< September 11 September 13 >
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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Kevin Bage[edit]

Kevin Bage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Made a mistake writing this article. There is already one for the actor with his name spelt correctly, please delete.

Speedy Delete per nom --Wildnox 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to correct spelling. --Wildnox 13:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.






















































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

The result was speedy delete CSD G3 - "Storey attained a 1st(With Double Distinction)degree BSc AstroPhysics part time by telepathy" Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Storey[edit]

Obvious vanity piece or worse. Brings up no Google hits Pally01 22:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a spoof; and Matthew Storey has been (briefly) added to the Faculty list of the University of Sheffield too. roundhouse 23:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muertitos[edit]

This webcomic, found here is hosted on the Comic Genesis free web host. I tagged it a week ago noting its lack of external sources, and to assertion of notability. It's ranked around 73rd on that free host as can be seen here and even if it were ranked 1st, it wouldn't mean much. - Hahnchen 00:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a bit messy now, but the article is reasonably active, so there will likely be cleanup in the future. #73 on Comic Genesis puts it in the top 1% of webcomics hosted there (8088 total); Comic Genesis is the largest single webcomics host I am aware of. --AlexWCovington (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yet again we see the absolute gulf between discussions between general websites and webcomics. For a non webcomic website without any sort of notability or sources, like say Pokemon-Safari.com, is rightfully deleted. Pokemon-Safari has a better Alexa rank than the entire of Comic Genesis put together. - Hahnchen 01:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keane's worldwide popularity[edit]

Although this is well written and formatted, I'm not convinced that wikipedia is the place for it. Dave 00:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: User changed vote below. -Elmer Clark 00:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keane trivia[edit]

It's a list of trivia. Delete or Merge with Keane. Geoffrey Spear 00:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one likes to see an article they wrote deleted. However, we are all here under the same terms. We are all expected to abide by consensus and policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web hosting service or personal webpage. Might I suggest getting one of those where you may recreate this article without having to be "diplomatic"? Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 22:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is not about effort to make the article (I wrote it in two minutes) but a loss of information. If the other two are deleted, I won't fight a revert and will find the way to merge it into Keane. (see Richyard's comment; that's why the trivia was separated. Also, is not unsourced. I read that on Q Magazine, Sonika. That are not fansites). And make sure I wouldn't be banned--Fluence 23:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking at the history of the Keane article, it's fairly clear that you moved the trivia and other sections to their own articles in an attempt to get first Featured Article and more recently Good Article status, and it became clear that violating WP:TRIVIA probably wasn't the best way to achieve either goal. Removing the trivia from the main article certainly made the main article much better, but taking the bad, unencyclopedic information and segregating it into another article with no aspirations of Good Article status isn't the best solution. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and we shouldn't be concered about "loss of information" as a motivation for keeping something in an article. Geoffrey Spear 13:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No If you look at the history, the trivia was first merged into the article before losing the CFA status. It was already failed when I created those articles. They were created to protect the information from being lost since this was deleted from the Keane page by Painbearer--Fluence 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:CambridgeBayWeather. ColourBurst 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OAFE.net[edit]

Comes nowhere near meeting WP:WEB. de-prodded. IceCreamAntisocial 00:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted per WP:SNOW

Aedan anti virus[edit]

Debate blanked for courtesy reasons.--Docg 20:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South horizons[edit]

Non-notable residential complex. There's hundreds of these complexes in Hong Kong (I've lived in one), and I don't see any reason why this one is so special as to deserve its own article. It's not the tallest / most expensive to build / most reported-on development, or at least the article doesn't say so. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A gold star and a chocolate bar for user Gggu for taking this so well. Please don't take this process personally. I strongly encourage you to keep contributing; your diligence and good attitude will make you a very successful editor in time. If you have any questions as you learn how Wikipedia works, feel free to ask them on my talk page. William Pietri 01:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M.M.S.[edit]

Unsourced, Unverifiable rumor. No Google or Google News hits. Deprodded by original contributor, only improvement was replacing "A rumor has been heard that a first legal mafia operates in mercerville ohio..." with "Just this hour it has been verified that a first legal mafia operates in mercerville ohio..." Accurizer 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brand Republic[edit]

Does not meet WP:WEB. The Google searchs announces an impressive 300K+ hits but in fact only 92 unique hits![1] I suppose that's to expect from a website designed for the advertising community. Top hits are not third party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 16:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, [ælfəks] 00:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Melancon[edit]

Non-notable Texas Democratic Party Congressional candidate. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The incumbent is notable because he/she has held a notable office. The other candidates have not, and simply being a candidate for office doesn't make one notable. If he wins, then he will be notable enough for an article. -Elmer Clark 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MADtv Fans Network[edit]

Non-notable fan site -Nv8200p talk 22:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 08:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Synthetic Audio[edit]

Internet radio, no verifiable evidence of notability provided, delete. --Peta 00:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deeper Into Music[edit]

Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 00:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Dawn[edit]

Non-notable game, prod removed without reason. Wildthing61476 00:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noor Media[edit]

Independent record label, no evidence of notability, delete --Peta 00:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's linked to on several related pages and seems to have a specific niche in the UK Islamic music scene. Keep per WP:MUSIC Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style... --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that said in an independent source?--Peta 01:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Mountain Radio[edit]

Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WoR-Radio[edit]

Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PulseRadio[edit]

Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arraz Radio[edit]

Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 01:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freematrix[edit]

Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 01:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windwood Coves[edit]

WP:NN, user also created a vanity page about himself (userfied to his user page) but this one he created was missed. -- ßottesiηi (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No Consensus/default keep. While I'm sympathetic that this has an "essay"-like feel, it is sourced, and part of series found useful by many established editors, voiced below. Xoloz 16:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic Misconceptions[edit]

Short essay on how people don't understand genetics, not encyclopedic, delete--Peta 01:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. They're obviously copied from somewhere. Hopefully, it's one of the authoring editor's own works, but his/her apparent habit of registering and abandoning usernames makes it difficult to check. I'll post a note and see if I can find out whether these are copyright violations.
  2. As written, they appear to be unsourced original research. If there are sources for the statement that people have those misconceptions, the sourcing is poor enough that I can't tell which source establishes the existence of the misconception.
  3. Still, it's possible that tighter citation and an explanation of their source can remedy these concerns. Can we mark them all as subject to deletion in a few weeks if these problems aren't solved? TheronJ 13:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After looking at the various misconception pages, it looks an awful lot like they are the product of some class project and have now been abandoned by their creators. (See User:TheronJ/misconceptions). I recognize that RFD isn't the place to request cleanup, but given their current state and their apparent abandonment by the only people who have read the sources, is there any procedure to get them cleaned up or removed? TheronJ 16:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to wikibooks: On reflection, I think the misconception articles belong in Wikibooks. The initial premise of each article is that the identified misconceptions are common in science education, but the cite form doesn't let us identify the source, if any, and the editors with familiarity with the sources are gone. To the extent that the editors were trying to write instructions for science education, that material belongs on Wikibooks. TheronJ 13:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles aren't owned, so who their "creator" is isn't important. Deleting articles because no one is currently working on them isn't done, nor do I believe motivation exists to do so. Cleanup and AfD are seperate entities that don't really interact - nor should they really.
  • The point I'm concerned with is, if the author is answering someone else's misconceptions of a documented and verifiable source, great, that needs to be added. However, I'm looking at the possibility the author is making up the misconceptions as he/she goes along, making all the articles POV. Tychocat 14:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete all "misconception" articles not encyclopedia material. It is ratrher a tutorial. Wikibooks OK. If there is particular important misconception like Flat Earth, then a separate article OK. But a bunch examples of ignorance is not OK. Knowledge is finite, ignorance is infinite. How about a "misconception" that Abraham Lincoln was the first president or that United States is the first democracy in the world, or ... `'mikka (t) 22:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. SPAs and newbies were discounted. Xoloz 16:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chiara Ohoven[edit]

Fails WP:Bio she hasn't any importance in Germany or any other country, nobody would know that she exists if her mother wouldn't be UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador Yoda1893 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not German, and have no idea who this person is, but what sort of publicity does she get over there? If it's a fair amount, even if only in the tabloids/gossip mags, that would make her notable in my eyes.Dave 03:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing broken.. Results 321 - 330 of about 43,300 for "Chiara Ohoven". (0.89 seconds) -- 84.57.178.214 16:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 300 unique google hits. The other 40,000 are just repeats. If you follow the link I provided, you find the unique hits stop there. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 21:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the German discussion there were much people who voted for the deletion of this unimportant person, She's not half popular like Katie Price for example (She's also in Germany well known for her affairs in F1) But also in Germany today there aren't much people who can remember Chiara Ohoven, she was only a temporal Feature in German medias. She even DOESN't pass the German Relevance criterias de:WP:RK, she is a NOBODY who gets not more than 326 unsimilar G-Hits. – Yoda1893 18:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite obviously there were more people who wanted her kept, and with good reasons, too. Had she not met the de:WP:RK, she would have been deleted - sounds logical, hm? Please wage your culture wars elsewhere. And again: she does get more than 40.000 googlehits. And, eh, don't you think it sufficient to vote just once? --Janneman 19:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the category "german socialites" has only one member: her. This is ridiculous. --Tilman 19:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep de: doesn't even have Bulbasaur, so she has to be more famous than this featured pokemon. -- southgeist 19:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tilman seems to know quite a lot about her, considering the fact tht she is oh so unknown. --Janneman 14:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is that she is rich and stupid and has ugly lips. This isn't much. I know more about my co-workers, and they're not in wikipedia. --Tilman 21:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 326 REALLY Hits on google the other links are SIMILAR, like you can see here and NODOBY could prove that she pass de:WP:RK. − Yoda1893 21:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

since her article is in de: after it was exhaustive discussed, isn't a proof? and why de:Rk which doesn't even allow Bulbasaur? -- southgeist 21:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Google is not always accurate or even pertinent (nor is the German Wikipedia known for sensible decisions). There are 37 articles that mention her in Germany's premier gossip weekly Bunte, a magazine akin to Hello! (source: Lexis-Nexis). I think that demonstrates her relevance for popular culture. Thus, certainly not the caliber of Ann Coulter or even Katie Price, but still: Keep. Fossa 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This price interests nobody (or do you think that we should list all people who have something little in commom with prominents like Thomas Gottschalk, like people who were born in the same city?) and even this price she has only won "half" and her mother IS the reason that anybody knows her (not for her prominence, becaues her prominence doesn't exist). That a German fan of her translated the article into German surely isn't an arguement for having more prominence than her mother! And you can see, that all English Users voted for delete – Yoda1893 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your fourth statement on this page, I think we all know by now that you want this article to be deleted.
First of all, when Chiara was still a teenager, I knew of Mario Ohoven, her father, because he's a well known German businessman, then I heard of Chiara in TV and only later of her mother.Berlin-Attorney 18:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B. H. Carroll Theological Institute[edit]

Unaccredited, unnotable "institute" started in 2003[2] Article asserts no notablity. A search of "Carroll Theological Institute" at yahoo brings 337 yahoo hits with 2 wikipedia articles in the first ten hits. Fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get 1,020 for "Carroll Theological Institute" at google including the wiki article and mirrors as the second thur fifth hits. How is it notable? Because the "Associated Baptist Press" (not to be confused with Associated Press) wrote an article? What's the ABP circulation? Arbusto 04:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As Dlohcierekim alluded to, how does this meet notablity standards at WP:CORP? Arbusto 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the issues is WP:V, and WP:CORP notability. Without WP:V to verifiy what it is the article will be bastion of POV, and what it isn't (accredited). If this institute becomes notable and has valuable sources then the article should be recreated, but until then the article lacks WP:V which does no favors to the instiute. Arbusto 20:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A new kind of school? Unaccredited bible colleges offering worthless degrees are a dime a dozen. Guy 00:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yuckfoo is an inclusionist. I think this is being Gastroturfed. Guy 00:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this several in the last few weeks to get attacked. I am compiling evidence to end this though. Arbusto 00:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xok clothing[edit]

Looks like an ad and is not written in Encyclopedic fashion PrimroseGuy 01:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Listcruft, fails WP:NOT loosely related topics .

List of musicians who have worked with Dave Grohl[edit]

This seems to be a rather clear example of listcruft, and also fails WP:NOT. Danny Lilithborne 02:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 title will be hard redirected to Loose Change (video) for GFDL purposes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Bermas[edit]

Yet another bit player in the 9/11 conspiracy movement. This guy is a graphics designer and one of three producers of the film Loose Change, granted, the film itself may be notable, but surely being the producer of a small film does not make you notable, otherwise we'd have articles for thousands of self-promoting Hollywood hacks. GabrielF 02:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've mirrored all content to Louder than Words. Now while I have my doubts that Louder than Words is noteworthy enough to merit its own article, it's at least more noteworthy than this article. I'd still prefer a redirect to an outright deletion.--Rosicrucian 00:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO THE CLOSING ADMIN Louder than Words is currently also undergoing an AfD. If that article does not end up being deleted policy and the GFDL require that this become a redirect. (Otherwise I presume it will be deleted). JoshuaZ 20:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 title will be hard redirected to Loose Change (video) for GFDL purposes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korey Rowe[edit]

Another bit player in the 9/11 conspiracy movement. This guy is one of three producers of the film Loose Change (video), the film itself may or may not be notable, but surely we're not going to have articles for everyone who produced a video! Otherwise we'd have articles for thousands of self-promoting Hollywood hacks. This guy specifically looks like he's about 20 years old and has had no career outside of making this video and serving in Iraq. GabrielF 02:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who goes around hunting for articles to delete like this? If you call 30 million downloads of Loose Change (video) to be not-notable then you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. I even heard a random person talking about the movie on the bus the other day. Whether or not Korey Rowe has a wikipedia entry about him seems unimportant to me, but I see a pattern of aggressive deleting that is disturbing. Kaimiddleton 20:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've mirrored all content to Louder than Words. Now while I have my doubts that Louder than Words is noteworthy enough to merit its own article, it's at least more noteworthy than this article. I'd still prefer a redirect to an outright deletion.--Rosicrucian 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO THE CLOSING ADMIN Louder than Words is currently also undergoing an AfD. If that article does not end up being deleted policy and the GFDL require that this become a redirect. (Otherwise I presume it will be deleted). JoshuaZ 20:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to his book. Despite the substantial support for deletion, the man merits mentioning in his book's article, given that the book has been kept previously. Xoloz 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Thompson (researcher)[edit]

This is an article about a pseudonym of the author of a 9/11 conspiracy book called The Terror Timeline. The book is currently under AfD and it doesn't seem likely that it will be kept. Given that this guy's only real claim to fame is that he wrote a book which consensus seems to feel is non-notable it seems hard to imagine that he himself would be notable. Note that the first AfD for this article ended in no consensus. GabrielF 02:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did not see link to 1st AfD, so here it is. Also, the result on the book's AfD was "no consensus. :) Dlohcierekim 21:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete nn person as per My Alt Account Marcus22 11:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Change vote to Merge with book. Now that that has been kept. Marcus22 08:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, nowhere to merge. Punkmorten 09:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-70S-6[edit]

Delete Wikipedia is not a catalogue Dave 03:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Brown Kwanzaa[edit]

Non-notable internet meme, I think. Andrew Levine 03:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it's already there. Delete, then. SliceNYC 21:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 criteria 1. --Wafulz 17:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Swiggs and The Worms[edit]

One album released on a major label (in a small country), but not sufficient for WP:MUSIC. No edits to page in over a year. Most google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. I am listing it here instead of speedying or prodding it because I have been wrong before about Chinese bands. Andrew Levine 03:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 LOT. Seems like the consensus is clear on this one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church Omaha, Nebraska[edit]

Delete Individual churches are not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 23:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these articles for deletion for the same reasons as the original.

-דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 00:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have struck out your delete vote above so that you are not counted as voting twice in this discussion. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 03:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, no assertion of notability, being used for trolling. Nandesuka 11:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond C. Lemme[edit]

No evidence of notability. Appears to be a minor player in a minor conspiracy theory which is contested from the low amount of google hits.[4] Crossmr 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Self-admitted "new site" fails WP:WEB; keep arguments don't argue on this point, really, so it is substantively undisputed here. Xoloz 16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deviantnation.com[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, as near as I can figure. Article is extremely promotional and actively solicits nude models from within the article itself. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 03:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete both. NawlinWiki 04:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Forgrave[edit]

A writer with one book published with a press that doesn't seem to meet the guidelines. He isn't on Amazon. He fails WP:BIO, and his book fails the inclusion guidelines for books.

I am also nominating Devil Jazz as the book in question. Crystallina 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete both. I have no doubt that SomeHuman is onto something, but the article as it stands doesn't pass WP:V/WP:OR on the expanded scifi concept. I'll happily userfy on request for rewrite/expansion, but this must go as it is. The fact that it started as a "one-off" Daily Show joke doesn't help this article's fate any either. Xoloz 17:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robotocracy, Robocracy[edit]

I have made several expansions and modificatons to the Robotocracy article, and I ask that the voters re-evalulate their votes based on the article as it is today. FrozenPurpleCube 20:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was copyvio!!! Grandmasterka 05:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Austin[edit]

Delete Unencyclopedic to the nth degree. Fails WP:BIO, is only notable (if you can call it that) by association. Chabuk 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annette (porn star)[edit]

Non-notable porn star; resoundingly fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chadison clothing[edit]

Advert for a non-notable clothing company, WP:CORP refers. PROD removed by IP address editor with no comment or improvement of text (aeropagitica) 04:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 inequality. --Ezeu 17:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power inequalities[edit]

This was prodded but I'm unsure of a few things regarding its being tagged, and I'd rather run this through the more visible process. Can anyone who knows math assure me that this is indeed nonsense? Neutral Andrew Levine 04:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon K. Rush[edit]

Non notable: article title gives no Google hits, "Brandon Rush" + otaku only gives some unrelated NBA hits. Fails WP:BIO and companies fail WP:CORP. Prod removed by author Fram 04:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Student Arts Festival[edit]

non notable student group per WP:ORG. Certainly not notable outside of the University. Ohconfucius 05:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Level Seven (band)[edit]

Fail WP:MUSIC by all counts, contested speedy. No vote here! Teke (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Great - so the article doesn't coincide with the rules of notability on Wikipedia. But that doesn't mean the article does not belong - perhaps the rules themselves need to be revised. This is supposed to be an online (so therefore diverse) encyclopedia. If someone has heard of Level Seven and wishes to look them up on Wikipedia (which is reasonable), then why restrict them from doing so? Does it really matter if admins from America or even the UK haven't heard of this band? Is this article harming Wikipedia in any way? No! If anything, it is adding to the already sterling content on this online encyclopedia.
A band is a band. The Beatles were a band. The guy you know down the street who jams with his mates - he's in a band. It is an entity, regardless of fame or notoriety, and as an entity it at least deserves recognition on Wikipedia. Fine, so some people may not check this page as much as they would a more famous band, but some may want to - and because this is a free encyclopedia (in both financial and personal manners), people should be free to read whatever they wish. And if that includes this band, so be it. If it does not - again, so be it.
I understand that, according to the codified rules of Wikipedia, this band should not have a site. But I'm not arguing with you over those grounds; that's silly and fruitless. I'm requesting that as a member of a free nation and a user of a free encyclopedia, this band be given recognition on the unlimited size of the Internet.
Why, other than its contradiction to the 'rules', delete this page?

Truly, what harm is it doing?
--Naylor182 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 argument that this fail WP:V is not rebutted by WP:LOCAL. The lone cite provided in the AfD isn't sufficient to overcome worries expressed in the consensus below. Xoloz 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherryland Center[edit]

A shopping mall of no particular significance. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. Was prodded, but the author removed the tag. Indrian 05:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My-boi[edit]

del promo of nonnotable dating dot-com, which is in beta. `'mikka (t) 05:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think as of right now, the nominator's statement about the site being promotional should be negated since it's clearly not used as promotion but for informing our readers about a recent newsevent. Yanksox 11:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xoloz 17:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dacryphilia[edit]

del Verifiability problem. No reputable information. The coinage is rather dubious: "dacry", what is it? Ebonics for "the cry"? `'mikka (t) 05:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This term makes sense to me since I've heard of dacryon being a technical name for the tears produced by the lachrymal glands as a physiological response to various emotions (Mosby's Medical, Nursing and Allied Health Dictionary). As for the fetish, no idea but it makes sense on this basis if that was your main problem with the term. Kris 11:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but are the sources I found through Google reliable or not? And anyway, even if it is perhaps not a scientific term, it still is clearly a widely used one in certain circles (and for that Google is a reliable indicator), and deserves an entry. It's not because the subject and most of the Google links are not to my taste that we should get rid of it. If the info in the entry is incorrect, give it a cleanup tag or something. Fram 07:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the United States category map[edit]

Obsoleted by new automated category maps. Out of date. jengod 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 06:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masthope[edit]

Article reads like a travel guide, and Wikipedia articles are not travel guides. Kyra 05:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Information without Malice

This Masthope page contains information about a community within the geographic boundries of Lackawaxen Township and is relevent to information about Lackawaxen which was not included in the original web site article. It adds knowledge about the geographic features and amenities of Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania.

