< September 17 September 19 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache


















































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

The result was speedily deleted by User:NawlinWiki as A7. --ais523 08:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Silent assassins[edit]

This seems to be a non-notable online gaming group. It might have a possible connection with the graphic novel Silent Assassin Clamster5 17:08, 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 redirect. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armageddon Agenda[edit]

A one time mention isn't very useful. Appears to be useless and just fancruft. RobJ1981 00:07, 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 redirect. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Crisis of the Infinity Hour[edit]

Yet another Amalgam fancruft. Amalgam was a short lived series, and it doesn't need pages for things only mentioned a few times and never shown/never fully shown.RobJ1981 00:11, 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. Dakota 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CRM32Pro[edit]

A minor software development kit. A Google search says it has 26,000 hits, but only 52 are unique. The website's Alexa rank is somewhere near two million, and there are no independent third party publications about the kit or anything derived from it, making it unverifiable. This software doesn't meet criteria in WP:SOFTWARE and doesn't seem to meet inclusion criteria regarding notability in general. Wafulz 00:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was consensus to keep the article. There are some things AfD can't buy. For everything else, there's deletion review. - Mailer Diablo 04:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Lonsdale[edit]

AfD 2nd Listing. Recommend delete per WP:BIO. The article makes no claim of notability. The 1st AfD had very little participation and probably should have been re-listed rather than closed. The only argument in the article's talk page for keeping this article is that there are thousands of worse stubs. That's too bad, but as per long-standing "there are worse..." arguments, let's continue the cleanup efforts - and we can begin with this one. If this guy is notable, let's see it. Otherwise, let's delete this article. Rklawton 00:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - this is an entirely inappropriate nomination. If the nominator is unhappy with the recent AfD close he should use WP:DRV not this unprocedural nomination. TerriersFan 01:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that's really funny since you were the one suggesting I post it for a 2nd AfD if I felt it deserved such. [1]
Comment - A second nomination is, as I said earlier, suitable if you still wanted to delete this article. Yomanganit has kindly made it for you. However, in your nomination you criticise the closing for which WP:DRV is the correct course. TerriersFan 01:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I also criticized the article, and those are the grounds for the 2nd AfD. Rklawton 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is that the guy isn't notable, and that's not something that can be fixed. Rklawton 01:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the book is there now. TerriersFan 01:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please see the references. TerriersFan 01:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article never once claims that he is an "expert in his field." Such a claim is actually your own POV inference. Rklawton 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the fact that he is an expert can be seen from his papers and that he is notable becuse his peers have reviewed and approved his work. TerriersFan 02:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - you are the one concluding he is an expert, and that's POV. You'll need a source other than yourself that says he's an expert to prove your point. Find it, and I'll happily withdraw my nomination. Incidentally, simply publishing in a peer reviewed journal doesn't make someone notable. Most Ph.D.'s have done so - it's part of what they do and it does not make them notable in their field. Rklawton 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - The nominator has now removed the references from the article. This is ridiculous behaviour. TerriersFan 02:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if your GP has written over 100 published papers, several books, run medical studies, sat on expert committees etc then he needs an article :-) TerriersFan 03:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - First, the only reference I've seen to 100 papers is something he's published on his own website. Second, the "favorably reviewed" "paper" wasn't published in a peer review journal. So where is this so-called "review"? Third, my insurance doesn't cover "alternative medicine". Lastly, and most significantly, where, aside from your own high praise, has anyone (other than the subject himself) published anything stating he's an "expert" or otherwise notable? Rklawton 03:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - thank you, I have fixed that point. Do you have a reference for his SIDS work, please? TerriersFan 16:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it looks like the particular papers I saw cited were sudden deaths in general, not just SIDS:
Lonsdale D. Thiamine deficiency and sudden deaths. Lancet. 1990 Aug 11;336(8711):376.
Lonsdale D. Erythrocyte transketolase activity and sudden infant death. Am J Clin Nutr. 1981 Oct;34(10):2326-7.
Lonsdale D, Shamberger RJ. Red cell transketolase as an indicator of nutritional deficiency. Am J Clin Nutr. 1980 Feb;33(2):205-11.
Cited eg Thiamine deficiency and its prevention and control in major emergencies, World Health Organization, 1999
  • Thank you again, I have added these references. The article now needs analysis and commentary to link and explain the references with some reasonably flowing text, to move it from being a stub. I shall do this if it survives the AfD. TerriersFan 18:26, 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. DS 18:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Frank's first son[edit]

Son of a minor character, not even directly mentioned in the series. Simply a guess at who the next King of Narnia was after Frank I. Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:06, 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. Nufy8 03:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Sweets[edit]

non-notable web "model". speedy tag removed by original author. Onorem 00:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Comparing the internet results for a current skin model with a pope that died 150 years ago really doesn't prove all that much. Argue the ~600k hits if you'd like, but don't bring Pius IX into it. --Onorem 02:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to say, that's a real Truthbringer gem (tm) *applause* Bwithh 02:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment who, what, me? you must have dreamt that. Please don't tell the cops. Pascal.Tesson 20:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
which might explain the low Ghits. :-) Pascal.Tesson 02:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"3. Performer has made unique, noteworthy contributions to his or her field.
Is the performer noted for beginning a trend in pornography?"
Kari pioneered the trend of girls who came from social networking sites (she was huge on Xanga.com as a 15-17yr old) to creating her own successful paysite, without ever showing a glimpse of areola or vagina.
There has been no other internet paysite approaching her level of success without showing 1 or both of the previously mentioned body parts.
7. "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche."
Kari is the most popular NonNude model online. She was also chosen the #1 favorite internet model out of hundreds of eligible girls (more popular then even the biggest porn girls), as voted for an entire year's
balloting at NNVote 05:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtdwiki (talk • contribs) 22:30, September 17, 2006
— Possible single purpose account: Mtdwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
If these claims were made in the article, then maybe we'd have something. As it stands, the article makes NO claim of notability, and should be Speedied --Roninbk 07:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"without ever showing a glimpse of areola or vagina." um. yikes. Bwithh 02:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just out of curiosity, that NN in NNVote doesn't stand for "not notable", does it? But I kid of course. I hate to break it to her fans but posing in suggestive poses, panties or no panties isn't exactly a new trend in pornography. Pascal.Tesson 03:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Possible single purpose account: Blackjiggs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Comment well you can't accuse of not doing my research: there are indeed some interviews on YouTube. I suggest this one as particularly informative [4]. Quick, someone update the article, we now know that her favorite food besides garbage is mexican or italian and she always wanted a convertible with a license plate that says "DA BOMB"! Let's get serious here, we are writing an encyclopedia... Pascal.Tesson 03:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you've just proved how much of a dinosaur you are by calling it VfD. That acronym is sooooo 2005. :-) Pascal.Tesson 21:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep :-) A purple wikiuser 22:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. It seems like there probably will be no or little opposition to this, so I'm ending this AfD early after a consensus of keep was reached. --Nishkid64 20:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of colleges and universities in the Philippines[edit]

Listcruft and just a gallery of images. No article -Nv8200p talk 01:53, 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 Speedy delete per Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7 "non-notable biography" - Tangotango 12:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Alan Goldberg[edit]

This (auto)biographical article does not conform to WP:BIO. This is just some freelance journalist who has written a page about himself in an apparent attempt to increase his exposure (he's also going around plugging himself by inserting mentions, quotations and links to his articles throughout wikipedia - see the linkspam in the user's contrib history) The article does not mention any widely recognized contributions in the person's field, and though he may have had some work published, it still doesn't fall into the WP:BIO requirement of having had "multiple independent reviews or awards." Bri 02:05, 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 speedy delete as nonsense by Jeffrey O. Gustafson. --Aaron 02:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Windows[edit]

The article links to a seemingly nonexistent product, Safari for Windows, and makes wild claims about the product, i.e. its speed and security. The links provided do not work, and the whole thing looks to be nonsense. perardi 02:08, 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.DS 18:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Party tray[edit]

All this has is (probably copyrighted) definitions for the words party and tray. They want to transwiki this to Wiktionary:party, which has those meanings already. Useless page to exist. --Dangherous 02:18, 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 kept. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underhanded C Contest[edit]

Non-notable; contest appears to be defunct anyway. —Psychonaut 02:28, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitot[edit]

Supposedly a slang term meaning sluttily-dressed underage girl. But Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Well, maybe up to a certain extent it is...but this to me is not a notable slang term. I'm sure there's a redirect somewhere. This article is just over one year old. --Dangherous 02:31, 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 all. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alike Boggan[edit]

Nominating this and 6 other articles as not notable:

All are models on Deal or No Deal but with no significant role in either acting/modelling/hosting etc outside this show. Fine line as to which should be nominated... other DOND models can be found in this template: Template: DOND USA Models. I have chosen the most obvious articles to nominate (thinking back to the ANTM train wreck) and others may follow.

Notes on the other models and why they were not nominated.

I am fairly inexperienced at nominating things here and may not be interpreting the notability guidelines completely correctly but I thought it was worth a shot! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When you say "all" - are you talking about the 6 I nominated or the whole list? Because surely some in the second group are notable? (Claudia Jordan & Kasie Head, for example, are undeniably notable per their participation in significant national pageants and being state titleholders). -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:44, 22 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 purged, and then redirected as per Smerdis. DS 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Null (Character)[edit]

Original research, no citations, a single link which is to the 'creators' geocities page, "Created by two computer science university students"... need I say more? StealthFox 02:37, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gods' Pack[edit]

A webcomic, found here, written by what appears to be the webcomic artist User:Wolfsilvermoon. Pretty much everything on the free web host comic genesis is non-notable, even their top ranked comics are unencyclopedic. This one however, is ranked at 775. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Try Comixpedia or the CGWiki. - Hahnchen 02:42, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Eden - Comic[edit]

Another webcomic found on the free web host comicgenesis, this one can be seen here. It's ranked at around 30 on Comic Genesis, so some of you might be fooled into thinking it's somehow notable. It's not. This puts it behind Yosh! and slightly in front of Gorgeous Princess Creamy Beamy. This is no way as popular as sites such as Encyclopedia Dramatica or Pokemon-Safari.com. Indeed, the lackadaisical standards to which we hold webcomics to are laughed at in unrelated discussions. Fails WP:WEB, WP:V. - Hahnchen 02:42, 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 redirected. MER-C 08:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temptation: Quizmaster[edit]

Delete I have merged the content with Temptation (game show) as the article was short and did not warrant it's own page. AFD Template 1 has been added for the page. The page can now be deleted because it's no longer in use. Lakeyboy 02:44, 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 speedily deleted under CSD A7 by MacGyverMagic. MER-C 10:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Heermann[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and no assertion of notability. The web site shown only contains Flickr, Blogspot, and DeviantArt links. Google is no help. Crystallina 03:09, 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 Speedy Delete. Yanksox 01:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charby the Vampirate[edit]

Charby the Vampirate was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charby The Vampirate. This is a multiple nomination as it also includes the webcomic character Zeno (Demon). Reasons for the nomination are similar to the original, that this webcomic, seen here is not notable. The entire Drunk Duck community and audience isn't that great, with the free web host getting an Alexa rank of 75,000. This is just one of the many comics on it, and googling it gives you no reliable sources upon which to write an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:WEB, fails WP:V. - Hahnchen 03:10, 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 people who deleted this are fucking idiots.

