Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kusma (talk | contribs) at 08:22, 8 August 2006 (Promise the Children). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< August 7 August 9 >

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 delete. Sango123 18:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Paint

This page has been proded twice by two independent editors; the webpage described doesn't come close to reaching WP:WEB and is completely non-notable. Prosfilaes 00:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. Sango123 18:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asad TV

Delete as a hoax. This is a disputed prod; removed by an anon user. There are no relevant Google hits [1] so even if this is not fake, there are no reliable sources provided. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC) - Agree with the addition of the 6 people listed below.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Ageo020 01:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily kept, bad-faith nomination. --Golbez 03:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shutokou Battle

Another user started but did not complete the AfD nomination process for this article. A second editor later proposed it for speedy deletion as the creation of a banned user, but it appears to be thecreation of several editors over a period of time. The article seems harmless to me, so I take no poistion on it. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think it should be deleted as this article is actually part of a multiple article deletion action against a permanent banned editor and his multiple sockpuppets EnthusiastFRANCE/EnthusiastFR). you can follow the discussion here (Kinkeshi). JP Belmondo 00:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was All are being speedily kept, and all pro voters are being for being meatpuppets and disrupting WP to make a point. --Golbez 03:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Touring Car Championship

Another user started but did not complete the AfD nomination process for this article. A second editor later proposed it for speedy deletion as the creation of a banned user, but it appears to be thecreation of several editors over a period of time. The article seems harmless to me, so I take no poistion on it. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as remaining article created by a permanent banned editor sockpuppetmaster (see discussion here (deletion has already started with Kinkeshi). JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep All as WP:V and the fact that an editor working on this article is permanently banned in not a valid reason for deletion. Even CSD:G5 seems a bit draconian since these are actually fully formed articles that others worked on...--Isotope23 01:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Pschemp as already deleted very long and supported Kinkeshi article created by this editor by herself (supporters being abusively charged of being sockpuppets) and she has also reverted this editor's work on Man Bites Dog (film). It seems like being abusive is not a matter on this site. JP Belmondo 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Isotope23. It is a legitmate article and I believe this was not what CSD:G5 was meant to deal with. Too much work has been put into the article to delete it now. Also can someone please format the related articles into one. It would be a lot easier for comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgelord (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Keep per above. Eventhough this was apparently created by a now banned user the actual nominator (not TruthbringerToronto) seems to assume bad faith here. Even now banned users can have created reasonable articles in the past. -- Koffieyahoo 02:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete banned editor's work are usually deleted. Xi Qu 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete abusive use of copyrighted material (pictures) and sockpuppet work. There is no reason to keep a banned user's dirty work. MarryMorrison 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since Kinkeshi was deleted the others articles have to be deleted too, sounds logical to me. Alezvousfaireenculer 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that a banned user made the page, does not signify a reason for deletion. Furthermore the entire page will just have to be recreated as its a popular notable title that deserves a mention. Completely bad faith. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keshi

Remainng article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berserk Forces (single)

Remainng article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berserk anime soundtrack

Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of the Berserk (soundtrack)

Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berserk PS2 Soundtrack

Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist Trophy (video game)

Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Keep arguments, in the main, focus on the fact that this fetish exists, so we should have a page on it even though the page can't contain an article verified by reliable sources. Please remember the first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis as written). The fact that it exists to some extent isn't the question; its verifiability or lack of it is the key to whether we can write an article on it. Some also point out that we have other unsourcable articles on fetishes, to which WP:Pokémon test has a very good response - as did your mother when she told you that "two wrongs don't make a right". --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bellypunching

