The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Plaza Mall[edit]

This article is about a mall in McAllen, Texas that is really indistinguishable from any mall in Texas, the United States or the world. In addition the stores listing which is the bulk of the article proves that it is essentially a typical mall. It probably is already meantioned in the McAllen, Texas article but if not a sentence should be adequate in the article's Economy section. James E. Zavaleta _{T C E} 01:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to be just another mall, also fails WP:CORP. TJ Spyke 02:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - already mentioned in the McAllen, Texas article; fails WP:CORP. BlueValour 17:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely generic. Opabinia regalis 04:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete —Khoikhoi 04:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to McAllen, Texas. If the info about this mall is there, we should point people to it. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even the name is generic! +Fin- 13:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing to distinguish this from 1000's of other malls... A redirect per Mgm is an option too.--Isotope23 16:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Fernando Rizo 18:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I wish I had this much free time... --gxti 19:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the mallcruft. No redirect, as the name is too generic. Mention the mall in McAllen, Texas. ♠PMC♠ 19:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Malls are businesses, and there is neither evidence nor an assertion that this meets WP:CORP. GRBerry 01:06, 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. Somehow it reminded that we have went through this kind of debate before... - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Ramah in the Berkshires[edit]

This article is a very heavy vandalism magnet (WP:NOT a discussion forum), and the original version is an advertisement and a copyvio of an old version of the camp's website. I think the camp could have an article, but this isn't it. Given the amount of vandalism the article has received, I believe a history deletion is necessary. Coredesat talk! 01:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Hello32020 01:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Húsönd 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Camp Ramah. --Metropolitan90 03:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Camp_Ramah#Ramah_North_American_Overnight_Camps list some other specific camps with seemingly (to me) solid content, I think we should delete and await creation of a non-copyvio (previous or otherwise) entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Reads like an advert. Title is ridiculous too. +Fin- 13:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What's wrong with the title? That's what this camp is called. [11] --Metropolitan90 03:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability to the standards of either WP:ORG or WP:CORP, and I can't tell which applies. GRBerry 01:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—If we delete this one we might need to consider the entire set:

• Camp Ramah in California
• Camp Ramah in Muskoka
• Camp Ramah in New England
• Camp Ramah (Wisconsin)

Myself, I’m borderline on the set of them, but lean toward deleting them all except the parent article. Integrate the important material into the main article. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:05, 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 04:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul M. Spicer[edit]

No assertion of notability, except that he's got a job with some little known peridicals Dontdoit 01:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. If the periodicals become bigger then I'd consider him notable enough.
• Delete. This article is the very definition of nn. In addition, Wikipedia is not a resume-posting service. --Aaron 03:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete some guy's resume. Don't forget to take him out of List of non-fiction writers and List of magazine writers. Opabinia regalis 04:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 04:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clear attempt at self-promotion. His books have no significant awards or sales ranking in bookstores. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above. +Fin- 13:30, 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 04:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motox[edit]

Non-notable forum site fails WP:WEB. Contested prod. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB. Any news searches brings up stuff about Motocross, Alex ranking of roughly 40k, 15 unique links, 3 of which are other languages and the rest are forums. No major awards or independent third party coverage. --Wafulz 02:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - genuinely interesting site (to me), but I concur that it fails WP:WEB. My Alt Account 03:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Spam, WP:WEB. +Fin- 13:30, 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 04:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell's Dairy Land[edit]

Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam.

non-notable, commercial spam -THB 02:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ADS and WP:CORP. Only 67 Google hits [12]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 09:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. I commend him for clearly explaining his reasoning for the nomination and citing policy instead of using a one-word nomination (which is all too common). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Bob talk 11:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tree Biting Conspiracy. +Fin- 13:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --gxti 18:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 00:36, 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 04:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oilwar[edit]

Non-Notable open source game, no references other than newgrounds and game creator's webpage --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 01:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; non-notable game, few relevant Google results [13]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB: Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial.. Open-source games should have a web-presence before they get articles or at least coverage by press. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NN game. +Fin- 13:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Ergative rlt 14:40, 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. Redirect is optional. - Mailer Diablo 04:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kshattri[edit]

The article at Kshattri was created to mislead Wikipedia readers. The objective was to create a mischievious article ridiculing the Khatris with false information, and to redirect the real Khatri article to it.

The Khatri (Kshatriya) page is a previous incarnation of the same thing. It should also be deleted.

The person who created this scheme has used several different logins.

--ISKapoor 02:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've been watching this article for some time. It has been the subject of a long-term edit war and appears to be a WP:POV-fork of the main Khatri article. The list of family names fails WP:NOT and is unverifiable. The Modern times section is original research and the opening paragraph's only source is the Manu Smriti which does not fall within WP:RS. Essentially the whole article is unverifiable and inherently WP:POV. Gwernol 02:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Khatri and protect. I've speedy tagged it to bring it to someone's attention. Dave 02:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gwernol. --Supermath 02:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Khatri - I think Dave's idea makes the most sense here. My Alt Account 03:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What Gwernol said. +Fin- 13:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please do not have the Kshattri page redirect to Khatri. It is the aim of the person who created Kshattri to suggest that the two terms are equivalent, and that Kshattri is equivalent to something else etc., and thus confuse people. The Kshattri article should simply be deleted.--ISKapoor 17:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete NOT Redirect. I've followed this discussion on Talk:Khatri for a long time and believe ISKapoor's logic is fine. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. utcursch | talk 08:50, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individualized Service Plans: Empowering People with Disabilities[edit]

See nomination for author Paul M. Spicer. Neutral Andrew Levine 02:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable, self-published book. The book doesn't seem to have been subject of any amount of media coverage or recieved any major awards. Also, couldn't find any results on Amazon and only found 30 results on Google.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn spam. --Aaron 03:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. According to Bookfinder4u.com it is in print and sold on some well-known online bookstores, but for example its rating on Barnes & Noble (305,110) is non-impressive and the reviews on that site are suspicious to me. Five stars, but no reviewer names or much specifics in the review which sound like self-promotion to me. Similar suspicious reviews on Half.com and no doubt on other sites. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spam. +Fin- 13:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete: spam, related to a consulting business. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 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 as WP:POINT. Article may be recreated, but nonserious attempts should be speedy deleted. El_C 10:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against men[edit]

The article was created by a copy-paste of Violence against women with the word "women" in the original changed to "men". Problem is that "violence against women" is a term of art, with specific denotative and connotative meaning in common use within at least some segments of the world, a fact reflected in everything from legislation like the Violence Against Women Act to book titles to people and groups who identify themselves as part of a "movement to end violence against women" [14], [15], [16], all of which suggest that there is a cohesive idea. "Violence against men," as a topic name for a cohesive idea, has no such evidence for its existence; given the articles on which links to Violence against men have been added, the manner in which those links were added, and the way in which the article was created, it looks like a WP:POINT violation in the form of a neologism and original research. The Literate Engineer 02:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although it may not be a term of art or movement, it is still a concept that's talked about, even if only as a comparison with violence against women. ^{[Check Google hits]} Google shows over 100,000 results for "violence against men" (754 "unique" results). There is a potential for abuse (so to speak) with the article, so it might need to be monitored. ... discospinster _talk 02:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a legitimate issue, I'm sure, but this is not a legitimate article. eaolson 04:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as of now, it's nothing but a worthless restatement of the title. Possibly a legitimate subject, but this is a delete-and-start-over case. Opabinia regalis 04:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice against later re-creation if someone wants to write a proper article about what is certainly a genuine subject. bikeable (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I'd vote to delete the sister-article Violence against women as well. A term of art it may be, but in both cases the article amounts to no more than an (obvious) dictionary definition of their title term, plus some links. WP is not a link farm. Vizjim 06:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Peta 06:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep For now. That said if the woman one is put up for delete I'll switch to delete for both.--T. Anthony 06:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is deleted and a precedent thus established I'll nominate that one for deletion too (not prod as there could be different principles involved). Vizjim 12:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I switch to delete. Although possibly an article on gender-related violence could be encyclopedic. Neither of these are articles and their titles are vague for encyclopedic purposes.--T. Anthony 18:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If this is removed the Violence against women thread should also be removied, it is prejudice and sexist if it doesnt happen (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.52.122 (talk • contribs)