Ski Big Bear is important to the economy and tourism of the region. Furthermore the article adds other relevant information about the region not discussed in the original article such as the Lincoln flag at Milford. It has value as an addition to the original article not considered by the original author. It does not in any way detract from the original article. It adds to the wealth of information. It is not written as an ad for Masthope. If need be the Masthope article can be re-written in order to bring it more in line with the standards of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snake Oil Sam (talk • contribs)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 06:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was written in Comic Sans because I Snake Oil Sam like Comic Sans and like to publish in Comic Sans. I did not understand that it was a sin among the elite of Wikipedia to work in any other than the approved format. Please forgive me for my transgressions. I guess that I am just not up to speed within the cult of Wikipedia.

As far as putting information into the original article I thought that it was better to link to a separate article that I wrote rather than mess with the hard work of someone else. But what do I know I am new around here. Like I said before I can write it to fit your agenda if that would make a difference. Obviously I still have a lot to learn. Snake Oil Sam :-(

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after reversion to July 22 draft. Xoloz 17:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hook[edit]

This page looks lifted from a website; not particularly notable, anyhow Down10 TACO 07:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Xoloz 17:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boyko Hadjiyski[edit]

Reported in the article to be a Bulgarian diplomat. Can't find anything to verify existence or notability per WP:V. AED 07:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Clearly, there is a valid article to be written at this title; that valid article has little to do with the draft now present, though. Xoloz 17:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DCKC[edit]

This term is completely new. The entire article is original research. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be a marketing term - or at least the initials for one - it is not one applied in the way that the article is claiming it is: As the name of a shared continuity among animated series never said to have a shared continuity. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spectra Wizard[edit]

Non-notable band with no major album releases or significant tours. Google search of "Spectra Wizard" brings up zero relevant links. The band does not meet criteria set out in WP:MUSIC, and by extension is not verifiable and is likely comprised of original research and possibly vanity. --Wafulz 17:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 08:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 since already merged. Mangojuicetalk 17:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KTVI Tower 2[edit]

NN broadcasting tower. Delete.-- Fang Aili talk 17:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So broadcasting towers are inherently notable? How weird. But I will abide by consensus. --Fang Aili talk 19:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 08:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sodastream[edit]

Non-notable product; article reads more like an advertisement Todd(Talk-Contribs) 08:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Soda Club was as part of the next AFD, merged here and turned into a redirect. If this is deleted, the closing admin here should also delete the redirect. GRBerry 02:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sodastream as the content was merged. GRBerry 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soda Club[edit]

Non-notable product; article reads more like an advertisement Todd(Talk-Contribs) 09:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanakosa[edit]

I've brought this here for discussion instead of a prod nomination. It was nominated by User:Gay Cdn on the reasonable grounds of advertising and non-notability. I'm neutral because I don't know whether there's any notability in the context of Buddhism in the UK (or Scotland). There are no leading articles yet in the related categories like Category:Buddhism in the United Kingdom (and I've already prodded a useless stub on English Buddhists). Is there anything here about a retreat in Scotland that's worth editing or merging?? Mereda 09:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi Realists[edit]

I suppose I could have just proded this but let's take the safe route. What can I say? Non notable group [12], crufty beyond belief, move to Wookiepedia (if they actually want this), WP is not a soapbox, ... Pascal.Tesson 08:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nomination was made on September 10 but not added to the AFD log, Adding this now to the September 12 log. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment deleted the above comment posted by an anon who thought he could get away with signing under some other user's name. Sheesh, whatever happened to the subtle art of sockpupettry? Pascal.Tesson 18:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 17:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Let's talk about love' World Tour[edit]

Ignoring for the moment the article is written in glowing praise of Celine Dion and is pretty POV, it's completely uncited, and nothing but 2 paragraphs, one of which is a review of the tour, neither is cited. The rest is just a list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list collection. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 09:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's more coming, I plan on writing some trivia facts about the tour and a picture. The summary of the show is from me, it's not a press review ; I'm French so you can see it's sometimes clumsy.

Is it still bad ? Should I add extracts from press reviews to make it less of a private research. Please let me know

Verifiable sources are always helpful :) Dlohcierekim 00:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike weapons[edit]

unencyclopedic fancruft. Jestix 09:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "They will persistently vandalize" is not a reason for keeping it. If they recreate it, it will be protected. If they vandalize, they'll be warned and blocked appropriately. --Wafulz 14:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FYI: I have notified most of the folks who have edited the article of this AfD so that they can comment. I have not asked them to "vote" one way or the other, but simply notified them. I think it was 7 or 8 users (I only notified the ones with usernames and the one IP that edited the most). I have not notified anyone who did not edit the article. --Habap 14:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why should Wikipedia be hostile to them, when deleting stuff that doesn't fit into the encyclopedic mission? If stuff that is deleted gets recreated they are hostile to wikipedia. Also I read this "arugment" as a threat of (internet) violence and this is IMHO not tolerable, I don't think wikipedia should bow its encyclopedia mission just because some group thinks that it must have to publish stuff here. --Jestix 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy. I am not making threats. I am a Wikipedian. I have noticed that whenever there is no article on equipment, some new CS player who wants to help Wikipedia creates a new article on CS equipment. I am merely hypothesizing that if we shoo them away (WP:BITE), we may make them feel unwelcome. This makes them more likely to be vandals. These are merely my observations and not a threat (please check my contributions and review WP:AGF). --Habap 18:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Guy 13:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Contolini[edit]

Disputed prod. Non-notable bio, probably autobio. Verging on nonsense. -- RHaworth 10:03, 12 September 2006(UTC)

Certainly not an autobio. Hardly nonsense. Pure, unadulterated beauty. Concern is acknowledged and understood but unfounded. -- Deciti 12:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G4 Global Gambling Guidance Group[edit]

Contested prod which does not assert notability of the company subject. MER-C 10:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xcase[edit]

Contested prod about non-notable software MER-C 10:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was Fucking redirected. The Land 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck in different languages[edit]

You have got to be foking, naaiing, steeking, qiing, tebedaing, neeking, kuneling, ?????ing, ?????????ing, jebatiing, ебаing, oeing, ma aye loeing, nga loe ma thering, hna ma loeing, diuing, diaoing, caoing, ganing, follaring, cardaring, fotreing, iyoting, jebatiing, fukatiing, karatiing, sevitiing, prcatiing, píchating, kneppeing, knaldeing, neukening, fikiing, nikkumaing, nussimaing, keppimaing, kantoting, vittuing, nussiaing, baisering, foutreing, niqueing, putaining, fourrering, fodering, მოტყნვაing, mot'q'nvaing, fickening, gamaoing, gamoing, gamisiing, Γαμάωing, Γαμώing, Γαμήσιing, choding, lezayening, choding, baszniing, ríðaing, futuaring, ngentoting, Feisighing, fottereing, scopareing, trombareing, ciulareing, chiavareing, stantuffareing, yaruing, kay-yiing, Qu'vatlhing, ssi-baling, pisting, futuereing, pistiing, dulkintiing, kruštiing, feckening, Ng'othruoking, ?? ???ing, pukiing, Punning, onioniing, झव,Zaving, chiknuing, knulleing, puleing, گاییدن ga-yee-daning, jebaćing, pierdolićing, kurwaing, fodering, a futeing, ебатьing, ебатьсяing, Dàiriching, јебатиing, jebaťing, drbaťing, cogering, culearing, picharing, tiraring, singaring, tiraring, pisaring, chingaring, cacharing, jodering, knullaing, Okkalaamaing, Denguing, เย็ด yeting, sikmeking, چودناing, đụing, địting, đéoing, שטופּןing, fucking kidding me. Wow, that took a long time to type. Unencyclopaedic listcruft. --Rory096 10:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or merge I'm not going to merge it, because this was split off from the main Mythbusters article (probably because they don't want all this junk there) and no one has given me any guidance as to how to merge. People, PLEASE. If you want information kept, vote keep; if merging is a good idea, do it afterwards. There's a severe limit to how much merging administrators can do. In this case, I'm just going to leave the article as it is, and note that the consensus is that merging is a good idea. Mangojuicetalk 18:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of injuries, accidents, and mishaps on MythBusters[edit]

I've contributed to this list in the past, before it was split from the main article, but this is not really encyclopedic in nature, instead being more of a curiosity for fans. It's more suited to fansite, and is a potential magnet to all kinds of trivial additions. The small list of entries on the main article should suffice. Possible transwiki?--Drat (Talk) 10:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the editors voting delete on the reasons of "unencyclopedic", it has been noted by others that a clear concept of the show is the "Don't try this at home" element. They bust the myths for our benefit because they are professionals and can (presumably) do it in a safer manner then your average curious Joe. This list makes clear the danger level involved in the making of this show. So what exactly is "unencyclopedic" about it? 205.157.110.11 07:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for the 54th United Kingdom Parliament[edit]

This page was originally nominated back in March (see here). There was no consensus to delete, but there was an expectation that the article be updated and maintained. In early September it was prodded, without contest, but I'd like to run this through AfD again instead. Note that the only extant section is A-C, and it only goes up through Berwick. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You are absolutely right. The list seems to reflect some of the proposed and agreed boundary changes but that does not mean much when it ends at Berwick! doktorb wordsdeeds 14:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete . Jaranda wat's sup 00:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy St. Clair[edit]

This is a fourth nomination of a collectable card game player who has been suspended and who has no notability otherwise. The first and second discussions ended up in "no consensus." After a couple people who had been strong "keep" proponents then expressed opinion that they'd changed their minds and decided that St. Clair was not notable, I made a third nomination, which was cut short on account that it was too soon of a reproposal. Now we have threat of a new edit war erupting over an insufficiently notable individual, and the edit warring parties have not added any new indications of his notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, no assertion of notability (speedy A7). Guy 13:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Charles Martin[edit]

Seemingly unimportant biographical article Drak 12:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ShopTurbo[edit]

Spammy contested prod about a non-notable website which may be vanity. Note that the comment below was left by the author of the article. MER-C 12:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do that. In fact, I just removed it. MER-C 12:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuicetalk 18:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations[edit]

POV-fork of Council on American-Islamic Relations. Please everybody go back to work at one article. --Pjacobi 12:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re already discussed: No consensus of editors can trump policy. Please give overriding reasons why this should be an exception to Wikipedia:Content forking.
Re undue weight: And if it gets an article of its own, there are no undue weight problems?
Re plenty of other "criticism" pages: Unfortunately yes, but they are all under observation and will be handled eventually
Pjacobi 06:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If "Criticism of..." pages were inherently POV, then those other pages would not exist. We have articles on individual Pokemon characters; there's no problem with giving this an article of its own. This is not a POV fork and is in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. BhaiSaab talk 15:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, Dlohcierekim has found evidence of meeting WP:BAND. Mangojuicetalk 18:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blahzay Blahzay[edit]

This musical group fails WP:BAND. The speedy and prod tags were removed. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not a speedy because the discography section asserts notability. MER-C 12:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if Album Blah Blah Blah charted 22 on billboard according to allmusic. and 600 Googlehits for "Blahzay Blahzay" review signify. :) Dlohcierekim 19:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not sure about this one. According to WP:AFDP and WP:BAND, "Bands ... are notable if they have released two albums on a notable label (e.g. not self-released)". My question, as person who has never delved into music labels much at all (I just like listening) is "does this band fufill this requirement regarding notable labels?". If someone could interpret the article/extra sources and give me a determination of this, I'd be happy to cast my opinion one way or another. I've watched this page so that, if someone answers the above, I can alter my opinion one way or another. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hot Chili Peppers BBS[edit]

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (web)  — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  12:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete absent credible evidence of notability. A footnote in the chillies' article at best. Guy 12:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yet another of these small articles containing little bits information that should be somewhere else. Merge into the Chillies' article if you think it's worth it. BTLizard
  • Delete per nom. And no, a forum is not worth mentioning in an article on a band. I'm sure they have a myspace too; that isn't worth mentioning either. Recury 13:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable forum. It looks like it's an official forum owned by the RHCP themselves, but that still doesn't make it notable. There are hundreds of bands, film studios, etc., having official fan forums. JIP | Talk 18:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spell chilis right u silly billies - kris_bass aka kris aka chilin00bmuncher

+ dont delete

its relevant for people who want to know about the forum but are too scared to ask in the forum itself for fear of gettin flamed. i know i felt like that once—The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 212.242.223.139 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. "Kris", Wikipedia is not the place to put random information. Please read what Wikipedia is not. You could easily start a website with information on a free web host, like Free Webs or Freeservers. This message board does not meet WP:WEB and therefore is not fit for inclusion. Additionally, please refrain from calling editors names. Srose (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Kris right!

  • Delete -- web forum, hard to get notablity like that... --T-rex 22:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Kris: there i changed it. im no wikipedia expert editor so i guess i shouldnt be voicing my opinions like this. but i just thought i should tell people to lighten up a bit + and to spell chilis right. chillies? one l no e. and call me a nerd/geek/whatever for being picky about that, but it is truly a silly mistake to make. that said, if i had to agree, i would agree with JIP. good point, and well made

Chelsea: Exactly right! I thought everyone knew it was spelt "chili". Guess I was mistaken. As for the page, it shouldn't be deleted because of what Kris has already said, and it is a very big message board and it is notable for a wikipedia page.

^ Delete  :) Dlohcierekim 00:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete — Chelsea7 Chelsea7 09:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense. Guy 12:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yesh[edit]

WP:NEO. At best, belongs on List of Internet slang phrases.

WP:NPOV ("the new cool way") and appeals for help getting the word to catch on...--Onorem 12:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (between merge and keep). Since in either case there's no need for deletion, anyone wanting a merge can handle it through ((mergeto)). Mangojuicetalk 05:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Players, Birkenhead[edit]

Not notable little theater group. :) Dlohcierekim 12:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think there's enough to achieve notability, and it has the seeds of quite a good article. The trouble is that it's so blindingly badly written that it's almost unreadable. BTLizard 13:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Birkenhead. I don't see enough verifiable material to stand on its own. William Pietri 00:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge --Peta 06:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They have their own theatre. I think that's notable enough. -- Necrothesp 00:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 18:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Headline News[edit]

Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Headline News, this is a somewhat different article although with a couple of sentences which look hauntingly familiar (probably the result of both this and the deleted article being largely the work of single purpose account Eventus (talk · contribs), another person who likes blkanking his Talk page. This article was created by Newsjunky (talk · contribs), that account's sole contribution. I would just nuke it but it is not formally a speedy-repost (rather less spammy this time round) and there was some evidence that at least one historied editor thought there might be the germ of an encyclopaedic topic here. Guy 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:CORP. And, they're being obnoxious. My Alt Account 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless this is suddenly notable. :) Dlohcierekim 20:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Give the article a chance to mature and prove iteself.... This news agency is just as important as any listed on Category:News agencies or Category:News agency and does fit WP:CORP as it's listed and referenced by several news industry watchdog groups (Sourcewatch among others) It's also has been referenced as a prominent news agency in other Wikipedia articles.  :) NewsJunky
  • Weak keep but cleanup. Is this the same All Headline News that used to have a TV news operation? If so, it might meet notability just as a bit of history. --Aaron 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue is not so much the state of the arivle as the subject's lack of notability. Perhaps it is not so prominent as it would like. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 02:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even their press page doesn't persuade me they've crossed the WP:CORP hurdle. Good luck to them getting there, but I don't see it yet. William Pietri 00:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, advertising. Andjam 11:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Needs expansion and cleanup though, is notable(weak) Eventus 17:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has only made edits relating to All Headline News. Andjam 00:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And to several other categories and articles relating to news. Eventus 15:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is as notable as many others that I have seen in the category.. Don't delete it, build on it 70.222.114.176 18:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only edit by 70.222.114.176 Andjam 00:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentulian[edit]

Neologism. Never heard of it and Google results aren't so convincing [14]. At the very least, merge with Sentul, Malaysia. Delete __earth (Talk) 12:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom, please do the rest in one afd My Alt Account 14:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.UberCryxic 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And a Largoan is one who lives in Largo, FLorida. (Yes, real local usage.) :) Dlohcierekim 20:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ezeu 19:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Services Science, Management, and Engineering[edit]

The last AFD was called a keep despite there being a concensus to delete. The aritlce is about a business neologism (the extent of use has not been demonstrated) and is in part an advertisment for a masters program of the same name at UC Berkely. Delete --Peta 13:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - looks like management voodoo to me, although the article doesn't have anything that says what it actually is. I would have thought that was the prime purpose of an encyclopaedia. BTLizard 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - a tissue of vague abstractions, essentially devoid of meaning: complete bollocks. I don't care if it's taught at Berkeley, or can be referenced: it remains sesquipedalian obscurantism seeking to vest managerial platitudes with the appearance of rigour or grandeur by an inappropriate level of abstraction. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Moved from the Deletion Review. Please in the future take contested "keep" closures to WP:DRV and don't just start new AfD's). | Delete (Ch to Merge, see below) First, it's UC Berkeley, not UC Berkely or U.C. Berkeley. Second, Berkeley has scores of those programs, they're usually a way to tap new sources of sponsorship money and to semi-formally organize faculty with similar research interests. In this case it's a program that awards a certificate (for taking two classes), pretty much the lowest level of formal acknowledgement the campus offers. Third, it's been around since 2005. Fourth, this reminds me to continue writing on my proposal for scientific terms to avoid such redundancy loops in the future. ~ trialsanderrors 17:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A neologism coined by IBM and/or UC Berkeley isn't automatically notable, especially when it's a new management buzzword. Geoffrey Spear 18:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the bollocks :) Dlohcierekim 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not show how this phrase is not simply selling old wine in new bottles (i.e. standard management consulting lines of thinking about services dressed up in new jargon). The Berkeley connection is insufficient - adopting the exact same name as an IBM research/university collaboration initiative[15] suggests a sponsorship or other collaborative relationship with IBM. A phrase promoted by notable institutions is not automatically notable enough for an article, especially when there is indication that the phrase is a protologism/buzzword. A shoutout to User:Trialsanderrors to alerting me to the afd listing of this article (my original comment was on the DRV discussion) Bwithh 23:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO and the colorful arguments above. William Pietri 00:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Move I'm afraid I don't have time to do much new research (wife had baby on Friday!), but my argument in the previous AFD was keep, rewrite, and move to Services science. If you read both of the web links from the article, they both say clearly that the supposed new discipline is called "services science". "Services Science, Management, and Engineering" is just the name of the IBM initiative and the UCB program (probably due to IBM fronting some of the cash, I suspect). And services science gets an awful lot of Google hits - about 152,000. (See, for instance this International Herald Tribune article.) It may be a management buzzword, but it looks like it has gotten a fair amount of press. Brianyoumans 06:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say 90% of those simply have nothing to do with SSME, but some of them qualify as secondary sources. Still, with comments like this: "Services is a drastically understudied field", I'm not sure if it's enough to cover it separately from Service. But I'm changing my vote to Merge to Service. ~ trialsanderrors 00:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Catchpole 15:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThePILLARS Publication[edit]

Contested prod, possible vanity, non-notable university magazine. MER-C 13:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - possibly the magazine should be mentioned in the University's own article, but without the dreary list of editors, editorial assistants and editorial lavatory cleaners. BTLizard 13:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable --Bill.matthews 15:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and vanity Akradecki 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a place to list every college publication. :) Dlohcierekim 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically all the above Nigel (Talk) 12:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G1. Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Cooney[edit]

It is evident the article is fictional. Enrique Vargas 13:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fiction. Could have been so much funnier, too. BTLizard 13:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Already tagged for speedy deletion per G1. --Nishkid64 14:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - tell author to try again, read PNSG Party for ideas on how to do better. My Alt Account 14:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherasian[edit]

Neologism. Never heard of it and Google isn't so convincing. [16] Most results are from personal blogs. Delete __earth (Talk) 13:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO. --Nishkid64 14:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, would have been nice if they were all in one afd My Alt Account 14:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.UberCryxic 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. WP:NOT a list of every word for an inhabitant of a particular town.  :) Dlohcierekim 21:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ezeu 18:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kuala Lumpurian[edit]

Neologism. Some are even original research. See Google search for result[17] . See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sentulian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherasian. Delete. At best, redirect to Kuala Lumpur. __earth (Talk) 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Kuala Lumpur. --Nishkid64 14:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Huh? My first thought was troll/hoax walled garden, but looking through the editor's edit history, I guess there's probably an innocent explanation for all this. Hopefully we'll get to hear what it is. My Alt Account 14:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inspired from Londoner Why inhabitants in London can create Londoner "A Londoner is someone who inhabits or originates from London. ", why inhabitants in Kuala Lumpur cannot create a Kuala Lumpurian? If you delete Kuala Lumpurian, then Wikipedia should also delete Londoner, Parisian, New Yorker, etc. L joo 15:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Londoner distinguishes between two cities on two different continents, talks about things such as newspapers that are called The Londoner, and explains that the concepts of "Londoner" and "Person from London" are not necessarily identical. Can the same be said of "Kuala Lumpurian"? Or is the concept of a Kuala Lumpurian not at all divorcable from Kuala Lumpur?