Note: have made some significant changes to try and justify the article further. They are basic but hopefully satisfy enough to let the article continue existing, while being improved.--Brokethebank 07:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes added a bunch of links, but they consist of yahoo groups, personal websites, and a couple porn sites which themselves are non-notable. None of these are reliable sources, none of them help with the fact that this article still violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. Unverifiable content can't stay on wikipedia, no matter how much some people might like said content. --Xyzzyplugh 15:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Points to consider - It's not about liking (or in your case, disliking) this entry, but about showing dilligence in mapping out within Wikipedia all these various concepts that exist in the world.
1. Some concepts are better cited than others, it's true.
2. However that doesn't mean that some things, which are perhaps more ephemeral, or which came into their own with the rise of the internet, can't be listed.
3. Granted one can't list everything, but I suggest that if one can prove that a lot of people are involved in a concept, and that this concept exists as such, then the concept must surely merit some inclusion, even if that inclusion is limited only to what one can source.
4. As for your grandmother throwing spoons at cats (I haven't met her but I'm sure she's a nice lady), I would think that her eccentricity is too isolated to be reasonably compared with this fetish at hand. I have shown that thousands of people have taken it upon themselves to join public groups around this fetish; and found any number of websites, most which have been around for years, creating a sort of community.
5. It would be a mistake to make an article called bellypunching videos on the basis of the fact of such videos existing, because that would ignore the evident existence of the concept of the fetish.
6. Granted that if one starts a blog on any obscure fetish, it can't be included here; but if 30 or 40 different organizations and people start websites, both personal websites and business websites, combined with free public groups that require membership (membership to which groups as I've stated reaches the thousands) I suggest that a certain minimum has been reached to make it a bonafide concept that some people hold.
7. If you really believe that only things that show up in journals are worthy of existence in WIkipedia, I think Wikipedia will be much the poorer for it. It seems unreasonable to ignore the existence of something that is obvious and evident, from the links I've found (which were incidentally only a small percentage). To wit:
[W]here an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge,
[as the existence of a fetish called "bellypunching" may be deduced]
and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims,
[as this article does not,]
a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources [...] [from WP:NOR]--Brokethebank 14:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re your item 7, I think you are not in tune with the spirit of WP:NOR there. The idea is that we can write (eg) "an apple pie is a pastry crust with an apple filling"; finding a reliable source for that sentence might not be easy, but no-one would try to strike out (as OR) what a huge number of people already know. As it says, such examples are exceptional; extending that principle to an activity like bellypunching is not on. Mr Stephen 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is original research, and doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability as there are no reliable sources on this. Xyzzyplugh 00:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment gastergastrizophilia gets no non-Wikipedia hits. -- Scientizzle 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article title gets 864 G-hits. Hoax and neologism. Morgan Wick 00:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. References are cited, and the references cited are evidence that a market exists for this type of pornography, which in turn is evidence for the existence of the fetish. On that basis, the article is not a WP:HOAX. I have not been able to find the term gastergastrizophilia used outside Wikipedia. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The references cited are a personal web page and a website that sells porn movies. The porn site does not discuss the issue at all, but simply has some movies for sale. Neither of these are even remotely reliable sources. Do you believe we should keep articles which don't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, or do you have some reliable sources you haven't mentioned? --Xyzzyplugh 00:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- obscure and weird, but real. It's been mentioned on alt.sex.stories, so someone must have this fetish. Haikupoet 00:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    alt.sex.stories is not a reliable source. Please explain how this article meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Xyzzyplugh 00:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I beg to differ. If it's on alt.sex.stories, someone got off on it enough to write about it. And there does appear to be a market for bellypunching porn as well. God only knows why, but if people are producing it someone's probably buying it. Haikupoet 00:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you may have a misunderstanding as to what reliable sources are. From Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet, "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking". And the first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If something exists, but it has never been covered in any reliable sources, then we can't have an article on it, because we can neither rely on unreliable sources, nor use original research. --Xyzzyplugh 01:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment while you are correct about alt.sex.stories, your understanding of policy toward primary sources seems to be off. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia...In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions. A porn site selling 'bellypunching' videos is "easily verifiable without specialist knowledge." We do not need a credible third party to tell us such exists when we see it with our own eyes.
          • Yes, we could consider these porn sites, or the videos themselves, as primary sources, verifying the existence of videos of women being punched in the stomach. However, where does that get us in relation to this article? That leaves an article called Bellypunching, consisting entirely of "Videos of women being punched in the stomach exist", which would mean we'd need to rename the article "bellypunching videos" or something similar, which would violate Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and need to be deleted, as the article would simply be a rephrasing/definition of the title. And, look, you can't water down WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources to the point where ANYTHING becomes reliable. Suppose my grandmother enjoys throwing spoons at her cat, and writes about it on her myspace account and makes a video of it which she posts online. Can we have a wikipedia article called Cat spooning or Grandmother spoon throwing or Spoon thrown at cat hobby? No. Attempting to grab bits from parts of policies and put them together to suggest that everything in the world is a primary source and therefore we can have an article about everything, simply won't work. --Xyzzyplugh 15:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR... not verifiable and apparent original research.--Isotope23 01:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It definitely does exist, I remember a whole website of anime pictures of various video game females getting socked in the gut, often puking as a result. I think it was a SomethingAwful Awful Link of the Day a couple years back. That said, damn near everything is some kind of fetish to someone out there (window cleaning fetish! omelette-making fetish! hard-drive-defragmenting fetish!) and that doesn't mean we need an article for everything that gives folks their jollies. I think this one in particular is probably hard to back up with reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom: though this fetish may exist, and may be documented on a website selling pornography and may be document on alt.sex.stories, those are not reliable sources, and thus it is unverified by any reliable sources. --Iamunknown 02:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral What - no pointlessly gratuitous obscure Simpsons reference? Bwithh 02:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to domestic violence (f*&%ing sickos) --Xrblsnggt 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR Æon Insane Ward 05:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though there's no way I could source it myself while at work. MLA 09:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your reason for choosing Keep? --Xyzzyplugh 12:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment my reason for recommending keep is that I believe it's a notable practice and I know that it is not a hoax and that it does exist. MLA 14:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't need an article on every obscure sexual fetish. (I have no doubt that if you can think up something really obscure someone will practice it) ViridaeTalk 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Although it currently has no reliable sources, it should be kept and improved. Reliable sources need to be found. If we deleted all unreferenced information from wikipedia we wouldn't have that much left... Localzuk (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm concerned about this article. Whilst it seems hard to verify and highly unusual bordering on unlikely, that doesn't nessessarily warrant its deletion or label it a hoax. I'd say as Andrew Lenahan has heard of this fetish before that warrants a weak keep. Although it needs considerable improvement. Many of the sexual articles are like this though, I don't think deletion is the answer to it. --WikipedianProlific(Talk) 13:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neither the author of the piece, nor any of us in this discussion, know of any proper sources to verify the information in the piece, though all of it seems plausible, even likely. I think thats an indication that the piece needs fixing, not elimination. Our inability to find gastergastrizophilia on the net neither proves nor disproves anything -- detailed texts on sexual paraphilia aren't left around laying open on the net, and a mild amount of googling for "erotic punching," "belly punishment" or "rough body play" (thats what they call the workshops where they teach you how to take an 'erotic punch') will show that the practice is meither "unlikely" nor even uncommon. Some of it is obviously sex play with a consenting partner; some is not so consensual, and there is a shaded continuum -- but, even in this supposedly liberated age, nobody has any real nummbers -- in part because the participants themselves don't know where the line actually divides consent and abuse. I think it's an important topic, and a research failure isn't a good reason to have no article in this instance. Mark it up for needed citations[citation needed], and leave it be. Bustter 14:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable Marcus22 15:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, existence is not notability, fails WP:V and WP:RS. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question For those voting keep while ackowledging that this fails WP:V, a question: why is this worth keeping if no proper sources can be found? Sure, it likely exists and some have heard of the practice, but why should a sexual fetish with a small audience have an article when, say, a webcomic with a small, but clearly existent, following and no relaible third-party media coverage is readily deleted? Why should an article about a sexual fetish garner apparent AfD bonus points?-- Scientizzle 18:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is this fake? If so, to what extent? Who cares? If Dr. Credible comes along and vets it, fine. If noone does, that's fine too, because you can't expect any better from a poorly known and defined subject. It's still interesting enough to exist.  Cdcon  19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "interesting enough to exist" isn't policy... WP:V is. If nobody comes along to vet this, it is not "fine". Any article that is not verifiable should go. If you can't expect better sources to be produced, then we shouldn't be writing articles about the subject. Not that it necessarily matters, but at least on this topic, it appears that Jimbo agrees with me: "We should continue to turn our attention away from growth and towards quality." As a community, condoning poorly or unsourced articles runs counter to that goal.--Isotope23 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right in the broader sense of making Wikipedia a quality, fully verifiable site. But if you think AfD is going to solve that problem, dream on. For the time being, until we develop a robust system to filter out the unverifiable material, I believe it is more important to maintain consistency in what we accept and what we don't. You can argue there are rules in place for that, but how appropriate are they and how well are they enforced? I believe that articles like this tend to be mostly harmless to Wikipedia.  Cdcon  20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess harmless is a matter of opinion. This is a much wider discussion that goes well beyond this topic, so to be brief, consistency is a problem and we should consistently be removing anything that isn't verifiable. Leaving it here just creates the perception that unsourced and poorly sourced articles are acceptible fare on Wikipedia.--Isotope23 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD, and Prod, ARE part of our robust system of filtering out unverifiable material. This, right here, is how we delete articles on unverifiable topics. We're doing it right now. Welcome to the system. --Xyzzyplugh 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to re-creating if verifiable sources can be found. AFAICT, unverifiable by any reliable source. TheronJ 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Since this page has gone through a bunch of edits, let me reaffirm my delete. No offense, but the existence of videos and webpages doesn't establish that the alleged fetish is notable. I'm also very doubtful that using exclusively online sources can meet the reliable source criteria. TheronJ 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No journals or articles mention this, using LexisNexis as a search tool. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strongly suspected hoax. If it ain't on L& O Svu, it ain't real!205.157.110.11 00:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 205.157.110.11, the best deletion reason I've seen for any of these fetish articles that have gotten AFDed lately. (Seriously, for lack of sources.)--Kchase T 01:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Those voting keep may be best to actually read the WP:V policy once again (please delete - to be honest I'm still shocked that Donkey punch remains) - Glen 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:V, unreferenced, never heard of such a term, very likely to be a hoax. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 06:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- while it is a weird business, it is something that exists, and while it may not be well known I don't think it's so wildly obscure that it falls into NOR. As said above, references should be found. A lot of internet things are uncited in journals, and most of them should be ignored, but sometimes I think a compendium of citations is enough to warrant a keep: google brings back 900 hits for bellypunching, and over 20,000 for "belly punching". (Also, I understand that for instance this forms a sizeable part of Japanese sexual culture; but my japanese isn't too great) --Brokethebank 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BTW, I made up the word gastergastrizophilia, since I've studied classical languages a lot (in this case Greek) and it seemed like the appropriate move to put this article in the list of sexual paraphilias on such a page. Maybe I should have not done that; in any case bellypunching still is a known term. --Brokethebank 14:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Maybe I should have not done that"; you are right, read WP:NOR Mr Stephen 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment You also introduced "abspunching" as a term for 'the male to male' form, yet the only reasonable ghit for this is a female 'catfight' site in russia. Seems the bulk of the info here is you 'winging it.'
  • Hits for "bellypunching" (or "gastergastrizophilia") in: Journal of Sexual Aggression - none; Archives of sexual behaviour - none; Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment - none. Not a major grant-farming subject, it seems. Mr Stephen 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As it stands, the article fails WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. Mr Stephen 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Google will confirm for you that "erotic punching," "belly punishment" and "rough body play" all exist, at least enouh that some are trying to make money with them. primary sources are permitted, see WP: NOR, In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources... Few here seem to have read this. The article, however, is stinky, and needs to be fixed. Bustter 00:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're suggesting that we make an article called Google hits on "belly punishment", consisting of the results of a google search, I have to say I'm rather sure it would violate WP:NOT. Seriously, though, you're looking for a loophole in WP:V and WP:NOR which doesn't exist. The fact that a phrase can be found in a google search on a number of webpages, combined with the fact that this phrase is used in the title of some porn videos, does not justify a wikipedia article. You just can't make a wikipedia article by combining "some webpages have the term 'bellypunching' in them" and "Some videos of women being punched in the stomach exist, and some of these videos have the term 'bellypunching' in the title". This does not equal an article, this yields a dictionary definition, and a questionable one at best. It's not an accident or a coincidence that WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT when combined disallow wikipedia articles based on nothing but message board postings and porn videos, this was done on purpose and there is no loophole. --Xyzzyplugh 15:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable information that is worth including in an encyclopedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable through reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 04:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, this type of porn does appear to exist. (But then, what type of porn does not? The Internet is to porn what the proverbial typewriter monkeys are to literature.) What matters here is that there are no reliable sources for any of the statements the article makes about bellypunching - as Xyzzyplugh said above, we'd have to stub it to "Bellypunching porn exists". And that's even assuming every flavour of Internet porn is also notable, which I submit is not the case. Sandstein 19:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy Acres