Then nominate it. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, don't. As per WP:POINT, wait for this one to be deleted and precedent established before nominating other similar articles. Vizjim 12:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree, that it is a Legitimate Issue (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.52.122 (talk • contribs)

• Comment adding two keep comments at the same time isn't just bad wikiettiquette, it's blatently obvious...--Isotope23 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, copying an article verbatim and replacing a single word is not the way to go about creating material. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment no vote from me, but the CLOSING ADMIN MIGHT NEED TO CHECK the changes to the Violence against women article made since this AfD opened, (assuming this closes as a delete). It looks as if someone is attempting to merge this article to it. (And making a bit of a mess if I'm any judge.) AndyJones 12:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This appears to be a pretty clear cut POV/WP:POINT article and it is unsourced to boot.--Isotope23 16:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Isotope23. Fernando Rizo 18:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has relevancy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.249.9 (talk • contribs)
• Delete, claims not verified and NPOV doesn't mean equal time. Gazpacho 23:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Or add some content. Perhaps someone could create an article about this topic which is more than the less-than -stub this is. Some of the articles it links to deal with rights rather than violence. No "Male Foot Binding" no "Husband Burning" to compare to "Female Foot Binding" and "Bride Burning." Edison 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be sexist of me, but I'd wager the vast amount of violence to males by females is violence to boys rather than men. I believe Charles Beaumont's mother abused him, in part, because she'd wanted a girl. Male on male violence is the main kind of violence reported, at least in the developed world, but that's more crime or gang activity.--T. Anthony 00:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - dont discriminate against males.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What makes this different from Violence against women? It does happen, and it's just as legitimate an issue. --AlexWCovington (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, why not try reading the discussion before taking part? As said above, if this goes then Violence against women will be put up for deletion as being a similar dictionary definition/linkfarm. Discussion of this deletion proposal has nothing to do with the legitimacy of discussing violence against men and everything to do with whether the article a) violates WP:POINT, b) is encyclopedic, c) can be more than a dictionary definition. Vizjim 09:45, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11: Press for Truth[edit]

((PROD)) tag removed in a particularly WP:DICK-violating manner, but to the main point: It's more of the latest rash of 9/11 "Truth Movement" cruft. The article doesn't assert any notability, mainly because it has none. Only 344 ghits [17], almost all of which are sales pitches, obscure reviews or blogrolling. Aaron 02:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. If the tag had been placed in the proper manner (including a link to discussion explaining why the editor sought to delete the article), it would not have been removed. The above profanity in reference to the present editor is objected to strenuously. Badagnani 02:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Above comment is by creator of article. --Aaron 17:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am not sure what a "ghit" is, but the film draws 341,000 hits. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%229%2F11+press+for+truth%22 There's quite a difference and I believe 341,000 proves notability. Whether you believe the film to be "cruft" or not, it is wrong to remove all mention of it from Wikipedia, for whatever stated or unstated reason. We are here to serve our users. If you view the film and object to its contents for factual reasons, that could be treated in the article or "discussion" page. But simply attempting to delete articles other editors begin for such reasons (especially flawed reasoning such as the wildly inaccurate claim there are only 344 hits) is just wrong, and against what we stand for here. Badagnani 02:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weakest Keep I have ever seen. Badagnani, a Ghit is google hits and it only has 344 unique hits off of google. Please don't speak for other Wikipedia authors or make statements as an authority on 'what wikipedia stands for'. After we remove blogs, forums, wikipedia, and journals it only shows 284 unique hits[18]. Only reason I say keep is because of the NYT article. If that wasn't around, I would say to nuke the article without pity. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 05:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: unique Google hits are only counted on the first 1,000 Google hits, so 344 unique Google hits does not mean that there are only 344 different sites mentioning this. Wikipedia has 416,000,000 Google hits (!), but only 384 unique Google hits[19]. Let's delete Wikipedia? I have no opinion on this article, but deletion because of the low number of Unique Google Hits is in this case a bad idea. Fram 09:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The movie is included in the Rotten Tomatoes, Amazon, Moviefone and New York Times movie databases. It has also been reviewed by some notable media sources such as Slant Magazine [20], and The Hub Weekly [21] as well as mentioned in articles in the Scoop [22] and the New York Times [23] (note that the New York Times article requires subscribing).--TBCTaLk?!? 03:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The movie also seems to star the Jersey Girls and is, as Badagnani mentioned below, ranked #765 in Amazon.com sales. [24]--TBCTaLk?!? 20:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The snoop article is just a press release and the ny times just make a trivial, passing mention. The two movie reviews seem to come from non notable sites and being included in a database far from warrants inclusion on wikipedia--Peephole 13:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - per TBC. And you have to give the article credit - at least it doesn't prattle on and on about every minor detail (a common technique used to misdirect attention from the unimportance of the subject). My Alt Account 03:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Completely non-notable conspiracy cruft film. Morton devonshire 04:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per TBC. Note also that it's #1,224 on Amazon's DVD rank. (For comparison purposes, Criteron Collection's M is #3,814, Rikki Tikki Tavi/Yankee Doodle Cricket is #1,389 and Bakshi's The Lord of the Rings is #18,969, all of which are clearly notable.) That, and especially the New York Times mention, make it a minor but notable film.--Prosfilaes 04:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there's a load of rubbish placed on WP by advocates of the "9/11 Truth Marketing Opportunity" - sorry, "Truth Movement" - but this doesn't appear to be it. Notability guidelines seem satisfied. Vizjim 06:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no need to advertise for Jersey girls seeking wealth.--Tbeatty 07:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per TBC, especially based on the New York Times article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete More conspiracy cruft. Barely any coverage by reliable sources. --Peephole 12:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. If it was expanded, it could turn into a resonable article. +Fin-
• Keep - A useful stub of what might be a better article concerning a reasonably notable film. This deletion request seems driven by political rather than academic motives, and hence should be scrutinized carefully. I don't agree with the film's conclusions, but I wanted to know more about it, particularly as related to other 9/11 conspiracy theory propoganda. Or am I suspicious for even asking about 9/11 conspiracy theorists? --Nemonoman 16:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment no opinion, but I added an Importance tag to the article because the article makes no case why this film has any relevence, notability, or importance. TBC basically did all the legwork already so interested parties just need to include the sources he's provided in the article (and go ahead and boldly remove the tag after the sources have been included).--Isotope23 16:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, absolutely One of the best 9/11 movies I have ever seen. Furthermore, this is a new movie. If this were to disappear into the fog of time then I could see some argument for deleting it, but why throw out the baby with the bathwater? This movie features the Jersey girls who were on the family steering committee for the 9/11 Commission. The movie documents their story. It also has interviews with Paul Thomson, one of the premier Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. It is based entirely on excerpted press stories so is based firmly in fact. Facts, I recall, are what wikipedia is about, not delete trolling, which I see a lot of around here. Kaimiddleton 16:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per New York Times. Gamaliel 19:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After reviewing the sources, I have found that the article does NOT pass notability requirements. The NYT mention is NOT an article that focuses on, and only on the movie (which is required. The article must be a full-length featured article about the subject only). It is only a mentioned as a small part of related 9/11 events happening on or around 9/11/06. Rotten Tomatoes is not used as a 'reliable source'. Amazon is used to verify the movie was made though, as is the AOL movies listing but neither provide a reason the movie is notable. Slant Magazine and Hub Weekly are not a print magazines but rather are blogs...which removes them as a reliable sources (blogs are not normally allowed, per wikipedia policy). Scoop is not a reputable website (and this is just a press release), and hence is also voided as a reliable source. Nothing notable about this and does not have multiple, independent, third-party, reliable, full-length featured articles about the film.

