Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cobaltbluetony (talk | contribs) at 17:15, 5 September 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< September 4 September 6 >

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 Speedy deleted at my discretion. The business is clearly spamming. The text of each article is an unfixable copyright violation. WP:SNOW - Richardcavell 03:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GridNetworks & PowerGrid

At first, article seemed like just a cut/paste from corporate website. Talk page has contact info for an employee who all but states they're trying to get buzz running up to a launch. Should be deleted under Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy. Joe 00:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 01:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Crazyerics

Non-notable website, doesn't pass WP:WEB, no Alexa ranking. Mushroom (Talk) 00:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mall of Louisiana

WP:VSCA of no value to wikipedia. - Richardcavell 00:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --dtony 00:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as no notability. Bigtop 01:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What a joke. Absolutly un-notable. --Deenoe 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Timan123 01:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Large mall with 155 stores, which is more than the 100 threshold someone suggested in a discussion about another mall. Subject of independent coverage (see external links), which is probably to be expected of any mall this size. There is no evidence that the mall's owner has any connection with the original author of the article. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WP:CORP criterion is multiple nontrivial independent published works on the subject, but this article currently has at most only one such, from a real estate publication describing a bidding war. All the other sources are clearly either advertisements (e.g. the airline guide) or from the subject's own website or those of involved parties (i.e. General Growth Properties, a potential buyer). --Shirahadasha 03:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just another advertisement article. I don't see any notability, one of the largest malls, really? --Terence Ong (T | C) 04:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and a question. This is a major business hub for the capital of a state. That seems notable, in and of itself. The sad thing (for me) is that most US cities really only have malls as their business centers. If we have a stricter policy on **malls than on pre-automobile forms of urban spaces, we automatically close off Wikipedia to huge areas of commercial life in a major country (the USA). We allow, even encourage, articles on neighborhoods, see the article on Uptown, Chicago for example, but should recognize that many places in the US are no longer built with residential-commerical mixes. It seems to me that the Mall of Louisiana is at least as important as Uptown, where I live, and certainly more so than (to take a random example) Grant Park, Illinois, a tiny place of 1,000 people which I've never seen but which merits its own Wikipedia article. My question is what could Wiki-writers do to make the Mall of Lousiana wiki-worthy? Would adding information on the architects make a difference? To me, it seems the writers have made a good-faith start on this article. It is verifiable and NPOV. Interlingua talk email 04:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Shirahadasha. Fails WP:CORP. wikipediatrix 05:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This mall is of sufficient size to warrant notability. However, a rewrite is needed. A list of all tenants isn't encyclopedic, but information on architecture, history, and its economic effect on the Baton Rouge area is. Kirjtc2 11:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kirjtc2. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - seems large enough to be considered notable to me. --mathewguiver 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - It does seem pretty non-notible judging by the article. I would support Expand if there's actual reason for the page to be here... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NN. Michael 18:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 20:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mega-malls are notable, they even have mini tourist industries built around them (and in this case, a highway interchange). The article should be expanded to include some of the context from the external links, otherwise it's a near-pointless directory of stores. --Dhartung | Talk 21:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mega-malls may indeed be notable, but this is a mall directory, which is not. If rewritten as an architectural and social article with sources and only the anchor stores, I could be persuaded, but this is slightly less useful to humanity than a link to the mall's own website. Guy 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:CORP. Kappa 21:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC) ... with large amounts of independent coverage [5]. Kappa 23:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Interlingua. Also needing expansion is not a reason for deletion. Seano1 22:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. As it is, I also only count one non-trivial bit of coverage in the external links. I imagine something else is out there, and I will hopefully remember to come back and check to see if somebody has found and added it. Until/unless that happens, this is a delete due to the failure of WP:CORP. Erechtheus 23:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewite Some of the info seems to be poorly written, but it should be kept in my opinion DemosDemon (Talk - contrib) 23:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete malls are inherantly nn, and there's nothing special about this one. Musaabdulrashid 03:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't think any general category is inherently notable or non-notable. Notability depends on at least two things: the connections an encyclopedia entry has with the rest of the world and the size/exclusiveness of the encyclopidia. Certainly there are malls that are as notable as, to give the same example, my Chicago neighborhood of Uptown. Here, we have a major mall in the capital of a state (connections with the world) and a huge encyclopedia with room for all kinds of entries on fairly obscure people, places and things (size/exclusiveness). Again, I'm no fan of malls; in fact, I really dislike them. Despite that, I think that this article serves the purpose of a stub for an imporant part of the commercial life of a state capital. It certainly needs expansion to demonstrate this importance and also re-writing to make it less of a business directory. Interlingua talk email 23:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response. Malls as collections of chain stores are most definetly NN. We dont have an article on every Macy's or Target store in the United States, so why should we have one simply because a collection of these stores are in the same location? I cant see how this can be expanded to prove notability. If this mall was the scene of some sort of disaster or notible first it would already be mentioned. Musaabdulrashid 06:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Musaabdulrashid, Erechtheus, Shirahadasha, and nom. Pan Dan 04:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable establishment and building and structure. Not a simple corner strip mall. --Shuki 06:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 155 is a world away from 55--I would like to see a precedent history in this area, however.-Kmaguir1 07:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above. "one of the largest malls in Louisiana and the only mall that has a huge carousel by the food court" - woohoo for Baton Rouge but this is not encyclopedically notable. And malls are not "major business hubs" for Louisiana, unless you're suggesting that the Louisiana economy is tiny. Wikipedia is not some kind of local shopping directory. Oh, and this recent press release puts the shopping area of the mall at 1.3million square feet - which it substantially fails to make it into the largest 20 US malls (smallest is 1.928 million square feet) Bwithh 18:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree that we don't want Wikipedia cluttered with all kinds of short articles about tiny malls. But I don't think that this is what the Mall of Lousiana is. As for it's importance, I wrote "This is a major business hub for the capital of a state", not that it was a hub for the entire state. I agree that the business directory aspect of this article is inappropriate and show be replaced with a link to the mall's official website. Nonetheless, the number of businesses there would, if located in a conventional downtown business zone, warrant a stand-alone article. I think that we shouldn't dismiss such an article simply because these businesses are present not in a downtown but in a mall (as much as I personally dislike malls). Wikipedia policy on corporations is only obliquely relevant to malls. WP:CORP has no mention of malls and is focuses much more on individual companies. I think that Wikipedia policy on schools WP:SCHOOL might be more relevant to the discussion of malls. "Schools are frequently important to their communities, and are often the subject of the sort of non-trivial published works that are needed to complete an article. Wikipedia articles about schools should show that there is, or that there is likely to be, sufficient coverage of that school to allow for the creation of a complete article". Malls, similarly are important to their communities, and we ought not insist that right now there is "sufficient coverage", only that there is likely to be such coverage. And I think that with a mall like this one, such coverage is quite likely in the future. Interlingua talk email 23:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is significant to the state of Louisiana. It is encyclopeidically notable and ought to exist. It just needs to be expanded upon. --Pinkkeith 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand/Rewrite It is a notable landmark of that city. Interlingua raises good points. I can even imagine why some in Louisiana haven't spent the time expanding their wiki articles this past year. It even sounds more interesting than a basic US mall, with a Carousel and 150+ stores and such. It needs some work, sure, but that's a different tag. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 03:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 01:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Chinese Song Writing Competition

nn article violates WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM dtony 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Solidarity Fast for Darfur

Seems like a non-notable protest, but I am not sure. I am remaining out of the discussion for now. Andrew Levine 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thε Halo Θ 15:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamud Siad Togane

nn biography, does not satisfy WP:BIO or WP:PROFTEST. Only 180 ghits for 'Mohamud Siad Togane'; less than a handful for the books referred to in the article. Much of this article appears to be a cut-and-paste or from the same source as here (but it is not clear if this article is a copyvio). Agent 86 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 01:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Times Softball

Non-notable. Does not meet WP:V -Nv8200p talk 00:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect. --- Deville (Talk) 03:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McNugget number

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McNugget number

A neologism by MathWorld, which lists three references. Only two supports this usage: a newsgroup posting and a Mathematica-related book. The third, which is a Mathematica notebook by Stan Wagon, uses the more traditional "coin problem" setting for the mathematics. Anybody could make up countless pointless variations on this, and this variation of the time-honored postage stamp problem would appear one of them. C S (Talk) 00:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irving, Ronald S., Integers, polynomials, and rings. A course in algebra, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2004. ISBN 0-387-40397-3. Michael Kinyon 02:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 01:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alzool

Not really clear what this page is supposed to be. In any case it could possibly have been speedied as a "nocontext". Pascal.Tesson 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete both. alphaChimp(talk) 01:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Reckitts AFC

These two clubs play in the Humber Premier League. This is at level 13 in the English Football League System (the notability threshold is level 10). Despite each having won that League they were unable to gain promotion to Level 12. Fail WP:CORP. Delete both. BlueValour 01:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Bock

Tagged for clean up since Jan., this article asserts no notablity and fails the The Professor Test. The biggest thing listed is one appearance on Nightline. Arbusto 01:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Books published by Christian publishers such as Baker and Nelson aren't a big deal. The professor test needs facts like academic notablity, sales, etc. Arbusto 04:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This "anon" user knows how to sign and use his only edits in the last day to vote for four afds- all which happened to be mine, and all that are created by Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) who is banned. Arbusto 10:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Hannah

Created by a banned user who was flooding wikipedia admittedly to push a bias, this article asserts no notablity and fails the The Professor Test. A handful of books in common for a professor, and some of these by a questionable publishers. Arbusto 01:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Hannah appears to be a pretty well known historian of theology; his 2001 book Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine ranks #205,430 on Amazon, which is pretty good for a 5 year old hardcover - perhaps because certain colleges use it as a textbook - for instance, see here, under 'TH4005'. His charts of church history are distributed by Zondervan, which is one of the top religious publishers in the US. "John D. Hannah" get 180 unique Google hits, and almost all of them are him - I wouldn't call that bad for an academic in a backwater discipline. --Brianyoumans 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Arbusto has recently nominated a number of articles on Dallas-area professors at religious schools for deletion, and many of those AFDs are failing. I think perhaps he should try to do a little more research before trying to AFD these. (See, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrell Bock and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Underwood - both of whom turned out to have best-selling books.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianyoumans (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Actually they are all created by the same user, tied to the same school, and none of them assert notablity. I could care less if the article is kept or not. But if you vote keep, and make a comment such as you did, add to it, clean it up, and demonstrate it is worth keeping. As of now its still sloppy, ill-sourced, and of dubious notablity. Arbusto 06:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is not beauty school for articles. It's not our job to clean them up and this is not the proper venue to pursue that. They should be appropriately tagged with your concerns left on the article's talk page or with the article. John Hannah is a well known evangelical author who's work is used as text in many accrediated Bible schools. 205.157.110.11 07:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This "anon" user knows how to sign and use his only edits in the last day to vote for four afds- all which happened to be mind, and all that are created by Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) who is banned. Arbusto 10:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, not many reviews of his books on amazon, appears to be not very well known as an author. [6] Might change my vote to keep if some assertion of academic achievements can be made. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete generic professor, Gastroturfing. Dime-a-dozen Christian books do not look compelling to me. Guy 09:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unlike the other 2 related AfD's, Mr. Hannah does not appear to meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 15:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Michael 19:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His best-selling book on Amazon has a SalesRank of 256,624, which is not enough to warrant inclusion. -Elmer Clark 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Amazon SalesRank is a useless tool for Wikipedia purposes. It reflects recent sales activity, and can vary day to day based on when the last sale was. For academic books or books released a few years back, it is irrelevant. GRBerry 03:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete really seem like an unnotable academic. Anyone can sell books on amazon.com, notability is when brick and mortar stores carry the books. David D. (Talk) 19:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. But we have to be careful which academics we include and which we don't--there's a lot of profs on here with 6 books who no one would dream of deleting. But few of those teach at Dallas Theological Seminary.-Kmaguir1 08:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per his books. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While, as I said above, Amazon Sales Rank is a poor test for book significance, the research above seems to have found the second best seller, not the best seller, which is currently at 122,000 [7]. For a hardcover academic work, that is a high sales rank. Either it is fairly popular, or (as ssaid already above), it is a frequently used college text book. Per the proposed WP:BOOKS, that would make an article on the book worth keeping. If he has written books worth keeping an article on, we should keep the article on him. At least one of the prior comments seems to indicate that Dallas Theological Seminary is a low prominence institution. In fields like Math, English Literature, etc.. that is true, but then seminaries don't focus on non-religious subjects. In Theologoical studies, which is the relevant field, it is more prominent than places like Harvard that have abandoned their origin and relegated the religious departments to a backwater. I believe DTS should be evaluated as being in the top tier of U.S. colleges/universities when evaluating theological studies. They are "the academic center of Christian dispensationalism." The WP:BIO multiple independent review test is met; he has enough published books, each with at least one or two independent reviews, to meet the test. WP:PROF says "An academic who has published ..., a widely-used textbook, ... is likely to be notable as an author (see WP:BIO), regardless of their academic achievements." So I evaluate as passing WP:BIO (a guideline) and WP:BOOK (a proposed guideline) and WP:PROF (a proposed guideline) being irrelevant by its own language. GRBerry 13:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's more than the generic professor as he's published a considerable number of (admittedly rather shoddy or suspect) books. But the generic professor does less than this: he publishes his PhD dissertation and then a couple of more articles before he retires. He's also been the chairman of a department for decades, although in a seminary with no more than 1,900 students (and perhaps some/many of those not full time) this isn't the same thing as being chair at Harvard or the Sorbonne. I don't think I'd have many points of agreement with Mr. Hannah, but the aricle is 1) verifiable and verified, 2) NPOV, and 3) notable in the world of conservative evangelicals. He is NOT notable in my world of secular, ecumenical humanists, but that is not a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. Interlingua talk email 23:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is an established theologian and church historian with books that are considerably more than "dime and dozen" and published by reputable published like Zondervan, Crossways (who also publish John Piper and Hans Rookmaaker, Kregal and Moody Press (Publishers of Gleason Archer and Merrill Unger among many others). Both his Charts and Kregal histories are staples not only in church bible studies but also in many home schools and bible colleges (essentially text books). He is a prominent contributor to serious theological journals like Bibliotheca Sacra (around since the early 19th cent.) and Modern Reformation. He clearly passes WP:PROF Agne 21:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 10:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loldead