Non-notable grocery store, with only one location and doesn't need a page. --Caldorwards4 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nourhanne

This article manages to simultaneously violate WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V in nearly every sentence. As was written on the talk page, it has not a single saving grace sans that the topic is, in principle, notable. Nysin 23:04, 1 August 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, - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's gratifying, guys, but now I have to write an entry for Nadia Lutfi :( ... Anyway, I jus would like to recommend to those who found the original "hilarious"...I'd like to see what you've written for the Arab Wiki.
  • comment Stubbly, I've been up all night, first getting Nourhanne in decent shape, and now working on a Nadia Lutfi entry so as not to leave a stub...Nourhonne is in much better shape than when I found it. If you think it needs improvement, though, you are welcome to start grinding Arabic text through Google Language Tools, as I've been doing all night. Bustter 19:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my response to Cdcon. Nysin 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did, and now that I've seen the walking, breathing, living, tapdancing, craps-playing, snorkeling version I no longer feel like I did all the work.:) Bustter 21:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus on whether these clearly public figures are sufficiently notable for their own articles. Some may choose to pursue a merge, which doesn't require AfD. Copyvio should be removed on sight without waiting for AfDs to close, incidentally. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Angelique Richard

Also: Wanita "D. Woods" Woodgette, Shannon Bex, Wanita Woodgett, Dawn Angelique Richard, Aubrey O'Day, Aundrea Fimbres... did I miss any? Not much to suggest these are anything other than nn vanity articles. Googling "Dawn Richards"+ "Danity Kane" returns 42 hits. As for Woodgette, half the article is copyvio, the rest says that the band's first album won't be released for two months. There is a claim of notoriety notability, however, with the P.Diddy connection. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge what seems useful and not a copyvio in the Danity Kane article, delete all the rest. -- Koffieyahoo 04:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Each member of the group has a history and each member of the group will do things outside of the group in the future. Just because some of the articles are short now doesn't mean they won't expand in the upcoming weeks/months; most of them were just recently created because the group has just began to gain notoriety.
  • Keep per above post. She is part of a group that was famous for months on television and is about to release it's first album in late August. This article and the other members will subsequently expand. Squadoosh 07:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom WP:BIO not notable, or mergeto 'Making the band3'. In defense of deletion, their past seems not so notable. 68.84.243.47 states they may go on and do other notable things. With respect, most of the Wanita Woodgett and Aundrea Fimbres articles appear to be about 'making the band', with personal details are stubs about non-notables, so it would make sense to merge into Danity Kane or Making The Band or "list of people in making the band". WP:NOT wiki is not a crystal ball, and individual articles can be created as and when/if these people DO become notable in their own right. Ohconfucius 08:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability slowly being established, they even get a mention on Fox FM (United Kingdom). Article could be expanded. --TheM62Manchester 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the band article. If more information about individuals comes about in future, I have nothing against recreation of the articles Localzuk (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Appears to me to be a set of vanity articles. --WikipedianProlific(Talk) 13:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as not (yet) notable Marcus22 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --P199 17:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- Alias Flood 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only people who would ever stumble upon these articles would have a rather different opinion on their notability. That's right, notability is an opinion, despite whatever arbitrary NN rules are in place.  Cdcon  19:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: notability is not "an opinion". It is, by definition, an objective matter and - in cases such as this - it is a thing to be established by reference to reputable sources. Those sources are insufficient in this case at this point in time. Marcus22 12:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Generally, I don't think winning a reality show makes someone notable unless they become notable on their own. If the album makes it big, then we need an article on the BAND, and that is it. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V - what else is there? WilyD 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the Danity Kane article. No need for individual articles on each band member at this time; perhaps with greater notability later in their careers. Fairsing 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there have been two seasons of a television show, a making the video, and now an album released by these artists, there are enough resources available to be collated and archived here. If one disagrees that there is enough notaraity now, what is the point in deleting if there is great likelihood that notaraity will be achieved at a later date? Pvodenski 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. They are now a part of America Pop Culture and media. They are musicians with TV time, video time and concert time. They have an album arriving in a week. Expansion will most definitely occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.220.5 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 11 August 2006
  • Keep. The article may require cleanup, but each member of the group has been involved in other endeavors before the creation of the band. Also, the group is gaining more and more notoriety as of late, and people will want to read about the members of the band as well as the band itself. CTVampSlayer August 12, 2006. (UTC)
  • Keep It gives a look into the fans favorite member of the group like Destiny's Child and TLC's pages even if they're not that popular yet. AJ Blakeney
  • Keep If individual members of the Pussycat Dolls and Eden's Crush get their own wikipedia pages, I don't see why these girls can't. They all seem to somewhat fall in the same category. Plus, the girls of Danity Kane are slowly gaining even more notability as their album release draws nearer (Aug 22) and they are appearing in more magazines. Their individual official web sites are also getting more hits and becoming more fleshed out, so there should be more information available for use by the wikipedia community (in terms of WP:V and giving each girl their own individual entry). logsmein 23:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This group is becoming very popular, being constantly featured on Yahoo Buzz, being the Number 1 Music Artist on Myspace, and being on the top of MTV Artist pages. Their album will be released Aug 22, and the girls are starting to get a lot of publicity. Therefore, it would be unfair to close this page down strictly for the reason that this band is not popular. Also, if other bands have sites for their individual artists, it makes sense to allow these individual members to have their own parts as well. each girl will have their own fanbases who will want to read about the particular members. Jennayy 23:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all, hoaxes, WP:SNOW.  RasputinAXP  c 01:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 Comics

Part of a rather elaborate hoax perpetrated by User:Bret John, among other user accounts. The article claims that 4 Comics is a popular Pakistani comic publisher that uses characters from Marvel Comics and Art of Fighting, among other places. This AfD covers all articles associated with 4 Comics.

Also covered in this AfD:

Danny Lilithborne 00:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was we have consensus to keep this article, I reckon. Further, there is not nor ever was a valid claim for speedying this article — from the re-creation, we can just consider that PROD contested ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Sorj

This is a re-creation of a previously deleted article re-created by the original author and subject of the article. Mallanox 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)*Comment — Just to note: 778 google hits, and 785 Yahoo hits. Article is well written. I leave it to others to detirmine the state of this in Wikipedia policy. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

slap-wrist noted Ohconfucius 06:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2003-04 NHL transactions

Fails WP:NOT, namely its policy against Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics and indiscriminate collection of information. Most of the transactions are non-notable and share no characteristics besides taking place during the same NHL season. Also violates WP:FUP with the inclusion of team logos for each player.