On a side note, I want to shake a finger at all the keeps that have not done any research into this beyond looking at the AFD and voting per what ever was said. I was guilty of this until I actually looked up the articles and found user, Tree Biting Conspiracy, lying about the sources. AfD is about researching the topic and basing your own keep/delete on your own research. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lying about sources? First of all, false accusations are not civil, and are a violation of WP:CIV. As for the New York Times article, I did not state that the article entirely focused on the movie, I only stated that it mentioned the movie. Having a profile on Rotten Tomatoes, AOL Movies, or Amazon does make a movie more notable than if it was some sort of home movie made by a couple of teenagers after school. Also, Slant Magazine and Hub Weekly, are considered review websites, and not blogs. Next time, I suggest that you please do not accuse other users of lying before carefully reading their comments.--TBCTaLk?!? 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Also, don't blame me if other users don't bother to actually research the topic and simply use "per nom" as an explanation for deletion (which is personally a pet peeve for me too). Though it's true I didn't lie , I'm also not perfect (no one is) so I'm still vulnerable to make mistakes. Either way, be sure to be a bit civil next time before making allegations such as those above. :) --TBCTaLk?!? 20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree with TBC; this comment is rather uncivil. You provided no evidence that TBC was lying about anything, and your differing analysis of his sources was a difference in opinion, and should have been stated like that.--Prosfilaes 04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: as of 14 September 2006: Amazon.com Sales Rank: #765 in DVD.[25] Yet more evidence of notability, and yet more reason why there really isn't any reason to "hide" information from our users. Badagnani 20:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Sales figures are transitory. When the numbers collapse in a few weeks, as all DVD sales figures eventually do, will you then nominate this article for deletion yourself? --Aaron 20:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Everything is transitory. Sic transit gloria mundi. But current figures show that it is currently popular, which means it will have some interest in history. As you say, all DVD sales figures eventually drop; should we use that to remove all popular movies?--Prosfilaes 04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Aaron, Morton. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very little information, not enough to justify keeping it. Dekar 21:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)User's 10th extant edit, all but one to AfD. Tyrenius 21:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that is why it is called a "stub." There are a lot of such articles throughout Wikipedia, and we don't delete them all for the reason that they are short. A blow-by-blow description of the film's contents, how it was made, etc. can of course be added but that takes time, with the contribution of various editors (which could include you). But it seems that, at least so far, your edits consist solely of attempting to remove articles written by other editors, and not to create any new ones of your own. Badagnani 21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable and soon to be forgotten.--MONGO 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per l'argument de MONGO. Lou Sander 21:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; seems more notable than many things on wikipedia, and appears to have been suggested for deletion for reasons of POV better discussed on the article than on an AfD page. Comments lumping together various films and books as part of "9/11 cruft" are particularly suspicious -- let's stick to issues of notability rather than making this yet another politicized AfD debate. Remember, don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.--csloat 23:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: when you say "more notable than," were you perhaps referring to Ludicolo, Laughing Man (Ghost in the Shell), or Vala Mal Doran? They are all treated with loving concern for detail, yet deal with fantastical subjects. If those articles have a right to exist here, so that our users may learn from them (as I believe they do), why not also an article about a widely released new film examining one of the most important events of the past few years, and featuring as its main characters the widows of men lost in that event? Is fantasy more significant than fiction, or is it simply a question of whether consumers bought more of one and fewer of another? As with some other editors here, I believe the "selective deletionist" agenda is more insidious and aggressive. Let's try to respect one another's contributions here. Badagnani 23:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I never heard of those articles or topics, but I agree with you (clearly). I had in mind topics far less notable than this one that add little to Wikipedia like Every time you kill a kitten... God masturbates.--csloat 01:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Jersey girls. Nothing to see here. Move along. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean merge and redirect? Tyrenius 00:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I meant there's nothing to merge here, but a redirect to Jersey girls is plausible. I'd accept a straight redirect, but a merge seems to be unnecessary. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minor to zero significance here. Layering.--Scribner 23:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant topic, mentioned in NY Times article, extremely high Amazon sales rank. Note some deletion votes appear to be disagreements with the politics rathern than the encyclopedic quality or notability. Crystal ball gazing and predicting that sales will decrease soon is not a valid basis for voting to delete.Edison 23:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this documentary isn't even listed on IMDB. Mention of this video in Jersey Girls suffices. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Crockspot 04:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: as of 15 September 2006: Amazon.com Sales Rank: #655 in DVD.[26] Badagnani 06:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In discussion about another 9/11-as-inside-job movie that was successfully ground down to zero by the deletion police, I mentioned the comparison to My Life as a Dog, a Swedish movie. Someone pointed out that it was nominated for two academy awards. But when I mentioned it to my Swedish relatives they thought it was rather insignificant or uninteresting. Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie myself. What's my point about all this? Here is a fictional movie, that came out long before wikipedia was around--indeed, the internet, as such, only had 5000 computers on it at the time. So documenting it is documenting a piece of film arcana. On the other hand, we have here under consideration a serious movie about a deadly serious subject having extensive interviews with people whose relatives died on 9/11 ... and we're having a discussion about deleting coverage of this topic. Have folks even seen what the Jersey Widows and other family members have to say? Go watch the movie and tell me it's not for real what these people feel and perceive. I think most of the people on this page are either arrogant or heartless. I'm beginning to feel like assuming good faith of these other editors is a sick joke. Kaimiddleton 08:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be confusing your personal feelings with a method of deciding on verifiability and notability (possibly along the lines of the Chewbacca Defence?) Whether you and your Swedish great-uncle have heard of My Life as a Dog is utterly irrelevant - the movie has gained substantial coverage, been nominated for or awarded many prizes, launched the career of a major director, and is clearly significant (and pretty good, by the way). Equally, your strong feelings on viewing the movie "9/11: Press for Truth" are utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand: the question is whether the movie in question has enough significant independent coverage to justify an encyclopedic article and allow one to be written. As far as I can see, this movie passes the low threshold required, so I've voted keep - this despite loathing conspiracy theories. Other disagree. Assume good faith, and display it. Vizjim 09:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't think the film represents a conspiracy theory. It sets out a timeline and focuses primarily on the government's failure to investigate promptly and fully as in previous disasters of a similar magnitude, and particularly on the failure to answer the questions developed and posed by family members to the 9/11 Commission, once that committee was finally organized, over the objections of the Bush administration. Probably a lot of the comments implying that the film is akin to some of the other 9/11 conspiracy films come from people who haven't seen it. A glance at the strongly political userboxes of the editor who put this page up for deletion suggests there may be other overarching motivations for his actions (whether conscious or subconscious) than lack of "notability" of this film. Badagnani 11:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. Delete per nom and others; weak per TBC. CWC(talk) 09:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've seen it. Its a real film. It is notable. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable; promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google returns 321,000 hits, the movie on dvd was included with one of Polish country-wide weekly magazines. It's a real documentary-type movie (not homemade CT movie). Yet, article needs expanding. --SalvNaut 17:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per tree biting conspiracy. --heah 18:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not the same as my liking it. I don't like it, but it's notable. GdB 19:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable film and agree with comments by Edison and Kaimiddleton. The fact that the Jersey girls are in it and speak their latest thoughts is central to the issue of 9/11/01 - the people who got the investigation to happen and all and now are saying what they thought about it . . . no wonder so many don't want to allow it on here. bov 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 22:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Jersey Girls. Notability seems borderline, probably does not merit a separate article, but deletion is uncalled for. Peter Grey 23:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Having "9/11" and "Truth" in the title does not necessarily make it '9/11 truth movement cruft'. Peter Grey 14:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or if necessary, merge to Jersey Girls. I don't see this being any more notable than the various other conspiracy videos that have been deleted recently.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. "Don't see" is the key phrase here, as it seems you haven't seen the film before voting here. As mentioned above, there are no conspiracies discussed in the film; it is a straight discussion of facts regarding the 9/11 timeline and investigation, and the families' reactions. So what you and many editors say above is really quite inaccurate, and reflects poorly on you in that you would vote without verifying that what you say is correct. When you say it's not "any more notable," does that mean, then, that this documentary is less notable than Ludicolo, Laughing Man (Ghost in the Shell), or Vala Mal Doran? That wasn't answered above. Thank you for your input. Badagnani 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote delete because it is a conspiracy video. I deleted it because it is not notable. And yes, it's less notable than those things you point out, which means it's really, really not notable. This seems like just more promotion of 9/11 truth movement cruft we've been seeing recently.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's a legitimate article on a legitimate subject. It wouldn't kill me if merged with Jersey Girls, but if Ray Charles has a separate article on 'Mess Around", I see no reason not to have separate articles on the Jersey Girls and this film. Wikipedia is full of cross references to trivial information, or so sez Comic Book Guy. That's my non-political opinion. My political opinion is that people who see this as "9/11 cruft" could well be talking out of the other side of their mouths soon, because conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan has said that the administration plans to trot out their own "9/11 widows" to drum up support for completing the removal of the Bill of Rights from the Constitution.Ortolan88 18:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Both "Mess Around" and Ray Charles have much more notability than this film and the Jersey Girls. And I don't know what you're implying with the "talking out of the other side of their mouths" comment, but I didn't vote to delete because of my opinion of the films content (though I do have one), I voted to delete because I think the film is not notable. I'm believe most of my fellow delete voters had the same reasons.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ortolan88 was pointing out the Ludicolousness of your above statement that you believe a "large bipedal tropical plant"-shaped children's cartoon character to be more notable than a documentary film featuring primary source interviews with the 9/11 family members who were "instrumental in the creation of the 9/11 Commission."¹ I don't think much more needs to be said (or can be said, for that matter) about this. Badagnani 19:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not even going to discuss the pokemon, it's a non-sequitur argument. Just because those things are not notable doesn't mean this is. This film isn't even listed on IMDb, for God's sake. Just because the Jersey Girls are notable doesn't make everything tied to their wagon notable as well. This is just more of the same advertizing for the 9/11 truth movement that has popped up lately.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is NPOV, so arguing that it's an ad really doesn't help your case. It'd be nice if more of the arguments against the film treated it the same as a documentary about the Pikary fish of east Surinam, and stopped calling it 9/11 cruft and just "advertizing for the 9/11 truth movement".--Prosfilaes 08:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nomination and per Aud, Tom Harrison, etc. Dwain 21:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it will be useful information to many readers on both sides of any 9/11 debate and features significant figures in that debate. Tyrenius 01:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep this film is very well produced and dives headfirst into facts, accounts, and news stories about the war on terror and 9/11. its not a conspiracy movie but a documentary which researches facts not psudoscience. if loose change which is a complete conspiracy theory movie can be kept on here i dont see why 9/11: Path to Truth should ever be asd --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.18.23 (talk • contribs) User's 16th extant edit. Tyrenius 00:21, 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 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masters Invitational Math Contest[edit]