      Your fallacious "If article X then article Y." argument falls over for New Yorker and Parisian for the simple reasons that the former is a disambiguation article and the latter is about a chain of department stores, and not about people from Paris at all. Uncle G 18:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Also don't remove AfD notices because you want to hear arguments. The whole purpose of the notice is to have a discussion. --Wafulz 18:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The whole purpose of the notice is to have a discussion" or "Articles for deletion" (Discuss & Delete are different). Hi Wafulz, I'm still new to Wikipedia, are you a Wiki-administrator? Why call it "Articles for deletion" and then "The whole purpose of the notice is to have a discussion." If the whole purpose is to have a discussion, then it should be called "Articles for discussion" ? L joo 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got the idea from from Londoner, very simple. I believe I can create a page called Kuala Lumpurian. May I know why must delete? If anyone think the content is weak, feel free to add, why must delete? L joo 19:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uncle G provides a pretty strong argument that deals with "Londoner" specifically- maybe you could address that? --Wafulz 20:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine, forget about Londoner, Parisian, New Yorker, etc, may I create page Kuala Lumpurian? L joo 20:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No you can't. You haven't actually said anything about why this article should be kept. It's just a word for someone from Kuala Lumpur, and nothing more- the rest of it is just history of Kuala Lumpur, which is covered in Kuala Lumpur itself. --Wafulz 20:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't actually said anything about why this article should be kept. Kuala Lumpurian is a name for "inhabitants of Kuala Lumpur" or "peoples living in Kuala Lumpr". Just to have a name. L joo 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete please as per the others WP:NOT (Ich bin einer Largoan.) :) Dlohcierekim 21:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A name for "inhabitants of Kuala Lumpur" Btw, if Kuala Lumpurian or Lumpurian is not the best name, feel free to give a better name for "inhabitants of Kuala Lumpur", anyone? L joo 21:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this term even exist? Or are you just making it up for the sake of having a name. If you've made it up, then it should be deleted as original research. If the term is a real term for those living in Kuala Lumpur, then redirect to Kuala Lumpur, just like every other "An x is a person from y" article. For examples, see:
  • Except
I'm saying this based on Wikipedia not being a dictionary or random collection of information, which is an official policy. --Wafulz 22:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Existence is not sufficient to merit a Wikipedia article. The term, like Largoan, is not in sufficient use to merit a Wikiepdia article. You could make up as many words as you liked as a word meaning someone from a particular town. Wikipeida is not an indsecriminate collection of words made up. :) Dlohcierekim 03:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Londoner: A Londoner is someone who inhabits or originates from London. Although the term Londoner is generally accepted as covering all people from Greater London, it is sometimes used to mean more narrowly a 'Cockney', and tradition has it that true Cockneys are only those who are born within the sound of Bow Bells (i.e., the peal of the church bells of the parish church at St Mary-le-Bow, Cheapside, London). Londoners come from a broad range of geographic and ethnic backgrounds. They speak with a wide variety of accents including Cockney, Received Pronunciation and Estuary English. Londoners often have a very distinctive accent, quite distinct from the rest of England.

I'm still confuse, why Londoner is ok, why Kuala Lumpurian is not ok? L joo 02:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability. :) Dlohcierekim 03:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that, and the fact that people actually use the term "Londoner." My Alt Account 03:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, Londoner is the only notability in the world, the rest are not. Is this a good reason to delete? L joo 04:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really called Kuala Lumpurian? Why not Kuala Lumpuran? Or Kuala Lumpurese? Or KLites? Why Kuala Lumpurian? Personally, I've never heard the word Kuala Lumpurian. Much less on Sentulian, Gombakian, etc. __earth (Talk) 04:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be "Lumpurese", "Lumpuran", "Kualas", "Lumpurian", "Orang KL", "KLites", etc, etc. L joo 05:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless there's evidence that "Kuala Lumpurian" is used by more than a few bloggers. Its use isn't established, for example in any journalism among the Google hits (for a comparison, see Mumbaikar), so I don't see that there's a worthwhile starting point for either an article or a redirect at the moment. Mereda 09:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(for a comparison, see Mumbaikar) Mumbai population is roughly 20 or maybe 30 times more than Kuala Lumpur, surely you win on Google hits. Btw, a total 132,000 hits in Google for Mumbaikar, this number represents less than 0.01 per cent of the total Mumbai population. L joo 11:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not so much for the size of the population. The problem is, is "Kuala Lumpurian" a real word? Hence, the neologism reasoning. __earth (Talk) 12:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far, we have 306 Google hits for Kuala Lumpurian. Some bloggers used it, but it is only a beginning, developing. L joo 12:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There's only 69 entries as shown in the nomination [18]. A good number comes from Wikipedia and its mirrors. The rest from blogs. Furthermore judging for your contribution (Sentulian, Gombakian, Cherasian etc), it's highly likely its a neologism. __earth (Talk) 13:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Google showed 257 hits. Anyway, English is not the only language in Malaysia, naming is too difficult. "Orang KL" showed 558 hits. L joo 14:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete The Penangite article has an "Expand" tag on it. Why wouldn't this article merit the same treatment? Maybe Penangite needs to be nominated for AfD also. As for "neologism", except for a few widely known Anglicisms, it's always hard to figure out what to call people from a particular non-English/American city. I do agree that, unless a significant article could be written, almost anything that you could say about "Kuala Lumpurians" could be inserted into the Kuala Lumpur article. --Richard 08:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusion[edit]

So? L joo 05:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you want to know what the conclusion of the AfD debate is. The official answer is:The debate has not been closed (concluded) yet. The unofficial answer is: The article will probably be deleted in a few days.
First off, regarding your point about "the purpose of AfD is discussion", the point is we are not just voting. Instead, we are discussing whether or not to delete this article. So far the discussion is leaning overwhelmingly in favor of deletion. Some AfD's are close calls. This one doesn't seem to be one of those.
AFD nominations stay open for 5 days unless an early close is indicated. This nomination was started on 12 September and therefore would normally stay open until 17 September. However, discussion so far is pointing towards an early close. There are no "Keep" votes and even if you (L joo) voted "Keep", the consensus is running overwhelmingly against you.
If you could show at least a handful of English sources that used the word "Kuala Lumpurian" or a variant thereof, you could defeat the charge of "neologism". However, you would still have the Wikipedia is not a dictionary argument to deal with. To be encyclopedic, the article would have to describe how Kuala Lumpurians are different from residents of other Malaysian cities (such as Penangites) or how they are perceived to be different. All this would have to be sourced to reliable sources, of course.
If this article is deleted, don't lose heart. You can re-create it provided that the new article addresses the issues discussed here. If it doesn't, it is likely to be re-nominated for AfD again.
Please don't take any of this personally. We are only interested in maintaining and improving the quality of Wikipedia articles. We would be glad to re-consider an expanded, improved and sourced article if you write one.

--Richard 08:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very very helpful statement, thank you very much Richard. L joo 09:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gorkens[edit]

Gorkens is a character from a non-notable on-line magazine - http://orcmagazine.com which gets a Alexa rank of around 195,000 [19].

Related page Ridgelings also nominated. I@n 13:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both -- I@n 14:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Danny Lilithborne 16:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both :) Dlohcierekim 21:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer: Note that there are a number of incoming links to these two articles. -- I@n 00:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by User:DVD R W under CSD G3. BryanG(talk) 23:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animals Park[edit]

Hoax? Google search for "Animals Kingdom" Juaniko finds ONE entry: the Wikipedia page Animals Park. An obvious skit copy of Prehistoric_Park. See near the end of Talk:Prehistoric_Park#Specific_names. Anthony Appleyard 14:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax, especially given that the user's only other contribution was to the obviously fake First water birds (which I've marked for speedying as nonsense). --Wafulz 18:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vandalism per information presented by Wafulz above.--Andeh 19:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whispering(talk/c) 21:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palmwood[edit]

NPOV,verifiability This article contains no references at all. It brings all-good-news as a commercial brochure would. Most (>95%) of this article has been written in a single edit by a single contributor. I'm proposing to delete this article on the grounds of Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. --Philippe 14:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I'd like to point out violating neutrality isn't grounds for deletion- on the other hand, this article doesn't have any reliable sources to verify it. A Google search brings up no relevant third party publications and Lexis Nexis just brings up a bunch of stuff about the Blackberry. A search of "cocowood" brought up one story but nothing else. If other sources can be found, I will change my decision.--Wafulz 22:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing vote to Keep with cleanup --Wafulz 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and clean up. I agree with Wafulz completely on the grounds by which we should judge this. Searching around, people definitely make products out of coconut palm wood, so having some sort of entry is reasonable. However, the article should be pruned back to what we can verify, even if that's a stub for now. William Pietri 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but with major cleanup and re-write, and possibly re-name 'palm wood'. Palm wood - from many different species of palms, not just Coconut Palm - is an important commodity in tropical / subtropical regions (e.g. I've seen Date Palm Phoenix dactylifera wood extensively used as a structural timber in southern Morocco) - MPF 08:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with a major cleanup i.e. removing almost the entire body of the article instead of deleting. This seems to be the consensus of this discussion. I will start cleaning up shortly, thus eliminating the need for deletion. --Philippe 11:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd: The Movie[edit]

Hoax

This article is completely made up. Tracing the references back, the first reference is a link to a non-existant article from Variety. IMDB does not have this movie listed and the only references to it on the internet are Wikipedia, forums, and blogs. Kevin143 14:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a rumour (WP:NOT a crystal ball). The rumour must have originated from somewhere, and may be true, but it isn't for Wikipedia until it has been confirmed. --Alex (talk here) 15:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 17:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT :) Dlohcierekim 21:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and alex9891. --Quiddity 04:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax (I tried tracing it back when I first saw this on the Cameron Crowe page and came up with nothing) Jfiling 16:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the possibility of recreation upon confirmation of the rumour (I tried tracing it back when I was rewriting the article and came back with little but chatter about a few forum posts). -- Sasuke Sarutobi 23:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The JPStalk to me 22:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop dolarhyde[edit]

Nonnotable local TV host, and most of the article seems to be dubious. NawlinWiki 14:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unsourced, unverified. Akradecki 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lincolnite 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged for speedy delete. It is either pure vandalism or an attack page. It is inherently a candidate for Unencyclopedia at best. :) Dlohcierekim 21:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nlpturkiye.com[edit]

Doesn't establish notability, doesn't even register on Alexa. I think the impressive list of interwiki links is fake (the German one, at least, is incorrect). --ais523 14:43, 12 September 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Det fris bryghus[edit]

non-notable amateur brewery. Fails WP:CORP, only claims to notability in article are participation in a local competition and recieving technical support from the 37th best brewery (as voted on a website) in the world. Geoffrey Spear 14:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Akradecki 16:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lincolnite 18:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is not something brewed in school one day. :) Dlohcierekim 21:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Box[edit]

This article is the combination of two non-notable topics. One is a local bar that doesn't meet WP:CORP and the other is about a box of chicken wings. Neither are encyclopedic. Delete. Deli nk 14:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Húsönd 17:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lincolnite 18:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambiguate and expand - also the name of a Guttermouth song. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  :) Dlohcierekim 21:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, unencyclopedic, badly written in other aspects, and somewhat incoherent, due to the treatment of two radically different topics in one article. Djcartwright 00:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. A messy article isn't cause for deletion. I do find enough material on the web to verify that the bar exists, but not enough to make an article out of. William Pietri 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as nomination was withdrawn and there were no delete votes Yomanganitalk 14:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power_violence[edit]

Poorly written article, not in the style of an encyclopedia Guest Account 15:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - poor writing is not a reason for deletion. Yomanganitalk 15:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is. The german Wikipedia has some articles nominated for deletion because of that reason. Why would the english/american one have to be different? Guest Account 14:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and nominating an article for deletion is not the way to fix vandalism. Uncle G 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could use some cleanup and sourcing, but does document a particular musical style (with tongue being bitten to avoid inserting my own POV about said style....). Akradecki 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bad faith nomination. If this were a real editor and not a vandal, I'd point them to WP:OSTRICH. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can we speedy keep? :) Dlohcierekim 21:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, someone replaced the article with the correct one. Can I just delete the header about the deletion discussion or do I have to do other steps as well? Guest Account 14:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connection addiction[edit]

Apparently non notable concept, 941 google hits, not all related. Prod removed without comment. --Rory096 15:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - first formally identified in September 2006, which means sometime in the last dozen days. Simply too new to be notable, and smells like original research too. —Scott5114↗ 15:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Identified "by sociologist Carl Smegegi" (a surname that doesn't seem to actually exist anywhere), article created by User:Smegegi. Looks a lot like WP:NFT. Certainly fails WP:OR, WP:V. -- Fan-1967 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lincolnite 18:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.  :) Dlohcierekim 21:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. My Alt Account 22:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Article has been edited to remove subjectivity and the article is well formed on the credible theory. --Smegegi 08:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RackStar[edit]

Non-Notable product, article created by product manufacturer. SPAM? Bill.matthews 15:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W. Shane Thomson[edit]

Non-notable Canadian businessman YUL89YYZ 15:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ezeu 18:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jigawa ethanol programme[edit]

This page is an advertisiment, a campaign speech, an unencyclopedic entry. Speaks of unproven benefits contrary to wikipedia not being a crystal ball as well. Indrian 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Bill.matthews 15:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its present form. It should be noted that this text had been proposed as an Article for Creation and was declined. It was then created despite this declining. The subject itself may be deserving of an article, but it needs to be written from scratch and properly sourced. Thus, I propose if deleted here, it be without prejudice, in case someone decides to write a proper article. Akradecki 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a press release, not an encyclopedia article. Once the program has begun, then perhaps there'll be something to say about it. As it stands, though, it doesn't sound like anything more than a blue-sky proposal. Zetawoof(ζ) 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletions. -- Kappa 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once the program is actually implemented, it might ecome notable. Not much at google. This just looks like promotional material to build support for the thing. WP is not a soapbox  :) Dlohcierekim 21:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "PRESIDENT Olusegun Obasanjo Tuesday flagged off the ethanol project "... "Already Jigawa State government has provided a 10,000 hectres for the planting of industrial sugar cane spread across the wet land areas of 10 local governments in the state" Kappa 23:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. I found one article on it to compliment the one in our article. There seems to be enough that we can verify from reliable sources, especially taking WP:CSB into account. William Pietri 00:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I do agree that as it stands now the material is not written for wikipedia however it contains information which could be used to improve a future article. I also agree that the point about WP:CSB is a valid reason for having an article on the topic. AndrewBuck 20:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep content but preferrably not the present way: this belongs in an article that either shows current politics, economics, etc with ongoing changes in Nigeria, or a historical overview (or detail) on major Nigerian projects, or an overview of African agriculture/oil/..., or a worldwide view on gaining oil from agricultural products. Do not expect quick reactions and improvements for articles from non-English-speaking and/or developing countries as one may expect from the US or Great-Britain (WP:CSB) - an article like this has a signal function. At the appropriate moment, the content should be available and easily found by search operations, thus definitely do not destroy it. Meanwhile, the boxes at top of the article can sufficiently warn readers of the shortcomings. — SomeHuman 20 Sep2006 18:34 (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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Kune Do[edit]

20-year-old martial artist, claims to have invented new martial art, but unsourced and nonnotable. NawlinWiki 15:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cato alfons[edit]

Non-notable painter, fails WP:BIO. Google shows three hits, two of which seem to be about a class reunion; Wikipedia is the third. No reliable sources given or likely to be found. Was contested prod. Delete --Huon 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirected to corporate parent during discussion. GRBerry 02:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riverbelle[edit]

gaming website that does not assert notability, does not meet WP:CORP nor WP:WEB and does not list independent sources per WP:V. Been prodded a couple of times, and prods are removed without discussion or article improvement. Akradecki 15:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Nom withdrawn now that it has been redirected. Akradecki 01:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lincolnite 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Really no way we can verify this. Also, the website has an Alexa traffic ranking of 18,565. --Nishkid64 19:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I screwed up. All articles similar to this are treated the same way, redirected to the corporate parent than owns multiple such entities. I just redirected it to Carmen Media before noticing the tag was afd rather than prod. In any case I suppose that means my input is redirect, however that redirect should have already been in place. 2005 20:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stine Høiby[edit]

Probably hoax. No reliable sources are given. uboat.net not only fails to mention the capture of U-74 in Norway, but instead claims it was being transferred to the mediterranean at that time. Searching Google for any combination of Stine Høiby and U-74 I could think of produced no relevant results. Delete as unverifiable. Huon 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if sources cannot be produced. Please note, that if deleted, List of Norwgians should be edited to remove her from there. Akradecki 16:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Akradecki. Danny Lilithborne 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Lincolnite 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. --Nishkid64 19:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I suppose there's some remote chance this is true, but I have to discount that chance in light of the page author's habit of writing questionable bios, and tagging his major edits as minor. My Alt Account 23:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everett L Storey[edit]

Alleged inventor of a "super energized mineral concentrate". I have rescued this from speedy deletion because "Everett L Storey" scores several relevant Google hits. This may be worth recording as a mildly notable real-world hoax or charlatan product. -- RHaworth 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The google hits all reek of press release. Delete as spam. Dipics 16:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its present form. Storey himself might be a good subject for an article focusing on his atomic era research, but if this cellfood was real and verifiable, it'd be to radiation poisoning what penicilin was to infections: widely recognized and used. Akradecki 16:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V for starters (I have more ...) WilyD 17:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lincolnite 17:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a minor (and ultimately nn) pseudoscientific hoax. "Freedom Deuterium act" gets zero Google hits, and "Deuterium Freedom act" only turns up copies of Cellfood press releases. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - blatant hoax, and not silly enough to win my praise. My Alt Account 01:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedily and block from recreation - this is the third time this article has been created. Advertising/hoax/spam - either way it's a waste of time to go through all this. --ArmadilloFromHell 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: General discussion has been moved to the talk page to keep this uncluttered. Akradecki 02:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good idea! That helped a lot. My Alt Account 02:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Medeksza[edit]

Not sure about CSD on this one. His software seems notable enough (it's been in Wikipedia for a while) but I don't know if he's notable enough.-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - He hasn't won the prize yet... Akradecki 16:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he becomes more notable in the future, by all means bring him back then. Lincolnite 17:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now per non-notability. If he does win the prize, then he's notable, and the article should be re-created. --Nishkid64 19:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO. Notability neither asserted nor discovered. William Pietri 00:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. El_C 10:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skryped[edit]

A word someone just made up. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Was PRODded but tag removed by author without comment so it comes here.➨ ЯEDVERS 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Heaven forbid that appearance on WP would give it legitimacy! Akradecki 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Lincolnite 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom.--Saintlink 18:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire. Syrthiss 18:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:WINAD. Only 4 G-Hits as well. --Nishkid64 19:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Dicdef, borderline nonsense. Djcartwright 00:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was was redirect to Religion. Whispering(talk/c) 21:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious[edit]

There was a previous vote on this article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious/2005-08-19. The decision to merge the contents to other articles was reverted because the consensus "wasn't very good" according to the edit summary. So I'd like to have another call to consensus. I propose that this article is nothing more than a collection of dictionary definitions, and the contents should be merged into other articles (if there's anything worth saving). (More than one because there is more than one sense of the word.) The previous proposal was to redirect to religion. If this is not satisfactory, I would propose making this a disambiguation page. -- Beland 16:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Religion- reads as a dictdef, and, from the only dictionaries I could find that acknowledge the use of 'religious' as a noun at all, an incorrect one. Geoffrey Spear 18:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Geoff. --AlexWCovington (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. per all above. Wikipeida is not a dictionary. NeoFreak 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. as per nomination. Jgamekeeper 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PowerEdge[edit]

I prod'ed this, with this text: "Non-notable product line, as they're not inherently innovative. Enumerating all the models in the line might be an interesting article, but even the collection of specifications does not make an encyclopedic article." Another editor removed the prod and made a comment requesiting the topic be kept at Talk:PowerEdge, so that brings us to a formal AfD.