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megaman The Megamissions[edit]

This megaman fan fiction sprite comic, found on the free web host Drunk Duck, can be seen here. There is no assertion of notabilty, and there are 10 Google links for "Megaman The Megamissions". - Hahnchen 03:15, 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 DE! *clap clap* LETE! *clap clap* DS 18:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featuring hand claps[edit]

List of songs featuring hand claps is overly long, unverified, and possibly endless. Many songs have the musicians clap their hands and I'm not sure a song become known for that. That said if it could be limited to songs where hand clapping is central to the song I might be persuaded to change my mind.--T. Anthony 03:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting, maybe I'm wrong about it. It just seems long, unverified, and possibly endless. I'm amenable to withdrawing this on suitable justification though.--T. Anthony 03:42, 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 all. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Attack Grill, King Simrin, Secret menu[edit]

Set of ads for a Phoenix restaurant. Author (based on name, the owner) has also added links into numerous articles like Fast food advertising ([6]), Hamburger ([7]), and Theme restaurant ([8]). I don't see any indication this restaurant meets WP:CORP, and the series of articles (especially creating an article on their fastest burger eater) strikes me as WP:SPAM. -- Fan-1967 03:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart Attack Grill was the subject of:

If any further supportive information is needed, please ask.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbasso (talk • contribs)

Note: Above editor has also felt the need to repeatedly vandalize the nomination. Fan-1967 05:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At this point in time, I don't see a single verifiable reference of any kind. In addition, for WP:CORP you need non-trivial works that cover the business; in the restaurant business, given that local papers typically cover virtually all local eateries, we normally require national non-advertizing review articles to prove notability and justify WP inclusion. I just don't see that here yet. Crum375 00:19, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Slate Roof House[edit]

NN house that hasn't existed for 150 years. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:27, 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 - I looked at the points made for retention and looked at the article. Nothing asserts any significance to the power station - it simply has - the output statistics the plant, and also some peripheral info about the meterological circumstances of the area, and some eniginerring stats about the actual structure. I actually know of a few high schools in my city which have a token 2-3 wind turbines and I can't see how 56 is a "signficant investment" unless Iowa is in the stone age, which I believe it is not. Also Truthbringer's point about the news info has been countered (to be honest, if one line is enough, then high school kids who win math/science competitions would also be notable (they aren't)). As for the hydrodams, they usually require a lot of deforestration and also are usually 1km wide (or something massive), whereas these are a few sticks in the ground. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cerro Gordo Wind Farm[edit]

NN.... uh.... wind farm. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist attraction?? Aren't they usually considered eyesores which damage the local scenic countryside & wildlife? It's not really on the scale of a major investment either, unless Iowa is in really bad economic shape. Bwithh 01:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on this particular article, but, to be fair, wind farms sometimes do attract tourism in their areas. I doubt this one does, but it would be unfair to lump all wind farms into the eyesore category. GassyGuy 08:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.clearlakeiowa.com/vi/attractions.htm Kappa 08:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heartware[edit]

Vanity entry of non-notable film. No distributor, no IMDb entry, all redlinks. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:07, 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 kept without prejudice against a consensus merge/redirect. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Wal-Mart[edit]

The very nature of this article violates WP:NPOV. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that "merge and delete" is not a possible option, since the history of the original page must be preserved for GFDL reasons when merging into another page. --bainer (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find that the sheer amount of coverage of the topic is also a form of POV bias. The main points need to be presented in Wal-Mart, and the rest needs to find another home. We aren't the BBB or Consumer Reports and we shouldn't try to be. The fact that this has become nearly as large if not larger than the main article is a problem. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. maybe the GWB article is next... I think just in the length we are showing bias though. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of criticism of Wal-Mart. It's not bias to include it. But if you're objecting on the grounds that Criticism of X articles themselves are unacceptable, well, I think that would best be taken at the policy level, not on the individual article. FrozenPurpleCube 06:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like their practices either, but this article is one-sided. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it cannot be merged because of article length, why does that merit deletion? It makes no sense, to me. Abe Froman 05:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article length should not be a concern here since the article length issue is only a guideline (not a set-in-stone policy). The Wal-Mart article is only 42Kb, some articles on WP are 200-250Kb.
  • Note that "merge and delete" is an impossible option, since the history of the original page must be preserved for GFDL reasons when merging into another page. --bainer (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just noticed that there are several criticism articles which are children of this article (such as this and this). Logically it would make more sense to merge the main criticism article back into Wal-Mart, so that there is only one level of children, rather than two. --bainer (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is some backwards logic here in regards to moving to the criticisms to the union pages. You want to keep information as centralized and relevant to the topic as possible. When the New York Times Book Review makes a comment about a book, should we include the comment in the Literary criticism section of the book's article or on the New York Times page? When President Bush criticised Trent Lott for his Strom Thurmond comments should those criticisms go on the GWB page or on Lott's? The normal "ideal situation" would be for this information to be in the main Walmart article, however the breadth of criticisms would makes that cumbersome and unfairly tilt the POV in the main article. Hence, the reason for this article's existence and a strong reason to keep it. 205.157.110.11 10:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the New York Times Book Review and Wake Up Wal-Mart is that the purpose of the latter is to exclusively criticise Wal-Mart; hence such criticism is more directly related to the campaign. The problem with this nomination is what is not realized here: Not only is Wal-Mart's criticism considered a notable subject by a lot of people, but so is the very existence of this article on the English Wikipedia. Despite we still can't decide how the hell to resolve the disputes in this article, it is amazing to see this much energy into keeping an article with so many problems around. Obviously, you work for Office Depot but I don't know if it's unionized or affiliated in any way with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. It makes me wonder where this energy is coming from, for it is either the Pro-Wal-Mart side or the union-funded Anti-Wal-Mart side. Or maybe just Wal-Mart bashers in general. Regards, Tuxide 23:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, actually I don't work for Office Depot. I just gladly leech off of their wireless network. :P (Seriously, it's 2:30 in the morning here. Do you think they're open?) As for the example, the purpose of the New york times book review is to criticized books (positive or negative). I agree that the article needs some clean up but AfD never has and never will be a substitute for clean up. Personally, I like Wal-mart. I am actually a small business owner and from a cost perspective, they are valuable. However, I recognize that criticism about this company is notable and commented on by a variety of reliable sources--not just those union organizations. As I noted before the deletion of a notable and encyclopedic topic just because you disagree with it, is more POV then this article will ever be. 205.157.110.11 07:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, not sure why I forgot to sign that, but it is mine. Shortfuse 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that "merge and delete" is not a possible option, since the history of the original page must be preserved for GFDL reasons when merging into another page. --bainer (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crumbsucker 12:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiace 19:58, 22 September 2006 (CST)

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto: Shinobi Retsuden[edit]

WP:NOT a crystal ball. There are 81 unique Google hits, most of which are from forums/blogs.[9] None of the results nor the link on the talk page establishes notability of this game. Even the creator's text indicates little is known about the game. Perhaps an article will be appropriate when information is known. Erechtheus 04:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[10] A scan showing screenshots of the game and information. Speedy keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does that constitute any sort of verifiable source? Erechtheus 05:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the fact that it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt other than simply distrusting that the scan is legitimate that the game exists and is in development and that there is plenty of information available? Such as the fact that it utilizes the touch screen, and that it's a full 3D fighter, and the several characters available? I'm not even taking into account information that cannot be assertained from the screenshots. Can you give me a reason why we should not trust this scan? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What magazine is it from? --Kunzite 06:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trusting random scans is not the business of this encyclopedia. That's the whole point of the policy I linked in my response to you. Erechtheus 06:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is this random? How is this any less reliable than all of the other scans constantly used to verify information? The way you're going on, you make it sound like the point of Wikipedia is to assume that all sources are either lies or merely incorrect. So, do me a favor and explain to me why all of the sources on Wikipedia, which could be lying or incorrect, get put on Wikipedia without a second thought, but a scan with absolutely no reason to assume is fake cannot be used as a source? Just because you do not like my evidence does not make it bad evidence. Instead of presenting the possibility that it, like literally every other source for every single piece of information in the universe, could be fake, why don't you prove it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This file is hosted on some random free image host. Before behaving in a hostile manner in AfDs, please review the relevent policy that has been pointed out to you. If you have additional questions on that topic, feel free to take it to my user talk. We need to focus on this deletion discussion in this forum.Erechtheus 08:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOT does not apply to announced events. Add the "upcoming" tag, not delete. Furthermore, it seems to me that the first 3D fighter on a particular game system is a claim of notability. --Gau 05:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to indicate that this has been announced. Can you provide references? Erechtheus 05:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNeed more info I can't find it on the gmae maker's website, but it may be too new. The title from the magazine (忍列伝) doesn't search well-- perhaps, I've used the wrong kanji. It's a likely keep, though. But some info and a "future event" tag would be nice. Got the info, added the tag. It's notable enough to keep an announcement article.... However, I think the CVG article structure needs to be re-examined. Creating seperate articles for what are essentially the same games as they are adapted to different gaming systems is a bit much. --Kunzite 06:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source? Are you saying that screenshots plus details about the game is insufficient evidence to show that the game exists? This is not a matter of Wikinews on Wikipedia, this is a matter of a notable game on a notable system getting an article because it was announced to exist. The argument that it could be a fake scan is a laughable one. One would have to go to insane measures to get it as detailed as it is. Not only that, but saying a magazine scan could be fake (not on the basis that it looks fake, but on the basis that there have been fakes) creates precedent for not only all magazine scans to be labelled as possible fakes and not suitable for Wikipedia, but also news. Just because you hold a certain site to a higher standard than magazine scans doesn't mean it necessarily is a decent source. Remember when Yahoo! said Andy Kaufman was alive? Either a lie or misinformation on their part. There is no indication that this scan is fake. The place that I found the scan on, NeoGAF, is a constant supplier of magazine scans from Dengeki, CoroCoro Comics, Famitsu and others. Not only that, but it is from 2ch. Guess what they announced?
  • It's a Wonderful World for the Nintendo DS
  • Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings for the Nintendo DS
  • Final Fantasy III for the Nintendo DS
  • Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII of the PlayStation Portable
  • Kingdom Hearts II: Final Mix for the PlayStation 2
  • Seiken Densetsu Heroes of Mana for the Nintendo DS

And that's not even the entire list. What you're doing is assuming bad faith in the sources that I am providing. 2ch is the source of much news from Japan, especially from the Famitsu magazine. Do you have a reasoning for why 2ch is not trustworthy? Or why this magazine scan, with incredible detail, screenshots from the game and information from the game, is not a good source? Do you see any single sign that the magazine has been altered in any way imagineable? If not, do not denounce it, treat it as if it wasn't fake, like you do with any decent source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Wikipedia:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I'm saying POLICY says that you have FAILED TO PROVIDE THE ADEQUATE SOURCES. This is NOT optional, this is NOT something you get to get pissed off at ME for, this is something that YOU have to do if you wish this article to exist. This is not something that I pulled out of my ass, this is something that everyone has to follow. It doesn't matter if you gave me a copy of the damn game in my own hands, because it's "verifiability, not truth".
The burden is on you to cite sources on that article if you wish it to be kept. You can cry and scream "not fair" as much as you want, but if you used that effort to cite some sources, then I would retract my delete. -- Ned Scott 09:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have reasoning for why 2ch is not reliable? Other than the fact that it's a message board founded on the principle of complete anonymity, where posters' identities are completely unverifiable by design and where absolutely anyone can post absolutely any random claim they like? It's the epitome of unreliability. There is probably not a single site on the web where posts are less trustworthy. — Haeleth Talk 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not verifiable? Shall I point out how a whopping none of the people voting delete have even given an ioda of reason to assume that the scan is fake or incorrect? There is no reason to assume that it's fake other than the fact that we do not know what scan it is from.