I can't find any evidence that this competition has received any media coverage, and it really just appears to be a competition conducted on a math webforum - see this link. It may be sponsored by the Art of Problem Solving, but I don't even really see any official evidence of that; the only other source on this which I could find was the AoPS Wiki, which, like this one, is freely editable. Nonnotable neocompetitionism. Might someday become articleworthy but now is not the time. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable contest on a non-notable forum.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Runch 21:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pan Dan 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --WikiXan 02:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -AMK152 03:18, 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. Yanksox 21:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Waltrip[edit]

Don't forget to delete Image:IMG 2657.JPG. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity, NN, possibly mistaken for a user page. Djcartwright 02:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy to User:Waltrpre--TBCTaLk?!? 03:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - NN. BlueValour 03:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 09:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. User has shown no interest in working on the encyclopedia. Usefying right now would allow vanity to persist in the userspace which directly contradicts "Wikipedia is not a free webhost". We can always retrieve it should the user become active and want the material back, although he could easily write it again. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Should've been db-bio'd. +Fin- 13:42, 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 Speeedy Delete A1. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mortazavi[edit]

Vanity, NN, attack against wikipedia. Vandalism. Djcartwright 02:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per CSD A7 and A8.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:01, 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, patent nonsense/hoax. NawlinWiki 18:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Neal[edit]

A complete hoax and a vanity article. Speppers434 23:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:HOAX. No such person ever played for the Rangers. Note that the original author, Stanlitv (talk · contribs), has also vandalized this AFD. Fan-1967 03:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fan-1967. My Alt Account 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - after which, permanently ban the author for vandalism --ArmadilloFromHell 06:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After just one time? I'd give him one chance to reform at least. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMO creating a bogus article is much worse than plain vandalism, it takes a lot more time to deal with it. Peus creating links to it. Plus vandalising this page. And I'm not convinced that Crayke Football Club is real. It probably needs an Afd also. --ArmadilloFromHell 13:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Google can't confirm a NHL player with that name. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above. +Fin- 13:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 00:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete —Khoikhoi 03:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as fiction/vandalism. Tagged as well as Crayke Football Club.

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. Petros471 22:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caridee English[edit]

This was the lead article in the train wreck AfD here. Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. Delete. BlueValour 03:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Other than being on the America's Next Top Model show, the person doesn't seem to have done anything else notable afterwards. Only 312 Google results. [27]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I also think alot of those other ANTM contestants shouldn't have articles either. Somebody should do a mass AFD. TJ Spyke 03:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there already was a mass AfD, which, as Can't sleep, clown will eat me said, ended up in a "train wreck".--TBCTaLk?!? 06:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone should try again, but with fewer articles nominated. The biggest reason I saw for WWE Diva Search articles and other reality show article deletions is that reality contestants are not notable if the only thing they have really done is the show. TJ Spyke 03:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete realitycruft per above. My Alt Account 03:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no attempt to establish notability, no description of the subject. BTLizard 08:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - reality TV cruft, not notable outside TV show. MER-C 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to America's Next Top Model. She didn't do enough to warrant her own entry, but the show undoubtedly has fans. Anyone typing in her name will want to be redirected to the show. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. As above. +Fin- 13:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect clearly crufty, and smacks of crystal ball, as the show has not even been aired yet, let alone winner declared. Ohconfucius 06:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ANTM There is no here, here. Fans of the show who would come to wikipedia to find out more information would be sorely disappointed. I have argued strongly in other AfD debates for keeping separate articles on particpants in certain kinds of Reality Shows. But that support is qualified by the requirement that someone take the time to actually produce an informative article. That minimum requirement has not been met here. Jdclevenger 00:09, 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, patent nonsense (or WP:SNOW, if you don't think it's patent nonsense). NawlinWiki 20:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dunn Experience[edit]

Completely incoherent, but not gibberish, so not patent nonsense. Can't even tell what the article is about. eaolson 03:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, seems to be a hoax. Only 13 Google results [28], few if any are relevant.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 03:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What is this article supposed to be about? Encyclopedia articles are not supposed to keep their readers (let alone editors) in the dark. Most likely a hoax. --physicq210 06:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be either some club of friends (CSD A7) or something made up in school. Neither makes a good article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't work out what it's all about either - fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, whatever it is. Bob talk 11:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sounds like something a few schoolkids made up. +Fin- 13:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Probable hoax, POV, unencyclopedic, bad formatting, cryptic; you name it, you can throw the book at it. Should've been speedied. Djcartwright 20:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - CSD-A1 - Absolute nonsense. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The Delete Experience. Me, I would have speedied this one. After all, the db-nonsense tag is not just for gibberish, but for articles that "provide no meaningful content or history." Something doesn't have to be gibberish to be meaningless. Pleather 23:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Correct. And this "article" is beyond meaningless. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 00:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (WP:NFT). "The Dunn Experience is an unknown phenomenon to all who have not been a part of it." Obviously not many people other than the author has been part of it. Ohconfucius 02:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOAX. —Khoikhoi 03:51, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mark of Conte[edit]

This is an insignificant book. The Jade Knight 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, the book was published by a notable publisher (Aladdin, which is a division of Simon & Schuster). Also, it won two awards (Southern California Council on Literature for Children and Young People Award for Best Fiction) and it was nominated for another (California Young Reader Medal). [29]--TBCTaLk?!? 04:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will it be possible to get any information on the book from secondary sources (other than her own website) to expand it beyond stub size? I am doubtful, myself. The Jade Knight 04:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to authors page.--Peta 06:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep If you are going to nominate a book for deletion, then please go down to the library and do some real research. It's irritating when I see people nominate a book off of just doing a quick Google search, looking at the Ghit number and basing their entire AFD on it. There are many other sources for research that are just as powerful as the net, and just as accepted for sources. While I agree that all articles need to be verifiable, The book was published by a notable publisher and did win the awards noted (which a quick check at the local library can confirm). But since it is fairly obvious that would be too much work for some people here, I'll stick to their preferred (and inherently flawed) researching tool.