Just a dictionary definition, low Google presence for a supposed internet phenomenum. Donald Albury 01:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. Both articles have been deleted and their creators blocked indefinitely. JIP | Talk 10:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viceroy seeds

Delete. Obvious advertisement; author and crony have been spamming other cannabis-related articles. Prod was removed, and I can't think of any speedy criterion that fits. ... discospinster talk 01:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating an identical page: Viceroy Seeds. ... discospinster talk 01:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Jeremiah

Pastor of a church, and tracts/books of unknown dubious publishing. Created by banned user who was likely a follow of the pastor. Notablity not asserted. WP:RS not offered. Arbusto 01:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we verify that from an independent source? Arbusto 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be a well sourced article that does establish notability. Not sure what is meant by, "Notability not asserted" when the article claims the subject is heard on 900 radio stations. Maybe needs more evidence or some editing done to the article but does seem notable and well sourced. Bagginator 03:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As ive got nothing better to do tonight i'm going to attempt to source the materials referenced in the article with external links to Amazon and such. Those which cannot be sourced I will edit out. Bagginator 03:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment Havn't finished the sourcing yet but i'm curious about the charge of "tracts/books of unkown dubious publishing". So far the book publishers i'm come across are W Publishing Group, Integrity Publishers, B C M Publications and DJ Publications. The dual claims of dubious publishing combined with sourcing not offered confuses me. Without the sourcing how was it evident the publishers were of dubious origin? Hope my sourcing effort clears some of this up. Bagginator 03:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some come from unknown publishers or no publishers. Getting a self published book sold on Amazon and B&N is very easy. Two examples 1) This one by David Jeremiah at Amazon.com is a new hardback for $6.00 with no publisher listed. 2) "DJ Publications" does not seem like a reputable publisher with 137 yahoo hits. Arbusto 05:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep About 48,000 Google hits, Amazon.com shows 127 books and audiotapes in various editions, dubiously published or not. Google shows various references to appearances on a large number of radio stations and mention by various religious commentators. Involved in some rather unfamiliar controversies (from my neck of the woods, as a total outsider) -- Light House Ministries accuses him of giving in to the temptations of "Contemplative Spirituality." [8] Seems to be a notable enough religious figure to be kept. --Shirahadasha 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shirahadasha. This guy is extensively published and followed. Shazbot85Talk 04:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pastor meets WP:BIO criteria and has written many notable books. User was not banned at the time of creation, so any deletion criteria does not apply here. --Terence Ong (T | C) 04:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject doesn't interest me, I suspect the books are of a low quality, but that's not the point. The article is NPOV, verifiable and verified, both of which are enough for inclusion. In addition, there's notability and also reasonable formatting (extenisve bibliography). Interlingua talk email 04:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • More Comments I edited the article in order to try and make it more agreeable to Arbusto. He doesn't like the lack of sourcing so I provided links to Amazon. He then reverted the edit. Is this appropriate? I commented on this further on the Discussion page of the article itself and on my talk page where Arbusto made me aware of his revert to my edit. Bagginator 06:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I wrote on your talk was:
I reverted the partial Amazon.com links [9] because wikipedia does not offer business to book retailors. Imagine if every single book on wikipedia followed this suit; all books would be linked to one business. However, adding in the ISBN number, publisher, city, year, and page numbers would be good. Arbusto 07:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't adding the link to Amazon provide the reader with the ISBN number, publisher, city and year? Bagginator 07:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it sure does. Adding a Barnes and Noble page with that info linked to every book could do it too. WP:ISNOT a collection of links nor is it used for advertising products.
Adding a whole collection of links to the article without writing an article would provide the reader information that could be in a article, but it would not be encyclopedic. It would just be a collection of links.
Sourcing an article means providing substantive claims with references. Not linking things for sale to a merchant. Arbusto 07:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really having trouble understanding your position here. Would you prefer I alternate links between Barnes and Noble and Amazon and whatever other online book source there is? The links added to the article are not for the purpose of selling books, they are for the purpose of satisfying your criticism. Adding links to Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other book sellers will satisfy your criticism of the article. Bagginator 07:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not link books bibliography to a place where books are sold. To verify the books in the Blibiography provide the reader with the ISBN number, publisher, city and year. For example, APA format.
My criticism on the AfD still stands. No one has added claims for notablity. Arbusto 07:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extremely well known evangelical author (not the least of which for his terrible toupee). His "Love worth finding" Sermons is nationally syndicated and broadcasted (On stations like the Bott Radio network). 205.157.110.11 07:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This "anon" user knows how to sign and use his only edits in the last day to vote for four afds- all which happened to be mine, and all that are created by Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) who is banned. Arbusto 10:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the strike since you have no reason to invalidate my vote. The admin who decides on the close can give whatever weight to my thoughts as he/she shall choose. At the risk of being uncivil, I will say that the logic you are using is quite infantile. If your mouse has the capability of moving to click on the user contribution tab you will see that I've commented on many AfD in the past. (And tend to vote delete more often then not) Just because yours happens to be the ones that tickle my fancy today does not mean that I'm targetting these AfD. My brother and parents were huge Fundies and while I don't share that persuasion, I'm mindful of those for and against the fundamentalist bent. So, these Afds peaked my interest--namely because they're so laughably notable and the theme of the AfDs so apparent. 205.157.110.11 10:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have readded the vote and comments that were improperly deleted by nominator Arbustoo (talk · contribs). The above user, 205.157.110.11, has voted on many RfDs that Arbustoo did not nominate and he has participated in other articles, so Arbustoo's claim in his edit summary is wrong. I don't have any opinion yet on this AfD, but I am concerned about Arbustoo's general editing history with regards to articles about preachers and his attitude that he takes with people that disagree with him. Vivaldi (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bring an RfC on. Wikistalking is not acceptable nor are your personal attacks (on other pages). I noticed you stopped editting when this anon. started posting on other pages about me. Arbusto 08:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I believe it's bad faith to accuse someone of wiki-stalking with no evidence. If you take the time to look at my contribution history (the AfD's with the ingredient listing for edit summaries are all mine) you will see that I comment on which ever AfD's tickle my fancy. The rash of anti-fundamentalist AfD on extremely well known preachers obviously caught my interest because of the very evident theme to the AfDs. That is not a crime and it's certainly not wiki-stalking. 205.157.110.11 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Note After some research I believe now that Arbusto wasn't accusing me of Wiki-stalking (his edit summaries when he was reverting my comments led me astray). I still believe his deletion of my comments were rash and uncivil, though.[reply]
Comment: An anon. who knows how to sign and what an RfC is. I suspect this is Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs), which has been stalking my contributions. Arbusto 08:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Shouldn't you assume good faith? Bagginator 08:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From an anon who knows how to sign and who's only actions are to vote in my AfDs? Arbusto 08:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An anon who has been around the block. Feel free to pursue this vendetta and goose chase. It will only lessen your credibility in this AfD and susequently in your conflict with Vivaldi. By the way for those interested in the ingredients, it's Mountain Dew and MDX 205.157.110.11 08:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Research Arbusto! Research! :p Like with the assumption that the subject of these AfD's are not notable, a little research would serve you a long way. 205.157.110.11 09:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Stanley

Not notable. Pastor at a church, and books of unknown/questionable publishing. This was nominated before in Jan. 2005[11], but was never closed. Someone seriously tamperred with the AfD process in and it was never closed or debated, view Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Stanley for details. The thechurchreport.com lists him as influential, but searching "thechurchreport.com" at yahoo I get 40 hits. He fails WP:BIO. Arbusto 01:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: nominator Arbustoo improperly deleted the vote by 205.157.110.11 (talk · contribs) with the following summary "rv this IP that has hit every single one of my AfDs and ONLY my AfDs", however, user 205.157.110.11 has participated in a number of AfDs not nominated by Arbustoo, so that accusation is baseless and without merit. In any case, the proper thing to do would not be to delete the users vote and comment, but rather make a comment under his vote suggesting that he is only voting to spite Arbustoo, if that is what Arbustoo seems to be claiming by his deletion. Vivaldi (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). There are good and valid arguments for deletion here, but arguments have been presented by Mikka among others that we have a number of other lists which bundle together topics related to a particular subject and that the list might be useful for navigation. I find that the people arguing for "keep" have sufficient merit in the arguments that I will call this 12d/9k a no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian language topics

Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." This is obviously not a disambiguation page and the list's theme seems to be "things that might mention Russian and if they don't they should." In addition, while the article states that doesn't overlap with category:Russian language, anything that is appropriately linked to Russian could easily go into that category, thus making this article redundant. AEuSoes1 02:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There could be an infinite number of such topics, no basis for a coherent article. Important topics couls either get articles in their own right or simply be part of Russian (language) -- no need for having a separate "topics" article, and plenty of potential for harm. --Shirahadasha 04:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a list is not a indiscriminatory collection of articles. If it lists all Russian language topics, it becomes by definition unmaintainable. I like lists, but I'd be happy to see this one gone. - Mgm|(talk) 08:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. What this is even doing before the marked articles have information added on Russian is beyond me, although even then it's significantly unmaintainable and superfluous. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ugh, needs severe cleanup and reworking, but AfD is not cleanup. Topic is very reasonable given WP:LIST. WilyD 12:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what type of list? Michael 19:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for such a list. Borders on original research as well: it's pretty much someone combing through Wikipedia linguistic topics and making a list of those that have (or, in the author's opinion, should have) information about Russian. -Elmer Clark 22:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This vote is outrageous.
    • This is a list of grammar topics that discuss Russian language, not an "indiscriminate collection". You keep List of sexual slang, yet you delete list of Russian language. Mind-boggling. We have List of basic archaeology topics, List of mathematics topics, and hundreds of other topical lists.
    • "plenty of potential for harm" haha very funny. Russian language is going to inflict harm.
    • This is not supposed to be a "coherent article", this is a list.
    • And there is no "infinite number" of topics. Grammar books are of fnite size, you know, and perfectly maintainable.
    • "Combing thru wikipedia" is how such lists are created.
    • "unnecessary" is personal POV, not an argument.
    • Not superfluous. There are quite a few esoteric topics that are not discussed in the main Russian language article. This list helps to keep trak of them.
    • No cleanup necessary. This is list, and well-defined, too, for God's sake!
    • "(or, in the author's opinion, should have)" What's wrong with author's opinion? Is the author inventing Russian grammar?
    • etc.
`'mikka (t) 04:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I find outrageous is your accusation that "unnecessary" is POV while asserting your own POV such as "well-defined" and "no cleanup necessary." Is your POV better than other people's? AEuSoes1 04:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"well-defined", as opposed to "indiscriminate collection" is a fact, not POV: it is list of topics that discuss Russian language. It does not include porn stars, gay rights, pokemon and other popular topics. "no cleanup necessary": if a cleanup is necessary, please explain which exactly. I may be wrong here, but still I don't see why it must be "severe". Are you going to delete 5/7 of entries? In summary, yes, my POV is better, because I can argument for it. And it is not an accusation, but a statement of fact: "unnecessary" is a POV, not an argument. The voter who thinks it is "unnecessary" must provide arguments by which rules there is "no need for such list", out of simple courtesy to fellow wikipedians. We are not discussing deletion of a vanity page here. Lists are tools for search information. And like I said, we have hundreds of them. Why don't you go and try to delete List of songs whose title includes a phone number? If the operson who says "no need" provided a solid argument, there could have been a fat chance I agrreed with him. The issue is not like inter-ethnic conflict, where people just stand for their political POV. I will not die or kill for Russian language, you know. `'mikka (t) 05:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for the list. It comes to my mind that those who hastily voted to delete probably do not know the reason why all these List of mathematics topics, etc. have been created. There is a useful link "Related changes". If you click it, you will see something like this, which is very useful for monitoring articles that cover a certain topic, in addition to "My watchlist" tool. `'mikka (t) 05:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example of usefulness: did you know that Russian is stress-timed language? Did you know at all what the heck it is? I bet my beard that 90% of native Russian speakers do not know it (and 99.8% do not know now to translate this term into Russian (or whether the corresponding Russian term exists), and 999.8% would not know where to find this fact). `'mikka (t) 05:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the reasons for there being no need have already been listed in the nomination. Your POV is not better than others. Your comparative examples are poor ones because they're lists of (arguably) non-notable trivia while the argument against this article is that it is not a "structured list." Linguistics pages that mention/should mention Russian is not a well-defined or discrete topic. Why, for example, are alveolar trill and voiceless velar fricative listed but not any of the other phonemes?
That you use the list as an addition to your watchlist to monitor pages is not a compelling argument.
Apparantly 99.99% percent of users named Mikkalai don't know to put important information about Russian in the Russian language article. AEuSoes1 06:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you the one who thinks that grammar issues of Russian language are trivial and do not deserve separate article, such as Reduplication in the Russian language? Now I remember you. I am no longer talking to you. `'mikka (t) 07:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm the guy who thought Reduplication in the Russian language should've been merged into the Russian grammar article. Nice diversion, though. You've effectively countered my arguments with a number of fallacies. AEuSoes1 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the risk of getting my head bitten off, surely the place for the fact that (for example) Russian is a stress-timed language is in the article on stress-timed languages (which it already is) and the article on the language itself (which it doesn't appear to be). While the argument that "other equally large lists already exist" doesn't really get us anywhere (they might simply exist because nobody's got around to nominating them here yet), I'd argue that the difference would be that the articles linked in that list actually talk about "archaeology" or "mathematics" or whatever else it's a list of. When this list links exclusively to pages which mention the word "Russian" or "Russian Language", it might - and I do stress might - be a useful analogy. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest you to try to count the number of pages that mention the word Russian language before jumping to weird analogies. For all others: precisely because "Rus Lang" page is linked to countless articles that say nothing about the language this list is highly useful: it points to linguistics pages, in other words, it is not "an indiscriminate collection". (Of course, you are free to maintain that "Linguistics" itself is an indiscriminate collection. <Shrug>.)`'mikka (t) 07:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I meant was that not all of the articles on this list here mention Russian. This is admitted on the list itself and is (I would suggest) not the case in the other "List of X Topics" lists, which presumably link only to articles which do mention "archaeology", "mathematics", "dog-breeding" or whatever value X has. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 08:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a list of articles that discuss peculiarities of Russian language, period. When, say, the artile Mondegreens in Russian language will be written and placed into category:Russian language, then the entry "*Mondegreen" may be deleted from List of Russian language topics. When the list becomes empty, I swear delete it myself (I pledge to delete it even earlier: when it will contain less than 6 items). `'mikka (t) 15:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • In that case, why not move this to a subpage of your userpage for your own reference? BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 21:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because this is a reference, not "my own reference". You don't like it, don't use it. `'mikka (t) 22:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fair cop, but might it be a valid suggestion in case the list does get deleted? It seems as though you're saying that the list serves two purposes - it can provide links to topics connected in various ways to Russian and it can remind you (or another user who's interested in doing the same thing) to create articles about "X in Russian". I would respectfully suggest that if it's deemed to be unencyclopedic to do the former, userfication would make a lot of sense to achieve the latter. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 22:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually this discussion gave me an idea how to make this list into something "bullet-proof" against deletionists. And such lists wil be useful for other languages as well. My observation (which triggerred the creation of this hapless list) is that it is nearly impossible to quiclky find out whether a particular feature exist in the language. For example, is Russian an agglutinative language? The corresponding article gives "examples" of languages only, and it may well be that Russian is agglutinative, but simply was not among handpicked examples. Further, if it is not agglutinative, then which kind is it? Luckily, there sits the {{Linguistic typology topics}} template, and I can try and find Russian language in articles from the same category. OK here we go: it turns out it is synthetic language. But is it fusional or olygosynthetic (listed as subcategoeries in the template)? Dunno. Stuck. And this problem is especially acute with more obscure topics, such as does Russian have frequentatives? Right now I noticed that Russian grammar article has a statement that there is no Nominative absolute it modern Russian, which is false. My list is an attempt to add some search structure to the chaotic presentation of linguistic topics. And here come some deletionists who cannot tell ablaut from umlaut and tell me that this list is useless. Of course you don't need it when you write pokemon articles. Just take a look into the category:Lists of songs. How much effort is put into this songcruft, and all are happy. But my list useful for searches in a serious topic somehow makes someone sleepless. Sheesh! `'mikka (t) 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that this article is useful for people who prefer not to look in Russian language to find out of Russian is agglutinative or not? AEuSoes1 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 01:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Meet the Little Focker

crystal ball -proposed part of a trilogy,

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heyman's Disciples

Original research - nothing on the ECW programming has acknowledged this as a "stable"; page consists of little other than a week by week recap (Wikipedia is not a news archive). Dsreyn 02:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Curtis

Not yet opened local restauranr

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 01:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where The Dogs Roam

Seems like a hoax (WP:HOAX); a Google search of "where the dogs roam" and Snowden turned up only about 3 results, which is far less than you'd expect if the article was true. In addition, it was created by the user, who has the article's contents as his userpage - see WP:VAIN. Crystallina 02:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 01:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Kristen gudsnuk

Underground artist who really hasn't reached notability yet. If notability is reached later then the article can be recreated but as for now it's not really notable. Lid 02:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because it is notable. The artist has finished a substantial amount of high-quality work, and just because she isn't in magazines yet, doesn't mean that her work should be discredited. This is obviously a non-promotional, informational article about an ambitious young artist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.47.94 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Chandler

I speedy-tagged (A7) Philip R Chandler for no assertion of notability. I discovered this page was created after my user page was vandalized by the article creator, but as assertions of notability were now made (supposedly the founder of MediaLens), I let it go with an autobiography tag (edits were made by anonymous users, User:Pjchandler, and User:Philchandler). Upon some investigation however, I discovered that google searches for "Philip Chandler" and "MediaLens" turned up mostly Wikipedia mirror sites. The book Beyond Positive Thinking is not listed on Amazon or any other major bookseller that I can find. Fails WP:VAIN and WP:V. Irongargoyle 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resonant Vibes

Spam/advertising for a non-notable web based company (failing WP:CORP). They're a digital music store, with an Alexa of 271,593. I prod'ed, but the author removed it asserting notability derived from their web traffic ranking ([14]). alphaChimp(talk) 03:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete (CSD A7). Teke (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pek squared

Vanity and awkwardness. Húsönd 03:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 01:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.aerialshowgirls.com

Appears to be a a vanity advertisement for a small group of performers. The website fails WP:WEB, with only 1,612 hits, and search engine results don't seem to indicate much, if any, notability. The article was speedied before as empty, but was recreated with text copied and pasted from several articles. Recommend salting. Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 04:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect per well-reasoned nomination. --Kinu t/c 04:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it with a spammer hammer. — Tivedshambo (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 10:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sure what this is, but it sure ain't an encyclopedia article. -Elmer Clark 23:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Absolutely delete it. Spam/advertising and does not belong here at all. ResurgamII 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that my article has been requested for deletion. I took a look at some of the users who requested this, and I saw college students, computer programmers, and writers, but nowhere did I see anyone that seemed to have actual experience on any aerial circus apparatus. I did not see any indication that ANY of these people would know anything about aerial circus arts other than what they type into a search engine and find. Plus I added the link to the "Aerial Tissu" page to provide people with more opportunities to see and learn more about tissu and all the other apparatus, and my expansion was deleted. If this is an encyclopedia that is available to people on the web to expand their knowledge I do not see why there shouldn't be a dozen links to aerialists' pages to give a wide variety of what is really out there instead of giving one link leading to one website. Being an aerialist that has trained for several years and worked hard I have never come across any information that says the one link that is available on the "Aerial Tissu" article should be crowned the best representation of aerialists and be the only one offered on Wikipedia. If I've missed that announcement I'd love to get that memo. The website that is linked to the article leads to a good aerialist, but there are more professionals out there describing this topic, and the more available links that are listed on Wikipedia, the more rounded a persons understanding of that topic can be. So if my article is going to be deleted, it better be because someone with SOME kind of aerial training, background, and knowledge tells Wikipedia that my descriptions of the apparatus are not accurate, and the photos and video that are provided are falsely representing aerial circus apparatus. It should not be deleted because some young college student and computer programmer, with NO first hand experience in the circus world, have too much time on their hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AerialShowgirls (talk • contribs)
    • The reason why your article is getting deleted is not because of experience or lack thereof in the circus world. It is a simple case of notability (see Wikipedia:Notability). Also your article can be seen as advertising, which is inappropriate on Wikipedia. In fact, I find your claim that your article should only be judged by people who themselves have experience in the circus world amazing. There is nothing stopping anyone from writing, or criticising, an article about something they don't have first-hand experience of themselves. All that is required is an understanding of Wikipedia's rules and policies. If I were to write an article about myself, should I forbid anyone who is not a 20-something Finnish male computer programmer from saying anything about it? Of course not. JIP | Talk 11:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps the article "Aerial Tissu" should be edited, and the link to www.aerialexperience.com should be removed too because when you click on that link, in the first paragraph it says, "From the meeting room to the stadium, aerial tissu is an emotionally moving act utilized with great success to entertain audiences. Perfect as a part of a symphony orchestra presentation, corporate meeting, tradeshow, sporting event or television production this creative aerial ballet can help to make a strong statement for your product and your company." Sounds like a suggestion to hire someone...like an advertisement. If that is not considered advertising than how is my article different when I offer a brief description of several aerial apparatus and present a link leading to more images and in-depth descriptions just as the article "Aerial Tissu" has? Plus, I was not saying that I think your lack of knowledge in circus should cancel your opinion. I was saying I think your lack of circus knowledge is limiting in deciding that one website deserves to be available as a link, but not another. Plus like I said before, why shouldn't there be at least a dozen links to aerialists' websites to provide the most accurate representation of Aerialists and the performance art itself. Any beginning aerialist is going to search online a lot to see photos and video of other aerialists to see the different styles and latest moves so they have something to aspire towards. I know this because I've been there searching myself when I was a beginner, and many of the students I teach are doing this now. Therefor having more info. available instead of less on an encyclopedia, in my opinion seems like a smart idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AerialShowgirls (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trampoline platysmaplasty

Not notable, advert; very few Google hits on the term, and even "Gregory P. Mueller" and "plastic" doesn't get many. Previous prod removed by editor concerned that an expert was needed; I don't think that is necessary, I say let's just go ahead and get rid of it. Brianyoumans 03:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is a legitimate subject for an article, though the text is written by someone who's not very good at it. If it survives AfD, let me know - I'm a doctor with an interest in anatomy, so I'm sure I can fix it. - Richardcavell 05:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you could fix it now which would increase its chances of surviving AFD. Editing is allowed during the AFD process. Yomanganitalk 11:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've lost count of the number of articles I've tried to save by editing during AfD, and had my work wasted. If it's going to get deleted, there's no point. - Richardcavell 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know the feeling. Yomanganitalk 22:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I also do not see how this particular procedure, among the thousands of surgical procedures available, is notable enough for its own article. No notability shown or implied. Article is also detailed enough that I note WP is not a how-to guide. No sources, so fails WP:V. Keep noms should do more than simply claim notability because they say so. Tychocat 11:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... neither MEDLINE nor PubMed seem to know of any journal articles about this procedure. Unless it can be legitimately sourced (for example, from the minutes of that ASAPS meeting), this article violates WP:V. --Kinu t/c 19:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I prodded this and the author removed the prod tag without giving a good enough reason on the article's talk page. --Sbluen 05:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by Shanes. - Richardcavell 05:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gøran Aune

Non-notable person. Falls under WP:VAIN. zer0render 04:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Shanes as nn-bio. - Richardcavell 05:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tårnesvik Hansen

Non-notable person. Falls under WP:VAIN. zer0render 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Nation

Non-notable band (I can find nothing on them outside of their own sites), article does not assert notability, probably either self-authored or copyvio Freekee 04:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Mystic Nation is a trademark and the material is copywritten into history. The band owns the trademark, is a member of ASCAP and has international distribution. As far as notability, two of the band members were nominated for a Grammy in 2000, much of the historical record has not yet been uploaded, venturing into wikipedia seems a sticky subject, if there is a better way to present history and fact, not sensationalism, please explain. This page is only here to represent a group of musicians, a historical truth and basically the fact they have been performing all along with groups already existing on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Day_and_the_Time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_%28band%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Lobos
Oh yeah and part of some great history and truth...Goliath ordered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Fleetwood
a sandwhich when he was a kid.