However, I have done research and can confirm that this is Weekly Jump. It uses a similar style to other Jump magazines, and Weekly Jump is usually the magazine to first confirm a new Naruto game (similar to CoroCoro Comics and Pokémon Diamond and Pearl). This is hardly a bad source. If we do not assume that this magazine scan is a fake, it provides plenty of information. It is not some mysterious game that's nothing more than a name, system and genre; we have screenshots, details on what the touch screen will look like, some of the characters that are available, the visuals (full 3D fighter), the release date (TBA 2006) and other information that can't be assertained from the screenshots. And then we've got the fact that it's published by Takara Tomy. If we got somebody who can read Japanese, we'd have even more information. And if you claim that a scan cannot be a source - if it were uploaded to Wikipedia, it would not need a source to show it exists; because the user could look at the scan and know it exists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so sure that all that of that is true, and it's already confirmed, then finding other sources shouldn't be a problem. It's not like Naruto is obscure or anything. Recury 19:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The game was only just announced and only by this magazine. The only sources I could get are news articles about the scan. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop. Just stop. Read WP:V and WP:RS. After reading those, if you still think you have reliable sources then read WP:CITE for how to add the sources to the article. Yes, that's right, you need to add the sources to the article itself and not just yell about it here. -- Ned Scott 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and? So if I placed that source on the article, you would suddenly vote to keep? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Dboocock 14:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Keep http://www.play-asia.com/paOS-17-71-2-74-17a-49-en.html[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of maps in Company of Heroes[edit]

Gamecruft at best, provides no useful information to the reader and appears to simply duplicate material from the game manual. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a collection of such information. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 05:01, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Night Bites[edit]

Article contains no real content, and a Google search reveals not much information -- links only to YouTube, Wikipedia mirrors, and blogs. Non-notable and unverifiable. - CheNuevara 05:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Do It All Vegas[edit]

Site doesn't come close to WP:WEB, user's edits have all been used to promote the site/company, article is spammy bit of trivia in any case. 2005 05:43, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape Quests[edit]

This is a game guide, per WP:NOT Also is WP:OR. I vote Delete Hemhem20X6 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just didn't know if it qualified for speedy. I thought that if I listed it for Proposed deletion, that the creator would object.
As a non-admin, I couldn't tell the difference between this version and the one deleted earlier. If it is indeed different, delete: Wikipedia is not a game guide. --Huon 21:53, 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. DS 18:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Carling[edit]

This stub about Hon. Sir Thomas Carling, which has had numerous edits since its creation in June 2005, actually states the key biographical facts of prominent Canadian government figure Sir John Carling who already has a full biographical entry in Wikipedia. In that article, there is a link to John's father, "Thomas Carling", which takes us to this duplicative entry about John Carling's life. The real "Thomas Carling" is not considered notable enough to have any biographical entries in any reference sources. Romanspinner 06:49, 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 nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 15:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Series Wrestling[edit]

International Assault article has been deleted, therefore this article serves no purpose Normy132 03:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Olsen 06:48, 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.

Nikki Saco[edit]

The result of this discussion was speedy delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legalsoup[edit]

Recommending delete. Article appears to be about a non-notable organisation in the Channel Islands which offers legal advice or quasi legal advice for a fee. Author of an article (who may be a newbie) seems to have an unlikeable propensity for removing comments from talk pages that he doesn't like. Legis 07:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK people - lets be a little dynamic - Mircosoft's website is an advert but the entry is useful for other reasons. Similarly this word is actaully being consider for inclusion in the Oxford concise for 2006 entry. There is some interesting academic debate about the origins, I wrote it up in a very simple way which may be suggestive of advertising but I was following exsisting Wiki protocols. Perhaps some of you may be able to encapsulate or re-write it better than me to address the debate over the term its history and correct usage. --Alexwebpro 12:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No certainly not Nigel and I was not immediately aware that I had done that when I first edited, so point taken. But what is interesting Nigel is how so many new terms are coming into exsistance and how slow the print editions are to capture them. I recently came across the word 'Bigsmall'which is currently the subject of a car advert but also very similar to the Notorious B.I.G's name Biggie Smalls. Now of course if you look up the definition of that word you will no doubt come across Toyota. I think this raises funadamental questions about where one draws the line. To all of you above try typing 'bigsmall' into google and I am confident that you will come across alot that is connected with Toyota. This could be seen as a form of viral marketing. And yet the word still has meaning independent of the now infamous advertising campaign. My arguement is that 'Legalsoup' falls into this same catagory.--Alexwebpro 13:47, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Hamilton[edit]

A biography for a nn writer. More of a promo piece for Child of Chaos, which, assertion aside, appears to be the author's only book. Dragonfly Media Publishing, described as the publisher of Hamilton's "books" is actually a provider of editing and layout services for self-published authors. The novel is available through vanity press lulu.com. Victoriagirl 07:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An AfD nomination has now been created for Child of Chaos. Victoriagirl 18:53, 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. DS 19:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite nesting[edit]

Complete bollocks. Fails to meet just about every criterion for an article. Someone's personal musings. Not much else to be said, really. Perhaps the fact that the author of the article has "licensed" his "theory" under the GPL (and says so in the article) should prove beyond doubt that this is original pseudophysics/pseudophilosophy "research". Byrgenwulf 07:47, 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 04:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mingebag[edit]

I'm all for putting stuff on Wikipedia that die-hard Wikipedians consider unencyclopedic, but do we really need one for "The name people use in Garry's Mod when they haven't changed their name"? I mean, for crissake, it's the old-fashioned "Player" problem. There ain't no need for it on Wikipedia. (BTW, if I'm really screwing this up, I'm sorry. This sort of thing is a but daunting...) Scumbag 08:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DGG - 25 September 2006 Do not delete, it's usefull information, it teaches you something, and you're just a jackass anyways if you want to bother to delete something like this, like "OMG It's a small article that you will only find if you search for it, it must be the deleted or the wikipedia is teh brokenzor and ccannot be teh healed again!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dream sharing[edit]

This "unstudied" and "hypothetical" phenomenon fails the policies on verifiability, original research, and reliable sources, and is utter tripe to boot. Byrgenwulf 08:58, 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 per WP:SNOW. --- Glen 09:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Grun[edit]

Prod contested by article creator. Football umpire. Herostratus 08:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After the re-write, an additional notability factor was introduced for Stefan Grun (the role change following his collision/injury). That extra bit of info works for me, however I'm not swayed on Damien Sully. 205.157.110.11 09:33, 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 clearly no reason to delete, WP:SNOW. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Sully[edit]

Prod contested by article creator. Football umpire. Herostratus 08:56, 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 04:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfchild (band)[edit]

Author contested speedy but has been significantly improved since then. Still don't think it meets WP:MUSIC. MER-C 09:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what should be done to the article, then? The appearance is good now, but I take it that the band is not good enough :) ? Well it's quite true that the band is not Metallica-big-and-famous, but it's done a quite notable career to their first album and recording deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimtuomi (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambat[edit]

This article does not meet the notabiltity criteria. Clt13 09:08, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobigo... Mobile Information Services[edit]

Advert. Non notable fails WP:CORP.Bad article title. Dweller 09:15, 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 flagged as copyvio. MER-C 11:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Thief Pouter[edit]

Notability per WP:N of this pigeon breeders club (if that's what the subject actually is? or is it the breed?). Content from [13], apparently posted by the author of that page. Prod removed, but no attempt to improve, wikify or cleanup since page was created. Clappingsimon talk 10:08, 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, due to lack of sourcing and evidence of use. Petros471 16:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile widgets[edit]

Article lacks notability and to a lesser extent, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Senordingdong 10:23, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2009-10 in English football[edit]

Previous Afd was closed as "no consensus", however this was also an Afd on 2008-09 in English football. Although I feel that article could also be deleted, this one certainly should be since it clearly falls under WP:NOT and contains no useful information, nor can it for a considerable amount of time. QmunkE 10:20, 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 merge and redirect to human echolocation --- Deville (Talk) 15:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Underwood[edit]

Originally prodded by Rey Brujo with the following text:

Unluckily, being the first one to get a Wii is not enough to become notable for Wikipedia. Thousands are featured in several TV shows, but that doesn't mean it is necessary to have his article. The notability guidelines give two guides that may be applied: Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events (appearing on a TV program or getting a Wii before launch date aren't a newsworthy event) and The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.) (which is what is happening with him).

I'm personally not quite sure about whether or not this qualifies as a single day's news event, nor am I convinced that TV appearances such as the Ellen Degeneres show are non newsworthy. Thus I am posting this debate for the full AfD review Roninbk 10:29, 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 04:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yarrr[edit]

A project which existed for six months and failed to produce anything. Is this actually of any importance? I can't see any. Guy 10:33, 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 04:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totalformat[edit]

Article about a website that does not assert notability. MER-C 11:00, 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 flagged as copyvio. MER-C 11:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Conover[edit]

Contested "prod", although the original author User:Peterconover did not remove the "prod". Reason for prod: Vanity page, possible copyright violation. Aleph-4 11:11, 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 04:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Sentinels[edit]

A contested PROD, this comic appears to be published nowhere. A question about where it might be found has languished, unanswered, on the talk page for a week. Joyous! | Talk 11:14, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galvanick lucipher[edit]

The topic is a throw-away jokey neologism from a novel for a mad-scientist torch. While funny, the quote may be copyvio. In addition, there is the usual nn blogcruft. Leibniz 11:31, 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 Speedy delete per Criteria for Speedy Deletion G1 ("patent nonsense") - Tangotango 12:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oevachinikosophobia[edit]

Please! This is pointless, to say the very least! This is just taking up space on a great website for nothing. Dtxn 00:56, 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 Speedy delete both, original research, author created four articles based solely on his own nonnotable MA thesis. NawlinWiki 14:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rightsproletariat[edit]

Appears to be original research -- the article creator's own theory about class organization. This theory does not seem to be recognized or supported by other sources. FreplySpang 11:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating Religiousproletariat, a coordinating article created by the same author, based on the same theory. FreplySpang 11:39, 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. DS 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Strip Clubs[edit]

This article is extremely poorly written, contains information taken from other articles, and is about nothing other than a website that lists strip clubs. Clearly, this was written to promote a website and not for any informational purpose. The user User:Alan harada spammed multiple articles with external links on the same day this article was created. I hereby nominate it for deletion as it contains little information and is clearly designed to promote a website. Monkeybreath 23:36, 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 Speedy delete per Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7 (unremarkable group) - Tangotango 12:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wofl roflers[edit]

