you are acting, it does seem like you have a bias towards the show. You don't have to be fanatically one way or the other to have a strong bias towards something. And you Link, truely without a doubt in my mind, do have a bias against characters having thier own articles. — Moe 22:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is bad. I just don't agree with you. It's more of a middle ground. Stop blowing things out of proportion. --Jace Draccus 22:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Moe: But shouldn't I actually have a strong bias to have a strong bias towards somkething? How am I acting? Oh, I know what you mean - I must hate Danny Phantom because I'm not making an article about every single orgamism in the Danny Phantom series. I seem to have forgotten that one's opinion on a subject has no bearing compared to what some person with absolutely no knowledge of one's actual opinion. And I applaud you for forming an opinion on my true intentions without having any evidence whatsoever that even indicates that your opinion has any value whatsoever.
And Draccus: Ever notice that you look at two people doing the same thing and decide that only one person - conveniently the one you disagree with - is wrong for doing it. Moe is claiming that I have a strong bias towards this article and is assuming bad faith (meaning that what I am doing is vandalism). But it's always okay when the person agrees with you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moe isn't basing his arguments on anything as absurd as 'It's not as popular as Spongebob'... also, the bit about how you're not writing about every single organism in the show so you must hate it? No, that's absurd. The fact that you're so relentlessly against the articles, against even the main character having his own article, to the point that you're fervently proposing a massive delete bomb of 20-30 articles, tells us you hate it. --Jace Draccus 23:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So deleting the character articles means I cannot like Danny Phantom? Can you imagine why I think that both you and Moe are incompetent fools? No human being with an ounce of intelligence makes such a claim unless they're just trying to make baseless accusations. You are either an idiot or are trolling. Next time you decide to act like a moron and decide that you know what I think more than I do, smack yourself upside the head and throw your computer in the trash. Whether you're an idiot or a troll, you ruin the internet. If you are an idiot, let me explain something - I like Danny Phantom. I have stated that. But you seem to not like to bring up evidence that hurts your otherwise solid point that I hate Danny Phantom. Apparently, someone didn't consider that the fact that one likes Danny Phantom kind of shows he doesn't hate it. But then again, can't let logic and reality stop you from accusing those who dissent from your opinion of bad faith. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smooth Link, really immature to call someone an "idiot", "moron" and a "fool" for going against your view points. I suggest the next lessen me and Jace Draccus should take is WP:DFTT, so I think we should refran from talking to you. — Moe 00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never mentioned bad faith. I also never said I had a problem with deletion to some extent, I just don't like the way you've proposed it, or tried to defend it. You ignore what others actually say in favour of blowing things out of proportion (which is listed on WP:POINT as potentially disruptive behaviour), you make statements of little relevance or no evidence ('It's not notable because it's not as popular as Spongebob'), and, well, trying to get 26 articles deleted at once seems excessive. But since you're not listening, I'll stop talking. Bye now. --Jace Draccus 00:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what a genius you are, Moe! After all, even though I never mentioned my viewpoints while referring to the two of you with those descriptions, I must have been discussing different viewpoints. I couldn't have been, oh, say, calling you idiots, morons, fools, and trolls for making false accusations towards me. And listening? Yeah, you did a great job listening. Except for the fact that you haven't responded to my request for a non-idiotic statement to prove that your accusations aren't actually bullshit. Let me guess, you're too busy to prove that your word is worth more than dirt. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a request in all that vitriol? --Jace Draccus 01:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also never said you hate the show. The only time I mentioned hate, I was explaining that your attitude makes it look that way. Please read. --Jace Draccus 01:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which was? Not voting to keep these articles? I said it was not notable enough to warrant character articles. There's nothing to analyze about that. It's not some deep seeded hatred for the show. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, just everything else. --Jace Draccus 02:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great argument - you could have gone for the more advanced "you hate character articles 'cause", but you settled for a simpler argument. And do you want me to bring up where you said "fervently deleting 20-30 articles tells me you hate it"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But if I do that, I've committed the cardinal sin of assuming I know more about what you think than you do! Gasp! Shock horror! And yes, that behaviour tells me that. I didn't say you actually hate the show, just that it sure seemed that way. Oh, do you want me to bring up the comments you made about how un-notable Danny Phantom is, to the point that even the main character shouldn't have his own article, and how much less popular than Spongebob it is? How about all the sarcastic and insulting remarks you've made to posters here, mostly myself and Moe? How about how you deliberately and unnecessarily distort things in attempts to discredit our arguments? If we say that Wikipedia should be comprehensive, then YOU say that we're suggesting EVERY CHARACTER IN EXISTENCE should have its own article. If we say that we think you are acting in bad faith because you are being such an ass about it all, then suddenly EVERYBODY who does an AfD is acting in bad faith! Sure, maybe Moe hasn't been entirely nice about it, and maybe I've slipped too, but you're not a victimised Vestal virgin here. --Jace Draccus 04:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but what about those imaginary votes, don't they count.. — Moe 04:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Draccus: You make it sound like telling everyone what their opinion is - even when they have told you that it's not - is perfectly alright. And no, I would prefer you cease your incessent lies. How does "Danny Phantom isn't notable enough to have character articles" mean "Danny Phantom isn't notable?" Tell me - if I thought DP wasn't notable, why the Hell wouldn't I nominate the TV show? And, the sarcastic comments come from you spreading bullcrap. "Because he doesn't think Danny Phantom isn't notable enough, he hates Danny Phantom". And another bullshit statement! I never knew one Wikipedian could be quite as laughable as you two. I was responding to a comment that Wikipedia should be as extensive as possible. You claim I'm distorting things when you make false claims? Psh. And being an ass about it all? Timeline: Created AfD. Watched people vote Keep a bunch o' times. Watched Moe spew fuck a few times. Watched Moe, etc. make baseless claims. Asked for proof of these things. Watched Moe, etc. make baseless claims and refuse to give proof, began to assume bad faith. Then I acted like an ass. That was the point where I acted like an ass. Not your viewpoints, not getting flamed, being told that I am wrong about the facts of me and you both are right and that I must be acting in bad faith because... well, no reason provided, apparently. So my AfD is in bad faith because I have a thing about dirty liars? Then can I invalidate your vote for being a potty mouth? And how exactly am I not the victim? What does you attacking me first constitute? Are you the victim because I actually asked you to not make bullshit statements? And to Moe, it makes me look bad when you tell half truths. Of course, it doesn't make you look good when people see all truth. Such as the idea that most people would vote delete being in response to someone saying that these articles are good for most people. Can he proof it? No. Can I prove what I say? No. So basically, my proofless statement is bad and his proofless statement is good. I guess that it's not so bad when you want to believe what they're saying, eh? Grow up. You may not want to admit it, but you both are dead wrong. All you have been doing is making up false statements about me. You tell me I hate Danny Phantom (and continue insisting it after I prove you wrong by *gasp* revealing that your baseless accusation is incorrect), that I hate character articles (yeah, because I've AfDed so many character articles, like Wario and Lakitu... oh, my bad, I featured those), that I made several of the above statements towards you (when anyone who is capable of reading can tell who I was speaking to). The only reason I'd assume bad faith in either of you is because you have both been trolling towards me by telling me I am incapable of having my own opinion and must be reminded what my opinion is. But of course, I'm not assuming bad faith, because it's against policy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where I said you hate the show. Show me where you asked for proof of anything. Show me where I attacked you in the way you attacked me (moron, fool, idiot, troll). Show me one single statement I made about you as a person or what you actually think, rather than how you come across. Quote my supposed bullshit, my false statements. You can't. I said nothing about bad faith until the post immediately above, and I have not ever insisted you hate THE SHOW. The only thing I said CLOSE to it was that you SEEM to dislike it. I have never tried to tell you what your opinion is, only that I don't agree with it. --Jace Draccus 07:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for watching Moe 'spew fuck', apart from his vote he hasn't posted anything that wasn't in response. Don't make it sound like he's just saying things without any trigger. The proofless statements... fine, it