Based alone on the fact that these bands are listed, this band should also be.

Outside documents include several news articles (prior to the internet, but can be scanned) from the Spokesman Review in Spokane, Washington, Music Connection (an industry standard) in Los Angeles and quite a few other sources from the LA Times to OC Register and the NY Times. Part of the group was also voted one of the top Rock acts in California 2001 (again part of the historical record that has yet to be entered, though I am sure once this joust is over, people will).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.24.38 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date rape psychosis

A plot device for one episode of South Park doesn't qualify for an article. The author's attempt to extrapolate the concept to a book in the Sweet Valley High series is a POV/OR comparison. wikipediatrix 04:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to be fancruft. Agree comparison with non South Park events represents original research. It would appear that in general, attempts to use a fictional concept as if it were an actual one would be unverifiable, and unencyclopedic, by definition.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus Default to keep. I considered marking this as delete but the article seemed better sourced than the other misconception articles and there seems to be less consensus for this one's deletion. I hope the users who wanted it kept work to improve the article. JoshuaZ 21:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science misconceptions

I just deleted Physics misconceptions as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics misconceptions; this seems to fall into the same category Deville (Talk) 04:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I meant was the misconceptions and their explanations are sourced and therefore not POV, but the choice of misconceptions discussed is, as there must be hundreds of science-related misconceptions, ranging from trivial to degree level science. It is POV to decide which deserve a place on this article and which do not. Molerat 13:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fortunately, no such decision is necessary - you can include all that have reliable sources. Apart from which, it is essentially impossible to argue that choosing what to include and what to exclude from an article is so inherently POV that the article should be deleted - every single article does this. The article on Canada doesn't discuss everything that's verifiable that's ever happened there, but that's a featured article. If this was well sourced it'd certainly be encyclopaedic and verifiable, which would necessitate a keep argument. Here, it ain't though. WilyD 13:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If it's sourced, it's not POV at all" is just not true. If I started an article called Why Tom Cruise is a moron, it would obviously be inherently POV, even if I got copious amounts of sources for people stating words to that effect. The similar problem here is that "misconception" can be just as much a matter of opinion. wikipediatrix 13:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you had copious reliable sources about Tom Cruise being a moron, you should be able to make an encyclopaedic article. Everything in the whole shebang we call Wikipedia is just someone's opinion - please read WP:NPOV before accusing it of saying something it doesn't. WilyD 13:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that everything in Wikipedia is someone else's opinion, and I know WP:NPOV quite well, thanks anyway. The "inherently" part stems from the opinionated title and premise of the article - I thought I'd made that painfully obvious, but I guess not. wikipediatrix 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that neither the title nor the premise are inherently opinionated, it'd pretty hard for it to be obvious. I'm sure if someone were so inclined, they could write an excellent article on the exact subject using nothing but articles from peer-reviewed journals. Whilst the title might omit some implicit qualifier like common to suggest the entire content of the article needs to be in the title is a bit excessive. This article is at the title it should be per WP:NAME, being at the most common name for the subject in english - along with all sorts of other articles like Armenian Genocide or Wounded Knee Massacre WilyD 13:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also sure that an article called Why Tom Cruise is a moron would be deleted as an attack page and not for being inherently POV. Since this is not an attack page it is an apples and oragnes comparasion. You need a better example than that. I also have a question. Can you desmostrarte anytime that a well sourced artilce was deleted simply for being inherently POV? If you do can you please provide the AFD record so it can be eximined. --My old username 01:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anybody provides any reliable sources that show the misconceptions described are the most common of all misconceptions, as opposed to a random/potentially POV choice of misconceptions, I may change my mind. I doubt any reliable research has taken place into the most common science misconceptions, though. Molerat 18:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Just because an article could be incomplete dose not mean it must be deleted. By those criteria most articles in wikipedia have to be deleted. If there’s a science misconception that’s missing it can be added. Seano1 00:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! The history of science shows that science is wrong more often than it's right. We just have to hope we weed out some wrong and accumulate right. You can't cram most of the history of science into a single article. Doczilla 05:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The history of errors is just as important as the history of accomplishments. Quite a few misconceptions are notable and widely dicussed. Although I must admit this article is a poor stub now. By the way, IMO Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics misconceptions was closed in haste: only three votes, two for deletion. I am placing it into deletion review. Mukadderat 18:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep From my knowledge, it looks like the articles contain some original research WP:OR, but also some sourced statements. Anyway poor formatting, and in need of attention of an expert of the subject. See Deletion review: Keep all and improve; remove OR/POV (point of view), or Delete all. The articles are really poorly written, in terms of WP:LAYOUT. The misconceptions maight be sourced, because it happens again and again? I do not know the subject well enough. User:Yy-bo 19:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Name should be Misconceptions_(science), and disambiguation required. User:Yy-bo 19:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JpgEarth

Non-notable. 96 Google hits, no Alexa.com ranking. Haakon 04:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 14:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flash (drug)

not notable, unsourced, trivial topic Anlace 22:02, 30 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, Deville (Talk) 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bioethanol From Small Grains

I realize this is still being written, but nothing is going to save it from being a long personal essay full of original research that doesn't cite its sources and is pretty much redundant with bioethanol. Opabinia regalis 05:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:NawlinWiki (log). BryanG(talk) 03:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar-Free Party

Apparent hoax. No reference to this "Sugar-Free Party", either in history books or on Google searches Interlingua talk email 05:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, due to many new accounts asking for a keep, and the experience and reason shown by the deletion !voters. —Xyrael / 12:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yenta claus

non-notable content/advertising ArmadilloFromHell 05:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*delete Apparent hoax. Book cited doesn't exist, at least as far as web is concerned. Antonrojo 17:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional keep I support keeping this article if at least one source that discusses the details of the myth is added otherwise there is no way to tell if artistic license was taken. This should be available since we can read about oral histories of societies that have had little contact with outside societies I'd expect at least some reference would be available. If unreferenced information were removed, I doubt that enough information would remain to justify an article. Antonrojo 16:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article apparently not hoax (see below). At least, book will need a {{fact}} tag Antonrojo 15:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a hoax. Article was edited numerous times and all objections were addressed. Web sources were added to the article and linked. Not a lot of info on the web but there are sites which are unrelated to each other and in diverse areas referencing the Yenta Claus character that appear to confirm it. There is the emergence of Jewish Holiday Mythical Characters and one of them is Yenta Claus. The new info includes a play written by a Pace University Professor where Yenta Claus is Santa's wife! http://webpage.pace.edu/newmorning/archive/nov2100/party.htm People who voted to delet may reconsider after they reread the new and expanded article.--Bhires 16:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have against Jewish Holiday traditions? I keep adding everything I know about Yenta Claus and related characters even though they have Wikipedia entries of their own that ignore her. I will post the Yenta Claus "book" online for you and everyone else to read as I didn't know notable meant the necessity of materials being on the internet. I am probably wrong here, but I thought the reason Wikipedia invited new material was because the mission was to get info useful to readers on the net and that Wikipedia was paperless, with millions of entries and thus open to niche topics. Wait until December, Yenta Claus, Bubbe and Harry et. al. will be all over the net, blogs and relevant cultural sites as well as the off line world in mostly urban areas and I bet Israel too. Last year Blooms book, out of print at the time was fetching over $1000 on Amazon and I know it for a fact because I couldn't afford to get my hands on a copy. Now if Hanukkah Harry gets a stub entry and Chrismukkah get a full status entry and so does Santa Claus, why pick on Yenta Claus for exclusion? I made it a stub and asked for help in dressing up the article as well as expanding it. This is my first attempt at not only a Wikipedia article, but writing an online article altogether. Cut me a little slack and be constructive rather than summarily dismissing the subject and my attempts to fill an online void. P.S. Isn't Santa Claus really a hoax or fantasy perpetuated upon children for every ones enjoyment and delight? Be nice to Yenta Claus and she will be nice to you too! :-) I thought you would be delighted to see this and was taken back at the blatant attempt to censor it. Well, maybe you will reconsider, after all you really didn't give it more than a moment to 2 as you set it for deletion minutes after it went up yesterday and after the first revision spent less time to sent it to the deletion tribunal. --68.41.86.146 19:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC) PS isnt almost everything around the holidays, including Santa as we know it compliments of Coka Cola ads of the 1930-70s, comercial. It is impossible not to link to comercial sites when writing about anything to do with giving toys or the way children get them around Christmas, Hanukkah and Chrismukkah.[reply]


The standards you cite ought to result in the deletion of many many many articles I have read here. Not everything of note and worthy of inclusion in a site like Wikipedia is vintage or antique so as to have been published in sources required for undergraduate term papers. I have written my fair share of those and have since experienced enough real life post graduate school to escape from grade school mentality. No rant but really folks, real life is a very good source, ie published news articles, published speeches made by leaders and authorities in the field, actual books, commercial site offering the evidence of the existence of the topic. So are you saying you object to anything that does not smell of moth balls and was already predigested by academic types so one merely regurgitates second and third or more hand takes on dry toast material? Don't need Wikipedia if that is all it is, but you have Hanukkah Harry? And so much totally weird stuff? You propose to censor what is offered to the public, an inside scoop, the real thing with cites of real people doing and writing and saying what amounts to a cultural phenomena and you vote to delete? Apparently because the citations and links do not lead you to stuff that sits that has been around so long it is already dusted over on times shelves? Well, I may pull it off totally befre you delete it and write about how you young folk barely out of school with little real life under your belt think you qualify as experts in censorship.--68.41.86.146 22:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK rather than summarily vote to delete something as wonderful as yenta Claus, and since you all apparently have the time to sit in judgement over so much information that undoubtedly is tossed up, I ask for the sake of discussion that you, for the moment only, assume that Yenta Claus is a worthy subject, critique my work from that vantage. In other words, tell me how to win. Not to worry, even if you tell, if I can't deliver than I'll at least understand. I think I get the drift here but being that we have a generation gap and I can, thought rarely will admit to remembering, fondly remembering, rotary phones and party lines. Ha! Now those are subjects dusty enough to be included? Yes? So the future will know of it? And I remember the first TV and the first orbiting satellite Sputnik. There write about the Space Race wars and haw us kids watched the night sky to see a Soviet glowing ball of steel float over the night sky several times every clear night. OK, tell me what you consider the type of sources I need and I may just be able to float a few your way and then maybe not but at least you will have "communicated" and perhaps I'll write about a few patents, a religion based upon faith in life and how a trial lawyer save tens of thousands of lives with one lawsuit and did it all pro bono. Really, do give Yenta Claus the chance anything that cool deserves by just giving up the details your summary dismissals hint but do not reveal to those who were born before the Internet.--68.41.86.146 23:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI [15] and do forgive me for sharing this: "Aaron Swartz analyzed who was mostly responsible for adding the gist to a typical Wikipedia article, and his findings show that – as opposed to what Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself assumes – it’s mostly outsiders (people doing only occasional edits, often unregistered). The Wikipedians, those people with deep inside knowledge into how Wikipedia works (like policy debates or advanced syntax), do more edits by number, but those edits are also often just structural or syntactical changes to content “non-Wikipedians” provided.