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

The result was keep. DS 18:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes Plutonium[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable. Various other attempts to delete by speedy (and otherwise), but none asking the general Wikipedia community for their opinions. Mike Peel 12:38, 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 04:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Lee (occultist)[edit]

Obscure occultist. Notability not asserted. Leibniz 12:42, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Long[edit]

Non-notable collectible card player. Does not meed criteria at WP:BIO. Violates WP:BLP due to not being sourced. Delete -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I see at least two criteria for which this person applies. See number 1 (widely recognized) and number 5(professional league or equivalent). There is a pro-tour level play league, and even a Hall of Fame. FrozenPurpleCube 13:48, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic: The Gathering people[edit]

This article is merely a collection of information and thus violates WP:NOT. It also lacks sources to justify it's notability outside the realm of Magic:The Gathering. Delete -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I was the one who originally off-loaded the Pro Tour part of the list into this article from the main Magic: The Gathering article, they are nowhere near interesting and important enough to go in the main article, which is already a bit over-long. If this article is deleted, there is no place to merge to (not that that's a bad thing). SnowFire 21:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, as clearly there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people playing in sanctioned tournaments, which is only a small percentage of the Magic-playing population, of which it is a given there are people who are important enough to be notable and therefore need articles. Organizing this information is also important. FrozenPurpleCube 16:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the Netreps section can probably be deleted, but if you agree about the rest of the content being keepable, then I ask you consider whether enlarging that article any further is desirable. FrozenPurpleCube 20:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I didn't say the rest was necessarily Keepable, though I think a list of Tournament Players could be kept, but that should be a category or List of Magic: The Gathering Tournament Players with the caveat that they must all meet WP:BIO to be listed there. The rest of the people in the current article don't meet WP:BIO as far as I can tell, so I don't see the purpose of a catch-all article with various lists of people with differing connections to M:TG, any of whom don't meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 00:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is Category:Magic: The Gathering players already, but I think that's too specific, since there are people such as creators, writers and artists who might warrant mention as magic related, but not for playing, especially not in tournaments, yet it might be good to have a category for people involved with the game. FrozenPurpleCube 00:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, creators, writers, and artists should be mentioned in the main M:TG article (if they don't meet WP:BIO, or in a category if they meet WP:BIO (as is done with Category:Dungeons & Dragons authors)... at the very least they should be at a List of Magic: The Gathering Creative Staff.--Isotope23 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the biggest problem though is that this is a muddled amalgam of people with varying relations to the game. The criteria for inclusion is vague or non-existant. Even the parts that may merit inclusion should be broken out into separate lists and categories where the criteria for inclusion is solidly defined.--Isotope23 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, you can cite any guidelines you choose Wily... I simply disagree with keeping this. Anything salvagable should be moved to a more logical place (per my comments above) and this namespace should be deleted. Besides, I don't see how WP:SUMMARY even applies here...--Isotope23 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The reasoning used here by SleazyOtto does not conform to anything outlined in any policies that WP has on article {in,ex}clusion. Also (only slightly related) see semi-precedent of Angela Beesley's multiple AfD's, where no consensus was reached and it was (it seems) generally felt that User:Angela's wishes to be removed do not trump WP:BIO. Storkk 15:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispiracy[edit]

Non notable per WP:WEB. 21 articles since 1st Jan says a lot. Dweller 13:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

why this article is of benefit to readers of an encyclopedia.[edit]

Purpose of article[edit]

The article is intended as a short article which will provide the reader with an understanding of the wikispiracy project.

What it is not[edit]
If it went live only a few days ago how is even it notable? Unless 10,000 users appeared from the heavens making it an amazing event that wikipedia must report about? come back in twelve months --Charlesknight 22:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personal note[edit]

I was somewhat amazed at the overzealous rapidity of this marking for deletion. I think the actual article was up for literally seconds before it was earmarked for annihilation. At least this provides evidence that the Wikipedia is an active thriving community.

I also respect the Wikipedia for being an open project. It is a project built upon open source software and open thinking. No corporation nor any government could have created such a successful project as the wikipedia which largely survives on the free energy and enthusiasm of unpaid yet very loyal people. Irrespective of what the wikipedian community has decided of and about itself, there is indeed an uplifting and empowering feeling that comes from such success. zorg 16:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note[edit]

This project went live 15 September 2006. It runs entirely on open source software including mediawiki-1.6.8 using PHP 4 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zorgrian (talk • contribs) 11:01, 18 September 2006.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Anderson (pastor)[edit]

He does not meet WP:BIO. "Planting churches" might be a notable and important activity to the people who attend those churches, but for the rest of the world it's just not a significant achievement. -IceCreamAntisocial 13:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:56, 26 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 04:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isweden[edit]

Contested prod about a non-notable website. MER-C 13:17, 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 speedy keep, WP:POINT. Kusma (討論) 14:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Budde[edit]

Non-notable collectible card player. Does not meed criteria at WP:BIO. Violates WP:BLP due to not being sourced. Not notable outside the realm of Magic:The Gathering. Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Malber (talk • contribs) .

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

The result was speedy keep, nom withdrawn. Mangojuicetalk 16:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mong[edit]

An unneeded disambiguation page, and one previously deleted: Mong (AfD). All three uses given are basically slurs; encyclopedic uses of those terms will be extremely rare. (See Spong for one of two examples that uses "mong"). The existence of this page, when it isn't useful as a disambiguation page, amounts to a dicdef. Mangojuicetalk 13:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this, I looked the word up in the OED. The OED points to an obselete verb usage meaning to trade, a contraction of 'among' and two noun usages, namely as a contraction of 'mongrel' and pejoratively in this sense, and as a pejorative British term to mean a stupid or mentally incapable person, but the OED does not give an etymology from 'Mongoloid', or any etymology for this usage at all.
Interestingly, the OED does not list the Hmong meaning, or indeed the word "Hmong".
I shall change the disambig to cite the OED on this. mgekelly 16:15, 22 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 04:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MK8[edit]

An eighth Mortal Kombat title may be under development, but this article appears to be complete speculation, with no sources to back it up. RobWill80 13:19, 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 15:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Davison[edit]

Contested WP:PROD. Depending on how notable astrologers are, potential speedy deletion candidate per WP:CSD#A7 for not sufficiently asserting notability of the subject. Original PROD concern was "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The article as it stands doesn't explain why Davison is notable, per Wikipedia notability criteria. Searching Google didn't turn up a single external reference to her work.". Delete unless reliable sources show the person's notability. Kusma (討論) 13:32, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World's Worst Girlfriend[edit]

In an attempt to stop advertising at List of webcomics, a requirement is that all links must lead to an article. So when this webcomic was removed for having no article, the obvious thing to do is to create one, and then return to webspamming. This article asserts no claim to notability, the webhost has no Alexa rank and the article reads like the advert that it is. - Hahnchen 13:37, 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 speedy keep (bad faith), nominator is annoyed about the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair and is taking it out on Magic player articles. Mangojuicetalk 14:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Finkel[edit]

This article was kept after a previous nomination for deletion, however there have been no substantial reliable sources included to substantiate this subject's notability. Much of the article is original research. Inclusion of this private person's biography is unsuitable per WP:BLP. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:41, 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 merge and redirect to Milwaukee School of Engineering --- Deville (Talk) 16:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSOE Architectural Engineering Program[edit]

I don't think this university program is notable enough to have it's own entry on WP (I might be wrong :)) -- lucasbfr talk 14:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete. Fixed now. Yomanganitalk 13:59, 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. Redirect is optional. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavenly Hiraani Tiger Lily Hutchence[edit]

This is a good faith deletion. I promise. While this name is fabulous, the article makes no reference to anything notable this person has done. So what if she carries a picture of her dead dad (the INXS dude) around. OK, her parents are famous (Paula Yates and Michael Hutchence) but this article doesn't talk about Tiger Lily, apart from where her name comes from. Plus, she's only ten and few ten year olds have done anything famous - Some ppl will name some now, but don't bother. Her sister Peaches Geldof deserves an article cos she has done shows. But not Tiger Lily, imho. --Dangherous 14:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Dangherous 14:04, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University Hill Elementary School[edit]

This is an article on an elementary school (the editors'?} in Canada, with no reason given why this subject is noteworthy (other than to the children who go to the school and their parents). There are more elementary schools throughout the world than there are articles in Wikipedia. Unless a grade school is really noteworthy (ie. Columbine High School), it should not be the subject of a Wiki article. Askolnick 14:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing. Askolnick 14:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
* What about the New South Wales school system in Australia?, I personally would like to create articles on P.S. 115 and P.S. 172 in Queens, New York. - I would support any other project from Australia or New York that wanted to do the same thing.
* I fail to see the logic of creating Wiki articles for every grade school in any one nation. It continues to stun me what harm these types of AfDs are trying to protect Wikipedia from. I could also list reams of other types of articles that I have no interest but I would stop short of saying they shouldn't be allowed (Ball Parks, Xbox Games, Anime characters come to mind). I don't object to them and I would expect the same consideration.
* why not create a separate Wiki encyclopedia on "Education in Canada" and head off the problem of nationalistic educators competing for the most Wiki articles? If necessary I would put up my own wiki but I thought the reason wikipedia was here was to collect information not fragment it. Again the great concern seems to be what if everyone did this - that would be awesome, that would be wonderful. Wikipedia could engage educators and students all over the world that would create a generation of wiki contributors. That is why I do it and I contribute $$ to the wikimedia foundation instead running my own server. If someone is so worried about a few MB of disk space send me the bill would happily pay it. --Wakemp 18:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but ball parks, Xbox Games, Anime characters and such are of interest to many people around the world. What I'm asking is who is interested about this elementary school - other than its students, their parents and teachers, and some of the people involved in the school system in Vancouver, Canada? If your goal is to put everything in the world inside of Wikipedia, no matter how unimportant, we already have something a bit like that. It's called the Internet. Askolnick 04:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I said that was fine, if you want your silly little games in Wikipedia. I don't AfD those, and I was asking for the same consideration. But when you compare a school (real physical structure that thousands of students go through and that serves a community) to a fictional animated character - I don't feel there is any need for me to have to continually justify the existence of a school in Wikipedia. You can continue to assurt that notability is your standard, it juts isn't mine. --Wakemp 15:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this argument does not seem to make sense. An article can be well-written and verifiable and yet be about something utterly unnoteworthy. The most well-written and verifiable description of the puddle of rainwater on the street where I live (it's pouring out) would neither be noteworthy or Wikiworthy. As for being part of a series, stringing unnoteworthy articles together into a series will only provide you an unnoteworthy series. Please, will someone explain what is acutally noteworthy about the subject of this article. I'm dying of curiosity. Askolnick 04:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand some people want to delete school articles, and it is bad enough that we continuously have to deal with school AfD, but those of you who make AfD requests should refrain from adding garbage to the articles. --Stéphane Charette 22:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Probably the sanest solution to everything, IMHO. --Storkk 21:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: by "trivial", do you mean "cruft that doesn't meet WP's criteria for inclusion," or am I misreading you? How would you not find your trivia by reading a general article on Canada's School System (where this might be merged, per DMacks above)? How would you even find this trivia, being that it won't ever be linked through anything substantial, owing to the fact that it's not notable in and of itself? I'm just curious on how you think this will benefit anybody, including those interested in trivia (I agree, this is a great attribute of encyclopedias in general), since (being not notable) it won't be linked to except by projects and large lists (pages that trivia seekers don't generally seek out). --Storkk 21:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: its unreliability is questioned -- the stats from the Fraser Institute is still widely recognized. The questioning of the stats' reliability is inserted to prevent a POV stance. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:27, 23 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 g1, nonsense, India place name article moved to Gurh. NawlinWiki 15:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gurh[edit]

This article is sheer invention. The article on the real place in India by this name, that should be renamed here after this article has been deleted, is at User:Ganeshbot/sandbox/Gurh. (Renaming requires that this article be deleted first, in order to make way.) In addition to my nomination, this article was also ((prod))ded by 89.57.7.182 (talk · contribs) with the rationale "joke?, google has almost no hits for that use of the term, example: "oh gurh" has only 4 hits including this site". Uncle G 14:29, 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. —Centrx→talk • 00:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2L programming language[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.