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the violation described above:

Madchester 01:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Frankly, I don't think this nomination has a good grounding in either section of the policy, since the loosely associated topics doesn't list similar examples and the indicsriminate collections of information lists seven things that consensus has established qualifies as such, and this is none of these. I'm not a sportsperson, so if arguments sway me, I may change my vote. Do people think this is useful information? I hear my friends commenting on player trades all the time...--Kchase T 02:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all. Factual, verifiable, and not indiscriminate as it pertains to important events during the course of each season. Logos can and should be edited out to satisfy FUP. (WP:HOCKEY caught most of the logo-ed up pages but there are still probably a few out there.) BoojiBoy 02:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I personally disagree with the nom. This article does not fail WP:NOT in my opinion. Also, notability is in the eye of the beholder -- despite what some may think. DMighton 02:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The transactions are neither loosely associated nor indiscriminate. There was a bit of discussion on WP:HOCKEY when these pages were created. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive3#NHL Transactions. -- JamesTeterenko 02:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very useful information for fans of the game. As a long time veteran of message boards, you would be surprised how much the topic of "when was player x traded, and for whom?" comes up. Articles like these can answer that question. The list is verifiable, factually accurate and it serves a purpose. Resolute 03:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThough I do agree with the argument of a violation of WP:FUP. However, the logos can very easily be removed. Resolute 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't bring up the messageboards bit per WP:NOT - not a discussion forum. I'm on many sports forums at Fanhome, RFD, etc. and understand how trade rumours are always discussed, but the articles still fail WP:NOT for the reasons given. The articles are no different than similarly deleted tennis articles recently. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Federer's winning streak on grass) Actually, I'm curiously to see the opinion of editors who are not affiliated with WikiProject Ice Hockey. --Madchester 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As BoojiBoy stated, you are misreading what WP:NOT is. I mentioned message boards to show that hockey fans find this information useful. As it is, it does not appear to me that you have justified that these lists violate WP:NOT. Given how broad your argument appears, I could use your logic to justify the deletion of every single list on Wikipedia. This clearly is not a list of loosely based topics, nor is it indiscriminant information. It is a list of one single topic: Players that have moved from one team to another. Resolute 18:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are completely misreading WP:NOT. It says that wikipedia is not a message board and it says that message boards are not relevant sources, but you can't use that to argue about the usefulness of an article, just because some people on a board find that article useful. I am sure that people on a Jessica Simpson message board find Jessica Simpson useful; that doesn't mean we should delete that article. BoojiBoy 12:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Along that line of logic, Roger Federer messageboard users will find his article useful; however, the list Roger Federer's winning streak on grass is not, since it contains a series of indiscrminate information; voted for deletion for that reason here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Federer's winning streak on grass. A list of trades that took place during an NHL season is no more distinguishable than the 30+ victories on Federer's recent grass winning streak. --Madchester 18:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, it's much more akin to this. And as mentioned, the reason these deals aren't in the season articles is for size constraints. BoojiBoy 19:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pabble

Year-old unsourced neologism with one relevant Google hit: [5] to, as usual, the supposed inventor's blog. Opabinia regalis 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. Sango123 18:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Popat

I am nominating all these article for deletion for the following given reasons.

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

The result was DELETE. nn hoax/nonsense. --Madchester 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzlardolphoctopus

Joke article, only source is one Slashdot post. —Keenan Pepper 02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Severed Hand

Nonnotable heavy metal band. NawlinWiki 02:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex_changer

There are no pages that link to this disambiguation page except for the page that links to disambiguation pages. It's also not a term I think comes up very often or needs to be disambiguated. "Sex Changer" also sounds like a derogatory term for transgendered people. kian 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euclidean natural units

original research. i never heard of "Euclidian natural units". article creator cannot answer necessary fundamental questions about it on the Talk:Natural units page. r b-j 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. When Googled with quotes, 352/354 results are all links to the same article on a math&science forum under two filenames. The original research seems to make sense (though it is without any sources), but it is original research, and, as per WP:OR, should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamunknown (talk • contribs) 19:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
i dunno what sense you can make of it. it cannot be a complete set of Natural units unless it normalizes or fixes 3 universal physical constants (to get natural units for length, time, and mass). or 4 if you include a natural unit of charge or 5 if you include temperature. r b-j 02:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I should have clarified what I made of the .pdf file. I briefly scanned over the .pdf and thought it did not look like patent nonsense. I am unqualified to determine if it makes sense mathematically or physically, however, as I am ignorant of natural units and much of the math used in the .pdf file. --Iamunknown 02:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it's okay. patent nonesense is unreadable gobbledegook that is pretty obvious to anyone. i could find no hits whatsoever when i Google either "Euclidean natural units" or "Euclidian natural units" with quotes. but the page, along with two others (that i listed below), are nonsense from a science or physics POV. r b-j 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generic wavelength

"original research" at best, but more accurately labelled pseudoscience. article creator cannot answer necessary fundamental questions on Talk:Natural units. r b-j 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generic frequency

"original research" at best, but more accurately labelled pseudoscience. article creator cannot answer necessary fundamental questions at Talk:Natural units. r b-j 02:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 09:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freecycle (software)

Page is a software ad, and software is of no special interest RainbowCrane 02:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inertia (laziness)

Hardly a potential article. Currently presents just a single quotation. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. fails WP:WEB --Madchester 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full magazine

Non-notable online magazine. Zero Google hits. Vanity article (created by magazine's creator). It's not clear what an "underground" website is. eaolson 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • dont delete give a boy a chance he clearly loves this website —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicklink (talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 August 2006.
Comment Sorry, but you are going to need a better reason than that for this article to be kept. --Edgelord 04:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A MANS VALIDITY CANNOT BE MEASURED WITH GOOGLE HITS PLEASE RECONSIDER —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicklink (talk • contribs) 11:55, 8 August 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 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony (Nickel Creek song)

Prodded as a non-notable song and recreated, which equates to a contested prod. Song is still non-notable: no chart appearance, not even released as a single, and no other assertion of notability in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was KEEP. JIP | Talk 09:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cruelty of Really Teaching Computer Science

Not encyclopedic. This article has a long and sad history of trying to be cleaned up, and I think the reason they have all failed is that it just isn't a good candidate for an encyclopedia entry. It reads more like a review or critical analysis essay. There is only one reference, and that reference really has little to do with the subject of the article itself. Nearly every sentence is marked with {{fact}}, but I don't see how there could even be a source that validates any of these statements. Let us end the madness and delete this article, merging any meager scraps of verfiable fact (if there are any to be found) into E. W. Dijkstra. -- Rangek 02:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Both sides make good points ... and ties go to the runner. If anyone feels particularly strongly about this fellow not getting an article, they can feel free to merge him at their leisure. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Izhar Hunzai

Fails WP:BIO - no evidence of notable achievement presented - Delete. BlueValour 03:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Barely 35 Google hits here and many do not refer to him. No tangible achievements - General manager of such a programme is a most worthwhile job but no different from very, many other people doing such responsible functions. BlueValour 14:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment probably better to search on Izhar Ali Hunzai Dlyons493 Talk 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and why would anyone have used the middle name 'Ali' when searching? Nothing is said about it in the article nor is it part of the title. --Bschott 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Using the middle name brings it down to 23 hits here. Face it; this guy ain't notable. BlueValour 00:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's general manager of a humanitarian organisation that has doubled the income of the rural poor in their area of interest. Has a 6m$ annual budget. Ghits isn't the best criterion here. Dlyons493 Talk 00:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have managed a £3 million UKP budget in a human resources field but I am not notable :-) I have no doubt that this is a remarkable achievement but for encyclopaedic purposes we need to meet WP:CITE and WP:LIVING. BlueValour 02:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - For determination of notability or including in the encyclopaedia what is needed is independent sourcing for example as to what (and how it) was achieved, some figures as to the numbers benefitting, the other influences etc BlueValour 07:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Looks like the Emmy nomination argument was pretty well refuted; you're free to disagree, though: DRV is that way ----->. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hely

Delete: Non-notable television writer. Not every television staff writer is notable This is it, make no mistake anymore 03:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not creator, director or main actor, just a staff writer. There's usually dozens of these guys and they get hired and fired every week. This guy just happened to be on the staf when the large writing team at one show he worked for was nominated for an Emmy. Unless it can be shown that he is a significant and important figure in the show he's non-notable. This is it, make no mistake anymore 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of Salsafication

Nonnotable excerpt from one restaurant chain's training materials. NawlinWiki 03:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Robber

Party game that was partly developed by "Pantsless Mike" and is only claimed to exist at one school.