Frankly, all of this makes perfect sense (expert knowledge on such a wide array of topics must be widely distributed among different people, too, and won’t be contained within a group of say 500 Wikipedians), but it also shows that Wikipedia will only remain healthy if it keeps trusting outsiders." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhires (talk • contribs) .

  • delete There are no Ghits (out of 32 unique hits for "Yenta claus") outside the company, its products, and greeting cards, and a private individual using tripod.com, so it appears to be all original research. The owners probably would have not been able to register such a company name had it been a generic term. However, if Yenta claus brings me something for Chrismukka, I might just reconsider ;-). The article appears to be a product placement, written in such a way as to subtly introduce an apparently unknown company and its products, and so violates WP:NOT a soapbox. Wiki does indeed have a conservative bias, but is not censored, so whether the editors collectively "like" or "dislike" the article would never be an issue. Unlike blogs which where people can write or rant about whatever trendy thing they like or dislike, wiki editors need to follow fundamental rules on verifiability, and unfortunately Blogs and chatroom fora are not considered reliable per WP:V. As a result, Wiki may often miss grass-roots phenomena, which blogs and community sites pick up. Also, there are subject areas, cultures, countries which have a low web presence/penetration, wiki editors would tend to err on the side of caution when no sources (on-line or otherwise) are cited. Often, the deletion debate results in articles found which may sway the deletion panel. The simple fact is that a well sourced and referenced article, documenting a well-known phenomenon, has a much better chance of being retained than one which does not do one or the other. Ohconfucius 02:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
vote change to Neutral. Appears to be a genuinely emerging phenomenon gathering momentum, but still lacking in reliable sources. Ohconfucius 04:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:ArmadilloFromHell added the "prod" template to the article Yenta claus, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but we don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and User:ArmadilloFromHell explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Yenta claus. If you remove the "dated prod" template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 00:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yenta claus, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --ArmadilloFromHell 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ohconfucius None of the 32 Ghits about greeting cards are mine and you missed the sites on jokes/humor and Comedians playing the Yenta Claus character for Elk club and the like parties and the reference to Yenta Claus on the Chrismukah site. Ta ta self serving dunces. I did creat a pillow doll exhibited on one site named Yenta Claus, but alas it is not a retail site and you can not buy one online or in any brick and motar store anywhere. Selectively reporting a single engine key word search and then with bias slanting the report of it, thus telling a bold lie, is a very dishonest and unethical tactic and particularly offensive when used for a purpose a nefarious as censorship.--Bhires 02:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Oh you also missed the Rabi's published online four (4) myears ago, Hanukkah sermon on Chrismukkah and Yenta Claus! There are other sites as well, referencing her and BTW Yenta Claus is the name of a Corporation as well. And, since you probably are not Jewish have little to no interest in.[reply]

comment Concerning the other sites you mentioned, these were personal websites and excluded per WP:V and WP:OR. If you are implying that the Armadillo recruited me, you will have one hell of a job to prove it. BTW, I only notice one person ranting here. The only thing missing is expletives ;-) Ohconfucius 03:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It isn't my job to prove anything to u as "the proof is in the pudding."


So the Elks Club, Some Synagoges publishing a Rabi's sermon online and American Greetings, Yahoo and Chrismukahh are all personal site. Cool. So is Wiki than!

Hey look what I found![16] I guess it was considered valuable to someone even though it was up a fraction of an hour, first version up less than an hour yesterday, when it was cut and pasted and shared! —The preceding unsigned comments were added by Bhires (talk • contribs) .

comment There are loads of sites which pick up content directly from wiki, as it is free from copyright. In an earlier post, you asked how your article could be turned into something keepable, and I did offer some advice. But it would appear that you are making your own interpretation of the rules and not actually appear prepared to listen to anybody. I will not give you any more grief. My vote remains unchanged. Ohconfucius 03:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK you all want Yenta Claus deleted, so which one of you reposted it!! Why so you can click your delet buttons in unison upon the The Verdict as in the Tale of Alice in Wonderland? (remember the trial and the mouse's tale?)LOL Enjoy your exercise and let sanity not vanity win the day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhires (talk • contribs) 04:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC) in response to the reversion of his blanking of the article. [reply]


I read this on a Wiki user site: "This is what the inherent failure of wikipedia is. It's that there's a small set of content generators, a massive amount of wonks and twiddlers, and then a heaping amount of procedural whackjobs. And the mass of triddlers and procedural whackjobs means that the content generators stop being so and have to become content defenders. Woe be that your take on things is off from the majority. Even if you can prove something, you're now in the situation that anybody can change it. And while that's all great in a happy-go-lucky flower shower sort of way, it's when you realize that the people who are going to change it could have absolutely no experience with the subject whatsoever, then you see where we are." --Bhires 04:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and as [[17]] continues, and please do forgive me for sharing. I am tired and feel a bit worn out by what I thought would be a positive and productive effort to what is clearly becoming 'not fun at all' and otherwise something I wouldn't ever do again, unless, possibly unless I was paid a significant amount for, turned into efforts to salvage my little but notable piece from an attack of the Langoliers as in the 1990 Steven King novel Four Past Midnight;

"If you've ever worked in a large company, one where not everyone's name is known by everyone else, you've bumped into these people, who don't know the thing the company makes very well, don't keep on top of new ideas beyond buzzwords, yet wield the kind of power where they can stop and start innovation and positive growth because they simply feel like it. It's pretty heartbreaking stuff and I hope a bunch of you never have to deal with it.

But thanks to Wikipedia, you can experience this on a daily basis! College students with too much free time deciding your subject matter is not worth reporting. Bizzare insight from strange lands telling you they didn't think your paragraph was relevant. And ever the bizzare need for a Neutral Point of View. Neutral Point of View is a doctrine about how Wikipedia articles should be written. Like wikipedia itself, it is a great idea in theory. In application, of course, it turns into yet another hammer for wonks and whackjobs to beat each other and innocent bystanders.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhires (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is a relatively new creation, but it already quite beset with the same problems that inhabit any self-styled intellectual collaboration. People make little empires, have their agendas, push through ideas and themes they want, and disregard and delete things they do not. The main difference between this and other similar academic environments is the pure speed at which stuff can happen; you can literately have 30-40 little editing nibbles on a page within a single day. If people are feeling frisky, it can take place in a few hours. This means that you get all the politics and turf war of Ivory Tower Academia without the mitigating barrier of time to cool down or consider. That is, you get a nice big mess." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhires (talk • contribs)

Delete and comment Fails WP:NEO and WP:V. Changed to conditional keep - see belowBhires, you're not helping yourself here by making personal attacks. I've removed them, and I suggest you spend your energy discussing the merits of this article, instead of throwing insults on the project and its contributors. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 05:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete – Bhires, if your article was backed up with the appropriate citations and references, I doubt anyone would worry about it too much. It's a shame that you think so little of Wikipedia, but I hope that you'll spend some more time understanding that the policies we have are there for a reason. As I see it right now, the article is a pretty good candidate for deletion. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 06:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think less and less of it every time I login. It may be that some think so little of Wiki that they feel qualified to delete another’s work and project their own motivational issues upon others when ascribing opinions on intentions and efforts.

To have Baseball Baby, who ever that is, remove my discussion because of an apparent discomfort when criticism is too accurate citing a no personal attacks policy as censorship justification is one example of why I object to this exercise. It is a poorly organized effort. Well, you should know, my comments were not intended as personal though expressed with feelings of a real person, me. I usually avoid this kind of silliness, that is subjecting myself and work to critiques by people who don't have a clue about it nor its cultural context and may, possibly may, harbor resentments towards others, i.e. prejudices.

Yes it really bothers me to have you all nominate something I care about. I’d rather have never offered it than to have it shot down. It is doubly an offense that I don’t feel some here are truly qualified as gatekeepers. It would be different if someone here tried to be objective and contributed to an effort here rather than issue summary deletion attacks. Nevertheless, I agree to remove the entire article, something I have agreed to before but was actually prevented from doing.

BTW, for those who keep referring to me as a he and those who are impolite, not that it really matters, but I am a highly educated, successful, accomplished dual professional and a woman. Many of my accomplishments could easily rate for separate entries. Note: I am not interested in more notoriety than I have already received in life. I had my moments and do not need any more. See, I already have had two Wall Street Journal articles discussing me and my work, numerous TV news appearances, on the cover of magazines, hard copy not online, and featured in various news papers, print copy and so on and so forth.

Note: I have read up on many of the contributions, citations in articles of minor note and personal pages of most here. I am happy some are ambitious and seek success and fame. I am impressed that some graduated college, and some have jobs or once had jobs and that some are heads of their own publishing companies, i.e. Boggs and online rant sites. A few even wrote articles about their experiences. However, it does appear to me that perhaps some of you though adults are fairly young, very close to the age of my son. Thus I should give you all a bit of slack, something not offered to contributers of content apparently, and tolerate the youthful approaches.

I would like to simply withdraw my article.

I have one other recommendation for the future, it would be wise to learn to be less judgmental about what the "world" may find of value. Clearly that Wiki lets people write articles about their High Schools, college records, amongst articles about companies that once employed them, and the like, all of which underscores Wiki's acceptance biases.