Previous Esoteric programming language-related deletion debates:

--ais523 15:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Molerat 09:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Kastle[edit]

Non-notable collectible card player. Article does not include references to substantiate notability beyond realm of Magic:The Gathering. Unsuitable for inclusion per WP:BLP of private persons. Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep: I concur that this is a bad faith nomination; come to that, the nom messaged me wondering if I wanted to buy into this discussion based on my previous involvement in the 3rd St. Clair AfD, in which I strongly argued for the subject's notability. I can't see myself inviting into my own AfD debate someone I knew for a fact would oppose it. Ravenswing 16:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That the MTG community is smaller and somewhat more insular than many other sports doesn't mean it's notable members are not themselves notable. If nothing else, I would consider membership in the official Hall of Fame sufficient on its own. It'd be one thing if Magic were only a year or two old, but it's been around over a decade, so it has a solid foundation behind it. FrozenPurpleCube 17:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not so insular that it doesn't exist to the outside world. Otherwise they wouldn't have gotten on ESPN. FrozenPurpleCube 19:17, 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. —Centrx→talk • 00:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALPACA programming language[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.

Previous Esoteric programming language-related deletion debates:

--ais523 15:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was argh, delete! - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh![edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.

Previous Esoteric programming language-related deletion debates:

--ais523 15:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BAK programming language[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.

Previous Esoteric programming language-related deletion debates:

--ais523 15:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, out of curiousity... where do you propose to merge this to and why merge something that is unlikely to be verifiable when it should just be removed from the target article as unverified?--Isotope23 16:02, 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 15:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beatnik programming language[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.

Previous Esoteric programming language-related deletion debates:

--ais523 15:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, author blanked page. NawlinWiki 20:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Vegas[edit]

nn notable fails WP:BIO, failed Ghits, probable vanity (authors name is Vegas) Shella ° 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about no Wikipedia reader should be subjected to that picture without good reason? Fan-1967 16:41, 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 redirect to Energy vampire. There is nothing here to merge, and at least the target article makes it clear how scientific we're being. --- Deville (Talk) 16:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empathic vampire[edit]

Huh? This goes far beyond 'not citing sources'... --InShaneee 15:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the article. Calm down. There is speculation among fans about Persephone's status as an empathic vampire because she was able to sense emotions during the club scene and at various points demanded kisses as payment, particularly specifing passionate kisses from which she recieved apparent satisfaction.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier and Antoine Ruel[edit]

Non-notable collectible card players. Article is unsourced. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:07, 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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous women in history[edit]

Completing a nomination. Rationale was given as edit summary: "Nominated for deletion. Absurdly general, very presence of article (segregated from other Famous Figures in History) gives credence to male chauvanism." No !vote from me. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:40, 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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic violence[edit]

A POV magnet. We already have Islamic extremist terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamofascism, Militant Islam, etc... Also note that the newly created article is just a list of Suras which may imply violence. The rest is purely OR.-- Szvest 15:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such information is already available (in whatever context you want) in other articles mentioned in this AfD discussion. Why does it need to be duplicated here? BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 08:57, 22 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 04:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minitokyo[edit]

No evidence of passing WP:WEB, not so many sites links to this one [20]. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment To me WP:V is more important than membership numbers. ColourBurst 22:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. Hunter Johnson[edit]

This article has been prod'ed, de-prodded, speedied, de-speedied, discussed on the talk page, etc. It's not clear to me whether its subject meets WP:BIO, so let us discuss it. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you made Gtoons? Could you tell them to fix it? :) Still, it's a bit troublesome to have you as the subject and author of the article, though I don't think you are doing anything specifically improper, and I understand your desire to not be confused with other people named Hunter Johnson. So if anybody else wants to chime in to keep it, I'll go with them. FrozenPurpleCube 17:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If any of the other J. Hunter Johnsons (there's a lawyer in Texas, and a newspaper editor from 1904) gets a page, then I'm in trouble. (I have gotten them to fix several things, but obviously not everything.) -- JHunterJ 17:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Clarification: I have nothing to do with Steve O'Keefe (attorney); I presume the above comment is about the anon editor who tagged the article with speedy, prod, and then afd (but could not complete the nomination for the obvious reason that anons cannot create new pages). (Liberatore, 2006). 17:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry -- I'm familiar enough with the sequence that I didn't recognize the ambiguity... -- JHunterJ 17:56, 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. Glen 05:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camellia Gardens Condominiums Association, Inc.[edit]

Non-notable condominium (Liberatore, 2006). 16:13, 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. DS 19:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Links[edit]

100% spam. Parent company might also need to be AfD'd but going for the non-notable products first. Storkk 16:21, 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 15:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITEMS[edit]

100% spam. Does not meet WP:SOFTWARE. Parent company might also need to be AfD'd but going for the non-notable products first. (See above discussions) Storkk 16:26, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston's Hidden Restaurants[edit]

non-notable online restaurant guide; fails WP:WEB Tom Harrison Talk 16:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Big plastic factory[edit]

The result was speedy delete as word-for-word repost of deleted material (see previous AFD). Wickethewok 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, really poor Google results (31 unique, 222 total), already been deleted once, doubt it meets WP:WEB, etc... - makomk 16:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Links given in artcile now are on other non notable websites, not critical reviews in mainstream media. Fram 12:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Comes up first in a Yahoo search. Creativity magazine is a mainstream magazine: Print Circulation of 32,276 [22].Gregoryashadwick 10:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: how is the fact that the subject comes up first in a Yahoo search relevant, apart from the fact that it shows that there are no other memorable things using this three word combination? And can you give us a reference to Creativity magazine which mentions Big Plastic Factory? I can't find the combination online, but if you can teel us what issue this is about, then perhaps some other editor can verify this. Fram 15:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by 'really poor Google results' to mean its ranking upon a search of the term. If so my apologies. See Creativity Interactive issue on September 13, 2006. Gregoryashadwick 10:16, 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. Petros471 16:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaneva[edit]

Non-notable beta stage website. Alexa rank 180,461, fails critera of WP:WEB. Haakon 16:50, 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 04:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Countess[edit]

notability questioned as 13 links come up in search, some are mirrors of this Wikipedia article; addition could be seen to bolster support for critics of Jehovah's Witnesses as the template box was added to the article and it is linked in many different JW-related articles - CobaltBlueTony 16:50, 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 nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Robinson[edit]

Fails WP:RS and WP:BIO. Possibly notable by virtue of being the mother of Barbara Bush and a rumor of having an affair with Dwight Eisenhower, but these things alone aren't a basis for an article. Simões (talk/contribs) 16:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn. The article is still a sourceless mess, but Pauline Robinson is probably notable herself. I'll just put up a handful of shiny tags to complain about this and that. Simões (talk/contribs) 03:10, 25 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 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla Paintball[edit]

Non-notable computer game; The relatively few Google hits are primarily links to a paintball supplies store by the same name or to this article. Haakon 16:59, 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. Consensus has already been formed on Talk:Agassi's last two years. I'm moving that page to this debate's talk page to preserve the debate. Mangojuicetalk 20:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agassi's last two years[edit]

This article was originally part of the main article Andre Agassi, and was cut and pasted out of that article as being too lengthy, not objective and too much non-notable play-by-play detail. Consensus on article's discussion page appears to be that this article should be deleted and any relevant information merged into Andre Agassi. Dugwiki 16:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As was stated in the merge discussion, the info unique to this article should NOT be put back in the main article. The reasonable options are to clean it up, or to delete it. I'm fine with either. Atarr 19:09, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Ascension (Clearwater, Florida)[edit]

Non-notable church, written in a first person format. Obviously a vanity page. I abstain from the vote. Clamster5 17:12, 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. —Celestianpower háblame 16:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Forde[edit]

Living person that does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. Only 319 ghits [23], most of which are about different persons of the same name. The subject is nn, who would probably only have one or two hits from online church directories if it weren't for the very few news articles online about his recent conviction. (Indeed, this article has itself become the top hit for the name "Denis Forde" on Google.) Aaron 17:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be absolutely no reason we would ever have had an article on this person without their conviction. Wikipedia does not exist as a sex offenders registry; the conviction alone is not enough to justify an article. Dump it. Shimgray | talk | 22:57, 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. (aeropagitica) 11:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jockey Club Brown Sea Island[edit]

This appears to be an article about a boat. And not a big cruise liner boat, but a 30ft tug. Since we don't seem to have notability guidelines for boats I thought we had better run this by AFD and establish a precedent. DJ Clayworth 17:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Petroni[edit]

Possible vanity article. No sources, nothing links to it, non-notable subject Blue Lilac 17:44, 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. — CharlotteWebb 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Achayan[edit]

This is too trivial to deserve an article. If it can go go in, many more similar trivia need to go in. Like Mooppar, Poola Chettan, Rubber Chetan, Kammal, Thamburan, Atiyan, Kettiyon, Kettiyol, Annachi, Valacheruman, Moyiliaru, Ummachi, Ithatha etc. Kuntan 17:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Praka123 23:10, 23 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 close. AFD is not the place for merge requests. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Leach[edit]

The subject of this article is not notable outside the scope of the Ted Bundy case, and the content of this article is limited to the subject's role in the Ted Bundy case. Accordingly, I recommend Merge/Redirect. Cribcage 18:02, 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 15:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ayranikudy[edit]

non notable Kuntan 18:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tried to do more research. I have to say I find no trace of this guy or his books but again I'm not entirely convinced this means much. I guess I'll change my vote to very weak delete unless someone can come up with some sort of reference21:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and remind Herostratus to use correct metaphors. — CharlotteWebb 17:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Edwin Fox[edit]

Is a man who was one of 23 people executed in the state of Ohio in the last 7 years really that notable? In addition, there are sources given, but I don't think most of the content is in those sources. It is mostly unverifiable and reads like an original narrative of the proceedings. I don't know of the author's relation to this case, but if you look at the article talk page, the author says s/he witnessed the execution. Delete as non-notable and unreferenced. Metros232 13:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of this article, I stand by the content. The Ohio Supreme Court case cited as a source does provide all of the facts of the trial as noted in the article. The AP article summarizes the appeals and last days of Fox. I will be happy to provide copies on request, or add attribution within the article.
Regarding notoriety, I cannot vouch for Fox being notable except that there is a page of executions carried out by the State of Ohio and there were links to uncreated pages for the executed men. If Fox is not notable, then the only notable person on the list is Alton Coleman, who was a spree killer. All other pages probably could be deleted under the issue posed by Metros232.
I would also suggest that someone then examine this page to remove the non-notable persons there.
Regarding my comment about witnessing Mr. Fox's execution. I put that in very late at night, I regret doing so because it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and I have removed it. How and why I was there isn't important at all. Marklemagne 21:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning(talk) 18:32, 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 the author requested its deletion (via e-mail.) Grandmasterka 05:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry O'Neill[edit]