Note, this comment has in fact been altered (from delete to keep and had the final sentence appended) by the article's creator. The real poster has informed me of that, since I didn't even think of checking the edit history. BigHaz 07:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Argument about verifiability has been refuted; argument about health hazard has been binned; argument about being silly has been taken under advisement and should undoubtedly be kept in mind next time someone invents a drinking game. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncing coins

Bouncing coins was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-03. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bouncing coins (relist nomination).

This needs to be referenced and verified and, if it is legit, probably merged with Quarters as the lede suggests. If not, delete as nn. Has been AFD'ed previously in bulk, nomination was withdrawn due to difficulty gaining consensus. Daniel Case 03:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Public health hazard. I am all for the sport of drinking, but while they were inventing this game, did the thought occur that drinking out of a community glass and tossing filthy coins into it that have bounced off an equally filthy bar table could spread some diseases? --Xrblsnggt 03:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a silly idea to have thought it was notable enough for wikipedia in the first place ViridaeTalk 11:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a silly renomination. It was consensus keep, it was verifiable before (s "bounce 'em") and still is. The AfDs were done individiually, and nearly all kept. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Three, the blame for this remonimation lies squarely with the editor who not only didn't cite the source in the article the last time this came to AFD, hasn't done so this time either. The prior AFD discussion wasn't in the usual place, and wasn't linked to from the notice on the article's talk page. Please learn to cite sources. Citing sources is the way to avoid AFD, and a complaint that articles come to AFD when one has failed to cite any sources and no sources can be found (without knowing a different name for the subject that isn't even mentioned in the article) doesn't really have much foundation, especially when it has happened once already. Uncle G 13:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Usually it happens. Considering that I spent two hours voting in 30-something drinking game AfDs the last time it came around, I'm not shocked that a few missed the boat. While articles should be cited if need be, the large amount of nominations also asks the question as to whether any effort to verify was made by the nominee, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Because you dislike something, or consider it dangerous, doesn't make it unencyclopedic. --Gau 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What possible relevance is there to a discussion of whether to delete an article that someone thinks it is a public health hazard? Isn't that opinion itself OR? Is that a basis for having no mention in Wikipedia of say promiscuity or the eating of raw fish in Sushi, since those might also spread disease? You should only post Keep or Delete based on valid criteria. Is the article OR? POV? about something Notable? Does it have Verifiable Sources? Edison 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced and it is the editor's responsibility to source. I gather there is a book reference - has the text been checked against the book for possible copyvio? As it stands it is OR. BlueValour 04:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BlueValour, not verifiable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--There is absolutely nothing wrong with this page, though it might make sense to merge it with Quarters -- Trnj2000 17:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle polka

Another unverified drinking game, thanks to the supporters of Rod Allen Drinking Game pointing to other similarcruft (?) articles as a reason to keep. 763 Google hits, only a few seem relevant and they're all either us or our mirrors. HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME. Daniel Case 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross the River

Cross the River was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-03. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross the River (relist nomination).

The current drinking game purge continues. I can find one independent reference to this game at gameosis.com. I cannot find these rules anywhere. NN in my book. Daniel Case 03:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Park

Article as it stands right now does not make a valid argument for Nikki to be considered notable as per WP:BIO guidelines and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. Tabercil 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jug Game

All significant Google hits are here, mirrors and a blog that links here. Daniel Case 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Not for AfD, redirected.. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garage parking

It is a double of the article Parking Garage. There isn't even enough there to merge anything into Parking Garage.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Common phrases based on stereotypes. – Robert 13:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish confetti

A somewhat notable slang term, I move to delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Teke 03:44, 8 August 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, —Mets501 (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of H manga

List better served as a cat. All blue links have been added to List of manga (except one that doesn't appear to be a manga. SeizureDog 03:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, although I suggest Jeff pull his finger out on these articles. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Three

Mr. Three was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-03. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Three (relist nomination).

I didn't know we had so many mirrors. But no independent source. Daniel Case 03:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't find this to be worthy of deletion at all. --Yath 04:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michael 06:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn;t appear to be at all notable (and it has too much maths to be a good drinking game :)) ViridaeTalk 08:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another unverifiable drinking game. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note the prior AFD discussion, where the game was found documented under another name. (This renomination is an example of why it is always best to add sources to the article in AFD discussions.) Uncle G 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In that case, I would readily change my argument to keep if sources are added. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then here you are, it was listed as Three Man in The Best Drinking Games Book. I thought we had moved it to its verifiable title, but apparently not. Also, keep, bad renomination considering the evidence cited at the last AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Considering that the prior AFD discussion was not in the usual place or linked to from the notice on the article's talk page, and that even the second time around you haven't actually cited the source in the article, it's somewhat unfair to characterize the renomination as bad. The root cause of the problem here is failure to cite sources in the article. You're not citing sources in the article, either. Please learn to cite sources in articles. Articles that cite sources are rarely brought to AFD in the first place, let alone deleted. This one certainly wouldn't have be renominated if you had actually added to the article the source that you found when the article came to AFD before. Uncle G 12:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Easily verifiable articles brought to AfD are bad nominations. I stand by that. As I said in the other discussion, when 30+ articles are brought up last time around, and you spend hours doing research to find the verifiability for them, you're gonna miss a couple. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • This was not an easily verifiable article, as explained above. And the last time around this article was nominated individually, not as part of a collective nomination of 30 articles. In the prior AFD discussion, you failed to cite the source that you found, in the article. The cited source was hidden away on a hard-to-find AFD page, rather than in the article. As I said before, the blame here does not lie with the nominator, but with the editor who found a non-obvious source last time around, but didn't cite it in the article. Accusing the nominator of making bad nominations is poor form, given the circumstances. Uncle G 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then we disagree. It's not hard to look up drinking games at Amazon or Google Books, and if a source is missed here and there when you're trying to save 30 articles from deletion, it happens. The blame, by design, cannot lie with the nominator, as there's no requirement for the nominator to do anything other than spend the time doing the AfD. Considering the situation, we disagree on what's poor form here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:V. Sandstein 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to weak keep. Sandstein 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article meets WP:V. Please explain further? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, yes, glad to: There are as of this moment zero sources of any kind in this article, let alone reliable published ones. It even has a tag that says so. As such, it appears to me that the article does not meet WP:V in a rather textbook manner. Sandstein 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC) -- Update: Ah, I get it now, you mean to refer to the sources cited in this and in the previous AfD. Well, the article itself still fails WP:V. And, sorry, it supposedly being mentioned under another name in a book of drinking games could meet WP:V, but I don't see any indication of even minimal notability. Sandstein 17:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So your position is, in fact, that it's not notable, not that it's not verifiable. Given that the game is detailed in a published book, could you explain how it's non-notable? I, for the record, have no problem moving the article to the proper name, but to say it's not notable seems weird. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I'm in the telephone book. I even wrote a (non-self-published) book and co-authored another. I'm still not notable. Put differently, not everything that's in a book is necessarily notable just for being in a book. It might well be, but if it were, shouldn't we have, say, some media mentions or some Google hits? Come to think of it ... it does have many Google hits. So a case for verifiability and notability can probably (barely) be made, and it appears that more than five people in the world play this game, although you still wouldn't know this from the article itself (as per Uncle G above). Switching to weak keep. Sandstein 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, the article being poor at the moment (and I'll do some work on it again later tonihgt) isn't an automatic reason, but I'm glad you changed your mind. For the record, I think that if you've written a non-vanity press book, you *are* notable enough, but that's a different discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredsat; two AFDs to focus the attention of those who want it kept and all we have in the way of verifiabiliy is The Best Drinking Games Book Ever. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Craig (reality television contestant)

delete per WP:BIO. Subject not notable. TV contestant who was 2nd to be evicted. no other claim to fame.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xoloz 02:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Crews

delete per WP:BIO non notable subject. evicted game show contestant with no other claim to fame Ohconfucius 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Howard (American webcomic artist)