was an idiotic thing for the other guy to say. Doesn't make yours any better? Happy now? --Jace Draccus 07:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Except for the fact that you haven't responded to my request for a non-idiotic statement to prove that your accusations aren't actually bullshit." That's one of two that I've found where I ask you or subtly ask you to show evidence by pointing out you have nothing to back it up. You attacked me by making false statements. I couldn't care less about personal attacks, it's when people lie about me. Additionally, the only time I made the insults was when the both of you had told me that I hated Danny Phantom (and how does "it tells me that you hate Danny Phantom" not telling me that I hate Danny Phantom? You seem convinced that I hate it with out any good reasoning). And no, not wanting characters from the show to have articles is not logic to assume I hate it. I do not come across as a Danny Phantom hater. The fact that I don't think it's notable enough to warrant character articles has nothing to do with what I think of the show itself. And yes, you have said I hated it.
Mine were justified. Far more than his. For someone who doesn't care about Danny Phantom, the user was sure defensive. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And how do we know this is a good faith nomination? If this was a good faith nom, you'd be open to finding a way to fix the problem then to fire the delete cannon. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Happy Halloween! • WP:NYCS} 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know. Assume good faith. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF can only go so far. — Moe 22:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. So, I'm not going to assume good faith in that you care about the quality of Wikipedia. You seem to have a massive bias against me. "Oh, he doesn't agree with me? Must be a vandal!" Well, once you find one single inkling of truth to the idea that I could ever possibly in any dimension at any point in past, present or future be AfDing these articles out of bad faith, report back. Until then, stop wasting Wikipedia bandwidth with your childish banter. And by the way, it can go SO far, the official Wikipedia policy that you must follow. If AfDing an article is acting in bad faith, the majority of admins and respected members of Wikipedia are vandals. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure everyone here cares about the quality of Wikipedia. That's why we're discussing this issue. And I apologize if I caused offence by asking if this was in good faith, although some people can abuse policy to make a point. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Happy Halloween! • WP:NYCS} 00:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure anymore. Anyone who would say that they must stop assuming good faith with literally no reason to do so is clearly a bad Wikipedian. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link, I have never said the word "vandal" in regards to you. If you could provide a diff that says I did, I would be more than willing to say sorry, but there isn't a diff and that blantant lie is just disgraceful. I never said anyone that disagrees with me is a vandal, and I never have. If you disagree with me, theres a lack of consensus. But when you have 20 editors saying the same thing against one editor (you), it does appear to go against WP:POINT for continuing on. Your totally hypocrictial Link, you say you don't want to be labeled anything for going against a opposing view point, but then you call me a "bad wikipedian". — Moe 00:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You suggested that people should assume bad faith in what I was doing. Acting in bad faith would logically mean I was acting to vandalize Danny Phantom-related articles. And, friend, my calling you a bad Wikipedian has more merit than you calling me an ultra deletionist and Danny Phantom hater. You have me AfDing Danny Phantom character articles as your only logic for both (and me saying that I like Danny Phantom, but why ruin a solid point with something that destroys it?), while I have the fact that you assumed bad faith in my actions, assumed that I was doing this out of hatred of the series and hatred of character articles (more bad faith) and started cussing while responding to me. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
WP:DFTT. — Moe 00:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see... yeah, you're a troll. Not of Wikipedia, but trolling towards me. Prove I hate Danny Phantom. Prove that I lack the ability to form my own opinion. Prove I'm acting in bad faith. Until then, stop ruining Wikipedia with your bullshit accusations, alright? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Link to the Past (talk • contribs) 00:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. — Moe 21:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* The main character is a ghost, thats what this whole discussion is about. — Moe 01:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean those in the heading "Main Ghosts" on the template. --tjstrf 01:28, 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 Speedy Keep per passing of WP:MUSIC. Nishkid64