Musician. While he has played with people who have played in bands that have Wikipedia articles, he hasn't played in those bands himself, except for Pretty Mary Sunshine, which is not exactly the Beatles -- it was up for AfD earlier this year, and, while it survived, it's kind of hard to see why. And it's not like he's been a sideman for Miles Davis or something; all the people he's played with are basically local Seattle music-scene types. I don't see being a member of very short-lived and marginal band rates an article, nor does the notability of the bands composed of people he played with before or after their membership rub off on him. But it's not a slam-dunk either. NOTE: Do not confuse this person with the radio-talking-head Jerry O'Neill who recently had his article deleted. Different people. Herostratus 18:40, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommi Hovi[edit]

Collectible card players do not meet notability at WP:BIO. No sources cited to substantiate notability outside realm of M:TG -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:AGF FrozenPurpleCube... accusing someone of bias is not the best way to make your case. Besides, multiple noms are preferable to one mass nomination because each of these individuals may have different levels of notability per WP:BIO or different reliable sources to demonstrate their notability.--Isotope23 20:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
reply I assumed good faith with the first few postings, but with Malber's own contributions regarding this issue, I'm inclined to think that he's violating WP:POINT FrozenPurpleCube 22:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWould copies of Scrye and Inquest be acceptable sources to you? FrozenPurpleCube 21:59, 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. (aeropagitica) 11:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Child of Chaos[edit]

A self-published novel by a nn author (Michelle Hamilton, also the subject of an AfD). Little more than an advertisement, clearly in violation of WP:NPOV. Victoriagirl 18:48, 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 ~Kylu (u|t) 00:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Selden[edit]

Non-notable collectible card game player per WP:BIO. Article does not include sources to substantiate notability outside realm of M:TG. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added a link to a Wizards.com page describing his championship match, still looking on the biographical details. and found that as well. Satisfactory? FrozenPurpleCube 22:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, works for me.--Isotope23 19:41, 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 15:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unconventional Theories of Deindustrialization[edit]

Partial AfD, listed but not tagged properly. This is a procedureal nomination, I have not read the article. Herostratus 18:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think there is a process for this case. If the article started off OK and then went "off the rails", I suggest reverting to an earlier version, moving back to Deindustrialization and keeping an eye on "unconventional" edits, particularly by anons. Leibniz 15:32, 29 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. (aeropagitica) 11:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Bourdages[edit]

WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered." Another man, Curtis Dagenais, was "accused of the murder of two RCMP officers and the attempted murder of another." The Curtis Dagenais article was nominated for deletion on July 2006 and the result of the discussion was keep. Marc Bourdages, besides being one of Curtis's alleged victims, is not notable per WP:BIO. Prod remover claims notability, but as of writing, no sources for notability have been posted. Delete ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:14, 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. (aeropagitica) 11:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Lester Bangs[edit]

Contested A7 speedy. Band vanity about a group with a couple of self-produced releases. A Google search[26] finds a MySpace page, a number of bulletin board/web forum entries, and a mention in an article about another band, but nothing resembling a reliable source. No indication in the article that the group meets the WP:MUSIC guidelines. --Allen3 talk 20:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. notability not demonstrated, no sources, likely vanity Anlace 20:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The primary issue is not where the band is from nor your motivation for writing the article. Instead the primary issue is the availability of reliable sources to provide a neutral and verifiable article without resorting to original research. If you can provide the needed sources then the article may be saved. Conversely, if you are aware of other articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies for inclusion of material please help us by either making needed improvements or, when minimum requirements can not be met, nominating them for deletion. --Allen3 talk 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What else can be done? I have updated the entry a bit to show the only things that come directly from the band. The other stuff, (musicbrainz is a massive discography of distributed popular music and a review featuring seemingly pretty accurate information about the band) is verified without the band and most likely with the band saying it is accurate by not telling these sites to edit the information. Let me know if there is anything else I can do.[User:WSeconds]17:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately there does not appear to be much else that can be done. The links you added to the article point to sites that appear to be open bulletin boards (MusicBrainz) or personal webpages/blogs (the band's home page and WRANKmusic which uses MySpace for contact information) under Wikipedia'a policies and guidelines. What the article really needs is newspaper articles or stories in the music press to establish notability. --Allen3 talk 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to put someone on the spot, but what does a page like this use for sources (because the sources are not listed). I'll look in further about articles to see what I can find, because I know they have been in various publications.WSeconds 19:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like that was one that got past the New page patrol. As a check on the article subject could only find a self-produced CD, appropriate processing has been started. --Allen3 talk 22:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani[edit]

The articles subject is not notable, he is merely one of many prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay. The lack of information in the article goes to support this. The article is primarily made up of Combatant Trial information and nothing about the articles subject but his name and prisoner ID numebr to mark him as notable. NuclearUmpf 18:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--NuclearUmpf 21:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested in why it was removed and removed again, please see talk page. Only information Geo Swan offered was that arab names are hard to illiterate and so they are the same person. I ask for a source other then him stating this as WP:RS WP:V and WP:OR are important for us to follow. I do not object if you have something other then your own words that arab names are hard to illiterate. --NuclearUmpf 14:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me NuclearUmpf. I think if you read my explanation more fully you will see that I linked to the wikipedia article on Arabic names. I think I said that they were hard to transliterate, and I think you will find that the wikipedia article backs up that assertion.
As for your concern that the two names may refer to two different individuals. This is a straw argument. No one is disputing this. As I pointed out on the article's talk page readers deserve to know the facts, and they can make up their own mind as to whether the two are the same individual.
Your removal of the {mergeto} tag is, IMO, highly Ill-advised.
Cheers! Geo Swan, not logging in because I only have a few moments, and I am not at home... 70.51.132.154 17:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OR and WP:V you arent allowed to make connection simply because you feel like it. --NuclearUmpf 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am sufficiently familiar with WP:OR and WP:VER thanks. I am not "making a connection simply because I feel like it."
The two names are very similar. The likelihood of them referring to the same individual is high -- FWIW. But, let me repeat. I never stated that the two names refer to the same individual. I invited discussion as to whether the referred to the same individual -- with the {mergeto} tag. And, forgive me being so blunt, but you shouldn't keep removing that invitation to a discussion, based on your personal interpretation. You should state your opinion, on the talk page, and let other readers offer their opinion. If you refer to WP:NOT you will see a subsection entitled: "Wikipedia is not a battlefield." -- Removing the invitation to the discussion, is confrontational. It is consensus destroying, not consensus building.
As I stated on the article's talk page, without regard to whether the two similar names refer to the same individual, both names should be mentioned in this article, for the benefit of readers who assume they are the same. With both names mentioned the reader gets to make up their own mind. I know I am repeating myself, but you haven't addressed this point in your earlier comments, and I think it is a very important one.
I strongly urge you to be more collegial.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 19:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who other then you is stating these people can be mistaken, if you cannot provide someone from a WP:RS source in two days I will remove the information again. Please read WP:OR again it seems you failed to see the part about maknig your own conclusions. --NuclearUmpf 19:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a CNN interview in Washington DC with SAIO Director Nail Al-Jubeir, that refers to a Muhammad al-Juhani -- without specifying which Muhammad al-Juhani the interview subject was talking about. Do you really need me to prove that people could conflate two individuals with similar names? -- Geo Swan 20:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes some proof that these two individuals are being confused, not that Muhammad al-Juhani was mentioned in the news. There is no proof this person is being confused with the other person. Please provide a source of this. Just because I find a Mike Tyson in a city in New Orleans at the age of 5 doesnt mean I can add him to the Mike Tyson (boxer) article saynig they have been confused. again please provide a source or I will remove the information again in two days. --NuclearUmpf 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When the Saudi official used the name Muhammad Al Juhani that was inherently confusing, if our two names do refer to two separate individuals. Both men would be alleged terrorists. Both men could be referred to as Muhammad Al Juhani. If, on the other hand, the two names referred to a single individual, then referring to him as Muhammad Al Juhani would be perfectly acceptable. So, would the Saudi government know the identity of all the Saudi Guantanamo detainees? Well, variouse Saudi detainees told their Tribunals that a delegation of Saudi officials visited them at Guantanamo, so I think the answer to that question is a clear yes. -- Geo Swan 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you were confused doesnt mean the Saudi's were. Its like me seeing a report on Mike Tyson and being confused because the kid down the block has the same name, so I goto the Mike Tyson article and write information about the kid down the block to that article, dont say they are related as you did not, just slap a block of text in the middle of Mike Tyson (boxer)'s article about the kid down the block from me. can youprove someone was confused with a source? You seem to be the only one confused and citing confusion. --NuclearUmpf 13:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding your Mike Tyson analogy... You and I don't know how common Muhammad Al Juhani is in Saudi Arabia. I have no problem assuming that Muhammad Al Juhani is at least as common as Mike Tyson. But, all the males born in Saudi Arabia is not the namespace we are talking about. The namespace we are talking about are Saudis who are wanted by, or in the custody of, the USA, because they are suspected of being terrorists. That is only a couple of hundred individuals. Please, let's compare apples with apples, and oranges with oranges. Agreed? Now, if the guy down the street, was not only named Mike Tyson, but was a world famous boxer, that would be a fair comparison.
  • I didn't say the Saudi official was confused. I said that if the two transliterations refered to two individuals, then the Saudi official confused the issue for their listeners. I thought I already explained this. When the Saudi official spoke about the suspected terrorist Muhammad Al Juhani they would have then introduced confusion as to which suspected terrorist named Muhammad Al Juhani they meant. -- Geo Swan 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