Nominated for the 1982 California Young Reader Medal

of Southern Mississippi has confirmed that it won the southern california council on literature for children and young people award (G-cached site)

If we look at [guidelines for books] we see this

Nonetheless there is no dictum against any book that is reasonably spread or otherwise well-known or remarkable. Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book.

Remember this book was published in the 1970's...way before the internet, hence press-reviews online will be scarce. Not many Ghits for "The Mark of Conte" but it is a 70's printed book and this does pass because of it's awards and wide spread among libraries around the world. Looking online though shows MANY libraries have a copy of this book. The first Google page has the Boston Public library and the Juneau Public Library (that's a spread...Boston, NY and Juneau, AK). The next page has the Cairo American College, in Cairo Egypt listing the book on their shelves, as well as the Wheaton Public Library (wheaton, IL), City of Tempe Public Library (Tempe, AZ),Logan Public Library (Logan UT) and a listing by the The Missouri State Library and Nassau Library System (Nassau, NY). A search of the ODIN database for the Tri-State area of North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota found that 52 libraries in those states carried the book. I think that proves this is a keep. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 06:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The publisher and the noted awards are enough for me to dispell the nomination, but I commend Brian for some solid research. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Brian has done excellent work establishing the notability of the book. Badbilltucker 17:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per previous. - CNichols 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly the book is fairly widespread, but my reasoning was that I doubt that this article will ever expand beyond its current stub size. I still think a merge would be more appropriate—Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source. Can anyone find secondary sources on this book? The Jade Knight 21:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The links Brian provided are secondary... - Mgm|^(talk) 21:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me too it, MacGyver. :). Side note, did you know that Richard Dean Anderson has a home in Cass Lake, MN (right on the lake). Met him a few times...really great guy! --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That source (sing.) is secondary, but contains no more information on the book than is currently in the stub—my point is that the article is unlikely to grow, and would be better off merged with Sonia Levitin. The Jade Knight 01:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Brian. WP:OSTRICH nomination per JadeKnight's reply to TBC. Just because it isn't on Google doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per above. Aladdin is a very well known publisher. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments, talk to the WP:OSTRICH. RFerreira 22:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep passes the proposed WP:BK guideline easily. Pascal.Tesson 20:55, 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 A6 and A7. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Achievement Academy[edit]

Prod removed without comment. One of these companies that publish a yearbook of "notable" high school students, in order to sell high-priced copies to the parents. Spam. No indication of notability. Fan-1967 03:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Melchoir 03:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Swizzlez 04:18, 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 04:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Greene[edit]

A search of "Chuck Greene" javelin only gets a few dozen hits [30], mainly retreads of this article, his achievements are minor at best. Renosecond 04:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 8th place in one NCAA championship is not exactly the Olympics. (Why does an article about a javelin-thrower have a picture of him target-shooting with a pistol? Doesn't seem terribly relevant.) -- Fan-1967 04:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on his gold medal in the international competition in Israel. Dekar 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to point out that the Maccabiah Games are basically the "Jewish Olympics" and even the article says that they are on a lower teir than even the Commonwealth Games, which most medal winners do not have articles based on those accomplishments. And I couldn't find anything verifiable based on my search. And looking at the contributions, I have a feeling that said subject created his own article. Look at the names and oddness of the pic. Renosecond 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Maccabiah games are not notability. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (WP:NN, possible WP:VAIN). -AED

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Therapeutic Value of Creative Writing[edit]

See nomination for author Paul M. Spicer. Andrew Levine 04:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable book. Only 182 Google results [31] and no Amazon sales rank [32]--TBCTaLk?!? 04:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Aaron 05:34, 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 redirect. History still there if anyone wants to merge. Petros471 22:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennipher Frost[edit]

Part of the abandoned Afd here. NN. Fails WP:BIO. Delete. BlueValour 04:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to America's Next Top Model, which seems to be the only thing that she was notable for.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reality TV cruft, not notable outside TV show. MER-C 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft is not a reason for deletion, please be more specific about your reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to America's Next Top Model per precedent. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 3 Ohconfucius 02:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 3 per Ohconfuscius. RFerreira 22:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per MER-C. --MaNeMeBasat 08:52, 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 04:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwnage[edit]

Neologism. No relevant Google hits. eaolson 04:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; fails WP:NEO criteria.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A reference to the unfortunate events of November 13th, 2007 were the video gaming website mistakenly displayed old-footage as a live conference concerning the Nintendo Wii. This incalcuable screw-up was enough to earn it the place of "Owned"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.119.147 (talk • contribs)
• Delete The amazing thing is that someone thinks anyone would remotely care. Fan-1967 05:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete made up neologism, not even a popular one. --Daniel Olsen 05:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - For half a second, I thought this was Guwange. But, no, it's a very silly obscure neologism which was made up yesterday. It will be forgotten in about a month. My Alt Account 08:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Open and shut NFT neologism about some random website messing things up in a boring way a while ago. In all likelihood not widespread and if it is, not due to this incident. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:54, 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. Please note that 'delete and merge' is not a valid option as a merge involves preserving the page history. Petros471 22:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Crosby[edit]

Main claim of notority is being the father of Sidney Crosby, hockey experience is just playing in the junior leagues and being drafted almost last in the 1984 NHL draft, never playing in the NHL. Google search gets about 250 unique hits 1, most are just retreads of this or Sidney Crosby pages that say the memebers of family. Renosecond 04:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Sidney Crosby.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Unlike Walter Gretzky, Troy has done little other than sire a fine hockey player- while this might merit a high five, it doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. Anyway, the information present would be good enough in the Sid Crosby article. --Wafulz 13:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge into Sidney Crosby. Had Troy played in an NHL game, he could've warranted at least a stub. However, at best he deserves only a mention in his son's article. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:06, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Trinidad and Tobago-related topics[edit]

I think the list's items should be added to appropriate categories Midnightcomm 04:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a very useful list, similar to those found in Lists of country-related topics. A delete decision here would imply that all the other 80+ similar articles should be removed as well. --Vsion 04:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:LIST. Would be hard to categorize unless you make many categories with a small amount of articles to populate them with. They would probably end up at CFD. T REX_speak 05:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although it needs to be organized differently or something because it looks too huge.--T. Anthony 06:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as per above and precedent. Grutness...wha? 06:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perhaps the list needs to be split, but putting these articles in cats instead of this list would lead to a LOT of granular cats with almost no entries. -Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above Hello32020 20:52, 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. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopes and Fears Tour[edit]

Not notable music tour. More Keanecruft. Ogdred 04:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Hopes and Fears--TBCTaLk?!? 05:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect into album or band. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)~[reply]