I'm on the delete side, and vary from "why the heck is this here?!" to not thinking the article does any harm -- but I never find myself having a desire to keep this article. It is in poor shape now, but I also don't think that it can be improved to provide an interesting article at all. There's no argument that the line of servers is popular, but they're not innovative and are just repackaged products that someone else invented, designed, and implemented. Anything discussing the business model behind them probably belongs at the Dell Inc. article, and a catalog of the line and its configurations isn't interesting. -- Mikeblas 16:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I don't intend to argue whether the products are inovative, since I don't know enough about their architecture. I also do not dispute that this article needs work. But I would say that the PowerEdge servers are very notable. They have won many numerous industry awards, and google tests return millions of pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill.matthews (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - not being innovative is not a criterion for deletion. The Dell series of servers has received industry coverage such as this article which took me almost no time at all to find. I'd say it meets WP:CORP as a notable product. -- Whpq 21:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The referenced article is not about PowerEdge servers in general. It's also not completely about a specifc PowerEdge server; it's a press release recap mentioning some announcements from a two or three different companies. While the article has "PowerEdge" in its text, and discsusses one change to one model at one time, it provides zero depth. This specific article doesn't help PowerEdge meet WP:CORP because it is just a press release rehash. I think that articles truly about the line of servers (as this topic in the pedia aims to be), which aren't reviews or PR slpashes, are going be few and far between. -- Mikeblas 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. There is evidence that this line of products has enough significance to warrent an entry. Greg Birdsall 21:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will you be writing up that evidence for the article? -- Mikeblas 03:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have NeXTstation, SPARCstation, SunFire, System/360, Programmed Data Processor, Apple II series, ENIAC, and I'm sure countless more. I'm always a little suspicious of articles documenting current commercial products, but this will one day be a notable historical commercial product, and as long as the article isn't spammy, there's no reason to wait. William Pietri 00:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The other prodcucts were the first to do something very interesting; first optical drive, first hardware VM system, and so on. The PowerEdge servers are just servers. -- Mikeblas 03:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For anyone who needs to see the light at the end of the tunnel, take a look at the Dell Optiplex page. The Optiplex page is not an absolute complete list, but details the vast majority of models that are of any useful relevance today. Think about the time you waste looking through documentation eleswhere when you could find it in an organized fashion, providing instant comparison to all other models. The page needs the content improved, but that is not a justafiable reason to delete it. Individuals in the IT field who actually have a positive attitude and familiarity with Dell business-grade computer equipment should be welcomed to share their expertise and make information easier to understand. Is the reason that we seek encyclopedic content not other than that we are in persuit of knowledge? 23:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.209.141 (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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Please defer page move discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pear of Anguish[edit]

Per a lengthy discussion on Talk:Pear of Anguish, there is no evidence that this device existed in the form described. Wikipedia does not need articles about every sex toy in the world; absent of any evidence of the 'historical uses' of this object, there is no need for an article on it. Please Delete. The Land 16:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, there are references, the "lengthy discussion" shows that there is debate about the historical validity of sources that are centuries-old. There is similar debate about whether Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas, but that doesn't mean we AFD his article - it means we deal with the controversies inside the article. As a further note, you may be interested to see that Category:Sex toys indicates we probably do keep articles on sex toys, and there has been zero evidence this is a "sex toy". It's either a centuries-old hoax, or it's legit...it's definitely not a sex toy and it's definitely not unverified. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please spell out where the references are. I can't easily see them. I can see a load of modern websites talking about them; I can see a Czech museum exhibiting something that looks like a stopper for a bottle of wine under the name; I can see exactly one purported source for any historic origin of this device anywhere on the web [20] referring to [21]: we are well into the territory of original research here. The Land 20:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless the article (which seems like it should be title "choke pear") is entirely re-written to emphasize that this is not a real medieval device, but a modern hoax (If it in fact was, it needs much better references than those BS sites). Even if this occurs, the article must verify that it is a notable hoax.--Cúchullain t/c 21:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - apparent hoax, per nom. My Alt Account 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it is a hoax the article should be changed to confirm it's a hoax. Seano1 23:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would have to be a notable hoax. Otherwise, WP:NFT applies. My Alt Account 23:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not that it matters at all, but I have heard of this device, and occasionally used in the context of the Marquis de Sade. I just wish I had some actual sources to back up what I'm going on about. --Wafulz 23:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Hoax or real, it's apparently a notion of long standing. Merits at least a stub, and more as we get consensus around what it actually is. William Pietri 00:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not verifiable.  :) Dlohcierekim 21:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stub per William Pietri. It's at least notable for the controversy over what purpose it served. Kasreyn 01:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There are references in torture books. I haven't seen it mentioned in history books; but it DOES show up in books dedicated to torture and execution. I found a book at my local library published in the 80's that included this (this one here), so if this were a hoax - it's been a long one, and STILL HAS NOT been proven to be fake as of yet. And even if it were proven to be a hoax - it would be a notable one to have lasted for so long. Deleting this article just because evidence is lacking is absolutely no reason to come to the conclusion that this device is a hoax, then simply delete it. That in itself, would be original research. The use of the device has been verified by most torture books and museums to be what it is... and while they may be possibly unreliable, we can only for now, just take note of that. Lastly, considering its extent in time, hoax or not - people ARE looking for this article. -- Shadowolf 07:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that is just recycling the same non-academic tourist museum fluff. It is not a real book but a catalog of the Italian "museum"'s travelling exhibition. By "long" you mean thirty years? Do we have a page on Yetis too? Actually as this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, surely everything that lacks evidence should be deleted? Everything. How would it be original research? You mean there is a value judgement implicit in refusing to accept an article? How? Why? I hate to claim knowledge of torture books but I assure there is no credible printed reference to this. It has not been verified by anyone except this Italian tourist "museum". I have asked for proof for this article for more than a year. I have tried to track down every reference. I have yet to see a shred of proof or even a credible reason to think it existed. Lao Wai 10:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, sir, we DO Have a page on Yetis (... just as we actually document sex toys as well). They are encyclopedic as commonly documented urban legends and hoaxes (there are others - Lochness monster, Paul is Dead, etc. No, it's not wrong to question the legitamacy of this device, but just because you feel the sources are unreliable does not mean we can/should not cite their claims - a claim can be used to source information, but you just have to let the reader know that it is that - a claim. Let the reader decide for him/her-self the verifiability of the provided sources. In fact, it is totally possible to write a section questioning its verification under this article (in fact - see iron maiden under "Known Usage" for a short stub-type example), but it is no reason to delete it. In fact, if a lot of you think it is a hoax, I'd even encourage to write such a section to create that "awareness". Still, sadly, despite having researched this for so long, it is totally possible that you may NEVER uncover its truth (especially if it is as old as they say it is). That does not mean that it could in no way be real (and it certainly does not mean we should suddenly just give up searching for the undeniable truth!). That also does mean we throw away the POPULAR theories involved with Jack the Ripper's supposed identity (or even the theories of "Possible Other Victims" in Jack the Ripper), who Deepthroat really was before his public revelation ("Other Suspected Candidates"), the theoretical uses of Stonehenge, and so on. In fact, as an encyclopedic site, I'm positive Wikipedia allows for claims and theories as long as they are cited to be such, and reflect popular opinion - simply because there can never be answers for everything. -- Shadowolf 19:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Numerous citations concerning the Pear of Anguish can be found in reference texts on torture. The device also appears in Ken Russell's film "The Devils," where it is shown being used on an accused witch. This movie was released in 1971, so if the Pear of Anguish is a hoax, it is one that has been perpetuated for over 35 years, and thus notable. --Doctor Dan 02:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which "texts on torture" does it appear in? As someone who has gone over the literature I assure you the opposite is true. There are no credible references to it at all. Anywhere. Who cares if it is in Ken Russell's film? Just because an urban legend survives less than 40 years does not make it credible as far as I can see. Why do you think it is notable if the only reference to it is this film and a bad private-sector museum in Italy (which may be run by a Ken Russell fan for all I know)? Lao Wai 10:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I mention above, if it's an urban legend, it is one that has survived for over 100 years. As others point out, we have articles on plenty of urban legends, hoaxes, and frauds. It's possible to have a true article on an untrue thing. And often useful as well. Consider the example you raise above: Yeti. William Pietri 22:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Needless to say I do not think that Wikipedia is improved by unsourced, unverifiable, frankly incredible stories with no rational basis whatsoever. Lao Wai 10:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are PLENTY of Wikipedia entries of "frankly incredible stories with no rational basis whatsoever," e.g. ghosts, demons, Loch Ness Monster, fictional movie characters, etc. Does it really matter whether the device actually existed in Medieval Europe or not for it to have a Wikipedia entry explaining what it is? --Doctor Dan 20:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is kept, the closing admin should consider moving it to Choke pear, which seems to be the older name, and produces far more google hits.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close, this belongs at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion GRBerry 02:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Israel attack on Gaza[edit]

POV title. Only the redirection has to be deleted (not the referenced article) --Gabi S. 16:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong support no one will be typing in that exact phrase and hitting the go button, so no point. I can see no point in making this redirect but to make one's opinion known to other editors. Dsol 17:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep not an article, take it to redirects for deletion WilyD 17:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - AFD notice has broken the redirect, not that anybody would type "2006 Israel attack on Gaza" into the address bar. Molerat 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burnout records[edit]

Prod removed without discussion. Non-notable record company. They have not actually released any records. Fails WP:CORP and any other notability test I can think of. Dipics 16:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Akradecki 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The company only began trading in 2006, and HAS released a record, and currently has another in the works due to be released before the end of March 2007.Antony.doyle 16:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC) [Note: preceding comment was improperly put on discussion page, I'm copying it to here verbatim for record completeness. Akradecki 16:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Comment A record company that has only released one record and only started "trading" this year is, by definition, not notable. Dipics 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This company may yet be notable, but only then will an article be warranted. Erechtheus 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete New company that does not meet any of the guidelines of WP:CORP at this time. DrunkenSmurf 18:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide_methods[edit]

This page should be deleted The suicide methods page has been proposed for deletion 2 times previously, but these attempts have been unsuccessful, for whatever reason. There are a number of very good reasons why this page should be deleted:

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a manual. It is not meant to be used as a resource by people who wish to kill themselves, but it clearly can be. Consider the following which was written on wrist slashing

"Slashing or slitting one's wrists entails cutting through the wrists until one of the arteries is reached. People choosing this method die because of the massive blood loss from the radial artery or the ulnar artery. This method is also frequently used as self-harm, and it is not an immediately lethal method; therefore, not all people who slash their wrists intend suicide (this is then called parasuicide where suicide is either not sought or is not accomplished).

It is generally difficult to die by slashing the wrists since the arteries tend to try to spasm shut in response. Bleeding to death by veins is even harder and rarer. It can take a few hours or even more to finally die from the blood loss, depending on body weight, clotting problems (such as alcohol or aspirin in the blood), etc."

This gives a lot of information to anyone who wishes to end their life in this manner. It tells them some of the problems which prevent a successful suicide, and how to solve them in such a way that will allow death to occur (ie, use aspirin to prevent blood clotting). This is ethically bankrupt, and it is not what wikipedia should be about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a manual.

Secondly, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are some types of information which is already banned from wikipedia, such as information about people who are non notable. This policy is designed merely to prevent self promotion. Surely it is just as admirable for wikipedia to prevent suicide.

Opponents to the deletion of this article may claim that wikipedia shouldn't be censored. But the thing is, wikipedia is not value neutral. Wikipedia is about enforcing a public good, and helping the world through providing access to information which can help people. A suicide manual doesn't help anyone, but it does target vulnerable members of our community. About 1 in 5 people will experience depression at some point in their lifetime. Many people who experience this debilitating illness will consider suicide as a way of alleviating their suffering, even wikipedia users. We owe these people a chance at life by protecting them from information which they may use to kill themselves.

I am aware that it can be argued that the information itself wont kill anyone. That people who wish to kill themselves will do so even if they can't compare methods. But my point is that resources like the suicide methods page will increase their chances of commiting suicide effectively. It is well known that medical practioners have much higher suicide rates than the general population. This is because they are more successful at killing themselves during suicide attempts than people without medical training. Likewise, I believe that this suicide methods page will lead to more successful suicide attempts.

Finally, who wants to read in the newspaper that some depressed teenager killed themselves using wikipedia as a manual. That will happen unless this page is deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katie32 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    • Note - this nom is Katie32's first edit at WP. Akradecki 17:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Maybe a disclaimer would do the trick? something pointing them to the right places that would help them solve the reasons that lead to the death wish in the first place? FreddyE 09:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recomendations[edit]

  • Delete. This article may adhere to all the guidelines laid down by Wikipedia, but there are times to ignore all rules. There is no reason to have this page other than assisting a would-be suicide. Assisting suicide is illegal in many countries. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  17:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well written article, may be useful. JIP | Talk 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis article is helpful, and shouldn't be deleted just because it provides accurate and specific details on how people may end their life. If people really wanted to end their lives the information to do so can be found just as easily from many other sources. And all of this is the opinion of I, a depressed, but not suicidal, teenager. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.233.70.103 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - this is a how-to guide. Much of the text is given over to 'common pitfalls' of suicide methods. --Nydas 19:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD. --Huon 19:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Akradecki. This is only enyclopedic in the internet age but here we are and the article is a good one. NeoFreak 19:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Deglamourises suicide by making it seem gruesome not heroic. As encyclopedic as Torture#Torture_devices_and_methods. Could be worded better though. Molerat 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOT makes reference to several specific indiscriminate collections of information, and this is not any of those. It is most certainly not an indiscriminate list. It has an obvious and reasonable theme for wikipedia to cover in an encyclopedic way, which it does. What's more, there is certainly no evidence that the sky is falling in terms of wikipedia being used as a resource for depressed teens who want to kill themselves. --Kchase T 20:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, well written article, may be useful. Just needs a few more diagrams ;-). WP:NOT a how to manual - . Even if it doesn't tell you tell you foolproof ways of suicide, this is bad enough. Depressed people on don't need to be pushed. Ohconfucius 02:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block re-creation. Ignore all rules and common sense apply here. The ideas in this article need not be censored per se; they can be covered in articles about Electrocution, Injury, etc. The problem is not the ideas themselves, but the fact they are brought together in one article. Kla'quot Sound 03:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Neutral for now. I suspect that the audience for this article includes some people suffering from clinical depression who may be pushed towards or over the edge by the article. However, I'm still waiting to hear from the experts to decide whether this is just a hunch of mine or whether there is any evidence it would happen. Regarding the morality and NPOV issues expressed in this debate, there is a difference between "imposing anti-suicide morality" and "speaking to depressed people in an ethical way." We need to find a way to do the latter and avoid the former. Kla'quot Sound 22:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per arguments already expressed above --Clawed 04:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tag for some clean up (I agree with the the scant OR). Katie while your intentions maybe good your reasoning is flawed. First off, the reasons those "How to" articles don't exist is precisely because Wikipedia is not a manual and this article isn't a how to but rather an encyclopedic overview of a social phenomenon that is related to the main suicide article. Just as we have articles on rape, plagues, and child molestation because of the encyclopedic merit of their contents so to we have this article. I agree that the article is not perfect but that is why it needs clean up not deletion. A fundamental principle is that "Knowledge is Power" and sometimes you need to throw off the cover of the darker and uglier parts of existance to show it as it is. I would say this article (in a more ideal state) can actually serve an immense benefit in preventing suicides rather then encourage it. In their depressed state with only a shadow of knowledge, an individual can fantasize and visualize an ideal concept of suicide. But when the stark reality of what suicide actually is and what it means hits you, that knowledge can knock a person out of their fantasy concept and maybe the grim reality will cause them to reconsider. An ignorant mind is far more dangerous then an encyclopedia entry. 205.157.110.11 10:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic and sourced article. The nomination is an attempt at censorship and the nominator even created a new account for this purpose. Prolog 10:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - IAR was made for articles like this, so that the encyclopedia does not become embroiled in a criminal and horrible quaqmire. I agree with Kla'quot. Bringing together such information is dangerous. Common sense should prevail. Sure Wikipedia is not censored, but this only goes up to a point. The true nature of this article is plain to see: it's morally wrong. Ultimately, we as editors should never condone such an article, the first step on a slippery slope that could well lead readers into dangerous territory and unspeakable harms. However small chance of that happening, we must respond to this chance. Otherwise, We, in the end, would be culpable. Jpe|ob 11:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE THIS ARTICLE...as a therapist who knows of people who have committed suicide using their college textbook as a handbook, the odds of this website being used as a guide are very high. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.89.251.1 (talk • contribs) .
  • Extremely Strong Delete - For every reason listed above. I just find it immoral that theres a page dedicated to informing readers on how to kill oneself. There's absolutely no reason for this to be allowed. ETod09 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Maybe the style could use work, but I don't see any reason to delete this. This is not inherently a how-to guide, and it is not that detailed anyway.Voice-of-All 21:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • El keepo - No valid reason for deletion given. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of all knowledge. --Cyde Weys 22:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Topic is encyclopedic. I can sympathize with the nom, but since when did "needs work" equate to "should be deleted"? Luna Santin 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's not let our differing ideologies get in the way of what this article is: informative, thorough, well researched and encyclopedic. Let's leave our moral outrage out of Wikipedia. To the editor who submitted this for deletion, please consider rereading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Throw 00:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:NOT. "Wikipedia is about enforcing a public good." - no, it's not, it's about freely providing quality information to those seeking it (which may or may not be considered "public good", as this AfD clearly shows). -- int19h 07:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a sensible scheme for splitting out detail from suicide. Information is not "morally wrong". — Matt Crypto 10:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Any argument that suicide is good or bad, wrong or right, is strictly a matter of an individual's personal opinions and beliefs. It should be noted that suicide has been regarded as both abhorrant and supremely honorable. Therefore we are left with technical nuetrality. It should not be deleted for the remaining grisliness alone, as that would be tantamount to simple censorship. Furthermore, anyone looking to seriously kill themselves should be given out of a sort of humanitarian aid the most complete resouces to do it as cleanly and easily as possible. If they are intent on ending their life, it can't be very good in their esteem, and out of mercy they deserve a good death. Then again, this is just my personal opinion. Even more pointedly, it could be argued that reading all the heretofor unknown unpleasant details of the reader's self-proposed end of one's life may even DISCOURAGE suicide, and therefore SAVE lives. For example, someone intending to jump out of a six story window may come across this article and find that there is a ten percent chance of living from this. Discovering that it isn't instant 100% guaranteed death as portratyed in movies, they may start to consider life after such an event to their persons and their opinion may be -slightly- swayed in the direction of just toughing life out. And lastly, in my own personal experience, I will honestly admit I came to this article considering ways of ending my own life, and after perusing it, am now just thinking of going out and getting really drunk as an alternative. The article itself in summary is "living" (yeah, i'm funny) factual proof that transitioning from life to death is not as easy as a painless flick of a switch, and that there is indeed, no easy way out.11:58, 15 September 2006 69.149.178.129
  • Keep for now, but bring back in a month if it has not been cleaned up, referenced and purged of original research and creative writing. Guy 12:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is about providing information, not arbitrary morality policing. Delete this article and you're on the slippery slope to deleting many more.4hodmt 13:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Wikipedia is not censored, and may contain triggering information. See the general disclaimer. However this has to be a weak keep, as their is a lack of counterpoints to the methods presented, and of clear references. LinaMishima 14:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP not censored, but obviously this page needs to be on peoples' watch lists to ensure that it doesn't get out of hand. I can honestly say that no one considering suicide would learn anything here they couldn't learn in hundreds of other places, and at least here, we can prevent it from becoming a how-to guide. The information here is certainly encyclopedic (needs sourcing, but not much is controversial there), and deleting it wouldn't help the encyclopedia in any way. Mangojuicetalk 18:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs better sourcing, but for the most part, it's a reasonably good article. --Carnildo 18:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—The suicide methods page has been proposed for deletion 2 times previously, but these attempts have been unsuccessful for precisely the reason that it will shortly have been proposed for deletion 3 times—unsucessfully. It is a legitimate topic that covers a number of subtopics—several of which are historically or culturally significant. Efforts to delete this article verge on censorship (i.e., controlling access to information to stabilize or improve society). It involves suppression of ideas with the intent of controlling perceptions; classic indicators of censorship. Censorship invariably involves restricting information that does not match the value system of those who censor. Although topics such as obscene speech & sedition have been routinely censored (even in the U.S. where the First Amendment to the United States Constitution specifies that Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech); removing discussion of suicide methods, when assisted suicide is legal in states such as Oregon, would be setting new standards of control. True, Wikipedia relies heavily on consensus, which provides for periodic attempts at censorship by members sincerely interested in the good of humankind (or some subset of humankind). But in the end a neutral point of view, which acknowledges a multiplicity of views, will prevail. Williamborg (Bill) 04:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I have been watching this debate and I think that both sides have points that can't be ignored, and so I think a compromise might be in order.