THis is on par with arguing that everyone in the World Trade Center deserves an article because the even twas notable or everyone on the planes. Or everyone at Tienaman Square because that event was notable, how about every prisoner in Abu Ghraib, how about every prisoner in every jail outside of the US, but is ran by the US? I mean where does it stop, noone is even arguing these people are notable, just that the event was notable, this is obsurd. I hope the admin reviewing this can see that noone here has so far argued this person is notable or proven they are by showing any media reports. --NuclearUmpf 13:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do I think every victim or survivor of the WTC attack merits an article? Sure, why not, if there is meaningful content, verifiable from an authoritative source? For what it is worth I started two articles about WTC survivors, Brian Clark and Stanley Prainmath. Regarding the prisoners at Abu Ghraib -- well, I read much of the Fay Report. The Taguba Report estimated that more than 60% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners had been rounded up in error. The Fay Report went into more detail. The US practice was to cordon off an area and arrest ALL the military age males. Can I imagine circumstances where this approach would make sense, be acceptable? Yes. Provided the technique was put to use under very limited circumstances, and there was a prompt mechanism to release those who were innocent, and they were treated with dignity and respect until that determination was made. What the Fay Report documented was that over 90% of those rounded up were determined to have been rounded up in error. And, the reason they weren't released is that a high-level committee of busy senior officers, who didn't get along with one another, had to meet to agree on the releases. General Karpinski, the senior Military Police officer was on it, and General Barbara Fast, the senior intelligence officer in Iraq, and Colonel Warren, the senior JAG officer. They were busy, and they didn't get along, so the meetings that would have approved the release of the prisoners kept getting postponed, for months. That is the reason the prison population swelled. That is why Abu Ghraib, and, presumably, the other prisons, continued to be full of men whose innocence had been determined months earlier. -- Geo Swan 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought as much now read WP:BIO and see why these articles would be out of line as well as this one. Thank you. --NuclearUmpf 16:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out, in the very first paragraph of my very first comments on your nomination, WP:BIO is not a wikipedia policy. It is a document that is based on other policies, WP:VER, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If you are just realizing that this is my view now it strongly suggests you aren't bothering to read the comments to your nomination. IMO, if you nominate an article for deletion you should feel obliged to make an effort to try to read and understand the comments of those who don't agree with you. -- Geo Swan 18:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I give up, if you add it I will just remove it, if this is a problem then call an admin. You are asking questions that show you are not reading policy. Why can you put that you notice a similarity? This isnt your blog, this is a place for facts and reporting what others have said, you are not a reliable source. Noone is debating that another person with a much shorter and not very similar name exists, you just havent given a single source saying they are the same person. That is why you fail WP:RS not because you dont have a reliable source saying they exist, its because you dont have a reliable source saying they are the same. I know ... you arent saying they are ... then good there is no problem with me removing it. You have a problem with this then as I said call an admin. I have tried in good faith numerous times to explain this and you seem to be not reading policy or just flat out misrepresenting it. If you really think WP:RS and WP:V just has to go toward existence and not the actual thing you are attempting to state (a link) then you need to read the policy again. Its like me putting a large section on cocaine into the Mike Tyson article then showing a ATF report saying Cocaine exists and then showing a boxing magazine saying Mike Tyson exists and reporting that I am not saying he does it, just that they both exist according to WP:RS and I think it should be in the article. --NuclearUmpf 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you believe WP:BIO is not relevant? --NuclearUmpf 19:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see why you are here, I am sorry if you took that post personal. --NuclearUmpf 19:44, 28 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 - OR concerns trump any lack of clear consensus.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies Bible Study[edit]

Doesn't seem notable (no lasting impact even at the school where it happened); request to be kept as a forum for discussion in the context of a class project seems to at least border on original research. Jaeger5432 21:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read the WP:OR page closer. In the discussion page, I quoted part of it, but it apears that you have not read it. I'll quote the second sentence of the WP:OR page: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article and to adhere to what those sources say."
Now take the very first sentence of the ladies bible study page: " "Ladies Bible Study- tonight!" was a 'mail storm' that was created on September 11, 2006 and has still not abated. ". This sentence is all original research because there are *zero* sources that are considered reliable for the purposes of the wikipedia that I can independently confirm that this event started on Sept 11. There is no way I can verify that, over a week later, this mail storm has yet to abate. Wrs1864 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did read your post in the discussion, but I believe it is you that needs to read the WP:OR page more closely. Specifically, get past the intro and read the section called "What is excluded?". It clearly states:
--
"An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:
* It introduces a theory or method of solution;
* It introduces original ideas;
* It defines new terms;
* It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
* It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
* It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
* It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source."
--
This clearly shows how the WP:OR rule does not apply to Ladies Bible Study since it is not introducing a theory, idea, argument, etc. It is not research; much less original research. UserDeleted092906
*sigh* Please read what you quoted and what I wrote. In particular, pay attention to the places that talk about "reputable sources". Again, not only are there zero reputable sources cited in the article, but from what I can tell, there aren't any in existance. Even if there were one or two, that would still fail the search engine test. Wrs1864 02:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. You can't just take the words "reputable source" out of context. The point of the WP:OR rule is to keep people from publishing their own theories or arguments on Wikipedia. That theme is common among all the bullets that are in the "What is excluded?" section. You can't just research a topic, make your own theory and then tell the world using Wikipedia, effectively bypassing the standard practice of having your discoveries scrutinized through peer review. Read the "Why original research is excluded" and "Policy origin: the opinion of Wikipedia's founder" sections of WP:OR. Sure, you'll find more requirements of "reputable sources", but you can't just take that out of context. Ladies Bible Study doesn't qualify as a theory; it's an event. In general, I understand what you're trying to argue, but it just doesn't apply in this case. UserDeleted092906
Ok, you win. I'm going to stop wasting my time on this. You are very much mistaken about the need for need for Wikipedia:Verifiability from Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It isn't just theories or arguments. It includes the first publication of any sort of data or statements. You say to read the "why original research is excluded", but it says right there that "That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." The facts and interpretations in this article have not been published elsewhere. You say to read "policy origin" section, and it says "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." This is an historicial event, and you have failed to see why no-original-research applies. Wrs1864 14:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you... we should stop wasting our time debating this. However, I'd like you to read the citation for that last statement you quoted. I think it's clear that they are discussing analysis/interpretations of historical events that have the possibility of inciting debate. For example, the cause of WWII is up for interpretation and debate. Ladies Bible Study is not, because no ideas are expressed in the article. UserDeleted092906
No, this article should be deleted *because* it provides microanalysis and *because* this is the only place where people can reasearch this topic. Wrs1864 14:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article names people and lists by name and publishes emails (and signatures) without people's consent. No idea the legality of it but the morality of possibly defaming/misrepresenting people when the subject is something so trivial? Janet13 16:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying save or delete, but you're beasically saying 'only 40,000 people would care'. How about this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Army_acronyms_and_expressions - only a few hundred thousand people would care, why not delete it?--Eljamoquio 23:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Old Toronto Board of Trade Building
Zsanett Égerházi
Springfield Model 1863
Darcy Hogan
The Widow Jones
Kim Jung-Joo
Dumped
1956 in country music
These articles include: a year when nothing happened, a bronze medalist in the olympics, a 31 year old playwright who has written one obscure play, a gun being described as slightly different from the model design 2 years prior, a building that was torn down long ago, a hungarian porn star, and an episode of a cartoon show. I got this list by hitting the random page about 30 times. The list of deleted articles could conceivably form another wiki, one could reasonably argue that each of these should be tagged for deletion. The point here, however, is that these should not be deleted because they help to conceive a unified database that people can come to as reference point of our culture, both past, present and future, that should not be cut down by our 'traditional' ideas of what an encyclopedia should be. To rephrase: Wikipedia is not simply an encyclopedia, it is a new medium of information conveyence that people have yet to fully comprehend. It can have tremendous influence in the future as it becomes more detailed and refined, in shaping the way our society learns but only if we let the authors have some leeway to decide what they think is a relevant article. Sure this episode is about an incident at one school that lasted only for a month or so and then kinda died away. A century from now, historians combing through the wikipedia may stumble on the 'email storm' article and find it about as drab as i found the Brittanica entry on Hong Kong I had to go through for a report in the eighth grade. How different would their perspective be by reading this article...a living example written by the people who went through it. Equally importantly, how discouraged would this group of University students taking time to document the incident be? A slap in the face now may keep them from ever contributing in the future. SandyB
I agree... well said. UserDeleted092906
The question of whether other articles are notable or not does not mean that this one is. The other key difference between this article and the ones you list is that they are all based on independent sources, or at least that published sources can be found. (This doesn't mean that the sources are necessarily correct, just that someone else has written something about it in a reasonably permanent medium.) Wikipedia is not (just) "a unified... reference point of our culture", it's an encyclopedia which includes *facts* about culture. And there needs to be some way to verify those facts -- even about seemingly trivial subjects such as Hungarian porn stars and a run-of-the-mill year in country music.
Am I suggesting that this didn't happen? No; I was on one of the lists myself, so I got to experience it in all its glory. Am I suggesting that the interpretation is wrong? Not necessarily. I'm suggesting that, *since* no reliable sources have been found, and *since* the conclusions therefore constitute original research, it does not belong on Wikipedia. If you want to show that it's good, useful information, then find reliable sources for it. If you think this is such a vivid narrative of exactly what it's like to survive an "email storm" that it must be preserved (here instead of some other site), then perhaps you could go on and merge it into email storm or some such.
On the feelings of "the authors" -- one of the things that makes Wikipedia special is that we're *all* "the authors"; it's not just the original writer of the first draft of the article who gets to decide its "final" form. Do the authors (even the brand-new-to-Wikipedia ones) have the freedom to decide what we think is a relevant article? Sure! that's what this process is all about :) Jaeger5432 04:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What "conclusions" are in this article? What are the hypotheses of this "research"? UserDeleted092906
"Research" here refers to "material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source". The whole section "A Socio-scientific classification" is "conclusions", as is the (POV) statement that the IT department was "the real culprit". Take those out and what's left? a story about something interesting that happened at school one day. Hey, we had a fire drill this morning, maybe I should put an article on Wikipedia about that! It certainly affected hundreds of students and I could probably come up with some sort of "socio-scientific classification" of how people reacted. Sarcasm aside, even the bare facts are not currently verifiable. If they are, feel free to improve the article by adding sources. Contribute to the article rather than the argument, and you might yet convince people it's worth keeping. Jaeger5432 15:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation of WP:OR since the page also says: "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments." and consistantly refers to "ideas" and "arguments" throughout (read my posts above). I wish my advisor would agree with your definition of "research"... it would make the Ph.D. so much easier. :-)
I do, however, agree with you on the issue of those statements about the IT department being the "real culprit". I apologize for not have seen that earlier... it shouldn't be there. I'm glad that you agree with me that this article is just an account of an event. Wikipedia is full of these. And hey... if your fire drill keeps forcing thousands of people out of the building for 10 days and people start selling t-shirts or writing songs about it, I think you have a good case for putting up an article. ;-) UserDeleted092906
The standard for what constitues original research on Wikipedia is in general much less than that of what constitutes original research for academia. JoshuaZ 03:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And UserDeleted092906 and SandyB - no, it's not well said. What this article does is give UMich people a bad idea of what wikipedia is. It makes wikipedia look like a random website. I'm with Jaeger here... although I don't believe this could ever be actually encyclopedia unless something newsworthy happened as a result - like dozens of people throwing their computers out of their rooms in protest, like one of the serial spammers getting assaulted for their participation (hopefully not!). And then, it would belong in Wikinews... and MAYBE Wikipedia. Oh. And my old dorm constantly had firedrills that led to comments about its inhabitants that have entered school lore - does *that* count as encyclopedic? Janet13 06:50, 28 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 15:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Zero Productions[edit]

Nonnotable "virtual television network" (i.e., a website where people can post homemade TV shows made from clips of real shows). Delete this and all "shows" listed in the article:

NawlinWiki 21:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find this series to be very interesting and worth keep here on wikipedia. The internet is the only place where the little guy can be read by a large audience. If you take Fempiror (and all the other MZP entries), you will make these works that much less accessible. Phil

.