NO THIS ONE NOT. This kind of articles have their own category. I'm getting mad for dealing with you bunch of... Why do you hate Keane bloody hell??--Fluence 15:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and don't merge, what is notable about a tour by a band?Richyard 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A non-notable tour sure to be forgotten by most people within a few months. Perhaps if this were a legendary, historical tour by a genuinely accomplished band such as The Beatles it would be worth documenting. The Mekon 16:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - one for the fansites, not here, methinks. As much as I like Keane, articles about individual tours ain't good for whatever band. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, self-explanatory. - 85.210.176.175 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, thanks Mekon, you gave me a weapon. Delete all tours made by every band, including The Beatles, and I won't fight keeping the article. Comments made by Richyard and Painbearer shoudn't be taken serious. They just like to destroy Keane.--Fluence 23:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Really, what part of Wikipedia policy do people not understand? And if you are to actually carry out your threat, Fluence, you may be blocked (by others) for violating WP:POINT. --physicq210 04:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or delete depending upon the reason. Tour articles are definitely justifiable in a number of cases, as some of Wikipedia's better existing tour articles attest. For many artists, concert performances and tours are a more powerful and/or popular manifestation of their work than their albums or singles, the latter two of which Wikipedia relentlessly documents. That said, this particular article is an ungodly mess; much more than two (inconsistently formatted) setlists are needed to justify a tour article, and the 'Worldwide popularity' section is mostly off-topic. So a case could be made to delete this article and let someone else write a new one, if they can include material warranting an article. Wasted Time R 03:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep I've added a history section. I also support my comment. And again, believe me, I cannot lose--Fluence 23:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Lose what? --physicq210 01:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be better if you wrote the history section in English. Wasted Time R 02:47, 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 no consensus to delete it. Keeping the content and noting that some people would like it to be merged, and that can be decided on the talk page rather than here. — CharlotteWebb 00:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Iron Sea Tour[edit]

Another not notable tour. Keanecruft Ogdred 05:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Under the Iron Sea--TBCTaLk?!? 05:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the album per above. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 05:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to album or band article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. —Khoikhoi 03:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Richyard 16:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Article has been expanded, now indicates notability. 220.247.223.184 17:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article will keep growing while Keane is inactive and from 2007 when they return to the tour--Fluence 23:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article obviously needs improvement, but having tour articles is not necessarily less justified than having album and singles articles. Wasted Time R 03:14, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inter milan online[edit]

Appears to fail WP:WEB. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 05:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't see why this article is notable anymore. Also, the assertion of notability is unreferenced. MER-C 09:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Storkk 08:17, 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 No consensus--Konstable 07:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car insurance ireland[edit]

Essay/unencyclopedic. Prod was removed by article starter. —Xezbeth 05:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Peta 06:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The nominator is wrong. The article's author is right. There is an article to be had on the subject of car insurance in Ireland, the effects of the MIAB recommendations, and the ramifications in neighbouring countries, albeit that this isn't a terribly good start to one and the article title is a rubbish one. Rename to Motor vehicle insurance in the Republic of Ireland and link from Transport in Ireland and Economy of the Republic of Ireland. Uncle G 09:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this an encyclopedic topic at all?--Peta 00:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the contents of what I've hyperlinked to, two of which are not simple articles on the subject but are in fact long lists of such articles on the subject, is it not readily apparent how Motor vehicle insurance in the Republic of Ireland is encyclopaedic? There's the Competition Authority's report on the subject, too ... ☺ Uncle G 02:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Imagine if there were articles on every type of insurance in every country - it's ridiculous and of little to no encyclopaedic value.--Peta 02:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a straw man argument. This discussion is about this article, not about some hypothetical set of articles, and this article clearly has a fair amount of source material on the subject. (That's how one decides which types of insurance in which countries warrant articles, by the way.) Uncle G 13:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I guess with some work it might turn into something valid - there is something there. However as it stands delete per nom. Nigel ^(Talk) 09:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uncle G - seems a valid topic to me. Dave 20:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Uncle G, but only if citations can be found. - Runch 21:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic synthesis of recent surveys. Looks to run afoul of WP:OR even though some sources are given for specific facts. Must be renamed to Car insurance in Ireland if kept. Eluchil404 21:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete essay, per nom. --Vsion 00:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with cleanup and references. This is a notable topic in Ireland. Mark with "does not cite its sources", and mark for cleanup on the [Wikipedia:Irish_Wikipedians%27_notice_board|Irish Wikipedians' Noticeboard]. Do not hastily delete this. Give people a chance. Aye-Aye 14:39, 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--Konstable 07:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casio Exilim EX-S600[edit]

Individual camera model information is unnecessary at this level of detail. Prod removed by poster. ArmadilloFromHell 06:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOT a camera user guide. Erechtheus 06:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I made that page, and you want to delete it because it's to detailed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiftysixmoha (talk • contribs)
  • First, sign your posts with ~~~~. Second, try reading WP:NOT as linked by Erechtheus; it mentions that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which this article definitely is. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 06:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the nominator is wrong. Some subjects can be covered in this level of detail. However, only if one doesn't contravene our Wikipedia:No original research policy by doing so — i.e. there must be multiple published non-trivial sources (independent of the subject and its manufacturer, per our WP:CORP criteria) that already cover the subject in this level of detail. Given that this article cites "My Casio Exilim EX-S600 Digital Camera, and myself" as its references, it clearly isn't based upon sources. Please always use sources when writing articles, and do not perform original research. Uncle G 09:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per those above. Casio's a notable manufacturer, but not everything which comes out of their factories is notable in and of itself. Also, note that the author removed the AfD template from the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC0
• I read the WP:NOT and my article is perfectly fine within thoses lines! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.103.67 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: A bit of semantics... please note that this is not "your" article, per WP:OWN. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • REPLY I get the fact that the article I wrote infact does not belong to me, because it is a contribution from me, that is what I ment by "my" article, and what does that have to do with my article being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.97.80 (talk • contribs)
      • Deliberately citing yourself as a reference is within the field of original research. Beyond that, even if the article is well-written, the topic isn't that notable. A style of architecture is noteworthy, but not every one of the thousands of examples of it are. A company may be noteworthy, but not necessarily everything it makes. A particular device may be described in general, but not every make and model of it need be explored in depth. There are explanations of what cameras are and what they do; we don't need an article about every camera. Djcartwright 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • ReplyAt this point, I would like wikipedia to keep this article, at this point will my article be deleted? if so -or- if not, pleaes notify me ASAP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.97.37 (talk • contribs)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wing000 01:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, wikipedia should have a list of all digitals cameras.--Taida 23:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Wikipedia already has an article on Digital cameras which seems to cover all the important aspects thereof. Why is any one given exemplar of the type any more notable than any other? BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; if there is any useful content (i.e., that does not read like a product review), then it should be merged into Casio Exilim and the page should be redirected there. Information on the various models of this line of camera may be useful for comparison purposes in that main article, but as it stands, a page on each individual model seems unencyclopedic, and seems to provide a magnet for addition of POV content that would turn Wikipedia into epinions.com. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BigHaz nails it. —ptk✰fgs 22:28, 21 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 BJAODN. I'm leaving the image as it is since it's PD. - Mailer Diablo 04:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mythical creature hierarchy[edit]

Deleting administrator should remember to delete the image along with the article.

I have copied this article to BJAODN for its humor value, please keep the image. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod, if you can believe that. Original prod reason was "Completely unsourced and unverifiable, severely POV ("by far the most awesome mystical being?"), verges on patent nonsense" VoiceOfReason 06:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Outright original research. --physicq210 06:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Idea created in a day on a piece of paper --ArmadilloFromHell 06:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Research doesn't get more original than this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and also no contest: Cerberus is the best mythical creature - Three heads, people! ;-) Onebravemonkey 08:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, unless we can establish a consensus to place me at the top of the hierarchy. My Alt Account 08:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I think I may have done something like that myself back in my younger days. It made me smile, which so few AfD nominated articles ever do. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, opiniated essay. Not encyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete either nonsense or original research. Noone seems to be stepping up and even claiming one could try to provide sources. Lundse 13:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you want a source for something... anything related, there is one for the hierarchy of dragons in D&D. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Our thunderbird article clearly states that the thunderbirds beat up the dragons. So there! - Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT and WP:NOR... and the handwritten web diagram pushes this into BJAODN territory. the whole article and image should be sent there... Gnomes rule!--Isotope23 16:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is anyone else bothered that "humans" appear on the hierarchy? Also, I'm a little surprised that some medieval monks didn't already do this. -- Merope ^Talk/_Review 20:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research, Things Made Up In School One Day, and possibly a Bad Joke And Other Deleted Nonsense. - 21:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I would think that somebody drank one too many brews and then wrote this, but the handwriting is too good for that. It sure is amusing though. - Runch 21:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absolutely no sources, completely original research and it looks like the image is a scanned in drawing (probably by the article creator). Not encyclopedic at all. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN, this is hilarious and horribly unencyclopedic. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ridiculous.UberCryxic 00:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR. —Khoikhoi 03:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR and just plain silly. Ergative rlt 14:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:NFT, WP:PN, WP:CB. Not even worth the attention of BJAODN. Ou tis 14:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN This is really funny. The image is going on my hard drive.--Planetary 04:37, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centrifugal Force Misconceptions[edit]