First of all, slippery slope arguments are being made on both sides. Would deleting this article be a slippery slope to more extreme censorship? Maybe a little bit, but I doubt there are many other articles that people could use the same arguments for deletion as strongly as this one, so I don't think we have much to worry about there. If we keep it, will we see articles about methods of sabotaging airplanes or raping children? I doubt that too. The MOST IMPORTANT thing is that we are not arguing about deleting other articles and we are not arguing about adding a rape methods article -- we are debating THIS article alone. I didn't stumble across this article while having suicidal thoughts, I read it because the subject is fascinating. Personally, I fall on the side of the people that speculate that, unless one is already determined to kill onesself, an article about methods isn't going to persuade them to do it. The truth is, however, that I don't really know what it would be like to be seriously considering taking my own life, and most of you probably don't either. Too much of this debate is based on speculation. In the spirit of freedom of information, I think the burden should be on the advocates of deletion to find research showing that such articles (or books) increase suicidal tendencies. Anecdotal evidence on either side of the arguments over that point (and it's probably the main point of contention in this debate) is meaningless. However, the people who have concerns about suicidal people reading the article as a how-to guide have valid concerns. The fact that there is an article about suicide methods but not about signs of suicidality DOES bother me. There should be an article about common symptoms displayed by people who are contemplating suicide. I'm sure there are myriad reliable sources for this information. I also agree that the article needs some cleaning up. Possibly a longer introduction is in order, and I think that adding something about the general uncertainty involved in nearly all methods of suicide would be good, and I'm sure it would, if anything, increase the chances of a suicidal reader's reconsideration. Look, we wouldn't be arguing about this if we didn't love wikipedia, and we would all weep if we heard about someone who killed themselves after reading this article, but I truly think that if a suicidal person is going through the trouble of research, they are crying for help. If they really wanted to get the job done, they could do it without the research I think. rgrizza 05:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per William Pietri somewhere up there. Markovich292 08:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But needs rewording. Dolive21 19:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the topic is depressing, it is a well-researched and well-organized article. Mikeeilbacher 22:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This debate has been done to death already more than once. The article is encyclopaedic. GideonF 16:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nuff said.  ALKIVAR™ 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for allt the reasons Akradecki had stated. Encyclopedic, well referenced, well organized. Hopefully this will be the final AfD. Ðra 05:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT EVIL. Herostratus 08:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Reasoning follows. Suicide is a documented phenomenon. It is certainly encyclopedic. People commit suicide in various ways. These ways have major differences. These differences, and hence the ways, are encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not censored. Perhaps somebody will commit suicide after reading this page. That's extremely unfortunate and tragic. However, I'm sure that recent Canadian shooter read information on the Columbine tragedy (whether here or elsewhere)... The fact that these things happen does not mean that we should delete information about them. If someone is going to commit suicide, they will find a way to do it, whether there's a WP article on it or not. --Storkk 17:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Wikipedia were being written in medieval Japan, an article on Seppuku methods would be an absolute requirement. Anville 18:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing has changed since my original comment made almost one year ago. Yamaguchi先生 23:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sourced and encyclopedic. No need to moralise, welcome to the Internet. bbx 03:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is quite a difficult issue, one which I believe strikes on some of the flaws inherent to Wikipedia. Is NPOV actually a POV? Isn't "evil" POV? Is it possible to keep an article such as this sane when subject to the attention of two polarized viewpoints? All things considered, I believe this could be a valid entry if handled carefully. Namely, a set of special guidelines in the talk page detailing how to contribute to the article, elimination of unreferenced material, and a compromise with the "suicide is bad" viewpoint by linking to suicide prevention in the "see also" section (it is relevant, after all). A warning at the top stating that the dangers would be acceptable, so long as it were delicately worded ("If you are considering suicide, seek help now" is not delicate). As for being a manual, you could argue that ricin details how to make lethal poison or marijuana how to maximize drug yields. Any good source of knowledge can be used to carry out an act; otherwise it is useless trivia. If we toss this out on that basis, perhaps we should toss out all of the chemistry articles while we're at it? ~ Eidako 12:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article provides information and would be extremely useful to someone doing research on the phenomenon of suicide. Although it may be somewhat useful to someone wanting to commit suicide (though there are hundreds of sites on the internet that provide much more detailed information e.g. alt.suicide.holiday FAQ), in actuality this information may equally likely discourage someone from attempting suicide. Additionally, as the person who added the radial and ulnar artery information to the slitting wrists section [22], I further would like to make the point that condemning suicide is itself POV. There are some people out there who actually consider suicide as a proper way to end suffering (I am not one of them), and by imposing one's own (arbitrary) morals that suicide is wrong, aren't we being close-minded and ultimately one-sided? Wikipedia brown 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text

Recomendations with reply comments[edit]

  • Keep Encyclopedic, well referenced, well organized. Not a manual, as alleged, but a valid reference work. Suicide is a real social phenomenon, and NPOV documentation of the various methods is a legitimate subject for an article here. Akradecki 17:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We don't have a Murder Methods article, now, do we? Nor does NPOV require one. An article devoted to the methods by which a tragedy may be brought about has no place in any encyclopedia. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I do understand the reasons for nomination, Wikipedia is not censored.--Húsönd 17:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consensus self restraint by the wiki community acting responsibly is not censorship. We do not show images of violent pornography. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a great deal of censorship on Wikipedia everyday. See Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion/Archive 2 where there is discussion of many images which have been deleted on grounds of obscenity. Encouragement and enabling for depressed people to commit suicide goes beyond what Kevorkian went to prison for, and is more obscene and less "encyclopedic" than any image of body parts or sex acts.Edison 14:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suppose one could make the morality argument, but when it comes down to it, the article is listcruft. The way the information is organized is unencyclopaedic, and all of it is contained in suicide and related articles. Mystache 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of this is really true though. The organisation is reasonable - guidelines like WP:SUMMARY and WP:LIST can explain why organisation of topics is done like this. WilyD 17:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I misspoke. A better way of explaining my vote is that the article seems to be a POV forkMystache 19:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you got some evidence to support this? The suicide article is already 38Kb, which is fairly large, this seems like a "natural" spin-out topic. WilyD 21:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Wikipedia, she ain't censored et cetera. Anyone who a) wants to kill themselves, and b) has access to the internet isn't going to find the lack of a Wikipedia article on the subject any sort of barrier. WilyD 17:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is an increasingly universal and well respected resource. This article is more likely than most to come to the attention of people contemplating suicide. It will help them to succeed. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand the moral rationale for wanting this article deleted, but as stated unanimously in the previous 1st and 2nd AfDs, this is a valid encyclopedic article. People who want to die can easily find the appropriate manual elsewhere on the Internet. There is nothing here that a suicidal person will not find out anyway. What this article needs is to explain that suicide almost always fails (except in the USA where guns are usually available for civilians), and that whether one succeeds or not, the aftermath is gruesome (for oneself if one fails, which is likely, and always for others). Anyway (even though this article is not a manual), suicidal people have the right to information too, so that if they want to take their lives they can do it properly.--Ezeu 17:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When caveats such as those you mention are inserted, they are removed by other editors as non NPOV. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bad faith nom by new "editor." This is an established and well-developed article. --AlexWCovington (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Assume good faith. You state no basis for attributing bad faith to the editor. Nor should we disrespect an editor simply because she is new. This article is nominated regularly because many people share her concerns. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete only because it's kinda crufty (and perhaps original research) and parcel out the bits to either suicide or specific articles (hanging etc.); nothing Ezeu says can't apply just as well to the suicide article. That said, I don't really agree with the nominator's reasoning. If some Fredric Wertham type comes along and claims that Wikipedia is causing all sorts of horrible things to happen, whoever does PR for the Wikimedia Foundation can presumably take care of it. Wikipedia is not a public good; it's an encyclopedia.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 20:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a manual for committing violent felonies. Likewise there should not be an article on how to murder people or how to rape children.Edison 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such policy. This article is not a "how to commit suicide" manual, but merely a presentation of the different methods. --Ezeu 22:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some have claimed this is not a "How to commit suicide manual." Then is it acceptable to immediately delete any text in the article which in fact does encourage suicide, or provide info on the lethal dose of particular pain killers, or in other ways act as a suicide manual? And the claim is made that "There is no censorship in Wikipedia, but there obviously is. Jimbo Wales has deleted personal articles on several individuals under threat of libel suits, which is censorship. There is no article telling how to murder people, or how to kidnap and molest children, or how to build and trigger IEDs, or how to poison the food supply. If this vile article is kept, it needs cleanup: statements which are OR or lacking verifiable sources should be deleted, along with anything constituting a "How To" manual, such as lethal doses of common substances, or anything constituting "Helpful Hints" which have the POV that suicide is good.Edison 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Information on lethal doses is purely encyclopedic and in no way encourages suicide. The real reason it should not be included in this article is because it is better included in the articles about the drugs in question.4hodmt 13:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination seems well meant, but not in line with Wikipedia's approach. Other issues raised are interesting, but seem only to merit cleanup, not deletion. William Pietri 23:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cleanup has never worked on this long-running sore of an article because the article title itself - Suicide Methods - naturally draws it into being a "how to" manual, however often it is asserted that that is not what it should be. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It could use a little bit of cleanup, but it is a rather encyclopedic topic- a verifiable social phenomenon that spans pretty much every culture. It could be expanded to present statistics and history of methods though. Unfortunately, being tragic doesn't merit deletion. --Wafulz 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suicide is an encyclopedic topic. Suicide methods are not. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is in pretty bad taste guys. I fail to see how descriptions of how suicides occur can be considered encylopaedic. Sure, this information is usefull if you are suicidal but wouldn't it be better to leave a stub that says "If you are suicidal, check out www.beyondblue.com.au, and remember that no problems are worth dying for". User:Wik98
Comment "no problems are worth dying for" is POV. This article already links to suicide prevention articles.4hodmt 14:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since when is Wikipedia the morality police? Let's remove all articles on rape next, then pedophilia, then murder, then racism, etc. We have to protect the world from itself, after all, right? Someone might be JUST on the edge of molesting a child, they'll read a Wikipedia article and it'll happen, just like that. Our hands will be red with blood. Please. Get a grip on reality people. If a person is killing themselves there are bigger things in the picture than a Wikipedia article. But wait, maybe someone will read my comment here and be so enraged that they'll kill themselves? I'd better not post it. --Rankler 13:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSure there are articles on murder and rape but where is the "List of Ways To Murder Someone" or the "Helpful Hints for Raping?" There is a separate article on Suicide, and that is quite enough without this listcruft how-to manual.Edison 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete If someone kills themselves as a result of something they read on the Internet, one has to question their sanity in the first place. People predisposed to suicide will find other sources of information anyway. This entry is encyclopedic. It should be edited around a bit so make it seem less approving (obviously without going into POV, so by adding sources); but if we start here, next we'll start deleting other content on Wikipedia. Plus, people have a right to live their own life. They also should have the right to end it. You would rather lock someone up where they would remain in despair and mental anguish for the rest of their lives, rather than allow them the mercy of ending it all.

    Then again, by including this article, those predisposed to suicide will trigger their suicide in this manner. Therefore it makes sense that leaving this article (which seems to be quite recent) could in fact trigger suicide in a depressed person. People should have the right to make up their own minds, and not have us make them up for them, but at the same time some people are not capable of making rational desicions that they once would have made. This makes this article tricky to delete or keep. There are pros and cons either way. However, in the end, does anyone want to read the headline, "Teen Suicide Over Wikipedia Entry"? Because I sure wouldn't, and if I contributed to that article I'd feel like I contributed to that person's death. This is the only reason why I pick delete. I must admit in my weaker moments I (or others) might be tempted to read this article and follow its 'advice' and this is why I think it should be removed. Ezeu's points above still stand, though.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychade (talk • contribs) 15:11, 13 September 2006.
Yeah, and let's get rid of Kurt Cobain, Marilyn Monroe, and The Sorrows of Young Werther while we're at it.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This website does not just list methods, it describes ways to make attempts more successful. It is not impartial, it makes suicide sound acceptable. It links to a page that describes in great detail the best ways to make attempts successful, and deters against methods that have a low success rate. Many people who look up information on suicide are doing it because they're depressed. How can anyone support a page that serves no other purpose than to prey on vulnerable people. Treeny
Note: The above vote is Treeny's first edit on Wikipedia. Prolog 18:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There has been no substantial reason given for delete. There has been many for clean up but as it has already been said by many users above, this is not the place for clean up. The notion that some one may read it and because of the article commit suicide is pure conjuncture. It's like arguing that the article on Adjustable rate mortgage will make someone want to run out and refinance their home. If you want to apply the Wikipedia standards to that "delete reasoning" it screams WP:OR with no reliable sources showing a direct link between this Wikipedia article and causing teens or anyone else to commit suicide. Show us something that passes WP:V and you may have a case. The moral arguments fail WP:NPOV to boot. Again, there is no valid reason to delete. Agne 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, the Talk Page has regularly included edits from users saying they are grateful for it as an aid to successful suicide. So it is the notion that it does not increase the risk of any particular suicide which is conjecture. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And expand, it's all encyclopediac. Add wikilinks to all the methods, linking to articles related--people who used the method, historical anecdotes, etc. If this is offensive as a collection, would it be alright to have individual articles like Poisoning (suicide) instead...? I can see the reasoning behind deleting it from a given person's moral perspective but this is actually the framework of a very good article overall. Suicide has been a factor in human life since the human era began, and has played a critical role in life, politics, government, society, and the arts since we first stood up and walked upright. · XP · 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC) · XP · 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There already is an article about suicide. This debate is whether to have a separate article going into fine detail about methods. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  05:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. No encyclopedia in the world has ever included an article on "Suicide methods". "Suicide", of course - but "Suicide methods" absolutely not. The problem is in the title of the article, which attracts edits making it a "how to" manual inevitable, however much it may be cleaned up whenever it is regularly, and rightly, put up for deletion. This article should be deleted and whatever is encyclopedic about the contents (very little) can go into "Suicide". Another beef I have with this article is that the crusaders for it prevent edits which place at the top of the page prominent links and warnings to those who are contemplating suicide, directing them to reconsider and to help. One of my own several efforts in this regards is at 6 April 2003, I had many predecessors in this, who all failed against the regular editors, as I did. Instead, these resources are banished to the very bottom of an info box. This article is profoundly sick. If Wikipedia cannot show an erect penis, how can it justify an article which may be responsible for the loss of even one human life? Chelseaboy 09:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re: erect penis comment. You obviously have not seen the Circumcision page. Wikipedia is not censored and for good reason. Second, the editors who removed the tagged are correct in that those tags interject POV. No matter which way you cut it, a persons view on suicide is a personal one. There is a reason why we don't arrest and try individuals who attempted to commit suicide and fail for a crime of attempted suicide. As for the link, if it fails WP:EL and is interjecting POV in it's own capacity, then it should be removed as well. 205.157.110.11 09:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it now! More to the point, deletion of a page which may cause death is not censorship, if it happens it will be by consensus or as a result of a policy decision. I agree that, whilst an article on "Suicide methods" exists, editors will always edit out exhortations against following the methods as non NPOV. That is why an article on "Suicide methods", as opposed to "Suicide", is misconceived, and no clean up ever works or sticks. On your arrest point, you are anonymous and so I don't know who "we" is - in fact, attempted suicide has been a crime in many countries for long periods, including the UK before the passage of the Suicide Act 1961. "Suicide methods", as opposed to "Suicide", is unencyclopedic, and I challenge you to identify such an article in any other encyclopedia (excluding, of course, Wikipedia mirror sites). Chelseaboy 10:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I was thinking of the Suicide Act 1961 when I was composing my thoughts and some of the logical arguments made for decriminalizing suicide. In regards to your contention that this page "may cause death". Should we then, on those grounds, delete thesky diving, swimming, driving, and Atkins Diet pages on the logic that after reading them you may act in such a way as to cause death? 205.157.110.11 11:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not a manual. The topic is encyclopedic and can lead to a good article. Article needs to be improved, though. For instance, to cite sources so that it's clear it's not original research. --Abu Badali 00:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be consensus above that the article is a manual. Also, the censorship issue has also been discussed above. Wikipedia does delete pages, and whether you like it or not, this is a form of censorship. Furthermore there seems to be some confusion between the encyclopaedic nature of suicide, and the uncylcopaedic nature of the article about suicide methods. We only wish to delete the suicide methods page. I am aware that some of the keep camp think that the article can be fixed, but I think it should be considered that this article has been nominated for deletion twice before. There was plenty of time to fix it up, but it wasn't. This page is immune to proper cleanup.Wik98 00:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page is immune to proper cleanup Leaving aside the symantic problem with that sentance and what you're trying to say, and ignoring the "no-one's been bothered yet" argument, why is cleanup not possible? It is quite clearly possible in this case, with references and more counterpoints being what's needed. LinaMishima 00:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Line, I like what you are saying, but the problem as I see it is that the title of the article prevents this page from being anything other than a list of suicide methods. Over time, the edits will become more and more morbid, as editors wish to add more detail to each method. It seems impossible to prevent editors from adding the type of detail which turns an article like this into a How-to guide. Besides, Lina, what kind of references are being used right now? A suicide methods file that was constructed by anonymous users of a suicide newsgroup. It is hardly the most encyclopaedic of sources, is it? You may argue that in the future some smart fellow might do a search on pubmed for an acedemic suicide review, but I feel this is wishful thinking. In anycase, this article should be deleted on the basis of what it is now, not what it can be. Wik98 01:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The moral and legal objects are well meant and heartfelt. And obviously there may be rare cases where wikipedia needs to assert censorship. But this is not one them. For one, there are plenty of explicit articles on wikipedia dealing with topics that many users find morally objectionable and which may be illegal in any number of jurisdictions around the world, e.g. most of the articles dealing with sexuality in all its variations. One of the underlying principles of wikipedia is that transparancy is a good. Knowing more is good. Ohconfucius edits have helped the quality of the article. As he asserts, there is more work to be done. But in this kind of debate, it seems unfair that the bar is raised regarding standards of citation, prose, style etc to a level that I doubt some WP:FA would meet. Finally, regarding the morality issues. On any consequentialist account, we would have to factor in the benefit this article may provide to people who are concerned about love-ones who seem depressed. How often in post-suicide situations do family and friends lament that they did not recognize the danger signs. Jdclevenger 00:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article for deletion is Suicide Methods, not suicide. I highly doubt in a consequentialist account that the family of a suicide victim would find anything on the Suicide Methods page that would have helped them prevent their loved one from killing themselves. After all this page only discusses ways that people kill themselves, not the signs that people display before they suicide. the suicide page is valuable for the reason you have raised, but the suicide methods page is not. Wik98 01:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It seems that this article is being nominated for deletion solely out of certain individuals' notions of propriety and morality (and this moral outlook is not shared by everyone: personally, I see no problem with suicide, and much less with an article on the ways in which people do it). There is no policy-based reason for this article to be deleted, and its topic is noteworthy. The article itself is well referenced, although it could do with a cleanup, particularly for language and style. However, the presence of the odd comma splice is obviously not why this discussion is occurring. The nominator writes about the article being "ethically bankrupt" and so forth: I think it is providing a worthwhile public service (and this doesn't really matter, since "ethical conduct" is no more what Wikipedia is about than performing public services). The article provides solid information on a phenomenon which is a part of life, and deleting the article will not remove suicide from society, so this whole fiasco is a pointless waste of bandwidth. Wikipedia doesn't exist to save people from their own actions, it exists to provide them with information. So the article must stay. Byrgenwulf 09:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question isn't whether deleting the article will remove suicide from society. The question is (1) whether retaining the article is likely to increase the number of successful suicides (I think yes) and (2) whether the article is encyclopedic (I think no). Your vote seems confused: on the one hand you say the article is "providing a worthwhile public service", implying your answer to (1) would be yes, and on the other hand you imply deletion would make no difference, suggesting your answer to (1) would be no. Chelseaboy 14:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously, now. Whether or not this article could increase the rate of successful suicides is a moot point, one which would require proper empirical evidence to evaluate (not shrill, moralising do-gooder rants). However, providing information on the various methods by which people successfully kill themselves is indeed a public service (for a variety of reasons), although whether or not the article existed, people would continue to commit suicide effectively, as they have done for millenia. But since Wikipedia, last time I checked, is apparently not here for the "public good", it really doesn't matter, one way or another. The point is that there is no policy-related reason why this article should go, and "ethical" arguments are too subjective to hold water. Byrgenwulf 15:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy guys. I think this highlights something essential to this debate. Chelseaboy and others are arguing for deletion based on the premise that suicide is a bad thing. I agree with Chelseaboy about this, in most cases -- definitely if some depressed teenager happened upon this article and committed suicide because of reading it, I think that would be a terrible thing. I think most people would, and I think that Byrgenwulf's stance on the issue is pretty radical, but the fact that he and others have expressed their opinions on this side of the fence (Byrgenwulf said, "I see no problem with suicide") is illuminating. There are multiple points of view on this: most people, I think, believe that most suicide is bad (obviously there are exceptions involving the terminally ill, etc., but that is beside the point), however another point of view that many people seem to hold is that suicide is a person's right. Wikipedia has pretty clear NPOV standards when it comes to this sort of thing, and that's why I still think the article should be KEPT. I'm going to anticipate a slippery slope rebutal here: but what about people whose point of view is that murder is not so bad? Do we have to respect any point of view, no matter how radical? I don't think so. I think that if actual well-meaning individuals espouse a point of view and express it eloquently, as the right-to-suicide people have (and I know they mean well as we all do in this debate), then that point of view should be respected. Thus, a deletion based on the premise that suicide is bad would be a violation of NPOV. Also, I think it's exactly this type of article that is the reason why WP:NOT EVIL has not been adopted as an official policy.Rgrizza 16:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isolated Comments[edit]

  • Comment: the article is rather lousy. It concentrates on the final act of slitting one's wrist and omits: (1) statistics on "popularity" of these methods, (2) methods used historically - it concentrates on current society with car exhausts and plastics bags, (3) ignores the preparation stage (or lack of thereof), (4) misses any references to criminology or sociology studies. The text is just rewritten "methods file". If kept it should be labeled as a stub. Pavel Vozenilek 21:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would suggest a label of "Start" it is too large to be a stub. NeoFreak 21:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

It seems that proposing the deletion of this page has been far more controversial than I thought it would be. Some of the arguments raised in support of keeping this page are reasonable. Others aren't. It is true that other webpages on the internet will describe the various methods by which people can die even if this wikipedia article is deleted. This article certainly doesn't glamorise suicide and it does portray a verifiable social phenomenon that spans pretty much every culture.

However, this article does provide specific details on how people may end their life, and this can't be ignored. While it is true that wikipedia shouldn't be censored, it often is. There is some information that you can't find in this encyclopaedia, like "tips for how to rape children", and "how to use molecular biology techniques to modify bacterial pathogens and create a new plague". These articles don't exist because they are offensive and dangerous even though some users may find them interesting.