Delete this article on a living person which is unverifiable by reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Searching through my library, I find no such reliable third party sources for any information in this article. As such, the article can't help but run counter to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as well, where our official verifiability policies must be strictly enforced. Dragonfiend 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • But I have already voiced my dislike for Wikipedia, so anything under which I am the sole documentation could not be taken seriously. It can be assumed that I can, have, and will again pass off lies as the truth just to see it documented here in the very real hopes that I can one day make a public fool of Wikipedia and it's practices. Any page you quote as a reference here on Wikipedia could easily be changed into something wildly different. My website could only be considered a source if I weren't willing to modify it just to manipulate and mock Wikipedia. See, I told you my dislike of Wikipedia was relevant to the article...--SeanHoward 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that may be true, you're really just attacking Wikipedia, not this article. Just because you believe that Wikipedia shouldn't exist, doesn't mean that you're allowed to falsify articles on yourself. If you do anyway, than you should be treated the same as any other vandal and denied the ability to edit or create articles. If you have a problem with Wikipedia, there are many, many outlets that you can use to express that- deliberately sabotaging Wikipedia for others serves no purpose but to be petty.--Wtstar 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you understand. I wouldn't have to touch Wikipedia. About 90% of that article is quoted directly from me or consists of information only I could verify. You'd have a hard time finding enough reliable third party sources to say anything significant about me, and I'm telling you right now - I'm not just an unreliable source, I'm down right hostile. --SeanHoward 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are indeed as much of a source on this article as you claim to be, then I suggest you remove your contributions and let the rest of us, with our NPOV and third-party sources fill in the gaps. I'm sure that it's very possible for us to find the information without your help, regardless of whether or not you want this article to exist.--Wtstar 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article doesn't give any information not found in the comic's pages, and Sean Howard himself has expressed a disire to take the article down. No reason for it to be there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elbow.
The section on the end of the comics collects information from a few sources not easily available in one place, and the opinions of the subject of the article do not determine its inclusion.--BigCow 06:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without me as a compliant and willful resource, the contents of this article would be undocumentable and inaccurate. I am anything but compliant and willful. My accomplishments have their own articles. There is no need for there to be one on my person as well. --SeanHoward 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The previous deletion nominations were pre-WP:BLP, so the arguments for keeping from those discussions don't carry much weight. The article doesn't meet WP:BIO, so just delete it. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO, WP:WEB, whichever you prefer. No truly reliable sources, and the official site has Alexa ranking 283,594 currently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is more or less a biography and biography of important people should not be deleted. And biograhpy in nation does not have many citations or sources. {{subst:Zhanster|zhanster}} 11:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It should be noted that the subject's desire to not have an article on Wikipedia is irrelevant as are his views on the project and his willingness to be a resource for an article (his own statements would constitute original research). The sources provided in the article don't qualify as reliable sources, but I imagine one could find verifiable information to base an article on. It's not there right now, so this probably be deleted under WP:BIO, but with no predjudice against recreation at a later date if sources are found.--Isotope23 13:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has value as a reference for the multiple viewpoints, and public exploits of a major internet celebrity. Vash293 07:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As much as I loathe Sean's apparent personal vendetta against Wikipedia, this does fail BIO and WEB, not to speak of V. —Nightstallion (?) 06:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Personally, I'm not sure Sean Howard would be considered major enough to warrent a biographical article, especially if he doesn't want one. The only reason Mr. Howard even has his own article is because of the flame war that he accidently prompted, and a couple of (very amusing) web-comics. There are a variety of equally prominant web artists with no mention whatsoever on wikipedia, such as AIMO, Crimson Jassic or Nemain Ravenwood. Also, the only source of information available on this guy is what you can pull out of various forums, many of which seem to have a tendancy to bash him, and are therefore not reliable. To sum it up, what we have is a minor contemporary cartoonist, on whom we can get little to no reliable information.--Ostermana 06:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, not verifiable = delete. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 07:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep complete article, not in violation, clear sources Zaver
  • Delete. Rebecca 09:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oh boy, this man is sometimes more trouble then he's worth. The thing with Sean Howard's problem with Wikipedia is that it criticizes him. Well DUH! He's a jerk. I know it, you know, heck, even HE knows it! He's admitted it. He likes to cause trouble and call people incompetent, but he can't stand it when there is even a LITTLE bit of bad things said to him! If people who alter this article can't find sorces, then the reason is because there are no sources to find. Howard deleates anything that gets pissed on by other people and show him as being wrong (he's even deleated comics because people threw them back in his face). The thing is, pretty much all this information is true, and I'm sure some searching through the webarchives will prove that. KevinTRod —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KevinTRod (talk • contribs) 09:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC.
  • Delete. There are not enough sources except what he says of himself, which is strictly against NPOV. Lack of information coupled with a lack of importance makes this article something unneeded.--Hawkaris 10:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient reliable sources for verifiably neutral coverage, significant evidence that past coverage has been anything but neutral as a result. WP:BLP says we must take a conservative approach, in this case the prudent thing to do is give up and wait until he is more famous. The more articles like this I see the more persuaded I am by the "no first biographies" proposal. That proposal is not yet policy, but this article goes a good way to arguing why it should be. Just zis Guy you know? 14:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ora 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know anonymous opinions aren't worth much, but delete anyways, for the above reasons. --220.237.67.125 15:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm reversing my original opinion from the last time this was brought up for deletion, given the things I've since learned about WP notability, et cetera. Sean's only really known for getting in an argument with actually notable people; he should probably just be referenced in his comics' articles, though I wonder if they're even notable enough.--Spinn 15:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteTheres no real information here. Just people on both sides using Wikipedia for a vendetta. I say delete and let's move on with our lives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.158.177.29 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Let the baby have its bottle. If nothing else, it will cease his whining. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doenherleven (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep but allow sean to add his disclaimer. if not then delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.25.53 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Remove this page and keep the page for his sprite comics to reference his site and other works in passing. Delusional != notable. --Leth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leth (talk • contribs) 21:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep- Sean Howard has created more of a stir on the internet community (through incidents with Penny Arcade, his blog, his rampages, his tantrums, and his attacks on people) than his comic ever did. If AMD necessitates an article, then the author himself does, too. Sean Howard, though I may not like him that much, is an internet figure and a webcomic author of note- if not, then why else would he have been called to participate in a panel discussion? However, information should be updated to talk more about the person and not just the comics. --Wtstar 23:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person does not want to be on Wikipedia and you are infringing on his rights by forcefuly putting him on it. If he says he dosn't want it, delte it already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.105.100.112 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep If you were to delete the article it would undermine many of the principles that make wikipedia what it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.46.212.98 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep There are no rules being breached, just a webcomic artist who is again trying to gain infamy through yet another controversial action. Leave it with no disclaimer as well, succumbing to his petty desires goes against the principle of objectivity of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.68.224 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Man, is it me or do a lot of these 'keep' blurbs take time out to personally attack me? If this is the quality of person who wants an article about me on Wikipedia, what does that say about how the article will be used? So far, the article has been real short on facts and real big on slander, insinuation, vandalism, gossip, and a few guys who want to use me to advertise their forum to my fans, even though it has nothing to do with me (you may recognize them above with the 'keep' votes - wonder why?). What I find amazing is that some of the people most responsible for using Wikipedia as a personal weapon of attack against me have all chimed in to 'keep' the article. Seriously... WTF? --SeanHoward 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, Squidi comics are online once again, therefore people will want to know who Sean is and Wikipedia should be able to provide them with the information, if biographys of TV stars are to be kept, so should biographies of "internet stars" Demonblade 11:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Honestly I think a major difference thats going unconsidered here is that Squidi isn't exactly rich and famous. He's an internet personality to be sure, but I imagine he doesn't want to be swamped by people, or having his name, location, and picture THIS easily available. I know, I know, information is easy to find on the internet, but the point stands. I also agree with the Bio and infamy stuff. I ALSO also agree that Squidi is being childish and trying to use this as a way to get at Wikipedia, but that doesn't stop him from being right in that this article needs to be taken down--Juron Pilo 13:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From what I understand of Howard's old website he neglected to post pictures or much amount of personal information about himself. Delete the article if he (the real Sean Howard) wants it so, or at least take out his personal information and picture and simply refer to his comics and works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.18.213.167 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:BIO, WP:WEB, WP:V, etc., but this AfD is certainly a pain to wade through... — Rebelguys2 talk 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whatever. If he wants this gone it's [more-or-less] his right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dejavood0o (talk • contribs) 01:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Aside from the obvious fact that the subject has no desire to be in Wikipedia, the particular article currently posted is not substantial enough to warrent being in Wikipedia. How much non-AMD work is actually related to Sean Howard (and is eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia)? To the extend of my knowlege, AMD, TSD, AAA and other related works all fall under the category of "Squidi.net", do they not? If we really need an article that relates all the information, why not put it under an umbrella. We don't have enough information to really warrent a full article on Sean Howard, do we? I mean, does anyone even have something as simple as his date of birth? That's pretty standard information for a biography, isn't it? Yet, there is almost nothing actually relating to Sean Howard himself in this article. If there was enough material to write a full article, this would be a different subject. (George W. Bush, for instance, is well known enough that it would be wrong not to have an article for him.) I'm not saying DOB should be a qualifier, but look at the article in its current state. Judging by the content there alone, I would say Sean Howard is not noteworthy enough to have an article of his own. A few mentions in other articles, possibly, but not a full-fledged biographical article under his name. Figs 03:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The most notable part of the article, and what largely inspired its content in the first place was a section on the 'end of the comics', which detailed some events and controversies about copyright infringement in regards to pixel art, which is a large part of the reason Sean Howard is known outside of his own comic or worth looking up. An older version that has most of that section: [8]. It's been hard to have a stable version with the edit wars lately.--BigCow 18:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that section is crap. The first paragraphi is misleading, factually incorrect, speculative, and unverifiable. The second paragraph has NOTHING to do with why the comic ended. The third paragraph is actually decent, but along with the "Return to Comics" section is now moot because the comic is indeed back. It's nothing more than a footnote in the history of squidi.net, and worthless in the grand scheme of a biography of my life. That section you are praising is little more than gossip, and I'm afraid that you're going to try to use it as some sort of justification for starting a new section on squidi.net, which would just circumvent the (poorly enforced) safeguards on verifibility in bios so that gossip and slander would be more easily introduced. --SeanHoward 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been mentioned in interviews with you, in material on your site available from archive.org, and on other comic related sites discussing your stances on copyright issues. A fair number of people have heard of you because of your stance on copyrights. Whether or not it belongs in the article is another debate, I was just trying to point out that there was more content to the article, even if it currently isn't agreed upon.--BigCow 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient sourcing to stand up notability. BlueValour 04:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even though Sean is being less than polite about it, he has several points. When someone's major claim to fame is a controversy with another web comic (with sources composed entirely, so far as I know, of people who have taken one side or another), you cannot create an article anywhere near a neutral point of view and have verifyable sources. Okay, so if that's left out of the article, what's left? His personal life, his web comic, and his blog. Mr. Howard has made quite an effort to keep as much personal information about himself off of the internet, except for mentions on his own site. His web comics already have their own pages. And his blog? Well, if wikipedia starts making pages for everyone who happens to have a blog, then I guess this page should be kept. But last time I checked, there weren't 8 million articles about emo kids with live journals. Seans blog had a larger audience, but at the end of the day it was a blog (and aside from copies of the blog itself, there doesn't seem to be any mention of it by a news source). It it's a matter of making easy access for his web comics, a portal page would make more sense than a biography. If the individual being written about was willing to cooperate with (or even ignore) his own article, there might be other routes. But someone who is willing to vandalize his own web page to make sure there is no accurate information anywhere about his site (as Mr. Howard proposed above), then there is little cause to keep such an article. Elbow 05:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect/Merge. While there is clearly a consensus against this person having a standalone article, deletion arguments fail to address whether the content is merge-worthy. Since the show is clearly notable, mention of its winner appears appropriate, in the absense of arguments otherwise. Xoloz 03:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Daniel