Part of a series of articles, unencyclopedic apprach to the subject which is explained better and more accurately on the Centrifugal force page. Delete --Peta 06:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Centrifugal Force. Onebravemonkey 08:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, can't see anything worth merging, especially not in the "Overcoming" section. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, i think you're right. It goes into a bit more detail than the subsection in Centrifugal Force does, but the extra information is a bit superfluous. The subsection can stand on its own, so delete. Onebravemonkey 09:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant with centrifugal force. TheronJ 18:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Better explanations at centrifugal force. (Some educators see incorrect assumptions as valuable learning tool. In the scientific method it is called hypothesis development.) --Infrangible 01:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant and worse than centrifugal force. Salsb 16:59, 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 04:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Science Misconceptions: Greenhouse Effect, Global Warming and Ozone Depletion[edit]

Unencyclopedic guide for teachers on how to explain global warming, delete --Peta 06:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sending this to Wikibooks as Petaholmes also proposed [33] looks like a reasonable solution. With or without transwiki, delete from Wikipedia, this is not an encyclopedia article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki if they want it, then delete from Wikipedia. Not an article. Topic already adequately covered elsewhere. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or transwiki, as all above. JPD (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In the context of Wikipedia, it's just another POV fork, isn't it? Guy 13:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sjakkalle.--Isotope23 16:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
• Transwiki if possible, delete in any case. All of the "misconceptions" series appears to be a class project in writing materials for science educators, which belongs on Wikibooks if anywhere. TheronJ 18:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a valid name for an encyclopedia article. KleenupKrew 02:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Batmanand | Talk 14:38, 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 04:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strip Monopoly[edit]

Previous nomination here which resulted in was "no consensus" for deletion. Four months later the article still lacks cited sources, and existence of reliable sources appears unlikely. Although "strip monopoly" scores pretty well on Google (11,800 hits), none of them appear to qualify as a reliable source for anything official. Rather, Monopoly is a popular game and some people will naturally start inventing "strip" versions of it and post their own private rules on the internet. (Compare this to strip poker which is more widespread and which had a world championship(!) arranged in London.) Note that a number of those who argued for the article's inclusion in some form last time did so provided that sources were provided. The article remains original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I must admit the idea of playing it this way had never occurred to me before. There are some comments in the previous AfD listing suggesting a merge of a sentence or two into the main article, but without anything which works as a reliable source I don't see that as the best of policies. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• My first thought was a proposal to merge this with Strip Poker to create a "Strip versions of other games" article, but Strip Poker appears to be (as mentioned) a more widespread...er... sport(?), so it's probably not appropriate to do that. Judging by the amount of text in this article (so many rules, just get naked!) i'm hesitant to propose deletion. Maybe the best course would be to Merge as a footnote to Monopoly. I notice that other versions of Monopoly have their own pages as well, but they appear to be more 'official'. I don't think the 'strip' aspect alters the original game enough to warrant it's own entry - they appear to have virtually identical rules, albeit with the inclusion of the obvious. Onebravemonkey 09:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Boardgamegeek.com is kind of authorative, isn't it? I would use their material as a source, but still, like Onebravemonkey, I don't see the need for an entire article. Using the source to get a footnote in monopoly and redirect should be enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the reasons here. (I'm still lobbying for strip Hungry Hungry Hippos though). --IslaySolomon 13:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons stated. It may be worth a footnote in Monopoly - it was in Friday the 13th, which may make it a tiny bit more notable than other strip variants. Kubigula 16:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of WP:V sourcing.--Isotope23 16:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as a footnote, per above. Redirect to the footnote. - CNichols 21:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as a footnote, per above. I say, chaps, most of the article is just a retelling of the Monopoly rules. --Gray Porpoise 21:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete instruction manual --The Photon 04:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research and potentially non-notability. —this is messedrocker (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strip chess. Strip chess is much more common than strip Monopoly in my book, and neither one deserves an article. -- NORTH ^talk 10:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wikibout-Talk to me! 02:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or at least send it to Wikibooks or some Wikia-boardgame site, or something else.) --JohnDBuell 17:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, falls under original research. Yamaguchi先生 23:01, 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 KEEP. If it turns out that this guy really is Jesus Christ, I for one do not want to have to explain to St. Peter why I deleted this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)

Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda[edit]

Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda is (or is not) a cult leader, dpeending who you believe. A search for the exact name cult and a search for the exact name -cult give approximately equal numbers of hits, but both numbers are small. A few mainstream cites, but only really for his organisation, on which we do not have an article. So I say delete this, since we have here two sentences, of which one (the one with citations, ironically) is the subject of an edit war. Guy 07:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While I would prefer an article on the organization rather than the person, the fact there's a few mainstream citations about his organization makes him the leader of a notable cult. I don't see how leaders of a notable cult can't be notable themselves. If the edit war bothers you, block offenders, get it protected or ask for mediation. There's enough ways to resolve this without deleting verifiable information. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a question of how significant the verifiable information is, really. Guy 13:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete let's see... man starts religious evangelism, proclaims himself the second coming of Jesus Christ, gets a few minor mentions on various websites, and a puff piece on the Today Show... and this meets WP:BIO how? I say weak though because I suspect there may be sufficient sourcing in Spanish Language texts to meet WP:BIO and I will reconsider if someone can produce them.--Isotope23 16:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep When someone is mentioned on a a segment of a TV show, they garner some buzz. Buzz helps establish notability. This guy is getting mentioned and it appears that he is note worthy. Also per MacGyverMagic. Yanksox 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I second Mgm. The guy IS information. I came to this article hoping to learn more about him after encountering his claims elsewhere. I'm sure there are enough people in a similar situation to warrant an article. The article does need a lot of work, though.--RichG 08:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I think this subject is very interesting and notable. Especially considering that he has been on the news, and that his followers have given him cars and lots of money. EliasAlucard|Talk 19:43, 15 Sept, 2006 (UTC+1)
• Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 22:34, 15 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Programmer's day[edit]

Programmer's Day was nominated for deletion on 2004-09-12. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmer's Day.