When the quality of this encyclopaedia is threatened, wikipedia users respond by deleting pages. Even though this page about suicide methods documents a verifiable social phenomenon, and it doesn't glamorise suicide, and even ignoring ethical concerns, the quality of this article is so poor that it must be deleted on grounds of quality alone.

This article is listcruff. It merely presents a list of suicide methods which has been taken from a website that appears to be original research. The references they provide aren't from medical journals, government agencies or newspapers. Rather, they have been built from suicide newsgroups. This is not encyclopaedic at all. It's pseudo research.

Although not unanimous, there appears to be consensus that this article is basically a suicide manual. As Nydas wrote, "This is a how-to guide. Much of the text is given over to 'common pitfalls' of suicide methods". Wikipedia is not meant to be a manual, and especially not a poorly written one.

While I concede that this article is interesting in a visceral sense, this is not enough to save it from deletion. I tried to avoid using the morality argument, but given the comment below by a depressed teenager, I am forced to bring it up.

Someone wrote that "This article is helpful, and shouldn't be deleted just because it provides accurate and specific details on how people may end their life. If people really wanted to end their lives the information to do so can be found just as easily from many other sources. And all of this is the opinion of I, a depressed, but not suicidal, teenager. Thank You"

People don't start out suicidal. It begins with depression, and develops as the depression gets worse. This teenager admits depression, and has decided to look up suicide in wikipedia. Doesn't this indicate suicidal thoughts? My fellow wikipedians, we have to protect young people from themselves. Let's not prostitute our values for poor quality articles. Katie32 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment A lot of people on both sides seem to be missing the point. Neither "this teaches people how to kill themselves" nor "this discourages people from killing themselves" is pertinent reasoning. There are, as I understand it, three bedrock content policies for inclusion, and none of them is whether the information is good or not. On the other hand, one of them is NPOV, and removing an article entirely because you don't like it is highly POV.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 13:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. People are claiming we should "ignore all rules" (e.g. NPOV) in favour of deleting this on moral grounds. If the discussion here is sidestepping normal deletion issues, it's specifically because people are claiming that we ought to ignore them in this case. It's hard to rationalise not ignoring the rules if you don't address the reasons behind why we should, according to some, ignore them here. --Rankler 14:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Since I seem to be the only person who said delete other than on moral grounds, and then I modified that position, I may as well strike the earlier delete notation.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is clearly a highly contentious and controversial article, with the possibility of doing serious harm to Wikipedia (in the manner suggested by Psychade). Can I suggest that rather than leave the decision to an admin, it is taken to the Arbitration Committee to decide. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  19:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arbcom doesn't usually involve itself in content disputes (actually, I don't think they ever have).--Kchase T 20:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has now been rewritten in a more encyclopaedic fashion It could still do with some work, but I am now changing my vote to keep. Ohconfucius 08:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is hardly enclyopaedic, even with your 'edits'. My vote is still delete.Wik98 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is assisted suicide legal in Florida? I ask because Wikipedia is not meant to show material that is illegal in Florida, as the wikipedia servers are physically located in Florida Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer. I disagree with User:Throw that the article is well researched and encylopaedic. Almost the entire article is stolen from http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/~ingvar/methods/other.html word for word. This isn't research, it's plagiarism and possibly a copyright violation.Wik98 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article isn't doing anything remotely close to "assisting suicide". To actually assist suicide you have to, you know ... assist in it. Not just write an encyclopedia article on it. I don't think Florida law can be interpreted so broadly as to suggest that merely writing about suicide is illegal. In America we have a thing called free speech ... Cyde Weys 01:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While free speech is a wonderful right to have you must remember American law doesn't apply to Wikipedia. Wikipedia sets and follows its own rules that apply worldwide. Wikipedia is Jimmy Wales' home, and he allows us to put our feet on his coffee table and raid his refrigerator....as long as we follow his rules. Throw 01:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As long as having Internet is legal in Florida, everything is strictly under the law here I believe. Besides, writing an encyclopedical article about something that is illegal in Florida isn't an illegal act by itself. See U.S._Constitution#First_Amendment.--Húsönd 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm from Australia, and we don't have a bill of rights. Some dude was put in jail for using a loudspeaker to talk randomly at a shopping mall. This violated a local council bylaw, and he tried to argue that free speech was guaranteed, but the high court found it wasn't. . While the U.S. has a bill of rights, and Free speech is more protected, it isn't that protected. I believe that you are not free to talk with others about commiting a terrorist act. Libel laws mean you are also probably not free to say something about someone else which isn't true. Likewise, it is possible that talking to a suicidal aquaintance about the best methods for commiting suicide would be illegal in a state that outlawed assisted suicide, even if this conversation only took part on wikipedia. Wik98 01:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article in question is not advocating or protesting suicide in any way. What is it doing is making a list of methods of suicide that can and have been used. Any indication in the article where it tries to hint at best methods would be a NPOV violation and should be editted, but this article should not be deleted. Throw 01:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This article compares suicide methods, and also provides links to pages like http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/~ingvar/methods/other.html which do an even more thourough job. The best methods would still be obvious even if it were written in NPOV format. This article should be deleted precisely because it is impossible to compare suicide methods without implying that some methods are better than others. And besides, this article is not at all encylopaedic. It has no historial context, andmost of the information it has is copied directly from suidice method websites.Wik98 02:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The debate about suicide is not neutral. It is loaded by statistics which show that young people across all cultures are more likely than any other group to attempt ending their lives. Your idea that those who wish to commit suicide should be given the resources to do it out of humanitarian respect is so obtuse as to be obsene. I am saddened to hear of your own battle with suicidal thoughts, yet I do not see your experience as common. People who are suicidal tend to be aware of the grissliness of suicide. Articles like these are more likely to educate them about the methods to use which work. Ie, If I were suicidal, I would find that hanging is a surer bet than slitting my wrists, and I did not know this before viewing this page. But I was aware that both methods were grissly before I came here.Wik98 12:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentIt's not like there hasn't been enough time to clean this article up. It has been nominated twice before. The problem, as Chelseaboy noted, is that you can't clean up a page that is named suicide methods. The very name attracts the kind of edits that turn the page into a "how to" suicide manual.203.214.35.136 12:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:WWIN"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:" "Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals,... and recipes." So when this article venture into "How To Commit Suicide," as it clearly does, it violates official Wikipedia policy. It is "unencyclopedic" to provide a forum for people to encourage other people to commit suicide.Edison 13:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC
  • Comment The question keeps coming up of whether there is a substantial risk that the page could lead to a death that would not otherwise have happened. We're pretty much doing guesswork about that, and I think some expert opinions would be very helpful here. Here is a passage from the American Association of Suicidology "Media Guidelines for Reporting on Suicide": Exposure to suicide method through media reports can encourage vulnerable individuals to imitate it. Clinicians believe the danger is even greater if there is a detailed description of the method. Research indicates that detailed descriptions or pictures of the location or site of a suicide encourage imitation. [23]. I'm going to send the Association an email asking specifically for their opinion on how to improve this article and whether they have comments on the deletion debate. I will post all correspondence on the Talk page of this AfD. Kla'quot Sound 03:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply please make it clear to them that you are asking for improvements, rather than a general opinion. If they do provide such material, it would be better to place their advice on the talk page of the article as a formal external peer review. I suspect they will say much the same as myself - add references, include proper context, and add the downpoints. LinaMishima 03:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal[edit]

Compromise proposal A compromise would be, if the article is kept, at least to allow prominent reference to resources which might help people to deal with their situation without killing themselves. You could regard this either as a balance between NPOV and WP:NOT EVIL or, indeed, as truly neutral point of view in that methods would still be set out (the how-to manual if you will) but the alternative point of view, that there are other approaches open to the potential suicide which deserve consideration, would also be given due prominence. Chelseaboy 17:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I still think that is interjecting POV. As another editor noted, there have been times in civilized society that suicide was considered honorable. There are a variety of reasons for a person to consider taking there own life. In my personal opinion, the vast, vast majority of them are poor reasons but again that is just my personal view. Ultimately, it comes down to each and every individual to make up their own assessment of the matter. It's not a matter of WP:NOT EVIL at all. It is not Wikipedia's role to legislate through our editting any particular view or sense of morality on a subject. To paraphrase another editor in the Hitler article, we don't have to say that things like rape and child molestation is bad because if we write the article in an impassioned, NPOV view the evident facts will shine through. It my opinion that if we maintain NPOV with this article, the same is true. 205.157.110.11 11:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with IP. Also, NPOV is a long-standing policy. NOT EVIL is an essay.--Kchase T 15:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not quite sure where I fall on this issue, but one possible point of compromise is in see also material and in-text references. I think presenting a fair view on suicide has to include material on risks, consequences, suicide hotlines, the extent to which suicidal urges are a treatable medical condition, and so on. Questions of morality aside, I think we all agree that NPOV requires us to be sure that readers come away with a fair picture of the topics we present. William Pietri 15:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eidako above (in the recomendation area) added the thought about linking suicide prevention in the See Also section. I think that would appropriate but putting a "warning" on top would be WAAAAAY too POV. Another idea would be to make sure that each method has a clear negative comment on what the physical "affect" on the body are with a failed attempt or other potential problems (like with "Driving"). Some already have these (like "Electrocution" & "Asphyxiation"). It's vital to NPOV to neither glamorize suicide nor to moralize about it being wrong. Agne 16:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to note my agreement with the IP editor and Kchase02, with emphasis upon the difference between the NPOV policy and the NOT EVIL opinion statement. Anville 17:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Once this nomination for deletion is defeated, is there a way the article could be protected from future nomination? The repeated attempts to remove it on non-policy grounds can be considered disruptive, per WP:DP.GideonF 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In a nutshell no. Whispering(talk/c) 00:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Twister[edit]

Delete Fantastically written article, especially for ones first contribution to Wikipedia, but I'm not convinced that the subject is notable enough. Dave 16:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • However Lum the Mad is?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanderc (talk • contribs)
    • Perfectly possible that I'm wrong, that's why I've brought this here. Dave 16:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I only posted this here because there was a broken link on the Lum the Mad page. User:ZanderC09:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - full of uncited opinions, no reliable sources cited. It would have been a better idea to engage the author before bringing it here though. Yomanganitalk 17:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research unless rewritten to be verifiable from reliable sources, hopefully with evidence of meeting WP:WEB or some other topic-specific guideline. Sorry, Zander. I know this seems crazy from the just-arrived perspective, but these policies save us a lot of grief. Hang around AfD for a week and you'll begin to see the context. William Pietri 23:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A8 by DVD_R_W. Aaron 23:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compulink[edit]

Prod removed without discussion. Non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP. Dipics 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming alright: text was copy & pasted straight from [24] Wasn't there a dialup online service in the UK in the 1980s using that name? Malcolm Farmer 16:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My speedy criteriation was wrong (though it may be A7) Computerjoe's talk 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as copyvio, and tagged as such. Akradecki 17:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I had initially tagged this for speedy deletion, but it was removed. Computerjoe's talk 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As much as I wish that Spam/Advertising was a valid speedy criteria, unfortunately, per WP:SPEEDY, it's not. Dipics 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Spam/Advertising isn't the recommended Speedy criteria here...it's A8, copyvio. Akradecki 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, but I tagged it as spam. I guess it could be classed as A7, possibly! Computerjoe's talk 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A8. It's a copyright violation. Dipics, did you read why they said it was tagged for speedy deletion? --Nishkid64 19:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did even better than that, I looked at the page history. The reason given for the original speedy by Computerjoe was "Ad" which is why I commented on his entry here. My comment was not about the current speedy. Dipics 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dipics is right. My bad. Computerjoe's talk 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Sorry about that. I made my comment in reference to Akradecki's comment about your comment. (That sounds weird). --Nishkid64 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Not a problem at all, I should have been more specific. You were not the only person to comment about my comment about computerjoe's comment about, never mind, I lost my train of thought. Dipics 20:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute poker[edit]

Delete Weak delete (see below) - Blatant spam  — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  17:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I hate to defend spam as much as anyone... but this company seems to at least have a case for meeting WP:CORP. Their recent "Win your tuition" tournament made some news. [25], it's mentioned as a site targetting college students with gambling [26]... not really familiar with this industry but they seem to be somewhat notable in it. --W.marsh 17:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Has an Alexa ranking of 9,364, which seems to be very high amongst other poker websites. I don't think you really can get information about the website from a 3rd party source, though. --Nishkid64 19:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - SPAM and lacks NPOV. --Bill.matthews 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: It reads like spam, but it is one of the top 5 online poker sites. That in itself is notable. I agree that it definitely needs to be rewritten.... the article shouldn't be deleted though. Card Player Magazine is the most respected poker magazine, so please see this article. Just so you know, I put the ((cleanup-rewrite)) and ((advert)) tags on the article. In short, I agree it needs to be rewritten, but it certainly needs to have an article... and it certainly passes WP:CORP and WP:WEB. --Storkk 22:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the stub I have torn it down to. "A reputation as a site on which one can earn easy money"? Yeah, of course that's not spam... Irongargoyle 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/redirect. Clearly merits an article, although more than two sentences. Should be redirected to Absolute Poker as that is the name of the company. Obviously passes WP:WEB and also WP:CORP. 2005 22:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agreed, it needs a renaming. Please see the talk page. --Storkk 22:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just put the redirect on it now, but I don't know if that would mess up this page. (Added... Just did it, with the afd tag still pinting here.) 2005 23:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, it actually needs a history merge now, technically, since a copy-and-paste pagemove was done. Oh yeah, Keep rewritten article, nice work 2005 et al. --W.marsh 23:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm kinda new... couldn't a ((Db-move)) on Absolute Poker be done? Then the idea would be to move Absolute poker to the new empty page. If I'm being an idiot, please reply on my talk page so that I can save and absorb the correct procedures here Thanks, Storkk 23:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's basically what a history merge is, except then any new edits on the target page can be undeleted after the move, so the entire history is preserved. --W.marsh 23:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Absolute Poker is obviously a notable poker company and warrants an article. If the current article has problems it should be edited, not deleted. Rray 01:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is why 'spam' isn't a speedy-delete criterion; adverts about notable companies can be cleaned up and NPOVd rather than deleted. --ais523 09:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. It is a solid, mid-sized online poker room and is highly notable. The article reads like spam, though, and needs serious attention. SmartGuy 15:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that the page has improved dramatically since I nominated it for AFD at this version. However, I still feel it has the feel of on an advert - the screen-shot attracts people to try the site, which is what an advert would do. Reference labels such as "It's an Absolute Poker Party at WSOP" don't help either. User:Storkk has asked me to consider withdrawing my nomination. At the moment I don't feel I can do this. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  17:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reference title is the title of the article/reference. The way newspapers or magazines title their articles isn't our concern, and should not be a criteria to judge the value of an article on a company that is the subject of an article. 2005 22:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, major poker site with over 10,000 players online at the moment. bbx 03:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and de-spam per the above comments. Yamaguchi先生 09:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy Down[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable gaming site fails WP:WEB. At present, they claim to have increased from 390 to 100,000 members in 3 days. Likely WP:HOAX. alphaChimp(talk) 17:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB failure. I do need to point out that the claim is that they had 390 members online and that they have a membership base of 100,000. It is actually pretty common for message boards to have lots of members but few active ones, though the 100,000 number is difficult to believe. Erechtheus 18:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It seems to be a hoax. --Nishkid64 19:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. My Alt Account 22:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and lack of assertion of notability. Alexa rank of 105,375 and Google incoming link count of 256 suggest we haven't missed anything. William Pietri 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visual & Game Programming Club[edit]

This is a non-notable student organization. There are 0 Google results for the organization name in the title and only one if the ampersand is replaced with "and". Prod removed. Erechtheus 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --dtony 18:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable student organization. There are only 68 members in the club. --Nishkid64 19:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Nishkid. No notability asserted, none found. William Pietri 23:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gazpacho 00:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was AfD withdrawn by nom. Aaron 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apple iTV[edit]

The Apple iTV is a codename for a product that is announced to be released in the first quarter of 2007: The Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Computerjoe's talk 18:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination per added sources. Computerjoe's talk 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Erechtheus 18:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Keep per newly added sources confirming the product. Erechtheus 18:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A rumor about a forthcoming product from Apple? Like all the rest, fails WP:V quite badly. Personally I'm still waiting for their new PDA that was absolutely positively going to be released 5 years ago. Geoffrey Spear 18:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Keep per below. Geoffrey Spear 19:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it unverifiable? The article links to two reports of Steve Jobs giving people a sneak preview of this product. Indeed, it appears to be quite easy to verify the excerpt from the article that is given in the nomination here. Uncle G 18:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may want to peruse the history. There were no sources in the article and no apparent sources as of the time of these delete votes. That's the danger of a quick nomination. Erechtheus 18:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, that is a danger; but this edit did come before this edit. However, it has taken me a long time to write a rationale on occasion ... ☺ Uncle G 19:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • One minute is a long time? You'll have to excuse me for assuming the unsourced article I read about a future Apple product was based entirely on rumor. In the future I'll reload the article between typing out my argument for deletion and hitting Save. Geoffrey Spear 19:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Saintlink 18:24, 12 September 200 6 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not a rumor, the article is based on an official announcement referring to an unreleased product. Senordingdong 18:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though as with all upcoming projects, it may change names or be cancelled, at which point it will have to be moved or merged. I've also added the future product template. --AlexWCovington (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's official.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tajavartha[edit]

Non notable new website, only one Google hit, fails WP:WEB Fram 18:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Nishkid64 19:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Unless the title is a spelling mistake, the website is way below notability level. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HallBall[edit]

Prod removed without comment. Some kids made up a game, want it documented here. Fails WP:NOR, WP:V and, of course, WP:NFT -- Fan-1967 19:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, the article has a full-screen picture of the "scientists". Fan-1967 19:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, fine we'll take it down. Didn't realize it was that big of a deal. Sheesh. Jeff687687 15:28, 12 September 2006 (EST)
  • Delete Google scores 54 unique hits out of 181 and article claims to have been developed this year. Can't be notable that quickly. zephyr2k 19:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as author requests deletion. Molerat 19:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, actually, author just took down the picture. Fan-1967 19:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzerp[edit]

Does not meet WP:Soft. Not notable. Sleepyhead 19:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High D'Haran[edit]

NN, WP:LIST, copyvio, fancrufty, WP:FICT. This page is a regurgitation of a geocities page and has nothing about the actual language, it is just a listing of terms. All that is needed is a notation on the language on the source fictional universe page Sword of Truth and the geocities link ref which is being added now. NeoFreak 19:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it doesnt matter. having it this way makes it easier to find and use. that geocities page could end up going 404 in a week. having the info on the wiki will make sure it stays avalible. and putting it on the D'Hara page will just clutter that up because you know as well as i that we cant have anything close to the High D'Haran info there. this is nuts. there has been no peer review, or any other input. its just been you going on about deleting it since i put it up. get off it. i strongly encourage people to check out the page, and check out the talk page with it. - Patrickjsanford 20:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if I am sticking my nose where it doesn't belong but neo, stop being wiki snob and admit that even though you didn't think of it this page does have its merits. Furthermore I think that everything imitates everything else have you ever heard the phrase art imitates life which imitates art? If this is a copyright violation then so is the page on Plato and Aristotle and Socrates and every other thing that has ever been offered any info on because you cant give a excellent observation on anything without including some of the original material into the article. I notice you haven't jumped on Tolkeins elven language page, why is that? Stop being a snob and let those with new and interesting ideas have their say also. This page does not belong to only you but to everyone, so please stop acting as if you are the Wiki god, okay? Sorry if I've offended you but I am offended by condescending people who are rude, so just stop. The page should stay because it offers an in depth look at High D'Haran. - Selena Moriarti 20:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to clarify for people before they start screaming about clones and multiple accounts and such. Selena Moriarti is my wife, she has her own account, but we are on a DSL connection, and use the same computer so we will have the same IP address. i think that everyone will be able to see that it is two diffrent people due to the diffrent styles of writing, wording, and oppinions. - Patrickjsanford 20:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The above comments are the worst kinds of nonsense and unhelpful in these discussions. Danny Lilithborne 20:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment meatpuppets, while their opinion is welcome during AfD, are not usualy helpful. If you have not been recruited for a specific opinion then I apologise. Please leave a vote or preceed your comments in this format for ease of review. Thank you. NeoFreak 20:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please realize that while I am commenting on this article it does not mean that I do not go on Wiki on a regular basis and please don't resort to name calling because I have a different viewpoint and am not afraid to tell you that you aren't being a help to Wiki you are hindering it because of your pride, futhermore I have learned several things from his page as I don't really read The Sword of Truth series I found it helpful in understanding when he goes on about High D'Haran I know now much more about it. - Selena Moriarti 20:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've read the books in question, and the language described in this article does not play a particuarly significant role in the books, and is never described in detail. I'm pretty sure that the "list of terms and words" contains - more or less - every single word of the conlang which appears in the series, including a number of words inferred from phrases. In total, there are perhaps fifteen or so unique words and phrases which appear in the series.. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Delete I'm against indiscriminate listcruft, and the words of the High D'Haran language are pretty non-notable, even to a Sword of Truth fan. Still, it's possible that a truly motivated individual could expand this into a somewhat respectable article. - Runch 21:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main issue, as I see it, is that there's very little expansion possible without making things up (i.e, creating fanon). As it stands, I think there's already some significant conjectures being made - for example, the assumption that the chimes reechani, sentroshi, and vasi are the words for "water", "fire", and "air", rather than arbitrary names. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good points. I hadn't even realized that some of the words on the page were conjecture. I've revised my vote accordingly. - Runch 04:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fancruft to the extreme. My Alt Account 22:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of sourcing, much less use of reliable sources so it appears to be a WP:NOR violation. As prior commentators have expressed, there really isn't that much in the books about this fictional former language. GRBerry 02:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite, or merge what's useful to Sword of Truth. Worth having in some form, but not this form. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because even though i've been saying this since yesterday nobody would bother telling me how to vote. - 68.217.165.8 14:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please sign your posts with four tildes, Patrickjsanford so we can keep track of who is voting which way. NeoFreak 15:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: Comment. I did, i just wasn't signed in so it didn't catch my username. oh! BTW, i've been reviewing this page called user neofreak that i think needs to go up for AfD, anyone know how to do that? :P - Patrickjsanford 19:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hmmm I see it as being a worthy page to keep. I vote Keep it Mystar 13:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Gezzz Neo why is it that all you want to do is to tear down anything but your ASOIAF pages? Talk about fancrufty the whole BwoB on GRRM's page is all that... Dude, you seriously need to stop being an edit nazi. If you cannot add to the positive aspect then stop trying to destroy a page. All you can do is to point out what "you" see as faults. All you do is to add content (and questionable at that) to your asoiaf pages. I think we need someone to look into your abusive actions on this whole issue....