DJ Webstar[edit]

Was speedy deleted yesterday under CSD A7, and was recreated and tagged for speedy deletion before User:4.18GB nominated it for AfD. He/she did not make the AfD page, so I am doing so. I have requested the user come here and state their reasons for nominating this page for deletion. The user did say "Notability Issue. This entry serves of no importance and would not be found in a respectable encyclopedia." Nishkid64 21:21, 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 speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Postcard[edit]

Not very notable Skynet1216 21:23, 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 merge to Williamsburg County, South Carolina. I've no idea what part of it would be useful, so it's just tagged and anyone who wants can perform the merge. No one here wanted to delete it in any case. - Bobet 19:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early history of Williamsburg, South Carolina[edit]

seems like an essay, I think all relevant material should be moved to Williamsburg, South Carolina, actually, there doesn't seem to be one on wikipedia. ReverendG 03:32, 9 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 21:14, 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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zombiecore[edit]

Delete Made up genre. No scene at all to support this supposed genre of music. Coining a term both to advertise two bands from one city. It gives no musical defination as to seen, and claims Metalcore bands are something they are not. It should be deleted as it violates several policys including 'Adversting', 'Coining a Term', and articles with no information of value. Leyasu 22:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks any references and seems to have been made up (no outside sources can be found). - DNewhall

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 19:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Caroline Whitaker Davis[edit]

An unencyclopedic article that appears to have originated with the author of a biography of the subject (published by a vanity press). Subject fails WP:BIO and receives a grand total of 41 unique ghits - almost all related to the biography. Victoriagirl 21:39, 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 no consensus (exactly split opinion, no overwhelming argument), but if no-one cares enough about this article to purge it of non-notable companies in the near future, I suggest a renomination. Incidentally, saying 'strong speedy delete' does not give your !vote triple points. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minnesota companies[edit]

"This List of Minnesota companies attempts to list all companies that are, or once were, headquartered in Minnesota". Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Punkmorten 21:45, 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 13:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of democracy in the UK[edit]

Seems to be a largely unsourced and unecessary point of view fork essay. I've been tracking this page since its creation. The original contributor said it was based off of someone else's essay, so when he was warned about that, he slapped on the "major revamp" tag. It's been almost two weeks without any of the issues being addressed. I spoke to the user on the talk page without really managing to get anywhere. Anyway, I think this breaks the no original research policy and should be removed considering it's basically an opinion essay. Wafulz 21:53, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Hope High School (Rhode Island)[edit]

Non-notable school, and I can't find any notable alumni either. -- SonicAD (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what does that mean? GassyGuy 05:39, 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. - Bobet 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Motion Picture Production Studios[edit]

One year and five months after its creation, this page is still, as a May 2005 comment on its talk page put it, "woefully incomplete." Apparently no one is interested for the time being... zenohockey 22:27, 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. - Bobet 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph P. Vermette[edit]

A self-published author of both traditional and ebooks. Subject fails WP:BIO. "Joseph P. Vermette" receives a total of 8 unique ghits, at least two of which are related to others with the same name. Victoriagirl 22:30, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Angel (film)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Newudic 22:35, 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 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Shull[edit]

Not notable NYArtsnWords 22:56, 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 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolled w[edit]

Delete. There are no sources given, and I can't find anything that discusses "rolled w" in the context of linguistics. Prod contested with the reason: "Hypothetical". In that case, why not a hypothetical "rolled q" or "rolled schwa"? ... discospinster talk 23:02, 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. - Bobet 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Burhan Scott[edit]

Notability/importance in question. Appears to be very minor wrestler and stand-up comic of limited success. ghits: [71] NMChico24 23:23, 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 and move to Ryan Barrett. KrakatoaKatie 12:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Barret[edit]

Not a notable boxer, and little infomation is known about him. Kurt000 23:41, 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 speedily deleted under CSD A7. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMISSIONED[edit]

vanity page for NN-webcomic DesertSky85451 23:33, 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 - Yomanganitalk 12:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Mays[edit]

Claimed notability, but unable to verify existence of provided reference: Zach Mays: An Unauthorized Autoboigraphy, 2005 Random House. Failed prod, so nominating it here. Rawr 23:36, 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 ding, ding, ding, keep all! - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Backlash[edit]

Also nominating:

Results of matches are unnecessary. Important storyline development and title changes are already recorded in the pages of the individual wrestlers and the championships. Aaru Bui DII 00:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • World Cups and SuperBowls are important achievements that are worth noting for the teams. A PPV is nowhere more special than a weekly show except for a different name, a different way of getting it and a slightly longer duration. --Aaru Bui DII 00:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you are basing your vote on that? --Aaru Bui DII 00:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm basing my vote on the fact that these artilces were nominated by a troll.-- bulletproof 3:16 00:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do I smell a personal attack? --Aaru Bui DII 00:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started this because I see people have different opinions should all PPVs be deleted than just one. (Which was my original intention but I wanted to get others' opinion. I am sorry for not being clear about that at the start of that debate) --Aaru Bui DII 01:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is what WP:PW is for, which you should know since you were a member until you removed your name recently. TJ Spyke 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you need a central location so people don't spend 3 hours trying to find something that can only take 3 seconds. John cena123 14:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Trolling or not, let's all remain civil here. Throwing around insults isn't going to help anyone, and is arguably what a troll wants anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:16, 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.
More