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because you are a fan of the Big Brother series or someone asked you to, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

delete per WP:BIO Subject not notable. TV game show contestant with no other claim to fame Ohconfucius 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: the question of whether this should be merged with one season or the other is made moot by the fact that the consensus is that being on a game/reality show twice isn't sufficient for a Wikipedia article. A redirect is not sorely needed as the search engine will pick the name up in the main articles anyway, and no merging has been done. Delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Dedmon

db WP:BIO game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nominator seems to be unfamiliar with the show and the person (based on "game show" comment). This is a signficant person on a major hit show. This is not a like a typical "game show" contestant on shows like Jeopardy, or The Price Is Right. She appeared in Big Brother 5, and again in Big Brother: All Stars. In BB5 she received more attention than most contestants on the show. Normally, all BB contestants are either kept as a stand-alone article or merged to the relevant season. As this person is in more than one season, a merge is inappropriate. Instead this article should be better developed. --Rob 04:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She appeared on a hit game show just doesn't cut it. What else could be added to "better develop" it? Rangek 04:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her notability is closer to that of an actress then a game show contestant. An actress with a signficant role on a hit show, would almost always get an article. In the typical game show, nobody is concerned with the individual contestant. In the case of BB, there's substantial media coverage of them, and interest in their conduct, on, and off the show, and therefore material for expansion. --Rob 05:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you take away her involvement in Big Brother, does her other work qualify her for a Wikipedia article per Wikipedia:Notability (people)? From a cursory look at her article, I get the impression that Big Brother is her claim to fame. If you can convince me that her work outside of Big Brother is notable, I'd be willing to change my vote to "keep as separate article." Fabricationary 05:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). (Ohconfucius, perhaps you should have nominated all of these articles in a group... ;) ) Fabricationary 05:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, which of the two seasons would her name redirect to, in that case?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Never in a million years speediable. I've discounted the vote-only comments, which leaves Bustter's "notable because of x ghits" versus Dlyons's "not notable because of y ghits". I did some Googling myself, and no matter how I narrowed it down, there were always several hundred thousand hits there (the 32m figure is optimistic; while the early results tend to be relevant, not all are). That gets rid of the "only 60 distinct ghits" ... which leaves ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ServiceMagic

advertising, link to commercial site, Wikipedia is not the Yellow pages, copyright issue for logo KenWalker | Talk 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete should have speedied. Rangek 04:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Michael 06:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant as it is its industry pioneer and leader, and a part of the internet's largest conglomerate IAC. To delete would create a pointless stub from the IAC page. DanKai 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same as the housepaintingestimates.com site, but SM appears to be less of industry leader and more general. No real value other than advertisement Jrozsa 13:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fyi, Companies are in discussion for speedy, not yet ratified. I see no policy whereby this should be deleted. The text is merely descriptive of the service, no hyperbole or sales talk that I can see, so not a "blatant" ad. The standard "smaall companies are not notable" doesn't apply here -- 32 million ghits. Google search is not itself an accepted measure, but the high numbers are due to this company's many locations. I can imagine someone finding the entry useful. I can't imagine any harm from its presence. so, keep. Bustter 10:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Logo can be used under fair use. Not valid reason to delete.
  • Delete 60 Ghits suggests to me that it must miss WP:CORP. Dlyons493 Talk 12:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 62 distinct Ghits does not suggest much in the way of notability. Closing admin might also note limited edit history of some contributors to the discussion. Dlyons493 Talk 11:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HousePaintingEstimates.com