So, let's end this now. I elect to redact my article.--Bhires 15:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Seeing as how the original author is now in favor of deletion, given that she is the only editor (aside from an IP who is assumed to be the same editor from the comments herein), can this be speedy G7ed? --Kinu t/c 15:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Eh, might as well let the AfD play out, for the sake of future G4ability. --Kinu t/c 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reversing my vote above if that makes a difference...my main reason for citing WP:V was the lack of citations to the book. Whether the unverified book citation belongs in the article or not, legitimate sources do mention Yenta claus so I think it passes the validity test: [18] [19] [20]. Antonrojo 15:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IMHO, the use by a few random greeting cards (even though they are on American Greetings, etc.) and a random crafts website is of tenuous reliability, at best. Other editors might agree with you though. --Kinu t/c 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. So long as it's up, I'll revise as I can to address the objections. The "book" about Yenta Claus is now available for reading online at [21] Scroll down read on, a short read as it was meant for children. Whether or not you still vote to delete my article, I do hope you enjoy it and that you take away a bit of holiday good cheer.--Bhires 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this will only show up in Internet Explorer Antonrojo 18:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to see what is wrong.--Bhires 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I got it open with both Mozilla and Explorer. What browser are you using? Also try refreshing the page as sometimes your browser stores an older version in the cache' and the old page will appear.--Bhires 20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox Beta2. Apparently the problem is due to the 'beta' and not the 'firefox'.Antonrojo 16:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep I was asked to reconsider, so I took another look at the article, the changes Bhires has made to the article since the Afd opened, and his sources. Based on the changes, I think I can see where Bhires is going with this, and I'm willing to give him a chance to more fully develop the article. He's provided sources, expanded it a bit, and demonstrated that the term isn't a hoax, so why not? I agree with Riana dzasta that it needs a serious copyedit and wikification, but that's not hard. My reasoning is that as Christmas and Hanukkah approach, there may be more references to Yenta Claus and more editors on this article, so let's wait until after the holidays to see what happens. It can always be renominated if it doesn't develop or expand, or if the term isn't in use this year. I think this may be the wrong time of year to judge notability as a neologism – a better method would be to wait until the time of year when the term is more likely to appear online and other places. My condition? No more calling people "whackjobbers" and the like, okay? :-) BaseballBaby 01:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deal and thanks for reconsidering :-)) P.S. I'll put in a good word for you with Yenta Claus. You never know!--Bhires 02:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment about to embark on a wild copyediting spree, have moved page to Yenta Claus; hope no one minds. Agree with BaseballBaby (for some reason your nickname makes me laugh, by the way), conditional keep provided that we get more references, etc, and that Bhires continues to play nicely :) (I understand it would be very hard to sign up and have your first article nominated for deletion, so I won't judge you too harshly) — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 07:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While the concept may exist, I still fail to see how a play of dubious notability (written/performed for a holiday party and staged once?), even along with the other references provided, meets WP:RS. Mind you, I have no prejudice toward recreation if this concept does gain some traction this holiday season or whatnot, but until then, WP:NOT a crystal ball as to whether notability will be asserted in the future. I do appreciate the efforts to source the article, however, and best of luck to the author in her future contributions. --Kinu t/c 13:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion everybody take five, and don't get your knickers in a twist. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 23:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Suggestion Point taken and I have adjusted my knickers. I was unfamiliar with the workings of the site at the time I began to write. It all started as I was researching the subject, found Hanukkah Harry and no Yenta Claus on Wiki and rather spontaneously, began writing for Wiki to fill what I preceived as an online void. Over the past few days, I think I have spent as much time learning the Wiki process and trying to make amends, as the time I spent trying to improve the contribution to address the concerns raised. I am truly a "newbie" here and hope my learning curve is short.  :-)--Bhires 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If she is indeed popping up on multiple independent sites that all say she is a Jewish Hanukkah character, why negate her? The article includes all known versions from a NPOV. I have read many wiki articles on obscure characters that are not deleted who have either no external referances or are merely claimed to exist in ancient manuscripts written on untranslated Arabic or simply referanced to a library, containing thousands of books, in a distant nonenglish speaking foreign country. At least we know Yenta Claus exists in multiple online communities. I have even read emails/blogs have written years ago where they write that they asked her for presents for Hanukkah. I think some here just might be a tiny bit too hasty in their dismissal of her. At least she should be allowed time up during the Holiday since she is a seasonal character and we are out of season now. Time will tell who was correct, but if she is deleted now, she may not reappear and Wiki will be out an objective stub and a valuable article. Do you really think come March when the referances fade off line in the off season someone will say, hey lets write about her for Wiki? Please reconsider.--Bhires 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Changed to "comment"--Bhires 05:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You said "Time will tell who was correct, but if she is deleted now, she may not reappear..." That's actually a key part of the Wikipedia philosophy. If an article is deleted and no other author comes along with the same idea, that means that "time has told" that it was appropriate to delete it. Also, if several individuals have independently come up with the name "Yenta Claus," it does not mean that there is any shared cultural concept that they are all referring to. Uncle G, a respected longtime contributor, has written an excellent essay that you may find helpful for explaining some of these issues. FreplySpang 16:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the info linking Uncle G and I did read it and understand where you are coming from on this. In Yenta's favor, he did say things that would tend, at least somewhat support, keeping the Article as well. I see how people could easily vote either way. I just want a chance to better it. I am new here and am sorry to have put it up early and in such unfinished form. I saw many with less and thought it was going to be a colaboration of sorts not a rush to judgement. I appreciate many helpers and supporters and believe we will get morer contributers soon as the season is approaching and perhaps people from other groups, like Chrismukkah and such helping too. I did more research on both Christmas and Hanukkah characters ond observances and the internet discussions pretty much end in early Janurary and start up around late october to mid November or so. I do see her as a emerging and Notable character even if she is of interest to a smaller group and during a specific time of year. Uncle G seems to support these topics and cautions against subjectivity in deleting them because of this. I am tired and need to do something else for a while so my comments should be taken in that context and in both the words and in the spirit of an excellent essay. I just don't feel it is fair to dismisss the topic if it isn't of interest off season, like now I guess. I'll work more on her and Mrs. Claus later today or in the morning. I did find a very nice referance to the origin of Mrs. Claus and added a bit to that very short and neglected article. I am beginning to adopt her as an interest of mine and I'll actively work to improve that entry too. Later and nicey nice til I am back to work on this.--Bhires 18:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off Topic, Sightly that is

[22] This is way too fun not share. The subject os the short freebie is "Yes there is a Jewish Santa Claus Virginia!" I have to actually work today and will not get back on the project until later this evening so be gentile with Yenta Claus in my absence, pretty please.--Bhires 15:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never nude

A minor plot device from episodes of Arrested Development doesn't qualify for an article of its own. Not even important enough to merge into the show's own article. Fancruft. wikipediatrix 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Meta-Human Vampiric Virus

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a game guide. The relevant information is already in the Shadowrun article, so there's nothing to merge. wikipediatrix 05:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Game guide information. Which doesn't need to be an article. wikipediatrix 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? --Dr Archeville 14:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:NOT says so. wikipediatrix 14:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the definition of encyclopedia, an encyclopedia is "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge". jgp TC 07:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a how-to. Kappa 21:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Herostratus 06:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

String Theory (band)

No evidence of notability. I put this up for speedy deletion (A7) but it was contested.  — Tivedshambo (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JoshuaZ 21:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trissanju

This is a made up animation/series. There is *nothing* independent in google on this topic. (The only other non-Wikipedia mention was added to the Urban Dictionary by the a person with the same as one who heavily edited this article.) This is an extensive WP:HOAX. Of the persons who "vouched" for it on talk all had only one edit. I assume they have the same IP and I invite others to more throughly investigate. --Kunzite 05:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auxillary articles included for deletion along with the Trissanju:

  • Delete all as this is hoax. Anime series on Wikipedia generally have at least 'some' Japanese text in them. At least original (japanese) name and character names, while this article doesnt even cites series title, even after saying this 'series' is restricted to Japan. For me, the fact that [AniDB.info AniDB] has nothing on Trissanju is reason enough that Trissanju is a hoax, but the fact there is nothing on google and no Japanese words just confirm it. Shinhan 10:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Master

The subject of this article appears to be pure original research. No independant sources on the web have been found to verify it, and the one non-web source that was provided in the article appears to be nonexistent itself - see Talk:Invisible Master. Bryan 05:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BA (Hons) Film and Television Production at York St John University

Proposed deletion of this Bachelor's level degree from a UK university. Not notable and no notability asserted. This is one of hundreds of Bachelors courses are offered in every University around the world, and this article would appear to fit into WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. Ohconfucius 06:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ato Generalao

Possible hoax in what I'm guessing is Tagalog. If I read this correctly this is about a basketball player affiliated with the Minnesota Timberwolves (where he was just recently added to the "not to be forgotten" section). So I don't know nothing about the Wolves roster, but if there is or was a player of that name on the team Google should know about it (and it doesn't). There was a Philippine basketball player named Willie Generalao (who played for the Barangay Ginebra Kings), but I can't make out any connection. Unless there's a typo or someone can translate and source this, I'd say delete as unverifiable. ~ trialsanderrors 06:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B.I.A.C.

Delete article per WP:OR. Subject is a secret society whose information is potentially unverifiable as per WP:BAI Ohconfucius 06:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STUDIOdesign

Non-notable company, does not meet WP:CORP. Prodded but tag removed. LambiamTalk 06:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy_C._Zignego

Someone tagged it, but didn't finish the nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 07:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Most of this article, after the first paragraph, was copied from the article about a separate, unrelated person, John E. Jones III. The actual subject, Leroy C. Zignego, appears to have been a civil engineer, but he apparently did not meet the notability standard of WP:BIO. Although the article's creator inserted a "Page not done yet..." message at the top of the page, that was in March of this year, and the article's creator has not returned to fix the article since then. If the subject really is notable, someone would have to fix the article to establish that and remove the unrelated material. --Metropolitan90 07:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm sure it's better to have no article than a portmanteau of two people. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasSpeedy Delete as vanity by User:Dijxtra. ColourBurst 22:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old School Eric

This was prodded and deleted; the author immediately recreated it. This person completely fails WP:MUSIC: as far as I can gather he is not even a recorded artist, just a guy who makes mixtapes. -IceCreamAntisocial 06:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Catchpole 09:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B-Factory

this page relates to a machine used to generate sub-atomic particles. proposed deletion or merger into a suitable article, such as meson or particle physics. Ohconfucius 06:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, simply because noone can find any sources even asserting this person exists. I looked myself and I can't seem to find anything that isn't WP mirrors. No prejudice against recreation if sources eventually appear. --- Deville (Talk) 03:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kumaranalloor Mani

Fails WP:BIO and WP:V --Nonpareility 15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD from 30 August 2006 has been relisted to achieve consensus. Please add further comments below. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 06:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. I think Antonrojo meant to say he *listed* the article for speedy deletion. NawlinWiki 18:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Circus

Proposed deletion of vanity page of non-notable band, whose membership does not appear stable. no sign that it passes WP:MUS: no tours, no CD or hit single, no article in allmusic, 18 unique out of 80 Ghits, of which 6 relevant, including wiki. The others are mostly ads placed in search of musicians (drummer & guitarist) Ohconfucius 06:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep and relist. I note that this article has been expanded quite substantially. Due to this and the procedural, advise relisting. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Craig

Alan Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural error This is AFD #2 for this article. Prior discussion is in the history of this AFD; see the closed original AFD here. GRBerry 02:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A local councillor, which is not a claim to notability, who once said something pithy about the Bishop of Southwark. And that appears to be about it. I'm not convinced this has any purpose other than to disparage the Bishop of Southwark, since the author's only other contribution is to the Christian Peoples Alliance article. Cruftbane 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of a party anyone has ever heard of might be better :o) Cruftbane 08:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a reason to delete an article. The BBC, The Guardian and The Telegraph have heard of the party which by all accounts translates to all the people who read/watch those media outlets (millions) have heard of it. --Oakshade 03:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources fails WP:BIO? That's the core criteria of both WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. --Oakshade 03:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is when in the conversation the procedural error was noted. GRBerry 02:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural inhibitor

del. neologism by a single author. Bordering on original research. Poured from the same barrel as recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideological nomadism. `'mikka (t) 06:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subsistent worker

del neologism by a single author, the same one as for Cultural inhibitor neologism. Poured from the same barrel as recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideological nomadism. `'mikka (t) 06:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zarosaki

Group of folks who apparently color manga scans. Seems to fail WP:ORG test for notability (yes, I know it's not official guideline, but that's the category this subject fits into). NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 07:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, see e.g. this link on Gbooks which shows that Shuker's book does make the reference. This term (which we've all heard anyway, but of course this doesn't cut it WP-wise) is a popular music term referenced in a scholarly work on popular music. Thus it easily satisfies WP:V and WP:N, and I'm sure many more sources can be found with more work (by, perhaps, the "keep" commenters below?). Also, can I take the opportunity to point out that Google Books is extremely strong? --- Deville (Talk) 03:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teenybopper

Teenybopper was nominated for deletion on 2005-03-22. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teenybopper/2005-04-03.
Teenybopper was nominated for deletion on 2005-05-26. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teenybopper music.