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael lindine[edit]

Allegedly famous internet entrepreneur. Both he and supposed partner generate zero relevant google hits. At best, unverifiable; most likely pure hoax. -- Fan-1967 21:42, 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, WP:BAND refers. (aeropagitica) 10:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAT Samba[edit]

This band is not yet notable. Naturenet | Talk 21:43, 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 Speedy Delete G4, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Island Census and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island Census (Lost). Deleted by User:Bhadani. ColourBurst 03:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Character Dossiers[edit]

This article is an exact copy of this TV IV page. It contains a great deal of speculation, cites no sources, and is redundant due to the Characters of Lost page. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:50, 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. (aeropagitica) 10:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Whittler's Paradox[edit]

I can't find any reference to this paradox. Not a single hit on Google. References not provided despite mention of 'critics'. {context} and {prod} removed without comment. Deletion on grounds of WP:NFT? Marasmusine 21:59, 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. (aeropagitica) 10:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Bunkie The Science Junkie[edit]

NN series of blogs and YouTube videos. Google throws up a little, but there is not enough here to count this as verifiable or notable. Delete J Milburn 21:59, 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. (aeropagitica) 10:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House of sarcasm[edit]

Prod removed by anon. Apparently a fashion brand that doesn't exist yet. (Earlier version of article said the line would debut in 2007.) Fails WP:V, WP:CORP. Can't verify the company even exists, much less is notable. -- Fan-1967 22:05, 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 Speedy delete a7, third attempt to recreate this vanity bio. NawlinWiki 04:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JNaz[edit]

Bio that to me just doesn't qualify for an article, as I did a search on the guy's name and nothing came up. -- P.B. Pilhet 22:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC), Newpage Patrol[reply]

  • While we're at it, can someone delete that picture? What is he, about 14? Fan-1967 01:27, 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 speedy deleted G4 by User:MONGO. --ais523 11:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Royal Theatretime Briefs Company[edit]

((AFDAnon)) I doubt this is real, but then again, there are entities with 'Royal' in the name which are notable. Anyhow, this is nominated for deletion as a suspected hoax. --LiverpoolCommander 22:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Alliance[edit]

Individual clubs at small colleges are not notable; there can't possibly be an article's worth of encyclopedic knowledge on this or most any other college club out there. CheNuevara 22:54, 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. (aeropagitica) 10:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTimeScale[edit]

Delete seems non-notable and does not seem to match WP:WEB (well according to my searching about the site on the web). Charlesknight 23:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echalone 00:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All you seem to be doing is supporting the case it's non-notable. Oh and thanks for pointing out Wikitimeline - I'll prod it as that does not look notable either. --Charlesknight 00:15, 23 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. (aeropagitica) 10:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altador Cup[edit]

This fictional event does not meet the requirements of WP:WEB as the only sources provided are from the topic's webpage itself, failing WP:RS. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 11:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Olsen 23:05, 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. (aeropagitica) 10:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Living Actor[edit]

Delete Un-encyclopedic cruft. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not un-encyclopedic, it was featured on many networks shortly after Bob Hope's death.

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ColumbusX[edit]

Contested prod about a non-notable MMORPG. Also contains crystal ball material. MER-C 13:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Olsen 23:13, 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. (aeropagitica) 10:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karoliina Salminen[edit]

Non-notable, no record deal, music shareware. Was deleted on the Finnish WP. Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 23:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "no record deal, music shareware" or not selling your soul to the record industries should not be a reason for deletion.-- Roc VallèsTalk|Hist - 02:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so you can provide reliable third-party sources to satisfy WP:MUSIC (which does not only include mass media criteria)? ColourBurst 04:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't see the subject of the article meeting any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. And as I pointed out, the article was deleted unanimously on Fi-Wiki. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 15:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, come on. No notability. Punkmorten 20:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. 4 listeners on Last.fm confirms lack of any kind of fan base. Prolog 15:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As said above, non-notable. --,,n 12:57, 23 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. (aeropagitica) 10:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derry Brownfield[edit]

Non notable radio host. Peephole 15:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Olsen 23:18, 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.

I tried following the links to deletion review to know avail what happened to the discussion on this??? The guy is relevant and has been syndicating his show since 1973 ! The "radio station" mentioned above by Punkmorten is ONE network he is on (GCN)(he is also on RBN-Republic Broadcasting www.rbnlive.com and other stations that pick up his show as listed even on wikipedia which dont even now exist but Derry is on the air every day !)- [[27]] It might be irrelivant to those who think everything that means anything originates in NYC or Hollyweird. 209.209.140.21 07:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illusive Entertainment[edit]

No demonstration of notability, independant or otherwise. Feature film not distributed. Prod tag removed, the only change to the article being the removal of the admission that the film is seeking distribution. Drat (Talk) 23:21, 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 as a crystal ball article. Can be recreated when appropriate press releases & other official news sources are available. (aeropagitica) 10:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw IV[edit]

For prior related discussions, see Saw III (AfD discussion), Saw 3 (AfD discussion), and Saw 3 movie (AfD discussion).

WP:NOT a crystal ball. Prod was removed on the basis that the creator has announced this sequel. There is no cited source for that claim nor the claim in the article that a sequel is probable. In addition, there is no apparent source for that claim out of the 16 unique Google hits for the film name and the creator's name. [28] Erechtheus 23:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Allow me to add "all but announced" from the vote below. Fan-1967 14:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be asking me for information, but you are doing so in a rude and unhelpful manner. Just because I'm not a newbie doesn't mean you can be unpleasant. Dev920 07:43, 24 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. (aeropagitica) 10:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Jamie[edit]

Don't see any reason why this person is notable enough for wikipedia. Chris M. 23:35, 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. (aeropagitica) 09:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Coffee Achievers[edit]

Webcomic with no claim of notability. No reliable sources given/found. ~1 mil Alexa ranking. Delete as not meeting WP:WEB, WP:V, etc... Wickethewok 23:44, 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 Merge with Dawson College shooting. —Centrx→talk • 00:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia De Sousa[edit]

I don't wish to be insensitive, but the sole claim to notability here the reason for this woman's death. She's already named in the Dawson College shooting article. The bit about coming back to shoot her repeatedly is not mentioned in the only source listed. I don't think this is a particularly encyclopedic article. eaolson 23:47, 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. (aeropagitica) 09:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invention Index[edit]

A minor project about "misconceptions" around who invented what. This is its website. It has no Alexa rank and no links. Zero reliable sources and no news mentions exist. The site is not notable under WP:WEB and the article is not verifiable. As a last argument, I don't think this site could ever have been remotely popular or notable solely because of its extremely awkward layout (one small, unsizeable window). --Wafulz 23:47, 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. (aeropagitica) 09:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Hawkins[edit]

The article is a hoax. Please see Talk:Greg_Hawkins. Another Wikipedian 23:43, 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. (aeropagitica) 09:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evan handlers[edit]

This is a hoax or a non-notable neologism. There are 2 Google hits for the title, neither of which has anything to do with the subject matter of the article. [30] De-prodded without change or comment. Erechtheus 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is completely true. It is a new name for the article, that is why it is not well known. Please do not delete this article because it can be very informative to individuals wishing to stretch out before sporting events or any form of exercise.

I first heard of the Evan Handlers stretch four years ago while attending a course on cheerleading instruction. The stretch is both effective, and as said above "beneficial." I don't understand why a person would say that the issue is "not the truth, but the appropriateness" of the subject. How does one decide what is appropriate for Wikipedia, when encyclopedias are supposed to be limitless wealths of knowledge. Excluding valid information from Wikipedia seems detrimental to the very mission of the website.

Erechthues' claims are obviously bias becuase he has not heard of or used this stretch before. Please Erechtheus before you continue your arguement think about what you are saying and know that this stretch is real. I have been using this stretch for many years now and i would like to share it with a mass amount of people. Please do not delete this article because as the person above said it is a new name for this article.

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 09:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intertron[edit]

Even if this is a notable neologism, it's still a dictionary definition and unlikely to ever be expanded beyond that state. Powers T 16:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Olsen 23:51, 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 09:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Von Graudenz[edit]

Non-notable, general poor quality. Explodicle 23:52, 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. (aeropagitica) 09:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Matthew Brown, 4th Baronet of London[edit]

Non-notable individual who is listed as having claimed an extinct Baronetcy in England. No independent confirmation found. Probable vanity. Also nominated under identical material at Matthew Brown (Socialite). DMG413 23:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claim was published in The Times and London Gazette. Entry can also be found in Who's Who. James. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.112.172 (talk • contribs)

Fail to see how vanity when clearly, even if forgetting claim to baronetcy and only through his father/business he is a figure of note. Wilfredclose 01:15, 19 September 2006 — Wilfredclose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, JS14877 02:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would agree with Wilfredclose, figure is notable. JS14877 — JS14877 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I know I am new here, new to the internet if I am truthful, so please ignore if inappropriate comments. If the claim to the baronetcy has been established, or submitted it would perhaps suggest that the figure is one of note. Rest of biog needs more support, I would agree and would suggest allowing time for this? On balance keep. Nationalalamo — Nationalalamo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Article seems to be developing, benefit of the doubt for further source material to come? 12588 — 12588 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Note The above "unsigned" attribution is forged. Vote actually entered by 172.188.112.172 (talk · contribs) who had already voted above. The sockpuppetry in this discussion is amazing, and makes the claims all that much more dubious. Fan-1967 13:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2 - per this list, there is in fact a very large number of baronetcies still extant. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, yes it is. It's vandalism (according to WP:HOAX itself), which is indeed a criterion for speedy deletion. -- Necrothesp 00:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 09:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Enoch Mount[edit]

Article created by its subject, a non-notable person Blainster 23:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have witnessed this gentlemen's involvement at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, and hold him to be a trustworthy person. I met him during the Spring 2006 semester of college in the class entitled PHIL 305B Modern Philosophy: moral/political philosophy; instructed by Professor Andrew Youpa. Also, I have engaged in discussion with him and Professor Randal Auxier during Apologia meetings, a Registered Student Organization, here at SIUC. I frequently help him with his RSO's Gospel table within the SIUC student center. I also attend Mr. Mount's Temple of Faith Ministries, as conducted in the Interfaith Center here in Carbondale, IL. I have spoken via telephone to Bishop Gentry, and can verify their acquaintance and friendship. I am also a member of his Google group entitled Jesus on the Web. Likewise, almost all the things within Mathew Enoch Mount's Wikipedia page can be accessed through public records. Again, I hold him to be a trustworthy and reliable person. His page should be allowed to stay and, due to his dyslexia, only minorly revised. My name is Adam Colbert and I am a music student at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.135.202 (talk • contribs)

Please stop posting under these IP addresses - we consider you to be the same person and it's just weakening your case. --ArmadilloFromHell 03:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - My name is Colin West and I live in Mr. Mount's Dorm. He is the real deal, I've seen his drivers license - so his name, address, and age are accurate. He also wears a priest outfit every day and goes in to very long discourse about his beliefs. No man could make up the stuff that comes out of his mouth, so it must be real. He is, indeed, an odd character, but this is no reason to delete his page. Good Day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.230.55.99 (talk • contribs) 06:15, September 20, 2006.

Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Verifiability are all valid reasons to delete the article. A reason to keep the article has not yet been established. And I'm quite impressed with such a campaign self-promotion by a man of the cloth. Isn't pride (superbia) one of the seven deadly sins? --DeLarge 07:32, 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.
More