Advertising, no links to this page, single link to commercial site, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages, logo copyright KenWalker | Talk 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sango123 00:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Hammond

db WP:BIO game show contestant with no other claim to notability other than her early eviction on the show Ohconfucius 04:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theftendo

Unreleased fan-clone of GTA III. Should be deleted as wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Koffieyahoo 04:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep (no consensus). Could perhaps be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hrejsa

db WP:BIO eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the listed articles on her page could be considered non-trivial. would you kindly cite these "multiple non-trivial published works" you are referring to, otherwise, notability does not appear to be asserted. Ohconfucius 02:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Lansky"

Never heard of it. Glans at the Google results; the internet is earily silent on the matter. ...and I can't think of a lame pun for "neologism". Opabinia regalis 04:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Paganini

db WP:BIO non-notable porn star who took part in reality contest Ohconfucius 04:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sango123 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Petros

db WP:BIO early-eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother seasons....

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

The result was Delete. Xoloz 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatehistory.com

Non notable forum site fails WP:WEB (alexa of 662,333, if you're interested). Article was de'proded. alphaChimp laudare 04:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's all it is, I could have a go at adding some more content later this week. I'd do it earlier, but I've got a busy week. BigHaz 11:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it's at least verifiable BigHaz 22:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Petros471 12:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Plencner

db WP:BIO 8th ranked eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the listed articles on her page could be considered non-trivial in nature, although sources are less so. would you kindly cite these "multiple non-trivial published works" you are referring to, otherwise, notability does not appear to be asserted. Ohconfucius 02:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Correct Japanese Names Of Pokémon

This page does not contain information on the names of Pokemon; contains a romanization "created by the author;" has a title which indicates it will contain the information shown at List of Pokémon by name. While my first instinct was to merge the page with the list, this article is not useful for pronouncing the Japanese names listed on List of Pokémon by name correctly. The factual information is covered at Japanese language and Japanese writing system. Dekimasu 04:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Sisniega

db WP:BIO not notable - eliminated game show contestant Ohconfucius 04:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect, with the option for someone to merge (info left in history) left open. Petros471 12:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Valenti

db WP:BIO early self-eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's already one on her season's page. Geoking66 04:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since Lori Valenti has citations, and Big Brother (USA season 5)#Lori Valenti does not (yet), it makes sense to do a merge, which brings in the citations. --Rob 04:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, none of the listed articles on her page could be considered non-trivial, as they refer only to the game show and the hype surrounding it, and the souces may show some commercial bias. would you kindly cite these "multiple non-trivial published works" you are referring to, otherwise, notability does not appear to be asserted. Being a 26 year old Yoga instructor just doesn't cut it per WP:NN. Ohconfucius 02:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect into BB7 US article. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. Most of the article is about Big Brother, and really is just elaborate fancruft. The JPStalk to me 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect, with the option for someone to merge (info left in history) left open. Petros471 12:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Weintraub

db WP:BIO subject not notable - game show contestant with STD and being the first person in Big Brother IV Ohconfucius 04:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons: Lexicon Triumvirate

This book is not notable in any way, is published by a vanity press, and is only ranked #1,379,403 on Amazon. Doinkies 05:38, 8 August 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, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page Syed Ahmed has been histmrged with Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur), which is a new article about the same man, and I have AfD'ed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmed

propose speedy delete, for article was deleted in May and has staged a comeback. fails WP:BIO. unsourced articles full of speculation about someone who appears to be a legend in his own mind Ohconfucius 05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted and redirected to Music of Jamaica.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

baccra

no sources. 1 sentence long. doesnt link. sad excuse for an article Kennykane 05:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect. Petros471 12:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Campins

delete per WP:BIO -subject not notable. real estate agent who competed in the Apprentice Ohconfucius 07:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge into Ozzy Osbourne. —Mets501 (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Necromandus

My initial reaction upon seeing article is that this band is not notable enough, but not being well-versed in the genre, would appreciate input by others. For now, delete is my opinion. --Nlu (talk) 05:51, 8 August 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, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 03:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Fails to meet WP:BAND criteria - I thought they may have meet "Has released two or more albums on a major label" however did not release any with Vertigo. As such Delete. - GIen 04:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar Men

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Flock (apparel)

Vanispamcruftisement. Danny Lilithborne 05:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge. Petros471 13:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bethenny Frankel

fails WP:BIO, the subject appeared as contestant on reality game show, but is not notable Ohconfucius 06:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

this subject can be covered in a short little blurb on the pages of the reality series Apprentice or Real Housewives of NY, it does not require its own page. Also, it appears to be more of a marketing tool rather than an encyclopedic entry as it is written.--67.161.73.96 (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2008 (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 and redirect. Petros471 13:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Shaw

delete per WP:BIO budding entrepreneur not yet notable, 78,000Ghits, the majority of which are for Miami Dolphin footballerOhconfucius 06:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish. Petros471 13:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troy McClain

per WP:BIO. not notable: Mortgage lender from Boise Idaho who was contestant on the ApprenticeOhconfucius 06:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by William M. Connolley. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother (Australia series 7)

There's no information on the article, and it treats Wikipedia as an up-to-the-minute news board forum thing of some sort. Plus it violates that WP:NOT a crystal ball thing. JD[don't talk|email] 07:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it'll almost certainly get made (sigh), but until then we're crystall balling. The user should perhaps be informed about posting these up-to-the-minute gazes in the crystal ball somewhere other than here. BigHaz 07:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Under the Influence

Non-notable web comic; prod tag removed without comment OhNoitsJamie Talk 07:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 240 google hits for "Flying Under the Influence" comic - NN. ViridaeTalk 07:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' per nom and Viridae; also, nearly all of the Google results are unrelated. - makomk 12:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • I understand that this is a non-notable webcomic to you so you feel it should immediately be deleted. However upon clicking on the 'Random Article' button I was brought to Gallo-Romance languages, which I have no idea what they are. So much of Wikipedia is unknown to most people, that is why it exists. The point of Wikipedia is to come to find information on little or unknown things. It is where many pieces of information can be brought together. Granted, not every yahoo should create an article, not all articles should be kept. However, I created this article to allow people to find unknown information for those who are unsure what this webcomic is. I did not create it for vanity purposes, only information. I will understand if you do decide to delete it but I felt it necessary to state my case and what I believe the basis of Wikipedia to be. ShadowDion 16:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a new webcomic... Die IRL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.101.40 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was keep. Sango123 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oolong (rabbit)

  • Keep; This article talks about an important and well known and loved internet meme. There is a link on the original site of Oolong to a photograph taken of the New York Times, clearly showing a picture of Oolong with a dorayaki. *Link to newspaper

Utterly unencyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a conflict of interest to have Cpt. Morgan vote on Oolong? ;-) --Nlu (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 21:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson-Via

The article is about an elementary school (one among millions in the world) that is undistinguished. Also, the article is based largely on unpublished information. Daphne A 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iqlog

Violates WP:WEB; this appears to refer to a single user's nonnotable blog. --Graham 08:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish. Petros471 13:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promise the Children

Was tagged for speedy as nn-group, but as there is uncertainty if it qualifies, I am listing it here instead. Discussion on the talk page indicates some (but possibly insufficient) independent coverage. Delete unless better explanation of notability makes it into the article. Kusma (討論) 08:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_8&oldid=68362765"