Wikipedia has grown since this article was last the subject of an AfD, and I believe this article, especially in the tone in which it is written, has no place on Wikipedia. Mitch 07:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am aware of numerous times I have read and heard the term and am sure with time and effort the subject will expand and be a valuable addition here.--Bhires 19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jorum

Was speedied twice before. Once for being a one word entry, the second time by me for being a page that doesn't assert the notability of the subject (with a forum being treated as a group of users). This version seems to be different from the previous two, but it still fails WP:WEB miserably. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 07:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jorum is actually a forum for the alumni from Sha tin government secondary school(STGSS) in Hong Kong, it is not just a normal forum but a place for socialization of STGSS graduate, it can be regarded as a meeting place for the STGSS alumni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eqman (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, a forum for one particular school only is hopelessly non-notable. JIP | Talk 10:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn forum. Lots of forums are meeting places for people who share some real-life connection. That doesn't really matter here. Perhaps we should consider protecting from recreation. Recury 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preserve, To all fellows of the wikipedia, it is a new era of Wikipedia that there is a group of people who have a real-life connection and would like to leave their real record online. Its notability comes from the fact that it is the first time that there is a group of people by showing the real record of private life without hiding anything leaving to the future generation a way to know their past.Hksick
  • Delete, this does not meet the criteria at WP:WEB.--Isotope23 16:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an IRC yellowpages. Also, article title same as a more high profile project which lists 200 educational institutions as members...compared to 20 students. I find it odd that there isn't a speedy deletion criteria for pages that have been remade several times with the same content as previously deleted articles. Antonrojo 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narutrix

Apparently some sort of anime music video. Fails WP:NOTFILM miserably. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 07:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Amecon AMV contest is not a notable event - most anime conventions have such contests, and Amecon is neither especially large nor particularly known for its AMV contest. It's the biggest UK con, but the top British AMV makers tend to submit their work to the big American conventions instead. Ironfrost 18:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, thanks for enlightening me on this point. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was what am I doing here? Grandmasterka 19:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Vitale

Alright, I'll bite. Even if this article is completely true, I don't think he is notable as Briana Banks' ex (association does not confer notability) nor do I think he meets the (albeit proposed) WP:PORNBIO standard. Delete barring cited evidence of notability. Grandmasterka 07:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zenkaikenny

Little-know YouTube fandubber. Fails WP:BIO. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 07:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for deletion:

as it is one of the person's own creation, and has no notability asserted. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - I've prodded his other creation and despammed it - Peripitus (Talk) 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Cosplay Warriors Ultra

Anime fan-game. Fails WP:SOFTWARE; 19 Google hits for "Super Cosplay Warriors Ultra", all of them anime forum posts. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 07:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also now nominating

as this article appears to be describing the same game. Googling this name gets 630 hits, all of them either mirrors of the Wikipedia article or more forums posts. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mis-report the google hits. There are only 340 unique hits out of the 34,800. Most of those are forums and blogs. --Kunzite 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What does dojin mean in English? It basically means "vanity press". (i.e. In Japan the term is used to refer to amateur self-published works, including but not limited to manga, novels, fan guides, art collections, music and video games. Some professional artists participate as a way to publish material outside the regular publishing industry.) Should wikipedia keep articles about small self-published works? It depends who wrote it. If Jun'ichiro Koizumi were to publish a dojin fan manga, it would. But if Taro Yamada (山田太郎, Yamada Taro) with his friend Hanaku... not really. This is unsourced, original research on a self published work that is not suitable for Wikipedia. To top that off, there are 19 English google hits and 340 hits with the Chinese name. It's not a keeper. --Kunzite 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I started the Super Cosplay Warriors Ultra page and realised that I got the name of the game wrong. Super Cosplay Wars Ultra is the correct name. However, I question whether the 'Super Cosplay Wars Ultra' should be deleted. I'll admit, as far as I am aware, the game has a small englsih speaking fanbase, but game is wildly available for download on English game sites (for one unverified source on download statistics check http://www.caiman.be/gamestats.asp?nr=1528) and the wiki article is about the only english guide around (few exceptions). That's my opinion anyway. Lenny_Reason 9:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D and K Radio Show

I speedied this yesterday as the podcast was listed on podcast directories relatively recently and didn't appear to have much listeners. I checked Podcast Pickle and Podcast Alley and it didn't get much comments or even a top 100 rating on either. IIRC, only 6 or 7 shows done so far. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't make the cut with well-listened to podcasts like The DragonPage or MuggleCast, to name a few. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 08:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as non-notable and recreated content. --Nlu (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Harrison

This biography of a cameraman has been previously been speedily deleted five times (db-bio), but has been created by 3 users (who aren't single purpose accounts) and 1 IP in its entire history. I'm a little hesitant to speedily delete it a sixth time AND protect it from recreation without community consensus so I've sent this to WP:AFD for a 2nd opinion on whether it may or may not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) with more research. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accipiter RPG

NN online forum, fails WP:WEB. Much of article written by User:Accipiter RPG, against spirit of WP:AUTO/WP:VAIN

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to merge. Petros471 12:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrau Medal

delete award from The Robert Schumann Society. I never knew how many sites picked up content from wiki until I started looking for the society. "Robert Schumann Society" scored 79 unique out of 1140Ghits. "Robert Schumann Society" + duesseldorf scored 58 unique hits out of 106Ghits. The vast majority are from sites which take content from wikipedia. The organisation's own website is hosted on aol and has no Alexa rank. The Robert Schumann Society may have some important patrons, and a 25 year history, but little presence on the web, which could be due to cultural/systematic bias. Little appears to be verifiable. Thus unable to judge importance of the Society or the award. The society's page has been blanked out as copyvio of the society's site. The award has no web visibility. 2 unique Ghits for "Arrau award", both were for award winning recordings by Claudio Arrau. The Award could be merged with the Society's own page. Ohconfucius 08:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The three recipients of the medal listed are certainly notable, and there seem to be numerous references on the web to both Perahia and Schiff as winners of it. BTLizard 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Robert-Schumann-Gesellschaft in Düsseldorf publishes a scholarly catalogue of Schumann's works, a series of critical editions of his compositions (Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke, 1991-) and other Schumann-related publications - this can be verified through your favorite online library catalogue. It also appears that they arrange (or have for some time arranged) an annual Schumann festival with extremely notable people like Murray Perahia, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau and Olaf Bär participating (2000 festival, claimed to be the seventh). That the website is on AOL is not really relevant, as the notability of the Society is not based on its web presence. I notice that the article on the Society itself is currently a copyvio. I would suggest restarting that page as a stub and merging the medal with the society article. up+l+and 15:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Medal. The society may be notable, the recipients are notable, that does not make the medal notable. Herostratus 06:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Morgenstern

Commercial/vanity entry, no notability established. 12,000 Google results; however, the vast majority are about other people with the same name, the few-and-far-between references to this person are mostly found on discussion forums etc. Thorsten1 09:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable composer. Text in the article appears to be copied from [here]. [IMdB] has him having nothing else of note and I can find no news articles outside of the ones about Elephants Dream. Peripitus (Talk) 11:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Delete - Speaking as the one who started the article, I am not Jan Morgenstern, nor am I connected to him in any way, personally or professionally. Thus, it is not a Commercial/vanity entry. Notability could be disputed, I suppose; I started the article because it was redlinked on Elephants Dream. He has also written the music for Blender's SIGGRAPH demo reels for the last few years. I also searched Google for "Jan Morgenstern" (including the quotes) and surfed through the first hundred or so results; for the most part, they all refer to the same person. I'm not entirely sure how that's classified as "few and far between". Cheers. qwe 07:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you need for the article to be notable is something that satisfies the Composer section of WP:BIO
Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.
Has been the subject of a biography published as a book, or has several articles by at least 2 different authors in the peer reviewed publications.
Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
Has written a song or composition which has won or placed in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
and I cannot find that he satisfies any of these - Peripitus (Talk) 07:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. qwe 20:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, invalid nomination. Feel free to merge it if you wish, but just do it, don't start a proposal — especially in an arena that is specifically not for merges.--SB | T 05:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrested in Shanghai

propose to merge to Rancid's album Indestructible. Fancruft per WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. Each band has songs which are special to it, but that alone is not reason to have an article on each one. This is not a hit song/single, and does not meet notability criteria in the WP:SONG guideline. Ohconfucius 09:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mgm: I'm not sure I get what you mean here. My idea was to take what meaningful information we have (i.e. basically, that this band has a song about Tiananmen Square) and put it in the article for the band, if anyone cares enough to do it. I really don't think that we need to preserve the edit history of this particular stub in order to be allowed to do so. As it stands, Arrested in Shanghai is not a valid article, and its subject does not qualify for any article per WP:SONG. Stating that some information from it might be used in another article in an AFD nomination doesn't make the nomination a proposed merger. --Thorsten1 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it wasn't "my" nomination, I merely supported it with a clearer vote to delete. As for the rest: If there is really no other way, I repeat my vote to delete this without salvaging any content, which was just an attempt at compromise, anyway.--Thorsten1 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would not oppose deletion per guidelines, or how this AfD is supposed to work. However, there appears to be useful content, and thought someone would want to transfer the content prior to deletion of the page. Or perhaps the content could be re-created. In any case, it doesn't warrant its own article. Ohconfucius 03:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (CSD A7) as text book example of a vanity page. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Hunt

Biography about a person not deserving of a place on Wikipedia Dukeseee 09:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Lam

Doesn't even come close to passing Wikipedia:Notability (people). Deprodded because "EVERYONE in the league knows him.". Ricky81682 (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just want to note that this article has also been userified at User:Vimlam34. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsequent update: please note that I've written up an article on a different Vincent Lam as of October 9. I'm making this note here because one person has already tagged the new article as a CSD G4 on the basis of this AFD; please note therefore that the article now present at the title Vincent Lam is not the person or the article that was discussed in this AFD. Bearcat 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaRosa-Knoopich effect

This seems to be nonsense. Ladybirdintheuk 10:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep as no consensus. El_C 10:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball in the UK

This article seems to fall squarely under WP:VSCA Wesmills 11:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I'm completely with BTLizard. It's a viable topic. I can see an article on it. But this isn't it. --Woohookitty(meow) 12:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mccoy, jonny

An unnecessary article that provides fictitious information about someone called Jonny McCoy(like Andrew Lloyd Webber's adaption for Goblet of Fire...).There is no information about this person on the net.It's nonsense Bugtrio | Talk 11:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thε Halo Θ 12:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School of water business

NN. Only 668 ghits of water business%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Computerjoe's talk 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunting Of John Horest

Blair Witch-based fiction Nareek 12:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LiteraryMagic.com

Spamvertisement from a non-notable website/magazine created in 2006. Please see WP:WEB and WP:SPAM Zephyr2k 11:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, you never noticed how Google notes how many websites it indexes? Well over 4000 million. - Mgm|(talk) 20:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monstein effect

This doesn't even meet the relevance threshold for pseudophysics. One person's effect, not reproducable by others, no full page ad in The Economist, no DIY kit sold for astronomical prices, no physicist cared enough to do a rufation. Delete. --Pjacobi 12:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Los suenos resort

Sounds like an advertisement meant to attract tourists. Even if it has numerous google hits, this doesn't seem to be the kind of thing people will hope to find in an encyclopedia. Zephyr2k 12:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to American Numismatic Association. Petros471 12:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Young Numismatists of America

Appears to be a non-notable branch of an organization. It might be worthy of a merge to American Numismatic Association but there's no much in here that seems worthy of a merge. Google hits of about 2,700 but not much of that is outside coverage from what I can see. Delete as non-notable and unsourced. Metros232 12:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

numismatist18 05:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke 17:20

The article is only stating the contents of the verse. Seeing that the chapters of the Gospel of Luke (for example "Luke 17") redirect to Luke, I find it odd to find a verse that has an article of its own. I believe delete is a better option rather than redirect as the odds of someone searching by verse is very small. Zephyr2k 12:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted G7 per author request. NawlinWiki 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L is for labour, L is for Lice

I created this as a redirect but i cannot remember which show did this memorable sketch. I am therefore unsure whether it was in The Fast Show or something else like Harry Enfield. This is hopefully not misguided unless someone can redirect it to the correct show. Or something similar. Simply south 12:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White and Nerdy

It was initially believed that this was going to be released as the first single off of "Weird Al" Yankovic's next album, Straight Outta Lynwood, but it was not. It is not known if it will in fact be released as a single, so I think the article should be deleted. If it turns out it is a single later, the page can be recreated Joltman 13:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as spam by User:Herostratus. ColourBurst 22:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telstra Pre-Paid Plus

Tagged with {prod} in April (Wikipedia is not a how-to guide) and August (spam advertisement) Scott Davis Talk 13:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chak Jhumra

The article is 2 sentences concerning who is likely to win in a non-notable election a year ago. No encyclopedic value discernible. Storkk 13:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If User:Mereda wants to flesh the article out a bit more, I wouldnt mind a keep. I know nothing about the place, just nominated because the article was total hogwash. It's not quite a stub yet, but still - it might have some potential. --Storkk 14:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have another look. Quite apart from WilyD's fairminded point, there's been an internationally notable event in the town. --Mereda 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, I entirely agree with you now that it has a real page (i.e. now that Mereda has made a stub). To see why I nominated it, please look at the pages history. --Storkk 01:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. While the raw total is only 9-6 Delete, some of the Keep commentors sort of got caught up in the user-request issue and not the notability issue. Those that did suggest Keep on notabily mostly did not do so very strongly. Herostratus 04:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Duell

I originally speedy deleted this article because the apparent article subject requested deletion. From the talk page:

This page, supposedly about me but with my name misspelled, first came to my attention because it includes a mention of one of my sons (name misspelled also). Besides being a violation of his and my privacy, and besides being rife with inaccuracies, the article is about someone who is not a public or notable figure in any way. While I once chaired a nonprofit board, I have not done so since 1984, and there are thousands of people in the US who have also chaired a board. I request that the page be removed. --E. M. Deull 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not quite sure what to do at that point. I probably should have gotten some advice about how to handle requests for deletion from article subjects, but I just went ahead and deleted it. However the article creator, Smeelgova, requested a more above-board deletion process, which I will happily oblige. There are probably policies about this, but I do not know them. Therefore, I abstain, and request that users experienced in this kind of situation help determine what to do. Thank you. --Fang Aili talk 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't think we should pull content just because the subject asks us to - that wouldn't be acceptable behaviour for an encyclopaedia, and I don't have much truck with arguments about privacy. On the other hand if there are inaccuracies in the piece they should be sorted. Keep and clean up as necessary. BTLizard 13:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Notable subjects requesting deletion of their articles isn't a reason to delete them (otherwise Angela Beesley would have gone 3 or 4 times). There is a question about notability though and if it is kept it would need moving to the correctly spelt title. I'm also not sure that this isn't a subtle attack page - it seems to raise questions about the use of his legal firm by the NGO (undue weight afforded this area considering the size of the article?). Yomanganitalk 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. Chairman of the board of an NGO is not generally a notable position; in a non-profit, this position may not even be particularly important in practice (even if it is important legally). I also agree with Yomangani's suspicions about a possible attack. bikeable (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Privacy issues are not relevent, as any unsourced content should be expunged, and any sourced content isn't private. That said, still looks like delete per failing WP:BIO, but I'll reconsider if anyone really wants to argue it. WilyD 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am in agreement with user BTLizard's statement above. Inaccuracies should be cleaned up and corrected, but the article itself should be retained. To this point all material was compiled from other readily available sources in the media at any rate, so the privacy issue should be taken up with said historical references.Smeelgova 16:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although bios shouldn't be deleted just because the subject asks for it to be removed, in this case, that isn'r relevant as the article fails WP:BIO. Furthermore, it does appear to be a subtle attack page as others have pointed out. Wikipedia is not a forum for venting disputes. -- Whpq 17:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tried to throw it on the wall, and none of it sticks.-Kmaguir1 08:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The misspelling seems to have been done in good faith, as the National Labor Relations Board made the same error. Allegations of bring "rife with inaccuracies" were unspecific. Errors can be corrected and are not a basis for deletion. Ellis Deull was notable enough to be mentioned in two published articles about the Hunger Project: Giambalvo, Carol (January, 1988). "The Hunger Project: Inside out". Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) Journal. Vol. 8, No. 1; and Gordon, Suzanne (December 1, 1978). "Let them eat est". Mother Jones. p. 40ff. Kat'n'Yarn 07:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Nothing in the article demonstrates notability, though I could imagine that notability might be there: if you believe you have rewritten to demonstrate notability, let me know, my vote might change. If it is to be kept, move it to the correct spelling. And it does currently read like an attack piece: if it is to be retained, it will need a substantial rewrite. - Jmabel | Talk 02:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone, anyone please explain what the "attack" is? Kat'n'Yarn 03:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throttle 3

Page features no credible links or indication of any sort of notability... In addition, the same user who created this article also linked it on the Game Maker article itself meaning it is very likely a vanity piece. Thus, I move that this article be Deleted. Lankybugger 13:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN game-construction-kit product. From the author's site[26]: "Apparently, somebody thought Throttle 3 was noteworthy enough to make a Wikipedia article for it. I have a feeling it'll get deleted quickly though, since I doubt there's a high demand for my work." Not to discourage creatives, but you're right ... --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Rollo

Contested prod. Possible hoax biography. No relevant google hits for the subject with "Vietnam" or with "Peter Vardy". An earlier version of the page claimed association with Steve Irwin (the claim was inserted after Irwin's death, see diff) and links were inserted in the Irwin article several times by the originator, User:rollonet. No google hits for the subject with "Steve Irwin" either. Requests for references ignored. Mr Stephen 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here's the Steve Irwin article with the claim included (first paragraph). Mr Stephen 13:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jefffire 17:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 22:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ley lines

Not really a list, even less an article. For sure unreferenced. --Pjacobi 13:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR? --Pjacobi 14:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Popov (architect)

Fails WP:Bio DXRAW 14:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems notable enough by the list of awards and publications he has been featured in or his company. We have an article on the RAIA so their awards presumably are notable. The publications also seem to signify some notice at least in Australia. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ENLO

Completely nn political 'group' with no verifiability, no sources, and a speedy and prod tag both removed by an ip who has only edited to the pages created by the original author of this article Mnemeson 14:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Herostratus 05:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate medicine

Contested Prod. We already have an article on Reiki, a very extensive one. This is self-promotion for a particular teacher and practitioner, promoting her, outlining and promoting her courses. The author, Rekhaa Kale, receives 180 total Ghits, 76 unique, which does not seem to make her a notable practitioner. Fails WP:VAIN, WP:BIO and frankly, WP:SPAM. Also, it's a dreadful title. -- Fan-1967 14:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Fan-1967 14:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really don't see a pressing need to delete the history, but I won't be sorry to see it go, either. Making it a redirect necessitates deleting the article's contents (which is slightly different in practice from deleting the article). WilyD 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live simply

non-notable website per WP:WEB - CobaltBlueTony 14:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proctocracy

Neologism; WP:OR. Prod removed by third party without comment. --Merope 14:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until it is as old as Pornocracy, then it will get WP-fähig. Pavel Vozenilek 03:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justguys.net

Spam. Was prodded by me, prod was endorsed, and article was recently deprodded by an anon IP.—Scott5114↗ 14:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trozalie

Contested prod. Appears to be a hoax.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PCP Series (Music)

Totally unnotable musician who appears on YTMND. - Hahnchen 15:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Local local television

non-notable company that fails WP:CORP Zephyr2k 15:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of newspapers featuring Sudoku

Renamed to Sudoku by country

Totally unmanagable list, not helpful. Listing every newspaper that features Sudoku is like listing every newspaper that features crosswords or a chess section. If this was a rare specialist puzzle found only in select publications then maybe. But this is a mass market everyone can do type of puzzle which is found absolutely everywhere. - Hahnchen 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Herostratus 06:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punk Science

Nonnotable comedy troupe NawlinWiki 15:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 04:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paraguay supermarket fire

Non-notable event. This is not WikiNews. ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then go flag them for lack of notability. Existence of other less notable articles does not necessarily make this one notable enough. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm... We have things like Sampoong Department Store collapse. But that is interesting due to its engineering angle. Just a fire is much less encyclopedic. The way the article is now is a news item, not an encyclopedia article. OTOH if this happened in Los Angeles we'd have a huge article on it... No voteAfdIsNotAVote(TM) yet, convince me :-) Weregerbil 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article adds little to the mention at August 2, 2004, which seems sufficient for a non-remarkable news event. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I disagree with the nominator in stating that it is a non-notable event. It was highly notable in Paraguay when it happened, and it's fairly rare for news from this small country to make worldwide headlines. I would argue however that being notable and verifiable are not sufficient criteria for the inclusion of "news events", as they are inherently verifiable and notable on some scale. I will agree with the nominator in stating that this is not WikiNews, this is an encyclopedia, and the only "news events" that should be getting their own articles here are ones that have some kind of far-reaching impact beyond the scope of the event itself. Arkyan 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "the only "news events" that should be getting their own articles here are ones that have some kind of far-reaching impact beyond the scope of the event itself." Is that a new policy? Were can i read about it? It would result in the deletion of most events articles. I would belive that hundreds of people killed would "have some kind of far-reaching impact". --Striver 20:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol, did you read the article? ""Once [they're] organized I gave them the tools so they become activists to change the laws in terms of building construction, fire regulations, prosecution of the people who locked the [supermarket] doors. All the pressure points."--Striver 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're laughing at here. Regardless, I don't see much of a good faith effort at creating an encyclopedia article here, since you simply copied the content from this CNN story [30], and then inserted stuff about William Rodriguez. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Petros471 13:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of wiki farms

This is a second nomination. It was previously nominated under List of wiki farms. This article in its self reads like an advertisement, it doesnt represent a npov and shouldnt feature reviews on the wiki providers them selves. I suggest turning this article into a soft redirect to WikiWikiWeb:WikiFarms. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all websites listed there meet notability for inclusion, also the page you've quoted is a proposal. Why does wikipedia need a spam list? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not all websites listed are notable, yes. Please remove the ones that aren't. The page I quoted is indeed a proposal, sorry. See Wikipedia:Notability (web) instead. Wikipedia doesn't need a spam list, and with united forces we can keep the spam out of the content. --logixoul 11:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as CSD A8 WinHunter (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motive Hardcore

Doesn't meet WP:V or WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:V --- Deville (Talk) 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gino

This article, when stripped of its original research (which is 95% of the current content) will be nothing more than a dictionary definition of a slang term, which itself has an unclear definition. Hamiltonian 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm pretty sure you could write a pretty decent article on the subject (this isn't it, though). There's a lot of editorialising, but that's not really AfD's concerned. That it's unsourced is, howe'er. WilyD 17:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term Gino is used in exactly the same context as the term Goth. Keep.

  • Keep I totally disagree. While the article needs cleanup, the term 'gino' is *not* simply a slang term. It is representative of a sub-culture in the cities mentioned. For example, if "goth" can be an entry, than "Gino" cannot be deleted. I don't know how one takes it off deletion, but I am totally against it. The problem is on the "original research" clause, but don't know how to get around that, I could edit it myself but wouldn't have a published source. Posted 5 September 2006
My problem with the article, for the record, is not anything other than the "original research" problem. --Hamiltonian 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless you can find reliable sources to get the article past the ultimate criterion of verifiability, it will be deleted no matter what you do. If you introduce reliable sources into it, give it a bit of a POV scrubbing, then the outcome of this discussion will most likely be keep. The problem with the article is that it is fraught with original research which is a big no-no. If it can be fixed, it'll be kept. If not, deleted. But if it's deleted you can always recreate it at a later time once you've found reliable sources (which I'm sure exist). WilyD 17:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anecdotally speaking, much of this article is true. This is one of the major sub cultures in Toronto. I do not think it warrants deletion. Obviously, it needs cleaning up. However, this is not just slang, but a real cultural phenomenon. Nlsanand 18:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As another buddy from taurrana, I agree with you that it's mostly true (though with heavy editorialising). But unsourced, unverifiable articles can't be kept just because they're true. That is policy WilyD 18:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as it is a real phenomenon (I've heard of it even in the US thanks to the internets). But the OR needs to go. Find some sources and write a decent stub.
  • Delete This information, although popular in the local area, is not verifiable. There is no historical content (that's verified) or any references what so ever. --Zandarx talk 04:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If anyone from the area knows it is true, why should it be verified. The OR could be limited through the use of words such "generally thought of", thereby no longer requiring deletion. This requirement for cold hard facts on a social phenomenom is not really fair and is limiting the ability of Wikipedia to meet user needs. Sources should not be required for something that is obvious. Nlsanand 04:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bisexual Chronicles

Prod removed without comment. Promotion for little-known book, published by POD publisher lulu.com. One google hit outside of lulu. Fan-1967 16:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ward (musician)

Non-notable by himself (barely notable in his band) -Nv8200p talk 16:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, basically empty, just a small list and a picture.--Andeh 17:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. EVula 17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Personally I couldnt give a damn, but if the band is notable, dont wiki guidelines say all members are automatically notable? For the sake of completeness, the band have released over three albums (three of which are on a record label with a Wiki entry). Jcuk
I don't think there are any guidelines that state that (please provide a link if you have one). Having an entry on Wikipedia does not make the record label a major label or one of the more important indie labels. -Nv8200p talk 03:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Warriors of Wrestling

This is listcruft. A page of wrestling results isn't needed for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 16:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kusipää

en.wiki isn't a dictionary of Finnish slang ccwaters 16:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as empty and borderline vandalism; nothing worth merging either, and we have interwiki links and Wiktinary for this. Ahemhem. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pieru

en.wiki isn't a dictionary of Finnish slang ccwaters 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Wikipedia is not a (Finnish) dictionary. Antonrojo 17:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Bobet 11:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Van Horne

Non-notable political candidate. Never been elected nor held office. Fails to meet criteria for WP:BIO. --Suttungr 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Antonrojo 17:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of buildings in EastEnders, if someone wants to merge something from the history, it's still there. - Bobet 11:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dagmar

All the information is already on List of buildings in EastEnders, the fictional building was last known as The Dagmar in 1988, and I don't think it needs its own article. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 17:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recipe4Living

non-notable per WP:WEB - CobaltBlueTony 17:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_September_5&oldid=73977346"