Imaginary/joke holiday. Ridiculously few Google hits given its subject area, and no sources cited. Dtcdthingy 08:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not make it an actual Holiday, and give credit to Wikipedia for initiating this Holiday. BTW, I am really not joking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdeyab (talk • contribs)
  • Because Wikipedia is not the place to promote new ideas. We're an encyclopedia and we only write on things that already exist. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 09:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Friends of mine do observe this 'holiday' in one way or the other, me too (yes, I am a coder). This is no new idea, it's been around for a while. Or do you think "what I can't find with google does not exist"? BTW: I know it longer than the wikipedia - only i don't know who told me about in the first place. Tim
  • Please cite sources to prove your assertion that this idea is not new. The onus is on you to demonstrate that this article is verifiable, not on other editors to defend their good faith attempts to find sources for an article that doesn't have any. Uncle G 11:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unfortunately, unless the person who told you is a reliable source then the no original research policy means that the article should be deleted. Google is not the only means of finding reliable sources, but in this case it should provide a fairly good guideline. If the holiday was celebrated by a recently discovered tribe with no written language then maybe we expect to find a lack of references on the web, but that's not the case with a coders' holiday. I assume the correct title should be "Programmers' Day" anyway, or is it for a specific but nameless programmer? Yomangani^talk 11:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Programmer's are by definition the sort of people who spend a lot of time on computers. It makes no sense for a wide-spread programmer specific holiday to lack reliable Google presence. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, no verifiable evidence has been produced that this is widespread. Fan-1967 14:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Real programmers don't take holidays. Sjc 12:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure what kind of references would be satisfying but the holiday was mentioned in PC World Komputer - a Polish edition of a PC World magazine (read by about half a million people) which sort of proves that the concept was not made up recently by a random guy who only wanted to edit Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.96.228.130 (talk • contribs)
  • Yeah, but it's not about whether the idea exists. Neither that link nor the one that's been added acknowledge it as anything more than a semi-joke proposed holiday. Semi-joke proposed holidays that barely exist don't belong in Wikipedia. --Dtcdthingy 14:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why. SAAD is a semi-joke as are most of the things related to geek culture. I agree that calling it holiday is a bit too much, but a little of reediting the article should solve the problem. -- mina86, 217.96.228.130 19:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Citing sources is what would actually solve the problem. Uncle G 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've given an URL to a Polish article which clearly states that 13/09/2006 is the Programmers' Day. I assume that company such as IDG is a reliable source. At this point I don't really know what else you expect. It's obvious Programmers' Day is not an official holiday, however, the fact that it was mentioned on a website of a respectable magazine and the fact article on Polish Wikipedia was created on 25/07/2003 proves that it's not new idea shared among small group of people and as such should be mentioned on Wikipedia. The thing that astonishes me the most is that you want to delete Programmers' Day but want to keep SAAD whereas both holidays are a semi-joke and unofficial. -- mina86, 217.96.228.130 14:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only person to actually mention SAAD at all is you. This discussion is about Programmer's day, not about some other article. Uncle G 00:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just noticed that the article was deleted 2 years ago and reading the previous discussion shows another valid points: Why do you want do delete Programmers' Day but keep Pi Day, Mole Day, Square root day, Towel Day, and mentioned previously SAAD. There's also another reference which shows that the idea of that holiday was there in 2001 ("Last year Balt addressed with similar idea"). -- mina86, 217.96.228.130 15:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please don't create straw men, or use the fallacious "If article X then article Y." argument. The article that you cite reports that 1 person is campaining to have this day made an official holiday. Where are all of the other people documenting this purported holiday? Uncle G 00:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • All I'm saying is that I don't understand what's the big difference between Programmers' Day and the other days which make the former nominated for deletion. The article I cite also reports that "Many programmers considered this day [256th day of the year] the informal professional holiday." And finally, the other people documenting this holiday are the editors of PC World. -- mina86, 217.96.228.130 13:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DON't Delete Knowing of this day made me really proud. Perhaps i would pick another day, so we could also celebrate on someone. Please keep these article so we can spread it. Thanks.— Camus SoNiCo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Non-notable, unverifiable. Looks a lot more like something made up in school than anything ever taken seriously by professional programmers. Fan-1967 14:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Moscow Times has a 2002 article, which gives the subject some credibility. Larisa Naumenko. "Programmers Want Their Own Holiday", The Moscow Times, 2002-10-23, pp. 9. -- I fail to see the value in speedy deletion of this, as the only purpose that serves is taking away people's opportunities to actually do the research and find references. It should also be noted that content veryfing the existence of the holiday has been deleted from the article, see the 17:48, 13 September 2006 edit— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.236.208.22 (talk • contribs)
  • That edit removed a link to some nobody's blog. In no way is a blog considered a source for verifying anything. Fan-1967 16:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DON't Delete Redefine this article as a reference to a proposal instead of a real holiday so this way it can be spread. The idea does exist so it must be documented as what it is, an idea.Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.92.4.151 (talk • contribs)
• Don't Delete! The idea of this article is good. There must be a reference for programmers holiday on WiKi!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.170.72.226 (talk • contribs)
  • Please show that there are references off Wikipedia. This is Wikipedia, by the way. Uncle G 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the "DON't Delete" votes which are making a good case to delete it on their own. Danny Lilithborne 18:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• SAVE The concept may not be a religious holiday, but there are outside references: "Explanation-guide.info" "encyclopedian.com and even greeting cards: "123greetings.com" - NLloyd (edu SMUMN)
  • The first two of those web pages are Wikipedia mirrors, and not "outside references" at all. And the final one contains no actual information. Uncle G 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn to the point of non-existence. Vizjim 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Try Uncyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 23:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I never knew about it. Sounds interesting. May be we can spread the word, and get a chance to relieve our stress at least once a year.
  • If you wish to proselytize, your own web site is the place. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Uncle G 13:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. However I'd love to be able get an extra day off work, and cite Wiki as the reason mlk [[User_talk:mlk|<sup style="color: orange;">&#9993;</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/mlk|<sup style="color: green;">&#9836;</sup>]] 08:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DON'T Delete. Please dont delete this. I'm very proud of that holiday and I find that only a small part of the programmers know about it. We sould preserver it and keep it spreading.
• Keep. Firstly, it hasn't got to be "a day off", it's more like April Fool's Day (that also to Sjc). MacGyver: Common sense doesn't help in any case (ref to your google evidence). BTW when I googled for "Programmer's Day" I found alot of hits that were referring to the article's topic - of course in between babble about "a programmer's day looks like..". On the other hand, deleting does not stop me from 'celebrating' that day. And the lack of 'written' documents about it that don't just cite wikipedia (or rather the tiny fractions of google hits that don't!), doesn't make it easy to come up with evidence. tim
  • This points you to the route to having an encyclopaedia article: Have this day properly documented outside of Wikipedia. Have the oral history written down, and published in a journal article or a book. Uncle G 13:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This day is actively celebrated and honoured by more people than 70% of the holidays mentioned in Wikipedia. If we can't see the reality, then we don't deserve to reflect it. -- 85.187.156.88 10:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asserting the number of people that celebrate this day, without citing sources against which that assertion can be checked, is not an argument. Uncle G 13:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Danny Lilithborne's observation above that the keep votes are the strongest argument for deletion. Michael Kinyon 11:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Made-up. Fredrik Johansson 13:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable to non-existent. Ergative rlt 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense. Gazpacho 19:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per significant PC World mention; PC World is definitely a reliable source, making this notable. Saying that something should be deleted just because new users want it kept is a silly reason to delete something, and I presume that the closing admin will disregard those opinions. Also, the nominator said that there were "ridiculously few" google hits, without giving a link. Upon further investigation, there are actually 15,000. Not quite ridiculously few. --Rory096 04:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a few days ago, there were barely any hits at all. It's gotten many mentions in the last few days only because a few popular blogs have linked to the Wikipedia article. I suppose we could rewrite the article to state the "Programmer's Day is a fictitious holiday invented in a Wikipedia article that was mentioned in many blogs in 2006", but covering such temporary internet fads doesn't make sense. Let's recreate the page if people still "celebrate" the holiday three years from now. Fredrik Johansson 12:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This 'holiday' is definitely older than from this year. I remember greeting cards for this occasion available on yahoo some 5 years ago. Yes, that's not a reliable source, and I have better things to do than looking for one. At least your 'made-up' above was too quick a shot - at least it wasn't made up on wikipedia. I already gave my opinion/vote as "tim", so... Bullhaddha 20:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the contrary, there were absolutely no mentions to Wikipedia in any of those pages. Note the "-wikipedia" in the search term. --Rory096 16:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What about days like that: the Talk_Like_a_Pirate_Day. As I understand, we only need somebody claiming having invented Programmer's Day, and it'll be valid. I already said I heard about it from somebody else, so.. who wants? Bullhaddha 20:20, 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 Redirect, the article was a lesser copy of Muse (magazine). The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muse magazine[edit]

Contested prod which does not assert the notability of the subject magazine. Reason for contesting was "If this is a real magazine I don't see why it should be deleted. A stub template may be more appropiate. I've done some minor changes." MER-C 08:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Muse (magazine). Uncle G 08:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Uncle G to Muse (magazine) which clearly establishes notability (same publisher as Cricket and Smithsonian mag) and thus sufficiently large circulation). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. PJM 12:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect seems pretty obvious that this is an article created without knowledge of the already existing one. Drak 14:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. --Alynna 21:58, 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.