BTW.. this ISN'T Geocities it is Wikipeda... what is or isn't on other MB's has nothing to do with what is or isn't on this page. Mystar 13:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP it. It's a relavent part of Sword of Truth information. I'd have no problem however, if you wanted to add more to it. Merritt 14:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Merritt

Definitely keep it. This is where the information belongs. Joedu 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Joedu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..[reply]

Keep it. The language of High D'Haran is a very large part of the novels. There is no reason to delete it. Maybe just add to it.69.253.42.212 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Harmony — Possible single purpose account: 69.253.42.212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..[reply]

  • Comment: For the record, it would appear someone has been soliciting votes on this issue, as the last two comments were made by users making their first edits to Wikipedia. (See here and here). Please see WP:AFD for more information about the deletion process and policy. - Runch 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, High D'Haran is definitely not a "very large part of the novels". It is, at best, a bit of flavor. As I noted above, there are no more than ten or fifteen unique phrases that show up in the entire series. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh yes! People who may have been following the edit war of these three agains anything Goodkind and decided to "weigh in" against something they feel is warrented, and here we go! I think you need to take a step back dude. I see teo new people...so what? meritt has had other contrib's and here you go trying to belittle his goodfaith and opinion as unimportant. Stop being a Wiki snob eh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystar (talk • contribs) 21:39, September 19, 2006

  • Comment: I made no mention of Merritt, the "last two comments" I was referring to were by Joedu and 69.253.42.212. I merely made a note of it, I did not even add the SPA tags. - Runch 23:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying you put the tag by my name, but there is a tag (as of 8pm est) saying that my account may have been a single purpose account. I can assure you that I did not create it for the sole purpose of putting my 'vote' into this page. Not trying to start an argument, just trying to put my two cents in. Thanks! 192.254.30.2 00:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Merritt[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magebane[edit]

Completely non-notable roguelike described in a stub article. Unlikely to ever be expanded substantially. Nandesuka 19:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, unless sources showing its notability can be found. David Mestel(Talk) 19:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs alot of cleanup but it is still a legit gaming stub. Stubs exist for a reason, to beg for editing. NeoFreak 19:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has been in this state since 2004. How many years do you think that we should hang on to stubs before we give up on them? This is a serious question. Nandesuka 20:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment A stub by itself is a legit article format. The best way to improve a stub that is acting more like a thorn is to roll up your sleeves and expand it. Often contacting the creator or any major contributing editors for help works well too, esp if the creator has alot of other articles on his plate and might have simply forgotten about it. That last part is just my opinion though. NeoFreak 20:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources - the external link is to a page for a game which (by this article's admission) "has got nothing to do with Magebane except the name". Zetawoof(ζ) 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm normally in favor of keeping stubs. But given that the game seems defunct, its lack of notability and paucity of information verifiable through reliable sources seem unlikely to improve. William Pietri 23:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 and Fire It Up with The Spinners. - Bobet 17:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dante and The Brick[edit]

Advertisement Cfrydj 19:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a third-party account of a college radio show. Not an advertisement, since it is not-for-profit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs)
    • A lot of the article is written in first-person, and thus could not be a third-party account. Cfrydj 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Okay, even if it isn't advertisement, it's not notable. --Nishkid64 20:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have to say this article could be written better - i.e. third person and removing the "our" that is used here and there. But the show is relevant - other WMFO radio programs have wikipedia entries. Therefore, I wouldn't delete it; I'd just have it cleaned up a little. Fireitup 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can find an article of the WMFO radio station, but am unable to find Wikipedia entries for other WMFO radio programs. Could you give some examples, please? Cfrydj 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about Fire It Up, along with Dante and The Brick, the stations top two shows. Just because you haven't heard it, doesn't mean it is not good.
  • This article could easily be written better, and should be written better. But it is not an advertisement and it is indeed notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs)
  • If Fireitup is in any way related to the Fire It Up radio show mentioned in the article, then that user has a vested interest in this article. Both of the anonymous comments came from the IP address that wrote the bulk of this article. We need some unbiased opinions added to this debate.Cfrydj 20:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no reliable sources to suggest that this show is notable, if other WMFO programs have articles and are also not notable then I suggest those be nominated for deletion as well. DrunkenSmurf 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In addition I would suggest adding Fire It Up with The Spinners to this AfD since it is another WMFO program that suffers from the same notability and reliable sources issues as this does. DrunkenSmurf 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the DrunkenSmurf (Personal attack removed) instead of deleting Wikipedia entries of Sports Talk Radio programs in the Greater Boston area. By quickly looking at his profile, I know exactly why he has no life (went to Holy Cross). GO EAGLES! (#23 AP Poll) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BriBrick (talk • contribs)

  • Ah personal attacks, you flatter me :) DrunkenSmurf 20:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is largely unverifiable, lacks reliable sources, and is not notable. The subject hasn't received any press attention from what I can tell. Srose (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added Fire It Up with The Spinners to this AfD because it also lacks any notability. I would request that the author do not remove that nomination, as he has done once already. Cfrydj 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrydj, I never removed the nomination to delete the Fire It Up page. Erroneous.Fireitup 21:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • My mistake, it was BriBrick that removed the nomination to delete. As we can see from this user's above comments, he/she does have some sort of connection to the WMFO radio station. Cfrydj 21:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrydj, I challenge you to dispute the objectivity of the Fire It Up page. It is written in third person and is linked to multiple other wikipedia sources. The page could be expanded upon by numerous editors in the listening region. The show has been written about in "The Tufts Daily," "The Stonehill Summit," and has been associated with multiple sporting events involving actual Division II and III university athletic teams. The Fire It Up page is not some cryptic babble, and it certainly IS noteable. Erroneous on both counts.Fireitup 21:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not disputing the objectivity of the Fire It Up page. I am disputing its notability. It also contains no reliable sources. I am not sure what makes you say that it is "linked to multiple other wikipedia sources". The article does contain links to other Wikipedia articles, but no other Wikipedia articles contain links to it. I am afraid a campus radio station that has been written about by campus newspapers does not qualify as notable.Cfrydj 21:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So throughout the lengthy history of Wikipedia, whenever articles didn't have links to them, does that mean they were automatically not notable? I am sure it takes time to build such links. If a college newspaper isn't notable, then why are there wikis for college newspapers? Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_M._Silverstein is an entry for a gentleman who has affiliation with WMFO, as you asked, as well as college newspapers. In accordance with the notability clause you cite, this page would be deleted as well. And I'm sure a great many other pages would be. Taking edits "by the book" would devoid wikipedia of a resounding amount of valuable information. I simply ask that my entry be spared from what seems to be an argument so editors CAN link to it. Fireitup 21:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • At no point have I said that this article should be deleted because of a lack of links to it. I was only refuting your above claim that it was notable because of nonexistent links. Mr. Silverstein is an award-winning columnist. The fact that he gives commentary on "The Ari G Show" does nothing for the notability of either the "Dante and The Brick" or "Fire It Up with The Spinners" shows.Cfrydj 21:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir, while suggesting the Fire It Up page should be deleted, you used the statement "but no other Wikipedia articles contain links to it," therefore you used the argument that the article should be deleted based on a lack of links. Also, if you intend to use Mr. Silverstein's notability as an award-winng columnist as a a juxtaposition to the Fire It Up page, it should be noted that the award he received does not have a wikipedia page. Thus, his merit as an "award-winning columnist" is moot.Fireitup 21:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid that you are missing the point entirely. In each successive comment, all I have been doing is showing how your arguments in favour of the notability of the article are irrelevant. The only reason I added the Fire It Up page was because of its lack of notability. I only mentioned the lack of links to the article in response to your claim that those links existed. Check the order of the comments, and you will see that this is the case. I also only refered to Mr. Silverstein in response to your claim that his connection with WMFO somehow gave the article on the Fire It Up radio show some notability, which is not the case. I hope that the misunderstandings are settled now. Cfrydj 21:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectuflly reply that I have only been trying to engage you in a bttle of logic. See, my refutations have only surfaced to refute your refutations. Let's put it this way: I feel you are wasting your time trying to delete the Fire It Up article. It would not have been deleted had this discussion not occured. I am going to try to edit the article to match it to the specifications upon which you insist. In the meantime I would appreciate that you remove the nomination for deletion. Thank you, 71.233.255.131 22:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Only edits are to this page. :) Dlohcierekim 18:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)"""[reply]
    • That decision is up to the Wikipedia community now, to be decided by consensus. So far, anybody not personally connected to either of the two radio shows has voted for it to be deleted. I'm not sure how you will edit the article to make the radio show have some notability, I'm curious to see the end result.Cfrydj 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, when you think of it, the editor of the Fire It Up page and the editor of the Dante and the Brick page have no personal connection through edits to each other's pages, thus each page has one vote for undeletion. The opposition consists of you and two Holy Cross students, who clearly have a bias against Boston College, Tufts University, Stonehill College, the Dante and the Brick show, blegs, Joe Mauer, all of it. That's just the way it works here. That is clearly unfair. Thus we stand even, one vote to one, in terms of unbiased voters.Fireitup 22:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you have also failed to take into consideration are the notability of the guests which appear on Dante and The Brick each and every week. Prof. Chow from Tufts University is an award-winning computer scientist, his work has appeared on Oreilly.net as well as published in various industry periodicals. Mohammad Jahed Dirkalurka is an innovative thinker, who would call out anyone trying to destroy this page as a devil. Bitch Slap Guy is a man of brains and braun, after Katie Couric is done at CBS, it will be him bringing you the news. And needless to say, The Olse & Harry Carey, longtime friends who enjoy each others company as well as each others humor. The Olse is a drunk Irishman, and Harry has been dead for 8 years, but both contribute to this fine show, whose Wikipedia page you are going to delete. And why is that, because you didn't get the job at the mall as the security guard with the big ugly sombrero, so you did the next best thing, make yourself God of wikipedia, where you can control what is notable. F Wikipedia, Dante and The Brick and Fire It Up will Live Forever!
  • I disassociate myself from the racial profiling displayed in the last article, but do note the scientific achievements of one Mr. Chow. He is a notable fellow, a man of letters, a man of foresight.Fireitup 22:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr. Chow is a man of foresight, and with that being said, he wants to ask, have you ever done it in the butt?
  • Delete - Local radio shows are not necessarily notable, and this one certainly isn't. My Alt Account 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, local shows are not notable until they become syndicated and POOP all over your radios, just like Dante and The Brick as well as Fire It Up will be doing very soon.
  • If you think about it, the world is a better place today, not because these pages will soon be deleted, but because many more people are now aware of WMFO "The MoFO", and will undoubtedly be tuning into both of these fine programs to hear what kind of shananigans happen then.

Do Not Delete I feel people are making a mistake, such as the "My Alt Account" gentleman, by not addressing each show proposed for deletion separately. We do not now if he finds Fire It Up or Dante and the Brick to be the non-notable show. I do agree with the later commenter who believes this discussion is spreading the gospel of WMFO, just as a wiki page for Marlboro cigarettes informs people about cigarettes. Thus these pages must be notable.Fireitup 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just need to mind their own business. Why is this page under attack by the Cyber-Geek Squad. —the preceding comment is by 24.147.18.43 - 23:17, 12 September 2006: Please sign your posts!

  • Delete both Fire It Up with The Spinners and Dante and The Brick per Nishkid64, et al. I hope your show is so wildly successful that an encyclopedia article is appropriate. Until then, you might ponder WP:NOT. Sorry. William Pietri 23:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read the What Wikipedia is not article. I wonder exactly how the Fire It Up with The Spinners page in any way meets the criteria outlined in the description. Not to mention, I didn't see any direct links dealing with the N word (notable) on that page. Just some food for thought.71.233.255.131 00:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Only edits are to this page. :) Dlohcierekim 18:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:VAIN: Neither are notable. Dante article fails WP:SPAM. Dante grew out of WVBC (Bethany College) into WMFO (Tufts University); Fire it up has grown out of WSHL (Stonehill College) to WMFO (Tufts University), but it's still student radio. 15 unique out of 75 Ghits for "Fire it up" + WMFO, 6 unique out of 7 Ghits for "Fire it up" + WSHL; 85 out of 273 Ghits for Dante + WMFO, with greater incidence of irrelevant hits. Most relevant hits are the station, spinitron, directory 130.64.87.67, INLD (dead link to previous webhost), and a few wiki mirrors. No serious sources (reviews etc) to back up the article. In other words, utterly fails WP:V. Ohconfucius 04:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confucius has a solid point. Finally, someone who was able to explain the matter. I don't know what a Ghit is, and I don't know why people continue to cite "student radio" as if it is a demerit, considering student radio stations have wikis, but I believe the vanity clause explains it all. I believe this also qualifies me to ask, out of my own vanity, that people mind their own business.Fireitup 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 10 unique google hits, the top which are for this article. There is nothing notable in the article, and once you remove the advert fluff, you have little else. Wikipedia is an encyclopeida, not MySpace. :) Dlohcierekim 01:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out my typo. There will probably be more. Please feel free to correct any typo's you find without comment. The truth is though, this is not myspace. Oh, I know you are upset, but you need to leave out the personal attacks, OK? Cheers and happy editng.  :) Dlohcierekim 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I missed this was a 2 for 1 deal. Delete both My cooments above apply to both. :) Dlohcierekim 01:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Learn how to spell dumbass. What is an encyckopedia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs) User has been heavily involved in editing the encyclopedia article in question. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 18:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Commentor is a no talent ass-clown, in the same fashion as one Michael Bolton.[reply]
Comment User:Fireitup is a single purpose account. :) Dlohcierekim 01:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest not deleting these pages. I think if they were properly re-worked, they would be useful to wikipedia users. This looks to me like an argument over semantics and number of google hits. I think a well-written article on an actual subject, such as a radio show, should stand on its own. It exists over the broadcast airwaves, for sure. And personally, I like to listen to Fire It Up.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.34.202 (talk • contribs)  :) Dlohcierekim 18:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC) (Only edits are to this page.) :) Dlohcierekim 18:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter of semantics, but of notability requirements for an encyclopedia. There are many, many programs on the airways that are not sufficiently notable to have encyclopedia articles. Google hits are one way of rating notability. There are others-- no evidence for the subject meeting those criteria has been provided in "keep" arguments. Perhaps the creator of the article can turn his talents to constructively editing other articles. The deletion of this article will not in any way stop you from listening to Fire It UP. Cheers and happy editing. :) Dlohcierekim 18:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a matter of semantics or notability. This is a matter of pride. Dante and The Brick along with the Spinners from Fire It Up will not go out without the longest debate in Wikipedia history for an article undoubtedly headed toward deletion by the cyber geek-squad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs)
  • I don't have any other talent except the talent of great radio. Needless to say, I won't be editing any wikipedia entries for fear that six or seven random people jump down my throat about content and notability.Fireitup 22:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be my first response or comment posted on wikipedia, but I was searching through for shows on WMFO on wiki and I came across Dante and the Brick and the Fire it Up programs. I respect what Dante and the Brick do, I believe they are a fresh face to the usual stale talk/music that is WMFO weekdays. As for the Fire it Up program, they talk some damn good sports regarding the Boston area. These guys have talent and people should catch on to the popularity. Check out their website at fireitup.bravehost.com, you'll see that their show is significant and has a following. There, that's my concerns, if you have a problem with that, then stop being a friggin policeman of the internet and get a life. Go worry about something else.JHA30 06:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer each objection to this page in turn: 1. It is not an advertisement. Neither WMFO nor the personalities in question will in any way profit from the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia. 2. The information is verifiable. The WMFO website notes the show and time slot and information about the shows exist in student publications which are archived. The show's prior episode may be reviewed at the station website. 3. The entry is notable. The show originally in question, Dante and the Brick, and the show incorporated by the "geek patrol", Fire it Up, are or were broadcast over a large geographic area with at least the potential to reach a large number of listeners. Both can be listened to from around the world through itunes and the WMFO website. It is uncontested that WMFO is notable, therefore the flagship shows carried should be considered notable as well. 4. The show is "encyclopedia notable". This phrase must be read as applicable to Wikipedia rather than less inclusive encyclopedias. This article provides only verifiable facts regarding a single unambiguous subject. It provides a definition of a radio program that is useful to anyone searching for this information. 5. It is not a "vanity" post. Neither personality's proper name is given and the actual broadcast likely reaches a significant number of listeners regardless of this entry. 6. There is little possibility of misdirecting a reader. There is no competing 'Dante and the Brick' entry and users searching for "Dante" or "The Brick" will realize it is not the information they sought upon cursory examination of the article if not at the search screen. Finally the consequences of deletion far outweigh the consequences of allowing the information to remain. The availability of information about this program is notable and useful to listeners, potential listeners, and any other information seeker. Dante and the Brick offers a unique type of talk radio in its market and Fire It Up offers a unique perspective on boston sports. The Boston talk and sports radio markets are both significant and crowded. The low probability of misdirection shows that there is virtually no consequence to allowing the entry to remain. For these reasons this post should not be deleted. —the preceding comment is by JourneyRocks - 23:31, 17 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!

User's first edit. William Pietri 00:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oh so because it was the user's first edit, it should not be considered? Is this user not notable because he hasn't had 1 million edits on Wikipedia like those in the cyber geek-squad? What he said was right, come on now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.18.43 (talk • contribs)

  • "User's first edit" is not a notable comment. It should be deleted.Fireitup 16:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. notability does not apply to talk page comments. No insult is indended, but this is a process to determine community consensus. Although we hope new editors become part of the community, most newcomers who start in these discussions turn out to be single-purpose accounts. We still listen carefully to the arguments and evidence provided by new users, but the closing admin may weight community members more heavily than temporary visitors. William Pietri 16:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who IS said closing admin? I thought this was a community decision...Fireitup 17:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • At some point, an admin will come along and close this debate. He/she will read all the comments and decide what the community's consensus was. Cfrydj 17:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The community has spoken, and I'm sorry to announce both William Pietri and Cfrydj have been voted off of this debate. Their comments are rendered useless because they have no knowledge base about the shows. Mr.T pities you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs) Please sign your comments.Cfrydj 20:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid that these sorts of comments will do little to help you keep these pages on Wikipedia. Cfrydj 20:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple questions...so first, a community member's (EDITOR'S) input is considered "more heavily" than regular users of the website? So apparently those who visit wikipedia daily but don't bother to edit pages aren't important. That is a major insult to the user base. I don't have figures, but I'd venture that less than 1% of wikipedia visitors actually edit pages. Therefore, if someone is so passionate about the inclusion of an entry that they create said "single-purpose" account, just so they can join in a debate, it means nothing? That's a slap in the face of the user base. Let this be said, those of you who have entered this dialogue, coming up with cryptic phraseology in bold face type to dismiss community statements seriously lack a funny bone. Why not engage in a lighthearted, spirited debate about these articles? Because it's a waste of time for these "editor" types. Fine, whatever, I give up, you can delete to your heart's content. But seriously, grab a sense of humor or SOMETHING or you will never, ever get laid.24.147.151.4 02:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The readers are of course important; they are why we do this. But there are many concerns to be balanced, and until you've spent some time here, they aren't all obvious. We generally welcome contributions from single-purpose accounts (and many, many people with no accounts at all). It's just that in AfDs we find that special-purpose accounts generally have a purpose other than building a good encyclopedia. Sorry if we seem cryptic or stuffy here, but with about 1000 AfDs a week on Wikipedia, the responses that seem novel and entertaining to you are regrettably familiar to us. If you spend some time working on articles where you don't have a strong personal interest you'll discover that there's plenty of fun being had. Hoping that helps, William Pietri 06:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken.Fireitup 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of fun being had at the expense of WMFO's finest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs)

  • 208.51.45.135's recent edit of Dante and The Brick I feel shows once again that the page is being used for promotion purposes. Oh, and could everyone please sign their posts? At the end of your comment, just insert 4 of the symbol "~" in a row. Cfrydj 19:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after author blanked VoiceOfReason 20:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syntagon[edit]

Contested prod. Fails WP:CORP, no assertion of notability under corporation guidelines VoiceOfReason 19:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - bad faith, no attempt to talk this over, obvious advert. Lundse 20:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Admittedly, by strict tally, this argument is on the verge of being "no consensus." Considering that the keep arguments fail to engage on matters of policy (deferring instead to personal beliefs regarding the site's quality), the strength of argument weighs in favoring of deletion. The complete lack of reliable sources decides the matter; but, I will happily userfy for anyone willing to search out such reliable sources. Xoloz 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wacky World of Erotic Cartoons[edit]

This article features no serious claim to (or proof for) notability for this website as required by WP:WEB. Although it has an Alexa ranking of 20,814, it does not appear to have any noteworthy Google coverage (516 hits, mostly from porn sites). Contested prod. Sandstein 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this is one of the very few nice cartoon porn sites. Most of them are forgettable rubbish. JIP | Talk 09:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What bearing does this assertion have on the site's notability per WP:WEB? As far as I know, we do not judge our articles based on the merits of the subject, but on its notability. Sandstein 11:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen many other, less professional cartoon porn sites steal images from WWOEC. WWOEC seems to be one of the few cartoon porn sites that creates porn pictures instead of simply propagating them. JIP | Talk 16:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, I'm sure, but that still isn't a notability criterium per WP:WEB - and do you happen to have any reliable sources for your assertions? Sandstein 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think WWOEC has some notability in certain circles. Absolutely not mine. Not that there's anything wrong with it (actually some parts of WWOEC I think are actually pretty wrong - but its still a bit notable).--ZayZayEM 14:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, everything has "some notability in certain circles", if the circles are sufficiently narrow. We're looking for notability per WP:WEB, however, backed up by reliable sources and not by unsourced assertions. Sandstein 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable. Google != WP deletion policy Cynical 22:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these reasons being listed for keeping the article are not good. It really shouldn't be kept unless someone can find reliable sources showing that it meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. I couldn't find any in a quick google search, perhaps someone else can. --Xyzzyplugh 09:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB, and, more importantly, no "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:V. Also, reads somewhat like WP:ADVERT. --Satori Son 15:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This AfD should be closed already. I would close it myself as "no consensus", but I have vested interest in the AfD myself, as a fan of WWOEC's art (well, some of it). JIP | Talk 17:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I propose relisting it, as there has been little policy-based discussion so far. Sandstein 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, JIP | Talk 20:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Satori Son. No reliable sources are present to establish any notability. Without sources it fails WP:WEB, but I would be happy to change my opinion if some sources are provided. DrunkenSmurf 20:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sandstein. Neither notable nor verifiable. Valrith 20:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google gets alot of hits and the simple size of the community and the fact that it generates art work seems to make it notable for to me. It needs clean up but it doesn't need to get deleted. A solution could be to merge parts of the article and a link into an "erotic cartoons" type article if an appropriate one can be found. NeoFreak 20:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem is although it may seem notable, Wikipedia articles require sources to validate those claims. If you found some reliable sources that establish notability for this site from the google hits you are talking about, please add them. Again, I would be happy to change my opinion if you do that. DrunkenSmurf 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well Google bases its hits ranking off the number of webpages that link to the site which is why Google is often used as a yardstick of sorts to determine Notability. Like I said the sheer number of those hits and the number of participating artists is reason enough for me. Like I said though it's just my opinion. I'll see what I can't do to find some other legit sources to cite to back it up some more. NeoFreak 20:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. It does seem fairly popular, but I don't see any reliable third-party coverage that we could verifably base an encyclopedia article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "The primary criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Regardless of its supposed popularity, it shows no real evidence of that. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and Mr. Lefty. If we have nothing to make an article out of, we have no article. William Pietri 23:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longview Solutions Inc.[edit]

Corporate vanity page of non-notable corporation; no evidence of satisfying WP:CORP. Valrith 20:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. I found plenty of proof that the company exists, but not enough from reliable sources to even bring them close to WP:CORP. William Pietri 23:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per William Pietri and nom. Erechtheus 23:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Found no evidence of WP:CORP. :) Dlohcierekim 01:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace U.S. politics forum[edit]

Okay, here's a weird one. Basically, this is about a subforum of a website, which does not (IMHO) fulfill any sort of notability criteria (let alone WP:WEB) - and the article contents probably would warrant a complete rewrite in any case, in which case Deleting won't hurt. The more odd thing is that I bring this to AfD: I deleted this already, but thought I was kinda-sorta stretching CSD A7, because this is a web forum and not a group of people; however, while a witty philosopher might lump them to same group, the practice is still highly controversial (I'm not saying yea or nay on that myself). I figured that CSD is for uncontroversial stuff and I can't decide myself, it won't hurt to AfD. So here it is up for evaluation, for the sake of the Process. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly not even notable in the context of Myspace itself, fails a quasi-WP:WEB test. Looks like WP:SPAM for the group. Everyone adding advertising for their favorite Myspace forum is not the goal of Wikipedia, I think. --Kinu t/c 20:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Kill it with fire. (per Kinu) NeoFreak 20:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 21:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MySpace is a very notable website, but that doesn't mean all its groups or subforums should have their own encyclopedia articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Starblind's inherent notability reasoning. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 00:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmap[edit]

Originally proded but tag removed by creator of the article Paullakso (talk · contribs) whose sole edits are to this article. The product in question is a learning tool sold on the web. The Google search for "bookmap + learning" provides 154 unique non-wiki hits although a quick stroll through them will convince anyone that most of these hits are unrelated to that product. Perhaps more telling is the search for "Brain-Oriented Organized Knowledge Map" (which "bookmap" stands for according to the article. This generates 15 hits, including two wikipedia, three forum posts and two from the product's website. Plainly and simly fails WP:CORP. Pascal.Tesson 20:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the second google search turns up a little more than that. There is a PDF file reporting from Dutch Ministry of Education studying the use of this learning tool. There's a bunch of entries that appear to be in Dutch which I am not able to read and evaluate. This learning tool may be locally notable in the Netherlands, but since I can't read Dutch, I can't tell. But I don't think it is a slam dunk failure of WP:CORP -- Whpq 21:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the google search I used was this one. -- Whpq 21:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually, I should have made this clear so thanks for the comment. The article indeed refers to a study conducted by a non-profit organization of the Netherlands [27] which technically is independent from the ministry of education (although subsidized by it). It is that organization's task to undertake studies and there's no sign that this one was less routine than the others (and I say this after zipping through all 8 pages of that report). That still does not make it notable as there is no evidence that there was a follow-up since that 2003 study. Surely if this New Jersey based company had a hot product, you would actually have this reflected on their website [28]. Also I went back to your Google search and looked at the dutch pages (I know enough german to at least get a jist of the content. They are mentions in passing that this SLO organization is conducting a study on that product. In fact, most pages have the very same paragprah on the subject which means it was probably a press release or something of that sort. Pascal.Tesson 21:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. My Alt Account 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No notability asserted, no reliable sources cited other than a single small study. Google search for "bookmap 'horn clause logic'" turns up only their site and Wikipedia. There are no incoming links to their home page. Alexa has no ranking data for them. Hopefully the'll become notable and broadly covered, but I see no evidence of that yet. William Pietri 23:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  :) Dlohcierekim 01:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Players Anonymous[edit]

Prod removed without comment. Website and "social group" for Utah arts scene. Alexa is over 2 million and Google search finds less than 200 links (80 unique) from other sites. Fails WP:WEB -- Fan-1967 20:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many of us feel that Players Anonymous is important to the Utah Arts scene, in particular to those interested in the community theatrical arts. It's influence in Utah is worth an article in Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PantydeLeopard (talk • contribs)
  • Players Anonymous is a valuable tool for Utah's theater community. It provides up to date information about auditions, performances, venues and casting calls as well as provides networking opportunities for people involved in all aspects of theater.

--Xenasings 22:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Xenasings[reply]

  • Delete non-notable group. Advertising, hence non-Wiki tone and the vanity of that image gallery. The JPStalk to me 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB or WP:ORG, take your pick. Alexa rank of 2,097,942. William Pietri 22:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The JPS. NeoFreak 23:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete blatant ad hockingQrc2006 00:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep PA is invaluable to the local Utah theater community, as well as its growing membership throughout the U.S.
    According to WP:WEB"Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found." Most theatrical activities listed on PA can be verified through the listed theater, in various news papers, and on other theatrical websites. Furthermore "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national in scale and information can be verified by a third party source." Though most activities listed are local to Utah we do have members throughout the U.S. who also list theatrical activity which can also be verified in their individual states. Androsia 13:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We can take it for granted that information about events can be verified. What WP:WEB is asking for is verifiable coverage from third-party sources about your website. That's a very different thing. Fan-1967 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's only edits are to the article and this AfD. [29] William Pietri 18:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable group, though from reading their public pages, they're self-important. They even have a thread on their message board trying to get their members to come here and keep the Wikipedia article going. http://www.playersanonymous.org/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1158092852 --Going insane 14:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite the regional nature of the website and low link-count to the site, the site does have high cultural value for the state of Utah, and is well known in the Utah arts community. Sifujc 15:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom :) Dlohcierekim 01:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As invaluable as they may be to those who value them, they do not meet inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Players+Anonymous%22&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-24,GGLR:en&start=360&sa=N Only about 300 unique google hits. :) Dlohcierekim 01:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Houdini: Sexual Move[edit]

Non-notable sexual practice, discussion of which is primarily designed for shock value. This page was already declined on Articles for Creation. Strait 21:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I'm pretty sure this is covered in another article anyway. NeoFreak 21:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --nkayesmith 22:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable invention for fun of shocking. A good laugh for idiots, but this sexual prank is of no encyclopedic value. `'mikka (t) 22:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We've outsource all our WP:NEO cruft to Urban Dictionary, and they're doing a fine job with it. Let them continue, I say. William Pietri 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xceog[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. Only 177 unique Ghits and no sign of reliable third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I hope they become notable, but as of yet, I don't think they're there. William Pietri 22:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Erechtheus 23:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ezeu 18:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zuhra Bahman[edit]

Non-notable student. Prod tag removed by anon without explanation. DMG413 21:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete CSD-A7. This doesn't need to be at AFD. Fan-1967 21:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some googling, she seems to have gained some attention for her work with NGO's, barely referred to in this article. This should be expanded in the article. Abstain for now. Fan-1967 21:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. The article is copyright violation, and I removed the content. But without doubt google search shows more than enough notability and press coverage. `'mikka (t) 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but not speedy. She has some press, but what I see is modest enough I think it's worth going through the process. William Pietri 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Although there is a bit of media attention, I don't see an encyclopedic level of notability. Deli nk 18:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep 122 unique goog;e hits, but what there are suggest notability. More than just a student.  :) Dlohcierekim 01:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no acutal or verifiable evidence of notability. --Peta 06:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ezeu 18:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youth subculture[edit]

del essay, which is a random text about subculture. If you delete the word "youth", or replace by the word, say, "army veteran", after small context changes you will get an article of same meaningfulness. I am not saying that the topic is invalid. It is just the article that is useless. Mukadderat 21:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete essay. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article itself has citations, and a quick Amazon search reveals book after book on the topic. [31]. A messy article isn't cause for deletion; it's cause for tagging as disputed or requiring cleanup. William Pietri 22:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case you haven't noticed, we already have an article youth culture. Of course, "youth culture" is not homogeneous. Of course, there are various "subcultures" in it. But we have, say, Culture of India, but there was no one smart enough to write "Subculture of India", although there are plenty of unique subcultures in India, and you know what? there are plenty of google hits for "subculture of india" and "subculture in india" and other variants to collect enough references for an even longer rant. `'mikka (t) 02:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. non-encyclopedic essay, which even does not define its title. `'mikka (t) 04:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keepp after expanding. Next time to avoid such situation please start writing articles from head, not from tail. Next time you can create a scratchpad, e.g., User:JenLouise/Youth Sub, and then move the page into a proper name when the article becomes reasonable and out of danger. `'mikka (t) 18:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has a stub tag on it, because it needs work. Youth subcultures are completely distinct from youth culture. Youth culture arises in opposition to parent cultures or the adult world. Youth subcultures are ways of young people creating and maintaining an identity that distinguishes them from other youth. It is a valid, distinct area of study in sociology and therefore is valid material for an article. JenLouise 06:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the condition that there will be much cleanup, to raise it up to Wikipedia standards.Spylab 20:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Farthen Dûr[edit]

Alright, I'm going to be bold and list this article for deletion (my first ever afd), so please forgive me if my reasons are not valid.

That said, I believe this article is not notable (a fictional event in a recent adventure book, which can hardly be considered classic, or even notable among recent literature). It consists largely of speculation, and is written in a factual tone (I changed the first paragraph to make it obvious it was fictional). The only useful content could be integrated into some of the other numerous, numerous pages on the Inheritance Trilogy.

I'm done. --nkayesmith 08:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a a major event in a major book, none of which is original research. It describes the event very well, and is definitely notable. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 10:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may not be original research, but it is speculative, and will never be more than speculative ("we have reason to assume that the battle lasted into the morning"). Other 'notable' books have a page of events, not a page per event. (Events in the Wheel of Time series). Having said that, there are quite a few articles as notable (i.e. not notable) as this one...e.g. Patronus Charm, although Harry Potter is more notable than Eragon. --nkayesmith 00:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... Haven't I said before that all the content is from the book, and hence it cannot be speculative. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 11:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also contains a lot of strictly speculative language:
"To wipe out the Varden and the Dwarves (perhaps only the Dwarves that opposed him)"
"From this description, it is safe to say that the Battle lasted a good deal into the morning."
"The Strength of the Urgals is unknown, but from a description in the book, they probably had 3 or 4 times the number of warriors that the Varden and Dwarves had."

Unencyclopedic language, and could easily be merged or redirected into an article about the book. Djcartwright 00:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT, or merge into the article about the book. The article is nicely written, but I'm not seeing the topic as requiring an encyclopedia entry. William Pietri 22:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Recury 00:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This level of detail is beyond fancruft. My Alt Account 01:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above, as much as I like the series. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 23:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 08:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federated Model[edit]

  • del someone's original research. In fact, the notion of federated system is surprisingly missing from wikipedia, but the current article is overnaive. `'mikka (t) 22:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unsourced... notability not asserted Anlace 22:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Anlace. William Pietri 22:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sonic Apple Experience[edit]

Zero ghits of band or albums, description of band is "Western Sydney alternative-rock band and counter cultural group of artists formed by a three blind albinos and a cat. The band plays infrequently and has released a series of somewhat influential albums". Prod as unverifiable, probable hoax removed (and an earlier prod was also removed - it had no edit summary so I'd missed it). --Jamoche 19:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Notability asserted, but I can't verify anything about the band, and no sources are provided. Zero Google hits for the band and all the album titles but one. The other one, "Appletronic", gets only unrelated hits. I agree with the nominator that it's a hoax. William Pietri 22:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable if not a hoax. Erechtheus 23:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Got no hits at Google and nothing at Allmusic. :) Dlohcierekim 22:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune class survey ship[edit]

Was de-prodded about a week or so ago with the assurance that "it is cannon" [sic] mentioned in the article (never a good sign). I tagged with ((clean up)) and more importantly ((Unreferenced)). While in the most excruciatingly painful sense it is technically canon (see here), the vast majority of this article is pure original research. One line in a TV show and a fan site entry do not combine for notable encyclopedia articles. Irongargoyle 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Really random comment When I typed the word "excruciatingly" into Google to make sure I'd spelled it correctly while writing the initial nomination, my first result was a page entitled "Eric's Excruciatingly Detailed Star Trek (TOS) Plot Summaries." I thought that was quite ironic and a little amusing. Irongargoyle 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. William Pietri 22:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. `'mikka (t) 22:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. My Alt Account 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Hello32020 00:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect somewhere into the Star Trek articles. :) Dlohcierekim
  • Delete. Memory Alpha material. Gazpacho 05:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ergative rlt 22:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the starfleet ship entry on wiki it did not contain this ship. it did not contain the intrepid type either. i found it no more noteable than any other sci fi ship artical. dregj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.123.177 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 September 2006
  • Delete per nom. AlistairMcMillan 22:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of letters[edit]

Obviously a non-notable list, I almost speedied it myself. But, prod was removed 11kowrom 22:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN? `'mikka (t) 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On the other hand, an alphabetical list of all letters in all alphabets could be handy, for quick search. For example, what was this letter: Gomel, Gamel, Gimel, Gymel, Gumel, Gemel ? And seeing Aleph and Alpha side by side in the list would be instructive `'mikka (t) 23:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's certainly something to be said for that (I'm surprised we don't have such an article already, but we don't seem to). BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sadly, that's not what this is. D, E, L, E, T, E.Djcartwright 00:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Well, it's not what it was. Take a look now and see if the new version has any merit as a page; I didn't see anything like it on Wikipedia so far. -- nae'blis 04:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My first un-qualified vote for a Delete. Justification per nom. Jdclevenger 23:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Hello32020 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the information is much easier used and accessed at pages describing the English alphabet. SliceNYC 01:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete genuinely worthy candidate. Ohconfucius 04:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without a doubt-delete. Lorty 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia already has a page on this: English alphabet. -AMK152 03:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep or Merge into alphabet, List of alphabets, or similar. This is definitely encyclopedic, and is the first comparitive chart I have seen on wikipedia. Ideally, it will be expanded in the near future. Markovich292 05:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Markovich292, but since there are so many alphabets it will have to be expanded big time. Cheesfgf 14:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - the table is a good starting point, but needs extending... maybe in another article. Ace of Risk 15:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization of Ceres[edit]

Violates WP:NOR and WP:V. Awolf002 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not sure I understand how this is an OR issue. The article is well cited and appears to take its direction from those cites. Am I missing something? Erechtheus 23:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The given links do not provide verifiable information as of WP:V in my oppinion. Instead these are self-published texts, which means this is obvious OR. Am I wrong? Awolf002 23:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No -- I'm not saying you're wrong. Your argument just wasn't obvious to me so I thought I'd ask. I'll check them out a little more closely before "voting". Erechtheus 23:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! Note to self: Be more descriptive. Awolf002 00:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This Afd is only about this article. Do not confuse this as a "vote" about the general topic. My concern is that none of the cited two primary sources pass the policy rule in WP:V regarding Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. Does nobody else see this obvious breach of policy? Awolf002 11:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - not inherently deletion-worthy, though I agree with nom about low quality of sources used - why is text from a game cited as a reference? Ergative rlt 21:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is for the Colonization in SciFi. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 22:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid, like all the other space colonization articles. --Centauri 11:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The acceptable parts of this article are already present in 1 Ceres. Alternatively, redirect to Colonization of the asteroids, but without merging. Michael Kinyon 13:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well cited (Could use a few more refs however) and it has no POV issues. Its an article on possible colonization of Drawf Planet Ceres. This article doesn't violate WP:NOR or WP:V Æon Insanity Now!EA! 22:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Illusion Misconception[edit]

  • del. We have a very good Moon illusion article, which spells it all and more. `'mikka (t) 23:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundant fork riddled with WP:OR "As Galili et al. did not address instructional methods for helping to solve this problem, I found further information". --Daniel Olsen 23:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, badly formatted. Djcartwright 00:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above and WP:SOAP :) Dlohcierekim 14:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant mess. Ergative rlt 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 05:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant. TheronJ 18:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North County Community Church[edit]

Non-notable church housed in a high school. 58 Google hits, not all relevant. Article is extremely unencyclopedic and most of it seems to be about a group of friends. PROD (confirmed by a second editor) was removed by the article's creator without explanation. -Elmer Clark 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the editor lodging the prod2 template. Erechtheus 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Unencyclopedic to the point of being uninformative. Djcartwright 00:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTABLE Hello32020 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it contains neither an assertion of notability nor citations to reliable sources to support any such claim. GRBerry 03:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. WP:NOT a listing service for churches. :) Dlohcierekim 19:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Seven[edit]

Verifiable, but reads like a bookseller's ad; unencyclopedic and not of great apparent notability (26 total Google hits, most of which appear to be incidental mentions and this page). Djcartwright 23:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete POV ad possibly by publisher or someone involved in the project (creator was User:Ardmoremedia). Also possible copyright violation (see sopyright notice at the bottom of the page and the talk page of the article's creator). Violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:C, WP:VAIN, etc. --Daniel Olsen 00:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Daniel Olsen Hello32020 00:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above; also appears to fail WP:BK, which was my rationale on the original PROD. --Kinu t/c 04:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. :) Dlohcierekim 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BK (proposed guideline for notability of books) since it is published by a vanity press and has no independent coverage. Pascal.Tesson 16:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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